dhw: It's all "ifs"! If consciousness is confined to the soul, then the brain cannot send consciousness to consciousness! NDEs provide evidence that consciousness can exist without the brain – hence evidence for dualism. Diseases, drugs, alcohol etc. provide evidence that consciousness is produced by the brain and is part of the brain, as vividly illustrated by your own comment: “a distorted brain creates a distorted consciousness.” Your insistence that sentient, cognitive, but brainless bacteria cannot have a soul - despite their independent, autonomous ability to change their own DNA, and despite your desperate attempts to change the meaning of the word “autonomous” into “dependent on God’s instructions” - has led you to make the following comment:

DAVID: I'll stay with no brain, no consciousness.

dhw: You could hardly have a more conclusive expression of support for materialism.

DAVID: […] Perhaps the soul and consciousness exist as a dualism, outside the body.

dhw: You don’t seem to have grasped the basic principle of dualism, which is that there are TWO entities: 1) the mental, which is soul/mind/consciousness, and 2) the physical, which is the body, including the brain. So how can the brain (physical) send the mental to the mental? It’s nonsense. Materialism claims that consciousness is created by the materials: or as you have just stated so bluntly: no brain, no consciousness.

I fully grasp van Lomel's point. Teh brain receives the soul/consciousness from outside the brain!!

dhw: However, we have both agreed that NDEs and other psychic experiences support dualism. We both know what dualism means and what materialism means, and so a few days ago you wrote: “I’ll admit we do not know the true answer.” There is no need to keep repeating the different sides of the case. You believe in dualism, and I remain neutral.

DAVID: Good stopping point. Note my objection above
.
dhw: Objection dealt with. Of course it’s a good stopping point, and it’s the reason why I was reluctant to go over the same ground as we’ve been over before, but maybe there are some folk out there who will still be interested!

Fine.

DAVID: I'll stay with no brain, no consciousness.

dhw: You could hardly have a more conclusive expression of support for materialism.

DAVID: […] Perhaps the soul and consciousness exist as a dualism, outside the body.

You don’t seem to have grasped the basic principle of dualism, which is that there are TWO entities: 1) the mental, which is soul/mind/consciousness, and 2) the physical, which is the body, including the brain. So how can the brain (physical) send the mental to the mental? It’s nonsense. Materialism claims that consciousness is created by the materials: or as you have just stated so bluntly: no brain, no consciousness.

dhw: However, we have both agreed that NDEs and other psychic experiences support dualism. We both know what dualism means and what materialism means, and so a few days ago you wrote: “I’ll admit we do not know the true answer.” There is no need to keep repeating the different sides of the case. You believe in dualism, and I remain neutral.

DAVID: Good stopping point. Note my objection above
.
Objection dealt with. Of course it’s a good stopping point, and it’s the reason why I was reluctant to go over the same ground as we’ve been over before, but maybe there are some folk out there who will still be interested!

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?

DAVID: 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!!

dhw: It's all "ifs"! If consciousness is confined to the soul, then the brain cannot send consciousness to consciousness! NDEs provide evidence that consciousness can exist without the brain – hence evidence for dualism. Diseases, drugs, alcohol etc. provide evidence that consciousness is produced by the brain and is part of the brain, as vividly illustrated by your own comment: “a distorted brain creates a distorted consciousness.” Your insistence that sentient, cognitive, but brainless bacteria cannot have a soul - despite their independent, autonomous ability to change their own DNA, and despite your desperate attempts to change the meaning of the word “autonomous” into “dependent on God’s instructions” - has led you to make the following comment:

The bold is an assertion that is an unknown factor. Perhaps the soul and consciousness exist as a dualism, outside the body.

DAVID: I'll stay with no brain, no consciousness.

dhw: You could hardly have a more conclusive expression of support for materialism. However, we have both agreed that NDEs and other psychic experiences support dualism. We both know what dualism means and what materialism means, and so a few days ago you wrote: “I’ll admit we do not know the true answer.” There is no need to keep repeating the different sides of the case. You believe in dualism, and I remain neutral.

Good stopping point. Note my objection above.

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?

DAVID: 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!!

