https://www.3-16am.co.uk/articles/philosophy-of-souls-and-other-religious-ideas?c=end-t...

"3:16: Your latest book asks whether we are bodies or souls and so engage with a very lively current debate within naturalism between substance monists and dualists – the Dennett clan on the one side and the Chalmer clan on the other! –but from a theistic perspective. To the Cartesian it always seemed that it was the body that needed justifying rather than minds or souls but these days the body seems to be taken for granted ( Searle’s comment ‘materialism is the religion of today’) and the problem is how minds fit in with a universe of just bodies. How do you characterize this lively contemporary debate – I take it that broadly speaking you think Descartes got things right?

"RS: Yes, I do think that broadly speaking Descartes got things right. That is what I have argued in Are We Bodies or Souls?

"3:16: You defend substance dualism but do so whilst standing by what current science is telling us about the mind and so forth. Can you sketch for us what you argue – and also say why ‘soul’ isn’t the same as ‘mind’ in your ontology?

"RS: The word “mind” is used in various sentences which merge into each other, and for that reason, I avoid it. I use “soul” in Plato’s and Descartes’s sense of an immaterial substance which is the essential part of each of us, while our bodies are the non—essential part of each of us. I argue that a future person being me consists in that future person having experiences which I will experience; and so the identity of me does not consist in what happens to my body, but in what happens to my conscious life, and so I am who I am in virtue of what happens to my conscious life. Nothing that happens in my body entails or is entailed by what happens to my conscious life. So being me must consist in being a substance separate from my body. But that’s far too short to be totally convincing, and you’ll have to read the book to get a thorough answer.

"3:16: How does your approach help understand personal identity and the questions that arise when we consider brain damage and aging and whether I can be the same person as the child or the very old person who is (barring unfortunate events) coming afterwards?

"RS: It is my soul which constitutes me. But my soul is sustained in existence by my brain (at least during my earthly life); and my brain largely determines which properties my soul has at any time. Hence my childhood interactions with the world form my childhood brain which forms my childhood outlook on the world; and my old age interactions with the world form my old age brain, which in turn forms my old age outlook on the world.

***

"3:16: How do you avoid epiphenomenalism ie the view that the soul has no causal effect on the brain, and vice versa – do laws of nature connect them in the right way and do neuro-scientists, physicists etc know these laws ?

"RS: Epiphenomenalism, which I understand more precisely as the view that brain events cause conscious events, but conscious events never cause brain events, is self-defeating. We could only know about our own past life if that conscious life caused effects in our brains which cause our subsequent memories of it; and we could only know about the conscious lives of others, if their conscious lives cause their testimony to it. So if epiphenomenalism were true, we could never have any grounds for believing that we have a conscious life (beyond the present moment) and so we could have no grounds for believing that epiphenomenalism was true."

Comment: I quoted Swinburne at length in my first book. Looking back. I find his thinking has stuck with me. I view the brain as a physical instrument the soul must use to form my immaterial conscious 'me'. There is lots more discussion about God, His personality and religion in this interview, and is worth reviewing.

https://mindmatters.ai/2021/01/science-based-reasons-why-materialism-is-a-dead-end/

"First—and we sometimes forget this—science only exists as it is perceived by the human mind. We could do it well or badly or someway in between. We could succeed or fail. But it is a world of ideas, not things. He writes,

"Materialism—the view that nature is fundamentally constituted by matter outside and independent of mind—is a metaphysics, in that it makes statements about what nature essentially is. As such, it is also a theoretical inference: we cannot empirically observe matter outside and independent of mind, for we are forever locked in mind. All we can observe are the contents of perception, which are inherently mental. Even the output of measurement instruments is only accessible to us insofar as it is mentally perceived.

"Perhaps one reason we sometimes forget this is that we imagine science to be the equipment scientists use or the journals in which they express their ideas. But is actually the ideas themselves, sometimes expressed as massive explanations of cell biology or sometimes as simply as E=MC^2.

"For starters, there is nothing about the parameters of material arrangements—say, the position and momentum of the atoms constituting our brain—in terms of which we could deduce, at least in principle, how it feels to fall in love, to taste wine, or to listen to a Vivaldi sonata. There is an impassable explanatory gap between material quantities and experiential qualities, which philosophers refer to as the ‘hard problem of consciousness.’ Many people don’t recognize this gap because they think of matter as already having intrinsic qualities—such as color, taste, etc.—which contradicts mainstream materialism: according to the latter, color, taste, etc., are all generated by our brain, inside our skull. They don’t exist in the world out there, which is supposedly purely abstract.

"Materialism has the advantage of being simple: You are your body. Your mind is your brain. The universe is a collection of rocks floating around.

"But the fact that we can even think these things shows that that’s not really the universe we live in."

comment: I can expect the comment that the material brain conjures all of these impressions, but the point is the impressions we have are second hand representations of the outside world. We only know what the brain allows us to think it is as we use our mind to drive the the brain to produce impressions and thought. The mind uses the brain as a material tool, and produces immaterial thoughts and concepts..

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201012120004.htm

In first-of-their-kind observations in the human brain, an international team of researchers has revealed two well-known neurochemicals -- dopamine and serotonin -- are at work at sub-second speeds to shape how people perceive the world and take action based on their perception.

