“I believe that the whole idea of conscious thought is an error. ” So says
Peter Carruthers, Distinguished University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Maryland, College Park in this article in Scientific American. Proving once again, that some ideas are so gobsmackingly stupid, it takes a lot of education to believe them. He might as well have said, “I have a conscious thought that there is no conscious thought.” There is really no need to argue against self-refuting piffle like this. There is only one thing to say:
79 Replies to “Front Runner for Most Inane Statement of 2018”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
That’s actually a pretty interesting article. Thanks, Barry. It discusses a number of things that I’ve thought about my own conscious experience.
Here’s is an interesting exercise that illustrates one of the points he is trying to make, I think, although these kinds of things are very difficult to describe.
Lie quietly and try to “watch your thoughts”. What I have discovered is that I will start to internally articulate an idea in words, but that I actually have a more complete non-verbal understanding of the idea I am having. As soon as I stand back from the verbalization, so to speak, and “feel” the overall idea, I can quit the ongoing verbal stream of internal monologue. I don’t need to say it to myself: I don’t need to spin it all out as a linear stream of words.
At that point the verbal monologue might quit for just a bit, and and then another internal verbalization starts, and I repeat the process.
There are two thoughts I have about this. The first is that at least some, if not a great deal, of our daily, continual internal monologue is unnecessary. We don’t gain anything new or useful by repeating articulations to ourselves when there isn’t any need to do anything with them such as communicate them to someone else.
More interesting is the sense that our thoughts are presented to our consciousness by our subconscious, and that they exist in a more holistic, non-verbal manner in the subconscious than they do when we transform them into linear internal verbalizations.
The article makes the interesting point (this may not be exactly what he is meaning to say) that we learn about our own ideas by internally talking to ourself in a way similar to how we learn about others ideas: our own verbal articulations provide feedback to our own subconscious for further integration with the totality of understanding that is already there, in whatever way “there” is in respect to our subconscious.
Hazel, if your point is that the article is chock-a-block full of assuming the very thing he denies, who could argue with that?
No, Barry, that was not my point at all. Without saying at all that I agree with everything he says (I don’t), or that I support the provocative title (I don’t), I think you have to think about this paragraph to try to understand his perspective.
Feedback: the very recent style change separates comments better, and improves setting off quotes. The Related articles section just gets in the way, I think, and I don’t even see how they are very related. Comments still need numbering, and recent comments still doesn’t update reliably.
I appreciate the effort it takes to make changes like this, and hope feedback is welcome.
And, who is saying this Herr Prof?
Yet more proof that if you start off believing that atheistic naturalism is unquestionably true then you are, sooner or later, forced into the self-refuting position of claiming your consciousness is ‘merely’ a neuronal illusion of your brain:
A few notes:
And let’s not forget that, via the instrumentalist approach, quantum mechanics has restored consciousness back to its rightful place in science:
Of note, Weinberg, since he is committed to atheistic naturalism, rejects the instrumentalist approach. Which, since he rejects what is termed ‘the realist approach’ because of the insanity of many worlds interpretation, leaves his in quite a bind. So much so that he has given up any hope of ever truly understanding quantum mechanics.
H’mm:
Sci Am’s subhead: “Philosopher Peter Carruthers insists that conscious thought, judgment and volition are illusions. They arise from processes of which we are forever unaware.” Self-referential, fallacy of grand delusion. The best answer to such claims is to point out the problem and proceed to take the proposer at his word — why should we get overly concerned about his delusions? KF
to kf and ba77 at posts #? and #? + 1: I don’t think either of your comments are accurately responsive to the article. I certainly don’t see him saying that consciousness is a “neuronal illusion.” Consciousness is real, and it includes a variety of types of content.
My posts are about two aspects of the article. The first is that the internalized talking to ourselves that we engage in – our internal monologue, of which we are conscious – is a reflection of more comprehensive and non-verbal thoughts that in some way reside in the subconscious, whatever that may be. We have access to vastly more potential thoughts than we are thinking at any one time. Wherever they may be, thoughts at that level, of which we are not conscious, are then related to the stream of articulated and otherwise felt thoughts that are in our consciousness at any one time.
The second aspect is the question of how does our conscious experience feed back into our larger subconscious self. For instance, in typing this post I am putting into words (which are flowing out from my conscious verbalization process) that are trying to express things that I feel I only imperfectly understand. The very act of consciously experiencing the results of this writing adds to the overall set of subconscious content that I have. In this way, listening to myself and listening to others can affect me, at least partially, in the same ways.
None of these thoughts deny either consciousness or self.
P.S. to kf. If you haven’t already, I suggest you read the whole article and not just the subheading.
What’s scary is that Carruthers’ logic is the same kind of logic that I have routinely encountered on-line over the past 12 years on the part of atheistic naturalists/materialists who posture as self-described defenders of science. I just thought they were pseudo-intellectual wannabes posturing as know-it-alls. However, if you do any reading in philosophy of the mind you will quickly discover that Carruthers is not alone.
It’s also scary is that Scientific American apparently thinks that his viewpoint if scientific.
