Okay, Okay, I've been participating in a guilty pleasure by visiting Victor Reppert's Blog lately. Vic argued
I am suggesting on principled grounds that a careful reflection on the nature of mind and matter will invariably reveal that there is a logical gap between them that in principle cannot be bridged without fudging categories.I'm glad Loftus has been reading Reppert's blog, maybe God can use it to reach him.
My responses so far:
You're arguing that we cannot get to a mind from the fact that there is only a brain.
So, let's talk about the mind. If there is a mind can we get to a brain? Think about this. You have merely reversed the argumentation but it leads to the same conclusion. I maintain that there is no logical connection between the mind and the brain. If we presume there is a mind then how does it tell the brain what signals to send to the arm such that it moves? Logically, unless there is a point of contact between them, the mind cannot interact with the brain. You know the problem.
Loftus does not say why this must be true he merely asserts it. I think a good analogy are computers. The hardware - the processor - is like our brain. In this analogy the mind is like the operating system/software that runs the computer. The analogy breaks down quickly but let's ride it for a moments as far as it can carry us. How is the software connected to the processor? It's not in the same way the hardware is connected. I think it's here where the analogy starts to go off the rails. I don't know how the mind and brain are connected. No one really does. Are they connected? Yes. Is the brain all there is? I don't think so? We do have people who have had near-death experiences and while they were brain-dead for few moments, they still reported consciousness.
Would you please define a mind for me? If that definition does not include material properties then how is this not a logical problem? What's your solution?
The mind is our desires, personalities, memories, emotions, consciousness - it's the sum total of everything that makes you who you are. This is more than what you are. When you talk to someone you are interacting with their mind not their brain.
Let's say you have none, or at least, let's say I'm not persuaded. Then we are at a logical impasse.
What to do then?
I'd like to know why does John Loftus think that his persuasion would make it true. Something can be true even if he doesn't think it is.
Trust the sciences. Science repeatedly disconfirms that there is a mind. Drugs, strokes, electromagnetic probing, and a nail through the brain can and does change a person's emotions, ideas, thinking patterns, and a man's personality itself.
Science does no such thing. If a computer's hardware is damaged or changed, don't you think it would change the software? Saying that mind and brain are not the same thing is not the same thing as asserting that they are not connected. Some people get brain damaged or head trauma or even lobotomies and experienced no change in who they are. Just because a person's emotions, ideas, thinking patterns, and personality are affected by changing the brain does not mean there is no mind. I don't know why anyone would expect the mind and body to be totally separate. Making a distinction does not mean making a separation.In fact, as neurologist Sam Harris has said, if there is a mind there is no reason for God to have created us with brains. If the mind tells the brain what signals to send to the arm then it can by-pass the brain altogether and simply send signals to the arm.
Sam Harris sure likes making assertions that he can't prove. If the mind is your intentions and thoughts then you want to move your arm and the brain sends the signal. To argue that either the brain or mind is unnecessary is a really silly idea and no reason can be found for that.
The brain ends up being unnecessary on the hypothesis there is a God who created the mind. Or you could perhaps give me one function of the brain that could not be performed by the mind if there was one.
Just one.
That is not what theists argue. God created mind and brain - in fact all of reality. We don't understand ourselves or the universe to determined what is unnecessary just yet. As for one function of the brain that could not be performed the mind is the wrong question. The question that Loftus and people like him are afraid of is the question: Where does consciousness come from? I think computers again help us here. Is anyone really willing to argue that if we made a computer with enough circuits and connection (like the human brain) consciousness would result? I don't think so. I don't think consciousness comes form the brain. However research is currently being done that will prove it as our computers become more sophisticated.
I also maintain that on the supposition of a creator god that the vastness and age of the universe isn't necessary. He could have created a world on a flat disk for this. The question at that point is why did god create unnecessary things? The burden of proof is on the theist to show why unnecessary things were created.
I think that Loftus is seriously mistakenly. He failed to show the mind or anything is unnecessary. He first has to prove that the mind is unnecessary.
To the Christian objection that we need our senses and the brain as a storage unit to process the senses I argue that you theists do not take your theology very seriously at all. If there is a mind then it can sense the empirical world on your own assumptions. If there is a mind we do not need our senses. Get it? If there is a mind that can interact with the brain then it can control the brain. If it can control the brain then it knows what the brain is doing. How it does this is left unexplained, but if we take that position seriously it can. Now if it can sense the brain then it can sense the outside world and so we do not need the five senses.
I don't know anyone who thinks that the mind can sense the empirical world. He offers no proof or explanation that the mind and brain are related to one another the way he says it is. It is silly conclude that if the mind can sense the outside world we don't need the five senses. Our five senses organs are like hardware on a modern computer. Microphone of ears. Speakers for mouth. Cameras for eyes. We even have peripherals that sense force so it is like touch. Without software to make sense of analyze the input, all those senses are useless. Same thing with brain and mind. The brain processes the data but the mind makes of the data and determines its values and importance.
You people need to be more consistent here. Consistency, that's all I ever ask.