***

the neurochemicals appear to integrate people's perceptions of the world with their actions, indicating dopamine and serotonin have far more expansive roles in the human nervous system than previously known.

***

"An enormous number of people throughout the world are taking pharmaceutical compounds to perturb the dopamine and serotonin transmitter systems to change their behavior and mental health," said P. Read Montague, senior author

"Every choice that someone executes involves taking in information, interpreting that information, and making decisions about what they perceived," said Kenneth Kishida, a corresponding author of the study and an assistant professor of physiology and pharmacology, and neurosurgery, at Wake Forest School of Medicine. "There's a whole host of psychiatric conditions and neurological disorders where that process is altered in the patients, and dopamine and serotonin are prime suspects."

***

"These neuromodulators play a much broader role in supporting human behavior and thought, and in particular they are involved in how we process the outside world," Bang said. "For example, if you move through a room and the lights are off, you move differently because you're uncertain about where objects are. Our work suggests these neuromodulators -- serotonin in particular -- are playing a role in signaling how uncertain we are about the outside environment."

Comment: Just another way to look at a human brain that is not electrical signals, pointing out that a normal mental state requires normal brain function which includes the proper production of dopamine and serotonin.

DAVID: The simplest summary is: the living soul initiates thought by using living brain networks, and I agree gets its info from the brain receiving stimuli.

dhw: Well, at least you’ve now dropped your materialist thinking, thought-producing, conceptualizing brain networks. I’m surprised that you don’t include the soul’s vital use of the brain to give material expression to its thoughts. And I don’t know why you use the word “initiate”, since the soul will continue to develop its thoughts and will continue to use the brain to gather information and express or implement its thoughts and concepts. But since you’ve already agreed to what I wrote originally, I think we should close the discussion – at least until the next time you produce a materialist version of your dualism.

DAVID: I never have had a Materialist's view. Of course the soul must use the brain in life, and I'm sorry I confused you by specifying the known brain areas where this occurs. The soul cannot pick and choice which areas of the brain to use, as they are specific regions.

dhw: You have consistently stated your case in materialist terms (e.g. the brain’s "thinking networks"), though you didn’t mean to. Now you tell me the soul uses specific areas of the brain but can’t “pick and choose”. What does that mean? The soul gets information from some parts of the brain and uses other parts in order to give material expression to its immaterial thoughts (though for some reason you left that out of your "simplest summary"). Do you now want to discuss all the different parts of the brain and to explain why the soul can’t pick this one if it needs to use that one? I don’t see the point. (Please also note my comment on the cerebellum under “Brain expansion.) I really don't know why you wish to prolong this discussion with these questionable additions to what has been agreed.

The soul must use the brain as it is set up to function. From brain expansion thread: "The brain does have different functions in different parts connected by networks of fibers."

dhw: Well, at least you’ve now dropped your materialist thinking, thought-producing, conceptualizing brain networks. I’m surprised that you don’t include the soul’s vital use of the brain to give material expression to its thoughts. And I don’t know why you use the word “initiate”, since the soul will continue to develop its thoughts and will continue to use the brain to gather information and express or implement its thoughts and concepts. But since you’ve already agreed to what I wrote originally, I think we should close the discussion – at least until the next time you produce a materialist version of your dualism.

DAVID: I never have had a Materialist's view. Of course the soul must use the brain in life, and I'm sorry I confused you by specifying the known brain areas where this occurs. The soul cannot pick and choice which areas of the brain to use, as they are specific regions.

You have consistently stated your case in materialist terms (e.g. the brain’s "thinking networks"), though you didn’t mean to. Now you tell me the soul uses specific areas of the brain but can’t “pick and choose”. What does that mean? The soul gets information from some parts of the brain and uses other parts in order to give material expression to its immaterial thoughts (though for some reason you left that out of your "simplest summary"). Do you now want to discuss all the different parts of the brain and to explain why the soul can’t pick this one if it needs to use that one? I don’t see the point. (Please also note my comment on the cerebellum under “Brain expansion.) I really don't know why you wish to prolong this discussion with these questionable additions to what has been agreed.

dhw: You agree, and then once again you insist on muddying the waters! The dualist’s brain does not conceptualize, so how can it have networks for conceptualizing? […] If you think the brain has networks for conceptualizing – as it may well do – you are switching to materialism!

DAVID: All brain studies have found areas assigned to different tasks and different functions, the material side of the dualist theory.

dhw: If you assign conceptualizing to the brain, you are siding with materialists (and that may well be right. I am not taking sides.). Stop muddying the waters!

DAVID: The simplest summary is: the living soul initiates thought by using living brain networks, and I agree gets its info from the brain receiving stimuli.

dhw: Well, at least you’ve now dropped your materialist thinking, thought-producing, conceptualizing brain networks. I’m surprised that you don’t include the soul’s vital use of the brain to give material expression to its thoughts. And I don’t know why you use the word “initiate”, since the soul will continue to develop its thoughts and will continue to use the brain to gather information and express or implement its thoughts and concepts. But since you’ve already agreed to what I wrote originally, I think we should close the discussion – at least until the next time you produce a materialist version of your dualism.

I never have had a Materialist's view. Of course the soul must use the brain in life, and I'm sorry I confused you by specifying the known brain areas where this occurs. The soul cannot pick and choice which areas of the brain to use, as they are specific regions.