It's all "ifs"! If consciousness is confined to the soul, then the brain cannot send consciousness to consciousness! NDEs provide evidence that consciousness can exist without the brain – hence evidence for dualism. Diseases, drugs, alcohol etc. provide evidence that consciousness is produced by the brain and is part of the brain, as vividly illustrated by your own comment: “a distorted brain creates a distorted consciousness.” Your insistence that sentient, cognitive, but brainless bacteria cannot have a soul - despite their independent, autonomous ability to change their own DNA, and despite your desperate attempts to change the meaning of the word “autonomous” into “dependent on God’s instructions” - has led you to make the following comment:

DAVID: I'll stay with no brain, no consciousness.

You could hardly have a more conclusive expression of support for materialism. However, we have both agreed that NDEs and other psychic experiences support dualism. We both know what dualism means and what materialism means, and so a few days ago you wrote: “I’ll admit we do not know the true answer.” There is no need to keep repeating the different sides of the case. You believe in dualism, and I remain neutral.

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.

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

dhw: 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

DAVID: I believe the consciousness mechanism needs a brain.

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.

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.

dhw: 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.

dhw: 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.

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.

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.

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

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

dhw: 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?

I have not used 'autonomous' as you do. God's DNA instructions create that ability for bacteria. I believe the consciousness mechanism needs a brain.

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?

DAVID: That is not my view. The consciousness is immaterial and separate from the brain as shown in NDE's. Yes, the brain forms the contents, but imagine as if an on-land radio sends info to a ship, which may be God's consciousness mechanism.

dhw: I know that is your view. NDEs are evidence for dualism. But your receiver image is completely muddled. At first your separate consciousness told your brain what to do, but your sick brain “garbled the message”. Then YOU said the “concept of an independent consciousness running me with messages is absurd.” Yes indeed, the idea of “messages” from a separate consciousness to the obsessive woman, telling her not to wash her hands, or to a drunkard not to kill his wife, is absurd. So how do we explain all the cases in which normality is restored by treatment of the BRAIN (diseases cured, drugs and alcohol removed)? The obvious conclusion is precisely what you said yourself: “a distorted brain CREATES a distorted consciousness.” There is no separation. The brain as the creator of consciousness with all its decisions, right or wrong, is materialism. However, that doesn’t remove NDEs and other psychic and psychological factors from the argument, and so – next comment:

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.

The NDE's refute your now bolded statement. Consciousness exists somewhere outside the brain perhaps as part of God's supplied universal consciousness. The brain sends as receives from it is my guess.

DAVID: I don't think the materialist view is correct!

dhw\: I know you don’t. You always think your views are correct. But you had the good grace to recognize that “we do not know the true answer”. The same applies to most of the subjects we discuss. If we knew the truth, there would be nothing to discuss!

Yes, all theory.

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.

dhw: "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: 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?

DAVID: I believe souls, like consciousness are related to the presence of a brain. My soul arrived when I did. My future shaped it. I don't change positions. 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.

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

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

dhw: 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.

DAVID: That is not my view. The consciousness is immaterial and separate from the brain as shown in NDE's. Yes, the brain forms the contents, but imagine as if an on-land radio sends info to a ship, which may be God's consciousness mechanism.

I know that is your view. NDEs are evidence for dualism. But your receiver image is completely muddled. At first your separate consciousness told your brain what to do, but your sick brain “garbled the message”. Then YOU said the “concept of an independent consciousness running me with messages is absurd.” Yes indeed, the idea of “messages” from a separate consciousness to the obsessive woman, telling her not to wash her hands, or to a drunkard not to kill his wife, is absurd. So how do we explain all the cases in which normality is restored by treatment of the BRAIN (diseases cured, drugs and alcohol removed)? The obvious conclusion is precisely what you said yourself: “a distorted brain CREATES a distorted consciousness.” There is no separation. The brain as the creator of consciousness with all its decisions, right or wrong, is materialism. However, that doesn’t remove NDEs and other psychic and psychological factors from the argument, and so – next comment:

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.

(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: I don't think the materialist view is correct!