I'll be happy when Loftus offers such consistence.
But let's assume God created us with senses anyway. The mind supposedly has the characteristics of memory storage, critical thinking, decision-making and so on. What need then of a brain? I simply don't see it based on theistic grounds.
I wouldn't say that the mind store memory. Memory storage is a function of the brain. I believe science has been able to show that. But when it comes to thinking and consciousness there has been no proof that it's only the brain responsible for that.
Why is it that atheists like Loftus Harris are invested in denying the existence of the human mind? Simple. They know that if there is no mind and if all that means that all that there is (to them) is a material world and you can't have a consciousness without a body which (to them) would mean that there in no way could be a god as described in the body. They are trying to get around the scripture, and perhaps not even consciously.
24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’
29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”
- Acts 17:24-31
Debunking Christianity: The Mind/Brain Problem
We do have people who have had near-death experiences and while they were brain-dead for few moments, they still reported consciousness.
ReplyDeleteReally, we literally have people reporting, while brain dead, what they are experiencing while brain dead? That's quite a trick!!!
I don't think so, they report what they experienced while losing and regaining brain function. You realize "near" is the operative word in "near-death".
Or, do you ever fall asleep for 5 minutes and have a dream that seems longer than 5 minutes?
I know, I know, I can't prove any of the people for whom you didn't cite any sources and probably just made up off the cuff, really didn't have experiences while their brains were "dead".
Ryan, "near-death" means that they were resuscitated. I thought you would understand that they didn't know they were clinically dead while they were dead. Guess not. Also are you really willing to argue that the mind and brain are the same thing? I hope not. I would have given you more credit than that.
ReplyDeleteI realize you are trying to argue that people who have near death experiences weren't really brain-dead? Are you sure? You say want some documentation? Start here.
ReplyDeleteAlso are you really willing to argue that the mind and brain are the same thing? I hope not.
ReplyDeleteAs far as we know they are, or more accurately one is the product of the other.
I realize you are trying to argue that people who have near death experiences weren't really brain-dead?
Not at all, I was arguing that they didn't have experiences while brain-dead, they had experiences before and after.
I disagree that we can conflate the mind and brain anymore than we can conflate personality and the body. What about those people who report seeing real life events attest to by others while they were dead? Did you even look at the link?
ReplyDeleteWhat about those people who report seeing real life events attest to by others while they were dead?
ReplyDeleteThe very few examples I've read of this have been thoroughly debunked.
Where? You tried to chastise me for not providing examples. Where are your examples refuting the examples of consciousness between death and recusiation?
ReplyDeleteIn the case of Kathy Milne, the account came to light 7 years or so after the supposed event took place, there were no controls in place when the supposed event took place and we only have Mrs. Milne's word. That's not how evidence works, not for rational people anyway.
ReplyDeleteMy experience has been that every other example I've examined follows a similar pattern.
Interesting too that an unknown unbeliever turned believer wandered off with the red shoe... at least according to Mrs. Milne. Would be nice to at least know if the red shoe even existed, heck we don't even know if the person who supposedly had the NDE that Mrs. Milne claims to have spoken with actually existed...
ReplyDeleteNo one is trying to argue that everyone experiences the same thing as Mline did. We can't predict who will have an NDE let alone know how to record the experience. I'm not surprised that you don't believe it.
ReplyDelete29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’” -Luke 16:29-31
In Mline's case she tells you that she experienced consciousness while she was dead, yet you reject it. The Law and the Prophets tells you the same thing. Look like Jesus was right...again. No surprise.
If a person stays dead, I see no reason to assume their conscious existence ends. So what if you are not convinced. You have failed to make any argument that a rational person would accept. In stead of proving stories like Mline wrong, you just assert that you see no reason to believe her. Really pathetic. Where's the logic? You preassume that there is no consciousness after death and you have nothing to back that up.
ReplyDeleteNo one is trying to argue that everyone experiences the same thing as Mline [sic] did.
ReplyDeleteHow does it feel to be wrong? I guess turn about is fair play, so I now have to ask you if you even looked at the link? You see, Kathy Milne didn't experience a NDE, she was a nurse with an interest in NDE and she recounted, second hand and seven years later, meeting someone (who???) who had a NDE. I know you are partial to anonymous second hand accounts, but they really aren't compelling evidence.
But that's not really important, what is important is that Mrs. Milne's story is put forward as one of the strongest pieces of evidence of someone who reports seeing something "verifiable" they couldn't have known about while "dead" (and thus proving consciousness endures beyond death).
So if that's the best you've got...
You preassume that there is no consciousness after death and you have nothing to back that up.
Here we go again with "you can't prove I'm wrong... although I can't offer a shred of evidence that I'm right...", what a terrible position to be in all the time. I won't be going in circles with you again. But if I could get you to see just one thing, it would be to see how that kind of epistemology puts one in a position where they can't say that anything didn't happen, no matter how hairbrained, after all, you weren't there, you can't prove it didn't happen. Try to be consistent...