DAVID: Once again, the soul, in life, can only produce/initiate thought by using the brain's living thought networks, which are assigned to frontal and pre-frontal cortex regions, as you should remember.

It’s not “once again”. You keep changing the terminology. We’ve had “thinking networks”, and “networks assigned to producing thought”. You keep agreeing that the soul uses the brain (or the brain’s networks, if you must – and these include the frontal and pre-frontal cortex) to produce its thoughts. You’ve agreed on HOW it uses these networks (information and material expression/implementation of its thoughts), so why can’t you leave it at that?

dhw: You have now agreed that the dualist’s soul uses the brain in the ways described and bolded above. The dualist’s brain does not think. So just drop the highly ambiguous term “thinking networks”, and we shall be in complete agreement. The implications are best left to the “brain expansion” thread, and this one can be closed unless you actually disagree with my summary of the way the soul uses the brain.

DAVID: I agree and think the above discussion ends the debate. The brain actually has areas which have networks for conceptualizing which I labeled as above. Sorry to confuse you, but they exist.

dhw: You agree, and then once again you insist on muddying the waters! The dualist’s brain does not conceptualize, so how can it have networks for conceptualizing? […] If you think the brain has networks for conceptualizing – as it may well do – you are switching to materialism!

DAVID: All brain studies have found areas assigned to different tasks and different functions, the material side of the dualist theory.

If you assign conceptualizing to the brain, you are siding with materialists (and that may well be right. I am not taking sides.). Stop muddying the waters!

DAVID: The simplest summary is: the living soul initiates thought by using living brain networks, and I agree gets its info from the brain receiving stimuli.

Well, at least you’ve now dropped your materialist thinking, thought-producing, conceptualizing brain networks. I’m surprised that you don’t include the soul’s vital use of the brain to give material expression to its thoughts. And I don’t know why you use the word “initiate”, since the soul will continue to develop its thoughts and will continue to use the brain to gather information and express or implement its thoughts and concepts. But since you’ve already agreed to what I wrote originally, I think we should close the discussion – at least until the next time you produce a materialist version of your dualism.

DAVID: More confusion. The brain never thinks by itself without the soul/essence actually doing it by use of the brain's neuronal networks.

dhw: Why do you keep adding to the confusion with these nebulous constructions? “Never thinks without…suggests that it only thinks with…So it only thinks if the soul actually thinks. This is just as confusing as the “thinking networks” which don’t think! Let’s try once more: The dualist’s soul does the thinking and uses the brain – but this is what I keep trying to pin down: WHAT does the soul use the brain’s neuronal networks for (and why can’t you just say “brain”)?

DAVID: How can I be any clearer? The soul can only think by using the brain networks assigned to producing thought during life. The brain alone can never produce thoughts by itself. The soul is therefore the originating cause of the thought appearing.

dhw: What do you mean by “the brain networks assigned to producing thought”? You keep coming up with these nebulous terms instead of sticking to the concrete terms you have actually agreed to! The dualist’s brain networks do not “produce thought”. But yes, the soul produces thought. The dualist’s brain provides the information and gives material expression to the thought (or, if you like, gives the thought its material appearance).

Once again, the soul, in life, can only produce/initiate thought by using the brain's living thought networks, which are assigned to frontal and pre-frontal cortex regions, as you should remember.

dhw: You have now agreed that the dualist’s soul uses the brain in the ways described and bolded above. The dualist’s brain does not think. So just drop the highly ambiguous term “thinking networks”, and we shall be in complete agreement. The implications are best left to the “brain expansion” thread, and this one can be closed unless you actually disagree with my summary of the way the soul uses the brain.

DAVID: I agree and think the above discussion ends the debate. The brain actually has areas which have networks for conceptualizing which I labeled as above. Sorry to confuse you, but they exist.

dhw: You agree, and then once again you insist on muddying the waters! The dualist’s brain does not conceptualize, so how can it have networks for conceptualizing? It has networks which the soul uses to do its conceptualizing. We don’t need any of these ambiguous expressions when we have already agreed on a perfectly clear description of the different functions! The dualist’s brain has areas for providing information and for giving material expression to immaterial concepts. These are produced by the soul, which uses the different areas of the brain to create its immaterial concepts. If you think the brain has networks for conceptualizing – as it may well do – you are switching to materialism!

All brain studies have found areas assigned to different tasks and different functions, the material side of the dualist theory. The simplest summary is: the living soul initiates thought by using living brain networks, and I agree gets its info from the brain receiving stimuli.

dhw: Why do you keep adding to the confusion with these nebulous constructions? “Never thinks without…suggests that it only thinks with…So it only thinks if the soul actually thinks. This is just as confusing as the “thinking networks” which don’t think! Let’s try once more: The dualist’s soul does the thinking and uses the brain – but this is what I keep trying to pin down: WHAT does the soul use the brain’s neuronal networks for (and why can’t you just say “brain”)?

DAVID: How can I be any clearer? The soul can only think by using the brain networks assigned to producing thought during life. The brain alone can never produce thoughts by itself. The soul is therefore the originating cause of the thought appearing.