I know you don’t. You always think your views are correct. But you had the good grace to recognize that “we do not know the true answer”. The same applies to most of the subjects we discuss. If we knew the truth, there would be nothing to discuss!

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.

dhw: "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: 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?

DAVID: I believe souls, like consciousness are related to the presence of a brain. My soul arrived when I did. My future shaped it. I don't change positions. 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.

“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.

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.

dhw: 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.

That is not my view. The consciousness is immaterial and separate from the brain as shown in NDE's. Yes, the brain forms the contents, but imagine as if an on-land radio sends info to a ship, which may be God's consciousness mechanism.

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; 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.

I don't think the materialist view is correct!

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.

dhw: "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.

dhw: 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?

I believe souls, like consciousness are related to the presence of a brain. My soul arrived when I did. My future shaped it. I don't change positions. 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.

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?

DAVID: My consciousness does not govern me. I made its contents from infancy, using my brain as it developed.

dhw: We’re back to the question what is “me”? Your dualism proposes that “you” are your material body and your immaterial “soul”. Your immaterial soul includes your consciousness, and yes indeed, it uses the brain and body, which provide it with information to process and with the means of physically implementing its decisions. Of course your dualist’s soul governs you. That’s why you reduce the role of the brain to being a receiver [...]

DAVID: The question is when the brain is sick does that make the soul sick. Or, the soul remembers the proper past and tries to correct the brain. I favor the latter.

That is not the question. 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.

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

dhw: Yes, that is dualism.

dhw: some dualists regard God as the source of consciousness, though it’s not clear how it gets inserted into us.

DAVID: Simply, the brain attaches to God's provided consciousness mechanism, as you note, so that a material form starts the process which then becomes a dualism setup.

dhw: I didn’t note it. I asked what your “attachment” meant, and I still do. Are you now saying that at some point the foetus or the baby reaches out its brain to an immaterial consciousness and grabs hold of it? I reckon it would make more sense if your God designed the brain as a mechanism that would produce consciousness. But 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!

Back to van Lommel, the brain receives the consciousness.

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.

dhw: You forgot to include the word "Yes" when you quoted the above. "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![/i]

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?

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

dhw: We’re back to the question what is “me”? Your dualism proposes that “you” are your material body and your immaterial “soul”. Your immaterial soul includes your consciousness, and yes indeed, it uses the brain and body, which provide it with information to process and with the means of physically implementing its decisions. Of course your dualist’s soul governs you. That’s why you reduce the role of the brain to being a receiver [...]

DAVID: The question is when the brain is sick does that make the soul sick. Or, the soul remembers the proper past and tries to correct the brain. I favor the latter.

That is not the question. 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'll admit we do not know the true answer. What fits for me is the separate consciousness is also part of my soul.

dhw: Yes, that is dualism.

dhw: some dualists regard God as the source of consciousness, though it’s not clear how it gets inserted into us.

DAVID: Simply, the brain attaches to God's provided consciousness mechanism, as you note, so that a material form starts the process which then becomes a dualism setup.

I didn’t note it. I asked what your “attachment” meant, and I still do. Are you now saying that at some point the foetus or the baby reaches out its brain to an immaterial consciousness and grabs hold of it? I reckon it would make more sense if your God designed the brain as a mechanism that would produce consciousness. But 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!

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.

You forgot to include the word "Yes" when you quoted the above. "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![/i]

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: But in NDE's the consciousness is sending messages to a non-functioning brain, indicating its separate position.

dhw: I know. That is part of the case for dualism, as I wrote yesterday. And NDEs are used as evidence that the conscious soul can live on without the material body. See the bold below:

dhw: As with most of the problems we tackle, there are good reasons for both sides: brain trouble creating consciousness trouble = materialism; NDEs and other psychic phenomena = dualism.It’s only if you try to adopt one theory and dismiss the other that you come up with all these self-contradictions. There's nothing to be ashamed of if we admit we just don't know.

dhw: Dualism itself leaves open the question of what creates consciousness, but some advocates would say that it is given to us by the immaterial conscious mind we call God. [I’ve bolded this, as you bring God in later.] You said earlier that any false behaviour is the result of the physical brain “garbling” the messages sent by the immaterial consciousness. That would be dualism. The next moment, however, you announced that “your concept of an independent consciousness running me with messages is absurd”. You rubbished your own dualistic concept.

