Dualism versus materialism again (Humans)

by dhw, Monday, February 19, 2024, 11:22 (276 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

dhw: (In your ship image, you have consciousness as the receiver - all part of the great muddle.)

dhw: 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.

DAVID: The NDE's refute your now bolded statement. Consciousness exists somewhere outside the brain perhaps as part of God's supplied universal consciousness.

We are going round in circles. NDEs etc. provide a case for dualism. Distorted brains that create distorted consciousness provide the case for materialism. Nobody knows the truth. End of discussion (which is why I didn’t want to reopen it).

DAVID: The brain sends as receives from it is my guess.

Total confusion: at first, according to you, the brain was only a receiver which garbled messages from consciousness, the sender. Then (in the ship image) consciousness became the receiver. But now you have it sending and receiving, which is exactly the way the materialist brain works: parts of the brain send information to other parts, which process it and send decisions back to other parts of the brain, and these implement the decisions. If any of these brain parts are diseased or affected by drugs etc., this will affect behaviour. Hence your own materialist observation: “a distorted brain creates a distorted consciousness.” But NDEs etc. offer a different version, and we do not know the true answer.

Immortal souls

dhw: 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?

DAVID: […] It is your constant effort to drag in intelligent cells. Remember, when cells act intelligently, they are following instructions in DNA code. Cells can be seen as 'autonomous' only under that rule, which is my use of the word.

dhw: “Autonomous” means "having the ability to work and make decisions without being controlled by anyone else” (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Your definition appears to be that autonomy means working and making decisions by following God’s instructions. You make a mockery of language.

DAVID: I'll then concede cells look as if autonomous as above.

In January you unequivocally believed that “bacteria have the autonomous ability to alter their DNA when necessary, and without divine programming and/or intervention”. So back in January, when you unequivocally believed in bacterial autonomy, did you believe bacteria had immortal souls. If not, why not?