What do you mean by “the brain networks assigned to producing thought”? You keep coming up with these nebulous terms instead of sticking to the concrete terms you have actually agreed to! The dualist’s brain networks do not “produce thought”. But yes, the soul produces thought. The dualist’s brain provides the information and gives material expression to the thought (or, if you like, gives the thought its material appearance).

dhw: You have now agreed that the dualist’s soul uses the brain in the ways described and bolded above. The dualist’s brain does not think. So just drop the highly ambiguous term “thinking networks”, and we shall be in complete agreement. The implications are best left to the “brain expansion” thread, and this one can be closed unless you actually disagree with my summary of the way the soul uses the brain.

DAVID: I agree and think the above discussion ends the debate. The brain actually has areas which have networks for conceptualizing which I labeled as above. Sorry to confuse you, but they exist.

You agree, and then once again you insist on muddying the waters! The dualist’s brain does not conceptualize, so how can it have networks for conceptualizing? It has networks which the soul uses to do its conceptualizing. We don’t need any of these ambiguous expressions when we have already agreed on a perfectly clear description of the different functions! The dualist’s brain has areas for providing information and for giving material expression to immaterial concepts. These are produced by the soul, which uses the different areas of the brain to create its immaterial concepts. If you think the brain has networks for conceptualizing – as it may well do – you are switching to materialism!

DAVID: More confusion. The brain never thinks by itself without the soul/essence actually doing it by use of the brain's neuronal networks.

dhw: Why do you keep adding to the confusion with these nebulous constructions? “Never thinks without…suggests that it only thinks with…So it only thinks if the soul actually thinks. This is just as confusing as the “thinking networks” which don’t think! Let’s try once more: The dualist’s soul does the thinking and uses the brain – but this is what I keep trying to pin down: WHAT does the soul use the brain’s neuronal networks for (and why can’t you just say “brain”)?

How can I be any clearer? The soul can only think by using the brain networks assigned to producing thought during life. The brain alone can never produce thoughts by itself. The soul is therefore the originating cause of the thought appearing.

dhw: You clearly agree now with the uses I have listed, so all you’ve added is “having to”. Fine. So I agree that it HAS to use the brain in life – a) for information, and b) to give material expression to its thoughts and concepts. Now that you have discarded the materialist concept of the brain’s “THINKING network”, I can’t see any disagreement between us.

DAVID: The brain has networks that are specifically used for thinking up concepts. I simple called those 'thinking networks' to name them, not to imply they think by themselves. You interpret what I write in a strange overly literal way.

dhw: You have now agreed that the dualist’s soul uses the brain in the ways described and bolded above. The dualist’s brain does not think. So just drop the highly ambiguous term “thinking networks”, and we shall be in complete agreement. The implications are best left to the “brain expansion” thread, and this one can be closed unless you actually disagree with my summary of the way the soul uses the brain.

I agree and think the above discussion ends the debate. The brain actually has areas which have networks for conceptualizing which I labeled as above. Sorry to confuse you, but they exist.

DAVID: I've pinpointed over and over. The soul receives info from the brain's sensory input sources, uses the info to think by using the brains thinking networks and develops new designs and concepts by using those same networks. What don't you understand about my dualism theory that I haven't repeated before? In life the soul must use the brain's neuronal networks to receive info and think!!!

dhw: And there you go again with “the brain’s thinking networks”, which you then try to gloss over by leaving out “thinking”.

DAVID: I don't understand your confusion. In my dualism in life the soul must use the brain's thinking/conceptual networks in the frontal and prefrontal cortex to originate thoughts.

dhw: Here is yesterday’s response to “thinking networks”, which you left out: “So now you are saying the soul uses the brain’s thoughts to do its thinking! Or maybe the brain has a thinking network but it doesn’t think? Or the soul can’t think unless the brain thinks first? I’m sorry, I haven’t a clue what role your brain’s thinking networks can play in your concept of dualism.”

DAVID: More confusion. The brain never thinks by itself without the soul/essence actually doing it by use of the brain's neuronal networks.

Why do you keep adding to the confusion with these nebulous constructions? “Never thinks without…suggests that it only thinks with…So it only thinks if the soul actually thinks. This is just as confusing as the “thinking networks” which don’t think! Let’s try once more: The dualist’s soul does the thinking and uses the brain – but this is what I keep trying to pin down: WHAT does the soul use the brain’s neuronal networks for (and why can’t you just say “brain”)?

DAVID: I've edited your above statement … to show you where you make me uncomfortable:

dhw: You clearly agree now with the uses I have listed, so all you’ve added is “having to”. Fine. So I agree that it HAS to use the brain in life – a) for information, and b) to give material expression to its thoughts and concepts. Now that you have discarded the materialist concept of the brain’s “THINKING network”, I can’t see any disagreement between us.

DAVID: The brain has networks that are specifically used for thinking up concepts. I simple called those 'thinking networks' to name them, not to imply they think by themselves. You interpret what I write in a strange overly literal way.

You have now agreed that the dualist’s soul uses the brain in the ways described and bolded above. The dualist’s brain does not think. So just drop the highly ambiguous term “thinking networks”, and we shall be in complete agreement. The implications are best left to the “brain expansion” thread, and this one can be closed unless you actually disagree with my summary of the way the soul uses the brain.

DAVID: You've again left out the soul can only initiate concepts by using the brain's networks to think of them. […]

dhw: You simply refuse to pinpoint what the soul (if it exists) uses the brain FOR! Once again, do you or do you not agree that the soul does the thinking, and uses the information provided by the brain to initiate concepts, and uses the brain to implement them (= develop, design, produce and/or express them)?

