Earlier discussed here. The most fulsome one is, of course, in New Scientist:
For me the attacks on science were unnecessary and ill-formed. “Where in the brain is metaphor happening?” asks Hilary. “Where is accountability and free will?” These don’t show up in a fMRI scan, she says. In fact metaphor may well show up in scans and so do all sorts of interesting aspects of our inner lives, including areas where we operate theory of mind, the ability to see another person’s point of view.
No one is saying that brain scans will explain consciousness, but I can’t understand those who seem to want to mock what neuroscientists are discovering. Some people are afraid that we lose something if we “reduce” aspects of our inner lives to blobs on a brain scan – in the case of metaphors to a location in the right inferior frontal gyrus. I think we gain something.
There’s lots more. Stoppard seems to channel the philosopher Thomas Nagel, (he mentions Nagel in the programme notes), who asserts that mental processes are different from physical ones, and so are not subject to natural selection. To many, this opens the door to the supernatural.
Like my dad would say, when you hear this kind of crap, reach for your horses in the dark.
That is, once “science” comes to mean some crackpot faith rather than assessment of facts, well, just get out.
Neuroscience has got nowhere with consciousness because it is operating on the wrong principles, as great physicists have said.
See also: Neuroscience tried wholly embracing naturalism, but then the brain got away
Re Thomas Nagel, he is an atheist philosopher who bust the Darwin pen. If you do not know of him and do not understand why he is being slimed, read Mind & Cosmos.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Search Uncommon Descent for similar topics, under the Donate button.
Nice try, but that what the materialist-community Is saying.
Some foolish ideas don’t deserve anything more than being mocked. Actually, taking the time to mock them is giving them more credit than is deserved, usually.
Afraid because we do, indeed, lose a lot. When the science is wrongly used to support monistic-physicalism, we basically lose humanity. That’s why Darwinism is evil. It’s anti-human.
As to the author’s comment here:
The author is confusing his philosophy of naturalism/materialism with ‘science’. ‘Science’, as it would be properly practiced in this instance, is asking the question, ‘Is consciousness primary or is material primary?’. And then weighing the evidence and seeing which answer is true.
Anti-science, in this instance, would be assuming that material is primary before even asking the question and refusing to even entertain the thought, (or evidence), that consciousness might be primary over material.
Thus he, (despite his deeply held materialistic belief that material will someday explain consciousness, i.e. promissory materialism), is the one who is guilty of ‘anti-science’ in this instance.
Moreover, aside from the fact that science was born out of, and can still only be reasonably grounded in, Theistic metaphysics:
,,, And aside from the fact that a more ‘anti-science’ worldview than naturalism/materialism, especially with its base ‘random chance’ postulate, would be hard to envision,,,
Aside from all that, assuming naturalism/materialism can account for conscious experience leads to the epistemological failure of science itself since it undermines the reliability, and trustworthiness, of our cognitive faculties.
Thus, materialism/naturalism, contrary to what the author believes beforehand, is ‘anti-science’ in the most profound sense in even this question of whether consciousness or material is primary to reality.
In fact, Alvin Plantinga, with his ‘Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism’, has created quite a stir with his contention that naturalism is ‘anti-science’:
To those atheists who object that it is unreasonable to believe that evolution will produce untrue beliefs, even leading atheists themselves admit that evolution does not necessarily produce true and reliable beliefs:
of related interest to Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism, is the following computer simulation study:
Moreover atheistic materialism also, besides undermining the trustworthiness of our cognitive faculties, atheistic materialism also, by denying free will, undermines science from another angle in that we can not choose to believe something because we believe that it might be true, but our beliefs are forced on to us by the prior material state of our brains:
Thus, even if evolutionary materialism could produce beliefs that are somewhat reliable, we still have no basis for believing that we have to power to choose those beliefs that seem most reasonable to us. In fact materialism denies that ‘free will’ option altogether.
Moreover, it is not as if physics, the grandaddy of all scientific disciplines, has not also weighed in very forcefully on this ‘consciousness’ topic.
Quantum Mechanics entails an irreducible subjective element in its conceptual basis.
Of related interest to the preceding Wigner ‘consciousness’ quotes, it is interesting to note that many of Wigner’s insights have now been experimentally verified and are also now fostering a ‘second’ revolution in quantum mechanics,,,
Thus, since Wigner’s insights into the foundational role of the ‘conscious observer’ in Quantum Mechanics are bearing fruit with a ‘Second Quantum Revolution’, then that is certainly very strong evidence that his ‘consciousness’ insights are indeed true.
Moreover, Wigner’s quantum symmetries are far from being the only line of evidence in quantum mechanics implicating the centrality of consciousness. There is consistent support, from many different lines of evidence, supporting the contention that consciousness, and free will, are of central importance in quantum mechanics.
In fact, due to advances in quantum mechanics, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:
Thus, the materialistic contention that it is ‘anti-science’ to even question whether materialism can account for consciousness or not is simply nonsense of the highest order since the best science we currently have tells us that materialism does not account for consciousness.
Of related interest:
Podcast: “The Top 10 Problems with Darwinian Evolution: A Bonus 11th Problem” – Casey Luskin
In this segment, Casey discusses a bonus eleventh problem: that humans display many behavioral and cognitive ability that offer no apparent survival advantage.
http://www.discovery.org/multi.....h-problem/
Check this out:
are they tracking the signals resulting from the decision-making processes, or they say those signals (combined) lead to making the decisions?
Any comments, suggestions?
Check this out:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-565258