DAVID: My consciousness does not govern me. I made its contents from infancy, using my brain as it developed.

dhw: We’re back to the question what is “me”? Your dualism proposes that “you” are your material body and your immaterial “soul”. Your immaterial soul includes your consciousness, and yes indeed, it uses the brain and body, which provide it with information to process and with the means of physically implementing its decisions. Of course your dualist’s soul governs you. That’s why you reduce the role of the brain to being a receiver, as you say next:

DAVID: But it is a separate entity from the brain. When the brain gets sick what is in its consciousness gets garbled, since the concept is the brain is a receiver of consciousness.

dhw: Not quite, because your dualism tells you that there is no consciousness in the receiver brain: it is the soul, not the brain that has consciousness. Hence your talk of consciousness (the soul) sending messages which get garbled – although you then dismissed that concept as absurd, which is what I would expect a materialist to say. (And also you ignored my request about what sort of messages the soul would send, e.g. do not wash your hands/do not kill your wife, which do indeed sound absurd.)

The question is when the brain is sick does that make the soul sick. Or, the soul remembers the proper past and tries to correct the brain. I favor the latter.

DAVID: I'll admit we do not know the true answer. What fits for me is the separate consciousness is also part of my soul.

dhw: Yes, that is dualism.

DAVID: My belief in an immaterial consciousness and soul makes me a dualist who sees a material origin in the brain making the consciousness form by attaching to the immaterial universal consciousness from God.

dhw: I find this incomprehensible. “A material origin in the brain” – origin of what? Consciousness originates in the non-conscious brain by attaching what to God’s consciousness? Please explain. As I said above, some dualists regard God as the source of consciousness, though it’s not clear how it gets inserted into us.

Simply, the brain attaches to God's provided consciousness mechanism, as you note, so that a material form starts the process which then becomes a dualism setup.

Immortal souls

DAVID: I believe souls are in brained animals.

dhw: But you believe that brainless bacteria have an autonomous ability to observe their environment, process the information, and make decisions with regard to altering their own DNA. Observation, interpretation, decision-making are not material, but they most certainly entail a form of consciousness. You might say that they are evidence for consciousness without a brain. So if you think mice have a separate consciousness that can live on after death without a brain, why shouldn’t bacteria also have an independent “soul” that can do the same?

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

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.

dhw: Thank you. I will note this down for future reference.

dhw: Sure enough, three weeks later you have stripped them of their autonomy, and hence of the abilities listed above which are among the basic features of consciousness. And if you and mice, and moles and mosquitoes have a conscious soul which does not need a brain in the afterlife, why shouldn’t conscious but brainless bacteria have immortal souls as well? (Of course I’m not saying they have. I’m simply questioning the logic of your beliefs.)

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

dhw: They are “irretractably bound together”, whether you are a materialist or a dualist, and the question is what creates consciousness. If the brain creates it, then it is the workings of the brain that determine our behaviour. As you have said: “A distorted brain creates a distorted consciousness.” That is materialism: consciousness is created by the brain, produces its immaterial thoughts, ideas, dreams etc., and they and it die with the brain.

DAVID: But in NDE's the consciousness is sending messages to a non-functioning brain, indicating its separate position.

I know. That is part of the case for dualism, as I wrote yesterday. And NDEs are used as evidence that the conscious soul can live on without the material body. See the bold below:

dhw: As with most of the problems we tackle, there are good reasons for both sides: brain trouble creating consciousness trouble = materialism; NDEs and other psychic phenomena = dualism.It’s only if you try to adopt one theory and dismiss the other that you come up with all these self-contradictions. There's nothing to be ashamed of if we admit we just don't know.

dhw: Dualism itself leaves open the question of what creates consciousness, but some advocates would say that it is given to us by the immaterial conscious mind we call God. [I’ve bolded this, as you bring God in later.] You said earlier that any false behaviour is the result of the physical brain “garbling” the messages sent by the immaterial consciousness. That would be dualism. The next moment, however, you announced that “your concept of an independent consciousness running me with messages is absurd”. You rubbished your own dualistic concept.