DAVID: I've pinpointed over and over. The soul receives info from the brain's sensory input sources, uses the info to think by using the brains thinking networks and develops new designs and concepts by using those same networks. What don't you understand about my dualism theory that I haven't repeated before? In life the soul must use the brain's neuronal networks to receive info and think!!!

dhw: And there you go again with “the brain’s thinking networks”, which you then try to gloss over by leaving out “thinking”.

I don 't understand your confusion. In my dualism in life the soul must use the brain's thinking/conceptual networks in the frontal and prefrontal cortex to originate thoughts.

dhw: Here is yesterday’s response to “thinking networks”, which you left out: “So now you are saying the soul uses the brain’s thoughts to do its thinking! Or maybe the brain has a thinking network but it doesn’t think? Or the soul can’t think unless the brain thinks first? I’m sorry, I haven’t a clue what role your brain’s thinking networks can play in your concept of dualism.”

More confusion. The brain never thinks by itself without the soul/essence actually doing it by use of the brain's neuronal networks.

Now look at what you have agreed to below:

dhw: please pinpoint what you disagree with.

DAVID: I've edited your above statement … to show you where you make me uncomfortable:

dhw: And this provides evidence that the soul does the thinking and the developing of new concepts and the production of immaterial thoughts [only by having to use the brain's neuronal networks in life]. And (once more) in the material world it acquires information from the brain and it uses the brain to give material expression to its immaterial thoughts and concepts.

dhw: You clearly agree now with the uses I have listed, so all you’ve added is “having to”. Fine. So I agree that it HAS to use the brain in life – a) for information, and b) to give material expression to its thoughts and concepts. Now that you have discarded the materialist concept of the brain’s “THINKING network”, I can’t see any disagreement between us. (The implications concerning brain expansion are best left on that thread.)

The brain has networks that are specifically used for thinking up concepts. I simple called those 'thinking networks' to name them, not to imply they think by themselves. You interpret what I write in a strange overly literal way .

dhw: You simply refuse to pinpoint what the soul (if it exists) uses the brain FOR! Once again, do you or do you not agree that the soul does the thinking, and uses the information provided by the brain to initiate concepts, and uses the brain to implement them (= develop, design, produce and/or express them)?

DAVID: I've pinpointed over and over. The soul receives info from the brain's sensory input sources, uses the info to think by using the brains thinking networks and develops new designs and concepts by using those same networks. What don't you understand about my dualism theory that I haven't repeated before? In life the soul must use the brain's neuronal networks to receive info and think!!!

And there you go again with “the brain’s thinking networks”, which you then try to gloss over by leaving out “thinking”. Here is yesterday’s response to “thinking networks”, which you left out: “So now you are saying the soul uses the brain’s thoughts to do its thinking! Or maybe the brain has a thinking network but it doesn’t think? Or the soul can’t think unless the brain thinks first? I’m sorry, I haven’t a clue what role your brain’s thinking networks can play in your concept of dualism.” Now look at what you have agreed to below:

dhw: please pinpoint what you disagree with.

DAVID: I've edited your above statement … to show you where you make me uncomfortable:

dhw: And this provides evidence that the soul does the thinking and the developing of new concepts and the production of immaterial thoughts [only by having to use the brain's neuronal networks in life]. And (once more) in the material world it acquires information from the brain and it uses the brain to give material expression to its immaterial thoughts and concepts.

You clearly agree now with the uses I have listed, so all you’ve added is “having to”. Fine. So I agree that it HAS to use the brain in life – a) for information, and b) to give material expression to its thoughts and concepts. Now that you have discarded the materialist concept of the brain’s “THINKING network”, I can’t see any disagreement between us. (The implications concerning brain expansion are best left on that thread.)

DAVID: You've again left out the soul can only initiate concepts by using the brain's networks to think of them. The soul in life must do that. The soul does not sit outside the brain and tell it what to do. They are intricately bound together.

dhw: You simply refuse to pinpoint what the soul (if it exists) uses the brain FOR! Once again, do you or do you not agree that the soul does the thinking, and uses the information provided by the brain to initiate concepts, and uses the brain to implement them (= develop, design, produce and/or express them)?

I've pinpointed over and over. The soul receives info from the brain's sensory input sources, uses the info to think by using the brains thinking networks and develops new designs and concepts by using those same networks. What don't you understand about my dualism theory that I haven't repeated before? In life the soul must use the brain's neuronal networks to receive info and think!!!

DAVID: In life the soul must use the living brain networks to not only gain info but to develop new concepts and immaterial thoughts.

DAVID: In NDE's and death the soul does this all on its own. This is my dualism.

dhw: Also agreed. And this provides evidence that the soul does the thinking and the developing of new concepts and the production of immaterial thoughts. And (once more) in the material world it acquires information from the brain and it uses the brain to give material expression to its immaterial thoughts and concepts.

DAVID: If you accept my way of stating my theory, we may be in agreement.

dhw: Your way of stating your theory makes no sense to me. If you accept the above as it is written, there is no disagreement between us. So please pinpoint what you disagree with.

I've edited your above statement below to show you where you make me uncomfortable:

dhw: Also agreed. And this provides evidence that the soul does the thinking and the developing of new concepts and the production of immaterial thoughts [only by having to use the brains's neuronal networks in life]. And (once more) in the material world it acquires information from the brain and it uses the brain to give material expression to its immaterial thoughts and concepts.

