Dualism versus materialism again (Humans)

by David Turell , Tuesday, February 20, 2024, 18:35 (68 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: If the brain both sends and receives consciousness, where is the consciousness? Outside the brain as in NDE's. Brain material, consciousness immaterial, dualism. Now, sick brain distorts sending and receiving. But still dualism. My 'own materialist observation' is still really dualism.

dhw: How can the brain send consciousness if consciousness is outside the brain??? You lurch from one absurd contradiction to another, as listed above. There’s no point in repeating what I wrote, as it sums up all the arguments. You agreed that nobody knows the truth, so what is the point in you continuing to twist yourself in knots?

The knots are yours. How does a radio receive signals? The brain is the same!!! If NDE's show the separation, the relationship is as I describe it. Does the EEG show electrical activity? That activity can be seen outside the brain!!

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: No mockery. Your definition is for persons with a mind/brain!

It’s not “my” definition. Find me a definition of “autonomous” that says it means working and making decisions by following instructions.

DAVID: Bacteria are coded to act independently with their DNA. Their autonomy is their ability to recognize when to use the ability. And even that ability may be coded for automaticity.

dhw: If they act independently, they act autonomously! Their autonomy is their ability to act independently, and of course part of their autonomy is knowing what to do and when to do it! Do please stop all this obfuscating. In January, bacteria were able to act autonomously/independently. In February you’ve decided they only act under instructions.

DAVID: I have not used 'autonomous' as you do. God's DNA instructions create that ability for bacteria.

dhw: I am quite happy to accept the possibility that your God created the autonomous ability to work and make decisions. But I cannot accept that an autonomous ability in January suddenly becomes dependent on God’s instructions in February.

The problem is our difference in thinking about the word 'autonomous'. I have always felt that God created the exact instructions in bacterial DNA to allow bacteria to sense their environment and recode DNA accordingly following instructions. With no brain this allows bacteria to originate autonomously. Or with your definition, as if autonomous.

DAVID: I believe the consciousness mechanism needs a brain.

dhw: But in January you believed that brainless bacteria had the autonomous ability to recognize changing conditions and to alter their own DNA accordingly, both of which demand a level of consciousness. And you believe in an immortal soul which has consciousness without a brain, although consciousness needs a brain. As logic has you believing that antelopes, anteaters and ants have an immortal soul which lives on without a brain, I think it’s most undemocratic of you not to grant the same privilege to bacteria.

I'll stay with no brain, no consciousness.