DAVID: My consciousness does not govern me. I made its contents from infancy, using my brain as it developed.

We’re back to the question what is “me”? Your dualism proposes that “you” are your material body and your immaterial “soul”. Your immaterial soul includes your consciousness, and yes indeed, it uses the brain and body, which provide it with information to process and with the means of physically implementing its decisions. Of course your dualist’s soul governs you. That’s why you reduce the role of the brain to being a receiver, as you say next:

DAVID: But it is a separate entity from the brain. When the brain gets sick what is in its consciousness gets garbled, since the concept is the brain is a receiver of consciousness.

Not quite, because your dualism tells you that there is no consciousness in the receiver brain: it is the soul, not the brain that has consciousness. Hence your talk of consciousness (the soul) sending messages which get garbled – although you then dismissed that concept as absurd, which is what I would expect a materialist to say. (And also you ignored my request about what sort of messages the soul would send, e.g. do not wash your hands/do not kill your wife, which do indeed sound absurd.)

DAVID: I'll admit we do not know the true answer. What fits for me is the separate consciousness is also part of my soul.

Yes, that is dualism.

DAVID: My belief in an immaterial consciousness and soul makes me a dualist who sees a material origin in the brain making the consciousness form by attaching to the immaterial universal consciousness from God.

I find this incomprehensible. “A material origin in the brain” – origin of what? Consciousness originates in the non-conscious brain by attaching what to God’s consciousness? Please explain. As I said above, some dualists regard God as the source of consciousness, though it’s not clear how it gets inserted into us.

Immortal souls

DAVID: I believe souls are in brained animals.

dhw: But you believe that brainless bacteria have an autonomous ability to observe their environment, process the information, and make decisions with regard to altering their own DNA. Observation, interpretation, decision-making are not material, but they most certainly entail a form of consciousness. You might say that they are evidence for consciousness without a brain. So if you think mice have a separate consciousness that can live on after death without a brain, why shouldn’t bacteria also have an independent “soul” that can do the same?

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

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.

dhw: Thank you. I will note this down for future reference.

Sure enough, three weeks later you have stripped them of their autonomy, and hence of the abilities listed above which are among the basic features of consciousness. And if you and mice, and moles and mosquitoes have a conscious soul which does not need a brain in the afterlife, why shouldn’t conscious but brainless bacteria have immortal souls as well? (Of course I’m not saying they have. I’m simply questioning the logic of your beliefs.)

DAVID: We both understand dualism. A psychopath is an example of improper development of brain and consciousness from childhood.

dhw: In your own earlier words: “A distorted brain creates a distorted consciousness.” The brain as creator of consciousness is materialism.

DAVID: But the created consciousness is an immaterial form separate from the brain. That is dualism.
And:
DAVID: No question brain and consciousness are irretractably bound together. What results is the material brain and an immaterial consciousness, dualism.

dhw: They are “irretractably bound together”, whether you are a materialist or a dualist, and the question is what creates consciousness. If the brain creates it, then it is the workings of the brain that determine our behaviour. As you have said: “A distorted brain creates a distorted consciousness.” That is materialism: consciousness is created by the brain, produces its immaterial thoughts, ideas, dreams etc., and they and it die with the brain.

But in NDE's the consciousness is sending messages to a non-functioning brain, indicating its
separate position.

dhw: Dualism itself leaves open the question of what creates consciousness, but some advocates would say that it is given to us by the immaterial conscious mind we call God. You said earlier that any false behaviour is the result of the physical brain “garbling” the messages sent by the immaterial consciousness. That would be dualism. The next moment, however, you announced that “your concept of an independent consciousness running me with messages is absurd”. You rubbished your own dualistic concept.

My consciousness does not govern me. I made its contents from infancy, using my brain as it developed. But it is a separate entity from the brain. When the brain gets sick what is in its consciousness gets garbled, since the concept is the brain is a receiver of consciousness.

dhw: As with most of the problems we tackle, there are good reasons for both sides: brain trouble creating consciousness trouble = materialism; NDEs and other psychic phenomena = dualism. It’s only if you try to adopt one theory and dismiss the other that you come up with all these self-contradictions. There's nothing to be ashamed of if we admit we just don't know.

