Dualism versus materialism again (Humans)

by dhw, Saturday, February 17, 2024, 08:30 (279 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: We know that when the brain is sick, behaviour is abnormal. The obsessive woman can’t stop washing her hands; the drunkard kills his wife. In some cases, people are born with sick brains; in others the “sickness” may be caused by curable diseases, or by temporary interference, e.g drugs or alcohol. All of this suggests that there is no separate “soul”: as you repeatedly pointed out, “a distorted brain CREATES a distorted consciousness.” It’s all evidence for materialism. But NDEs and other psychic and psychological experiences suggest that there is a separate form of consciousness we call the soul. If so, I’ve described the different roles above. However, “tries to correct the brain” goes back to your theory of messages: you have the soul telling the obsessive woman not to wash her hands, and telling the drunkard not to kill his wife. Then you dismiss that idea as “absurd”. I agree. That is why the two theories are incompatible.

DAVID: I'm left with a brain/consciousness interface, a material brain attached to an immaterial consciousness. Still dualism, no matter how it works.

You are simply using terms that indicate separation! If consciousness is created by the brain, and is changed by changes in the brain, it is not ”attached” to the brain, and there is no interface! The brain is its source, it is always within the brain, and it dies with the brain! That is materialism.

dhw: I agree completely with you: “We do not know the true answer”. You can make out a case for either theory, but not by having silly messages or silly processes of materials attaching themselves to immaterials!

DAVID: Back to van Lommel, the brain receives the consciousness.

Back to materialism: the brain produces consciousness, which does not exist if there is no brain. You agree that we don’t know the answer, so all you do is repeat the dualist version and ignore the materialist version. “We do not know the true answer.” You said it.

Immortal souls

DAVID: Bacteria are automatic as they strictly follow DNA code. No brain choices. No souls.

dhw: They can’t have “brain choices” if they have no brains, but they can certainly make choices, as you agreed last month:

January 21/22:
dhw: May I assume that you unequivocally believe bacteria have the autonomous ability to alter their DNA when necessary, and without divine programming and/or intervention?

DAVID: Yes.

"Yes" means you agree.

DAVID: Please remember: "Bacteria are automatic as they strictly follow DNA code. No brain choices. No souls.. I never find autonomy where you do; you must have your intelligent cells!

dhw: Please remember that in January you unequivocally agreed that bacteria have the autonomous ability to alter their DNA code. Your "yes" meant that they do have autonomy, which in turn means they must have the conscious intelligence to know when and how to respond to new conditions. So if intelligent mice and mosquitoes have a soul, why can’t intelligent bacteria have a soul?

DAVID: Yes, bacteria can automatically edit DNA following instructions from God in their DNA. No brains, no souls.

Discussion is becoming pointless. In February you completely reverse the view you took in January. Why should I believe a word you say today, if tomorrow you’re going to jump the other way? In January, when you firmly believed that bacteria had the autonomous ability to edit their DNA without instructions from God, did you believe they had souls? If not, why not?