DAVID: You've again left out the soul can only initiate concepts by using the brain's networks to think of them. The soul in life must do that. The soul does not sit outside the brain and tell it what to do. They are intricately bound together.

You simply refuse to pinpoint what the soul (if it exists) uses the brain FOR! Once again, do you or do you not agree that the soul does the thinking, and uses the information provided by the brain to initiate concepts, and uses the brain to implement them (= develop, design, produce and/or express them)? If the soul exists, then OK, it’s housed within the brain, and so it sits INSIDE the brain and tells it what to do! Just as a materialist would no doubt argue that certain parts of the brain tell other parts what to do. And one of the crucial arguments to support dualism is NDEs, which appear to prove that even though the brain is dead, the soul lives on and continues to do its thinking independently of the brain!

DAVID: Erectus at 1,000 cc is basically our immediate predecessor and never could have had our thinking ability. The brain provides much more than just information as you keep trying to imply.
dhw: I imply no such thing, as above. Your comment about erectus implies that a 1000 cc brain cannot have the thinking ability of a 1500 cc brain, and you may well be right. Materialists would certainly agree. But dualists believe in a soul that does the thinking, and so the more thinking it does, the more the brain will change, and that in turn will provide more information for the soul to work on, and the more information the soul has, the more complex its thoughts will become, and then the more complex the brain will become as it responds to those thoughts. This is a perfectly logical, interactive progression.

DAVID: Again, you have quoted a dualist theory that is not mine. Don't impose your dualist theories on me! You've done this before. I don't accept it, as stated many times before.

When you make such complaints, I wish you would be specific. You moan if I pick you up on statements such as “only an advanced brain can have advanced thoughts”, and you claim that is shorthand for the soul using the brain in order to do its thinking, and then you either accept or try to ignore my list of the ways the soul uses the brain. Unless you now reject the proven fact that hard thinking complexifies the brain, or wish to claim that the soul does NOT do the thinking, I can’t see any point of disagreement here.

DAVID: In life the soul must use the living brain networks to not only gain info but to develop new concepts and immaterial thoughts.

dhw: Agreed, as described above. It is the soul that does the immaterial conceptualizing and developing while the brain provides the information and the material development and expression or production of the concept.

DAVID: No, no, no. In the bold it's your dualism theory, not mine. The soul must use the brain's thinking networks to conceptualize. eh brain dos give sensory input.

Back you go to the brain thinking! So now you are saying the soul uses the brain’s thoughts to do its thinking! Or maybe the brain has a thinking network but it doesn’t think? Or the soul can’t think unless the brain thinks first? I’m sorry, I haven’t a clue what role your brain’s thinking networks can play in your concept of dualism.

DAVID: In NDE's and death the soul does this all on its own. This is my dualism.

dhw: Also agreed. And this provides evidence that the soul does the thinking and the developing of new concepts and the production of immaterial thoughts. And (once more) in the material world it acquires information from the brain and it uses the brain to give material expression to its immaterial thoughts and concepts.

DAVID: If you accept my way of stating my theory, we may be in agreement.

Your way of stating your theory makes no sense to me. If you accept the above as it is written, there is no disagreement between us. So please pinpoint what you disagree with.

DAVID: What the various-sized brains control is the level of thought complexity, based on their individual construction, the soul can reach. At each level the soul is freely thinking to whatever limit is imposed.

dhw: How does their construction control the level at which your dualist’s soul can think? The brain provides information, so you can rightly argue that the soul’s thinking is limited to the information given by the senses. And so, using our example of the first spear: small-brained homo thinks: “me want kill from distance”. He is using EXISTING information. But now he needs more information – and so he has to do some hard thinking, and hard thinking is what changes the brain. That is what we mean by developing, designing and finally manufacturing the artefact.

DAVID: The brain provides much more than just information. How about the ability to conceptualize?

dhw: I have just listed what else the brain is used for (now bolded)! Concepts are immaterial and would come from the dualist’s soul, which processes all the information and instructs the brain to give material expression to its thoughts.

You've again left out the soul can only initiate concepts by using the brain's networks to think of them. The soul in life must do that. The soul does not sit outside the brain and tell it what to do. They are intricately bound together

DAVID: You refuse to accept my concept that complexity of thought is limited by complexity and size of neuronal networks available for use by the soul/human essence.

dhw: The dualist’s soul is limited by the extent of knowledge made available to it by the brain and other parts of the body.

How does that differ from my theory?

DAVID: Erectus at 1,000 cc is basically our immediate predecessor and never could have had our thinking ability. The brain provides much more than just information as you keep trying to imply. As below:

dhw: I imply no such thing, as above. Your comment about erectus implies that a 1000 cc brain cannot have the thinking ability of a 1500 cc brain, and you may well be right. Materialists would certainly agree. But dualists believe in a soul that does the thinking, and so the more thinking it does, the more the brain will change, and that in turn will provide more information for the soul to work on, and the more information the soul has, the more complex its thoughts will become, and then the more complex the brain will become as it responds to those thoughts. This is a perfectly logical, interactive progression.

Again, you have quoted a dualist theory that is not mine. Don't impose your dualist theories on me! You've done this before. I don't accept it, as stated many times before..