I'll admit we do not know the true answer. What fits for me is the separate consciousness is also part of my soul. My belief in an immaterial consciousness and soul makes me a dualist who sees a material origin in the brain making the consciousness form by attaching to the immaterial universal consciousness from God.

Immortal souls

dhw: your faith in the OT (you are “stuck with its nepheses and neshamas”) leads you to believe that mice etc. have immortal souls. Now apparently you can pick and choose what parts of the OT you accept or don’t accept. Do you also believe that bacteria have immortal souls? (The question is not frivolous. It's fundamental to the concept of dualism.)

DAVID: I believe souls are in brained animals.

dhw: But you believe that brainless bacteria have an autonomous ability to observe their environment, process the information, and make decisions with regard to altering their own DNA. Observation, interpretation, decision-making are not material, but they most certainly entail a form of consciousness. You might say that they are evidence for consciousness without a brain. So if you think mice have a separate consciousness that can live on after death without a brain, why shouldn’t bacteria also have an independent “soul” that can do the same?

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

dhw: In your own earlier words: “A distorted brain creates a distorted consciousness.” The brain as creator of consciousness is materialism.

DAVID: But the created consciousness is an immaterial form separate from the brain. That is dualism.
And:
DAVID: No question brain and consciousness are irretractably bound together. What results is the material brain and an immaterial consciousness, dualism.

They are “irretractably bound together”, whether you are a materialist or a dualist, and the question is what creates consciousness. If the brain creates it, then it is the workings of the brain that determine our behaviour. As you have said: “A distorted brain creates a distorted consciousness.” That is materialism: consciousness is created by the brain, produces its immaterial thoughts, ideas, dreams etc., and they and it die with the brain.

Dualism itself leaves open the question of what creates consciousness, but some advocates would say that it is given to us by the immaterial conscious mind we call God. You said earlier that any false behaviour is the result of the physical brain “garbling” the messages sent by the immaterial consciousness. That would be dualism. The next moment, however, you announced that “your concept of an independent consciousness running me with messages is absurd”. You rubbished your own dualistic concept.

dhw: As with most of the problems we tackle, there are good reasons for both sides: brain trouble creating consciousness trouble = materialism; NDEs and other psychic phenomena = dualism. It’s only if you try to adopt one theory and dismiss the other that you come up with all these self-contradictions. There's nothing to be ashamed of if we admit we just don't know.

Immortal souls

dhw: your faith in the OT (you are “stuck with its nepheses and neshamas”) leads you to believe that mice etc. have immortal souls. Now apparently you can pick and choose what parts of the OT you accept or don’t accept. Do you also believe that bacteria have immortal souls? (The question is not frivolous. It's fundamental to the concept of dualism.)

DAVID: I believe souls are in brained animals.

But you believe that brainless bacteria have an autonomous ability to observe their environment, process the information, and make decisions with regard to altering their own DNA. Observation, interpretation, decision-making are not material, but they most certainly entail a form of consciousness. You might say that they are evidence for consciousness without a brain. So if you think mice have a separate consciousness that can live on after death without a brain, why shouldn’t bacteria also have an independent “soul” that can do the same?

DAVID: We both understand dualism. A psychopath is an example of improper development of brain and consciousness from childhood.

dhw: In your own earlier words: “A distorted brain creates a distorted consciousness.” The brain as creator of consciousness is materialism.

But the created consciousness is an immaterial form separate from the brain. That is dualism.