You can't prove that there is no soul or mind. Can you? I totally agree that I got confused in my comments. My mistake. That does not mean that you are right that there is no consciousness after death. Finding yourself in hell is a terrible time to find out that you are wrong. I would say that you have not been inconsistent. You have consistently wrong in your presuppositions and conclusions.
ReplyDeleteYou can't prove that there is no soul...
ReplyDeleteI can't prove we don't have an invisible flugerfluffel in our pelvis either.
...or mind.
I think we have a mind, but it's a product of the brain.
I totally agree that I got confused in my comments. My mistake. That does not mean that you are right that there is no consciousness after death.
No, it simple means there is no good evidence that consciousness continues after death so, without further evidence, we have to conclude I'm probably right.
How does the mind proceed from the brain? I'm not arguing against that. Loftus argued that there is no mind only a brain. That is what my post is about. I never argued that the mind and the brain aren't related to one another only that they are distinct and we haven't enough evidence to make the conclusions Loftus makes. I think you just want to argue.
ReplyDeleteGiven that we don't know enough about conscious and the brain, I don't think we can say you are right.
Loftus argued that there is no mind only a brain. That is what my post is about....I think you just want to argue.
ReplyDeleteI honestly don't care what John Loftus said. You made an unsubstantiated assertion about NDEs and that's why I commented.
Given that we don't know enough about conscious and the brain, I don't think we can say you are right.
Read this sentence that you wrote over and over. Remember, you are the one making the assertion that consciousness continues after death. Read your sentence again with that in mind. Soul of the Gaps?
I didn't make an unsubstantiated assumption. Just because you don't agree that NDE actually happen doesn't mean that the evidence I offered is not evidence. Does it really make sense that human personality, intellect, desire, emotion, thought, and intention can all be explained by synapses of a human brain. Functionally, the brain seems to be nothing more than a bank of microprocessors - like the Internet. A single human brain has many more connections and processors than the internet does. If you are right than the internet has the potential of becoming conscious. Do you really think that? I don't think so because I think it takes more than neural circuits and processing power to be conscious. Don't you think it takes more to be human than that? Attacking me on NDEs does not negate the points I raised. Not only that NDEs are only part of the complete picture pointing out that a human being is more than the sum of his/her parts.
ReplyDeleteJust because you don't agree that NDE actually happen doesn't mean that the evidence I offered is not evidence.
ReplyDeleteCorrect, but because it's only ever second hand, hearsay and uncontrolled, it's bad evidence.
Also, NDE are a critical component to demonstrating that we are in fact more than the sum of our parts.
It's not always second-hand. I have seen interviews from people who actually experienced it. Where have you been?
ReplyDeleteNDEs are not the only evidence for a human being more than just what we materially can observe and measure. Concepts of beauty, good, evil, and general aesthetics also lends credibility that thinking of ourselves as being more than biological machines. The concept of Biological machines are necessary but not sufficient in describing what it is to be a human being.
It's not always second-hand. I have seen interviews from people who actually experienced it.
ReplyDeleteYou've seen interview of people who have experienced NDEs, which, as I stated before are experiences as one is losing and gaining consciousness. What you've not seen is a verifiable first hand account of someone who saw a shoe on a roof, or some such, while dead. You claimed pretty strongly that those were out there though...
Jane Seymore would disagree that there are no first hand accounts of consciousness while dead.
ReplyDeleteJane Seymour is an actress most noted for the cult classic movie, Somewhere in Time, with actor Christopher Reeves, and the television series Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman. When Jane Seymour was 36 years of age, she had a severe case of the flu and was given an injection of penicillin. She suffered an allergic reaction which led to a near-death experience.
"I literally left my body. I had this feeling that I could see myself on the bed, with people grouped around me. I remember them all trying to resuscitate me. I was above them, in the corner of the room looking down. I saw people putting needles in me, trying to hold me down, doing things. I remember my whole life flashing before my eyes, but I wasn't thinking about winning Emmys or anything like that. The only thing I cared about was that I wanted to live because I did not want anyone else looking after my children. I was floating up there thinking, "No, I don't want to die. I'm not ready to leave my kids." And that was when I said to God, "If you're there, God, if you really exist and I survive, I will never take your name in vain again." Although I believe that I "died" for about thirty seconds, I can remember pleading with the doctor to bring me back. I was determined I wasn't going to die." Then Jane suddenly found herself back in her body.
http://www.near-death.com/famous.html
Sigh... sounds like a perfectly controlled experiment... Can you say with certainty if she was even brain-dead given the information you have, she can't, so you probably shouldn't, right?
ReplyDeleteAgain, if that's the best you've got on the subject, knock yourself out.
Don't you think it's rather arrogant to assume you know if Jane was dead during that time or not? I don't think you can prove or say categorically if she was dead yet conscious or not.
ReplyDeleteDon't you think it's rather arrogant to assume you know if Jane was dead during that time or not?
ReplyDeleteNo, because.... I DON'T KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! One more time... I DON'T KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And neither does she, or you or anyone else!!!! So we can't assume either way and claim her story as evidence.
Please don't misconstrue the repeated use of the shift+1 as overwhelming emotion.