DAVID: In life the soul must use the living brain networks to not only gain info but to develop new concepts and immaterial thoughts.

dhw: Agreed, as described above. It is the soul that does the immaterial conceptualizing and developing while the brain provides the information and the material development and expression or production of the concept.

No, no, no. In the bold it's your dualism theory, not mine. The soul must use the brain's thinking networks to conceptualize. eh brain dos give sensory input.

DAVID: In NDE's and death the soul does this all on its own. This is my dualism.

dhw: Also agreed. And this provides evidence that the soul does the thinking and the developing of new concepts and the production of immaterial thoughts. And (once more) in the material world it acquires information from the brain and it uses the brain to give material expression to its immaterial thoughts and concepts.

If you accept my way of stating my theory, we may be in agreement.

dhw: How does their construction control the level at which your dualist’s soul can think? The brain provides information, so you can rightly argue that the soul’s thinking is limited to the information given by the senses. And so, using our example of the first spear: small-brained homo thinks: “me want kill from distance”. He is using EXISTING information. But now he needs more information – and so he has to do some hard thinking, and hard thinking is what changes the brain. That is what we mean by developing, designing and finally manufacturing the artefact.

DAVID: The brain provides much more than just information. How about the ability to conceptualize?

I have just listed what else the brain is used for (now bolded)! Concepts are immaterial and would come from the dualist’s soul, which processes all the information and instructs the brain to give material expression to its thoughts.

DAVID: You refuse to accept my concept that complexity of thought is limited by complexity and size of neuronal networks available for use by the soul/human essence.

The dualist’s soul is limited by the extent of knowledge made available to it by the brain and other parts of the body.

DAVID: Erectus at 1,000 cc is basically our immediate predecessor and never could have had our thinking ability. The brain provides much more than just information as you keep trying to imply. As below:

I imply no such thing, as above. Your comment about erectus implies that a 1000 cc brain cannot have the thinking ability of a 1500 cc brain, and you may well be right. Materialists would certainly agree. But dualists believe in a soul that does the thinking, and so the more thinking it does, the more the brain will change, and that in turn will provide more information for the soul to work on, and the more information the soul has, the more complex its thoughts will become, and then the more complex the brain will become as it responds to those thoughts. This is a perfectly logical, interactive progression.

DAVID: In life the soul must use the living brain networks to not only gain info but to develop new concepts and immaterial thoughts.

Agreed, as described above. It is the soul that does the immaterial conceptualizing and developing while the brain provides the information and the material development and expression or production of the concept.

DAVID: In NDE's and death the soul does this all on its own. This is my dualism.

Also agreed. And this provides evidence that the soul does the thinking and the developing of new concepts and the production of immaterial thoughts. And (once more) in the material world it acquires information from the brain and it uses the brain to give material expression to its immaterial thoughts and concepts.

dhw: Why do you refuse to answer a straight question? And why do you simply repeat a convoluted formula which cries out for definition? Forget your complex, your level, your complexity of neural networks, and stick to basics. If the soul can only think what the brain allows it to think, you have the brain controlling the soul. But we have both agreed that the soul uses the brain – hence the above question…

DAVID: Crazy bold. Why are you so confused? I'm not. The soul uses the brain networks to think and those thoughts when they appear are now independent of the brain and are immaterial.

Agreed, but HOW does it use the brain? You refuse to commit yourself to a yes or no to my list. Instead you hide behind vague generalities:

DAVID: What the various-sized brains control is the level of thought complexity, based on their individual construction, the soul can reach. At each level the soul is freely thinking to whatever limit is imposed.

dhw: How does their construction control the level at which your dualist’s soul can think? The brain provides information, so you can rightly argue that the soul’s thinking is limited to the information given by the senses. And so, using our example of the first spear: small-brained homo thinks: “me want kill from distance”. He is using EXISTING information. But now he needs more information – and so he has to do some hard thinking, and hard thinking is what changes the brain. That is what we mean by developing, designing and finally manufacturing the artefact. The rest follows:

The brain provides much more than just information. How about the ability to conceptualize? You refuse to accept my concept that complexity of thought is limited by complexity and size of neuronal networks available for use by the soul/human essence. Erectus at 1,000 cc is basically our immediate predecessor and never could have had our thinking ability. The brain provides much more than just information as you keep trying to imply. As below:

DAVID: Our final very complex brain allows our souls to reach concepts the erectus folks could never achieve using their much less complex brain. The issue is both size and neuron networks complexity, as well as synapse changeable complexity.

dhw: No, the issue is what causes the brain to change. How has our final brain reached this level of complexity? My proposal (again!): each successive expansion was caused by “hard thinking”, leading to increased knowledge and skills. Erectus was more advanced than australopithecus. We are more advanced than erectus. And so of course the increased knowledge and skills coincide with the bigger or vastly more complex brain (complexification having replaced expansion). The dualist’s soul learns more and more, as it uses the brain to gather more and more information and to implement its thoughts. But it is always the soul that does the thinking, as is apparently demonstrated by NDEs, in which the soul thinks and retains its knowledge (and memories) when the brain is dead.