DAVID: When I think of a normal adult person who develops a sick brain, does the consciousness sicken also? Or can the consciousness remain normal and its connection to the brain become scrambled? There is no answer I can choose when you want me to give one. I lean toward the latter. An immortal soul/consciousness might wish to resist the abnormality. Then the brain garbles the message.

dhw: The latter is your theory that “the brain garbles the incoming consciousness message”, which means that consciousness is sending the right message, which in turn means that consciousness normally runs the brain, but in your own words: “your concept of an independent consciousness running me with messages is absurd”. Welcome to materialism. As with most of the problems we tackle, there are good reasons for both sides: brain trouble creating consciousness trouble = materialism; NDEs and other psychic phenomena = dualism. It’s only if you try to adopt one theory and dismiss the other that you come up with all these self-contradictions. There's nothing to be ashamed of if we admit we just don't know. We did discuss a possible compromise some years ago, but I don't have time now to resurrect it.

No question brain and consciousness are irretractably bound together. What results is the material brain and an immaterial consciousness, dualism.

Introducing the brain: addressing novelty

dhw: […] Do dualists believe that every mouse has a separate, immaterial consciousness that sends messages to the mouse brain? […]

DAVID: My religious background says so. Yes.
And:
DAVID: I'm stuck with nepheshes and Neshamas in the OT. My dog thinks. I see him do it. It can't just [be?] us with a separate immaterial consciousness. We evolved from animals all of whom had brains.

dhw: Immortal souls don't need brains, according to NDEs. At this rate, even bacteria could have an afterlife! Again, I can't help wondering what all the mice and ants etc. are going to do in an immaterial world! No suggestions from you? As for the OT, you do not have to be stuck with it. If you were, then you should read Deuteronomy and start killing people like me.

DAVID: I know the impression of a nasty God of the OT. Currently the interpretations have softened the impression.

dhw: Yes, your God is whatever you wish to make him. But I was only referring to the fact that your faith in the OT (you are “stuck with its nepheses and neshamas”) leads you to believe that mice etc. have immortal souls. Now apparently you can pick and choose what parts of the OT you accept or don’t accept. Do you also believe that bacteria have immortal souls? (The question is not frivolous. It's fundamental to the concept of dualism.)

I believe souls are in brained animals.

DAVID: We both understand dualism. A psychopath is an example of improper development of brain and consciousness from childhood.

In your own earlier words: “A distorted brain creates a distorted consciousness.” The brain as creator of consciousness is materialism.

DAVID: When I think of a normal adult person who develops a sick brain, does the consciousness sicken also? Or can the consciousness remain normal and its connection to the brain become scrambled? There is no answer I can choose when you want me to give one. I lean toward the latter. An immortal soul/consciousness might wish to resist the abnormality. Then the brain garbles the message.

The latter is your theory that “the brain garbles the incoming consciousness message”, which means that consciousness is sending the right message, which in turn means that consciousness normally runs the brain, but in your own words: “your concept of an independent consciousness running me with messages is absurd”. Welcome to materialism. As with most of the problems we tackle, there are good reasons for both sides: brain trouble creating consciousness trouble = materialism; NDEs and other psychic phenomena = dualism. It’s only if you try to adopt one theory and dismiss the other that you come up with all these self-contradictions. There's nothing to be ashamed of if we admit we just don't know. We did discuss a possible compromise some years ago, but I don't have time now to resurrect it.

Introducing the brain: addressing novelty

dhw: […] Do dualists believe that every mouse has a separate, immaterial consciousness that sends messages to the mouse brain? […]

DAVID: My religious background says so. Yes.
And:
DAVID: I'm stuck with nepheshes and Nehamas in the OT. My dog thinks. I see him do it. It can't just [be?] us with a separate immaterial consciousness. We evolved from animals all of whom had brains.

dhw: Immortal souls don't need brains, according to NDEs. At this rate, even bacteria could have an afterlife! Again, I can't help wondering what all the mice and ants etc. are going to do in an immaterial world! No suggestions from you? As for the OT, you do not have to be stuck with it. If you were, then you should read Deuteronomy and start killing people like me.

DAVID: I know the impression of a nasty God of the OT. Currently the interpretations have softened the impression.

Yes, your God is whatever you wish to make him. But I was only referring to the fact that your faith in the OT (you are “stuck with its nepheses and nehamas”) leads you to believe that mice etc. have immortal souls. Now apparently you can pick and choose what parts of the OT you accept or don’t accept. Do you also believe that bacteria have immortal souls? (The question is not frivolous. It's fundamental to the concept of dualism.)