You're off on a tangent we left and had agreed. In life the soul must use the living brain networks to not only gain info but to develop new concepts and immaterial thoughts. In NDE's and death the soul does this all on its own. This is my dualism. The discussion about enlargement has no business in this thread. In the bold I don't understand the use of the word 'coincide'. The larger brain allowed the development of our very advanced concepts, such as grammatical language 50-70,000 years ago, while erectus had very simple communication skills, and we didn't come out of erectus' stone age until 10-12,000 years ago. I view the stasis as proof we were given a brain we didn't know how use and had to learn to use it.

Parts of this post are more “brain expansion” than “dualism”, but that is why we got onto dualism in the first place. The subjects overlap.

Dhw: The soul uses the brain to gather information and to design and produce the artefact (and you added access to memory). Yes or no?

DAVID: Again exactly backward with a misdirected thought about the timing and cause of expansion. I repeat, The brain/soul complex can only reach a level of complex thought allowed by the new brain's complexity of neuronal networks.

dhw: Why do you refuse to answer a straight question? And why do you simply repeat a convoluted formula which cries out for definition? Forget your complex, your level, your complexity of neural networks, and stick to basics. If the soul can only think what the brain allows it to think, you have the brain controlling the soul. But we have both agreed that the soul uses the brain – hence the above question…

DAVID: Crazy bold. Why are you so confused? I'm not. The soul uses the brain networks to think and those thoughts when they appear are now independent of the brain and are immaterial.

Agreed, but HOW does it use the brain? You refuse to commit yourself to a yes or no to my list. Instead you hide behind vague generalities:

DAVID: What the various-sized brains control is the level of thought complexity, based on their individual construction, the soul can reach. At each level the soul is freely thinking to whatever limit is imposed.

How does their construction control the level at which your dualist’s soul can think? The brain provides information, so you can rightly argue that the soul’s thinking is limited to the information given by the senses. And so, using our example of the first spear: small-brained homo thinks: “me want kill from distance”. He is using EXISTING information. But now he needs more information – and so he has to do some hard thinking, and hard thinking is what changes the brain. That is what we mean by developing, designing and finally manufacturing the artefact. The rest follows:

DAVID: Our final very complex brain allows our souls to reach concepts the erectus folks could never achieve using their much less complex brain. The issue is both size and neuron networks complexity, as well as synapse changeable complexity.

No, the issue is what causes the brain to change. How has our final brain reached this level of complexity? My proposal (again!): each successive expansion was caused by “hard thinking”, leading to increased knowledge and skills. Erectus was more advanced than australopithecus. We are more advanced than erectus. And so of course the increased knowledge and skills coincide with the bigger or vastly more complex brain (complexification having replaced expansion). The dualist’s soul learns more and more, as it uses the brain to gather more and more information and to implement its thoughts. But it is always the soul that does the thinking, as is apparently demonstrated by NDEs, in which the soul thinks and retains its knowledge (and memories) when the brain is dead.

DAVID: Again exactly backward with a misdirected thought about the timing and cause of expansion. I repeat, The brain/soul complex can only reach a level of complex thought allowed by the new brain's complexity of neuronal networks.

dhw: Why do you refuse to answer a straight question? And why do you simply repeat a convoluted formula which cries out for definition? Forget your complex, your level, your complexity of neural networks, and stick to basics. If the soul can only think what the brain allows it to think, you have the brain controlling the soul. But we have both agreed that the soul uses the brain – hence the above question which you refuse to answer until the very end of your post.

Crazy bold. Why are you so confused? I'm not. The soul uses the brain networks to think and those thoughts when they appear are now independent of the brain and are immaterial. What the various-sized brains control is the level of thought complexity, based on their individual construction, the soul can reach. At each level the soul is freely thinking to whatever limit is imposed.

DAVID: […] a brain/soul can only think of advanced thought if the networks are sufficiently advanced to allow creation of those thoughts.

dhw: [...] Why do you say “brain/soul can only think…”? As a dualist, do you believe that the brain thinks, or the soul uses the brain in the manner I have bolded above?

DAVID: Back to your same niggling. The soul uses the brain during life to gather info and have thoughts.

dhw: It’s not a niggle – it’s at the heart of our disagreement. Thank you for this semi-agreement, but why have you left out implementation of a new thought (= development - I’ll add this to my previous definition - design and production) – to which you had added memory? These are the uses the soul makes of the brain when it thinks. And so, if the soul is the source of thought and there is nothing else it uses the brain for, why can’t it think new thoughts using existing information and without the brain expanding/complexifying?

Explained above. Our final very complex brain allows our souls to reach concepts the erectus folks could never achieve using their much less complex brain. The issue is both size and neuron networks complexity, as well as synapse changeable complexity.

Under "Dualism: materialist philosopher finds it a problem"

DAVID: I'm very happy with my form of dualism. Papineau is in the same boat as Dan Dennett. Call it an illusion and problem is solved. Horsefeathers!

dhw: You may be surprised to hear that I agree with you completely. I am – as usual – torn between materialism and dualism, but if I were a materialist, I would squirm at the silliness of Papineau’s arguments.

I'm not surprised you agree about the article.. And I'm not surprised at your reluctance about dualism, It puts a theistic foot in the door!

dhw: Just to save space, I can only nod in agreement with the article under "Intelligent Design Scientists". And I’ll repeat that for me the design argument and the realm of psychic experience present the strongest possible case for theism. I shan’t repeat the equally powerful arguments that keep me on my agnostic fence!

Just to put to rest, there are a very large number of well-trained scientist who follow ID