More website feedback: Having “Leave a Reply” at the top of the thread is not very useful. It would be better at the end of the thread, because that is where people would most likely have read the thing they want to reply to.
Correction: I see that we can sort by newest first. That is very helpful, and makes the Reply at the top make sense. On the other hand, reading the thread from bottom to top (with newest on the bottom) makes it hard to review the thread. Maybe a Leave a Reply box could be at both the top and the bottom???
And the “Read more” link at the end of longer posts is quite welcome.
H,
“the proposer” in view is generic. Heads and subheads are obviously an editorial responsibility even if proposed by an author, interviewer or other party. So, first and foremost, Sci Am is again showing the world why it has lost all respectability.
Next, the content from the interviewer and the interviewee is hardly better. Right from the start:
We could go on, including the injection of a question-begging redefinition –“In neurophilosophy, however, we refer to “thought” in a much more specific sense. In this view, thoughts include only nonsensory mental attitudes, such as judgments, decisions, intentions and goals” — and more.
Sorry, that which is substructural or intuitive is part of “the thoughts and intents of the heart,” And what is verbalised or imaged is likewise part of our thoughts and intents. Likewise our world picture as we look on, our hearing with understanding (I hear a vehicle going by, I hear the clicks of the keys, these are not uniterpreted), and so forth.
KF
PS: Display-sequences of comments and the comment edit features are confusing. I agree with H on this.
Barry, I would also like to commend you on the efforts you have placed in upgrading the web site. I think most complaints will just be because people are used to the old version. Resistance to change appears to be a human trait.
Just a couple comments:
1) I agree that comment numbers would be extremely helpful, especially in the longer comment threads.
2) I really like the truncating of comments with the “more” options. This allows readers to scroll through the comments without having to scroll through all of the text of the very long comments that some people like to post.
It appears to me that Carruthers is starting off with the metaphysical assumption that physicalism must be true. But how does he know that? Has he or anyone else been able to prove that physicalism is true? Shouldn’t he do that before he starts making an argument based on his metaphysical beliefs?
I know that one of the issues in this subject as whether consciousness is part of a non-material aspect of human beings, such as the mind or a soul, or whether it is strictly a product of the body.
I think that the things I’ve written, and virtually all of Carrothers points, don’t depend on which of those are true. I think discussing the experience of consciousness, which is what I’ve been discussing, is something we can do in a meaningful way irrespective of which of the options mentioned above we believe is true, or whether one acknowledges that one doesn’t know what the nature of consciousness is, as I do.
So to me the article is about how immediate experience of consciousness at each moment relates to the larger mind. How the mind relates to the body is, in my opinion, a different issue, and not a central part of this article.
But given that no one has responded to the specifics of my posts at x, y, and z (comment numbers are necessary!), probably no one here wants to talk about what I’d like to talk about.
Thank you for the feedback. I’m working on figuring out a way if we can get numbering back. How does everyone feel about having threaded comments like this?
The upside is that your reply is neatly connected with the original message. The downside is that you can’t necessarily scroll to the end to find the last comment.
Hazel disagrees with what is self-evidently true about the article and wants to have a “reasonable” discussion about it?
🙂 LOL
Sorry, If someone will deny what is self-evidently true right off the bat, before any discussion has even begun, then reasonable discussion is exactly what one cannot have.
i.e. Much like Carruthers claim that “conscious thought is an error ” , that self-evidently self-defeating claim in and of itself defeats any supposedly ‘reasonable’ discussion that may follow.
IMO, Comment numbering is important, especially when referring to comments beyond the ‘Read More’ tags; Otherwise it may be necessary to expand a lot of comments to find one that is referenced.
Even more helpful would be comment numbers which remain unchanged in the unlikely event of an earlier comment being removed. Then it would be possible to find and expand exactly the right comment.
I don’t like the idea of hierarchical comments for the reason you give and also because of the amount of indentation that will be needed for some of the longer exchanges.
To Jack Cole: Thanks for your work, but Nooooooo!!!! to threaded comments. No possible way to keep up a coherent discussion.
To ba77. I accept the reality of consciousness, and am certainly open to mind being an immaterial aspect of human beings separate from the body. I don’t know why you think otherwise about me, but I can see that a reasonable discussion with you is unlikely. As always, one can pick and choose whom one wants to discuss with.
#22 inanity is its own reward.
…he thought consciously (?!)
Jack, last time around it led to chaos. I see no reason why this time would be better. Numbers in chronological order would help. In so polarised an environment as UD faces, comment voting is liable to be abused. The “more” feature is a tossup. I forgot: if the quotes are fully italicised that robs us of a level or two of emphasis. KF
No one refutes the silly belief that consciousness is an illusion better than David Bentley Hart who has splendid critique of Daniel Dennett’s thinking in his New Atlantis book review of Dennett’s recent book From Bacteria to Bach and Back…
In fact, Hart requires only one sentence to logically refute Dennett:
He could, of course, rest his case right there but for those who think it’s not that easy he does have more to say:
https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-illusionist
In other words, Dennett can only sell people on the idea that consciousness is an illusion by creating the illusion that he knows what he is talking about.
I don’t exist. Nuff said.
(Love the Napoleon clip. One of my fave movies.)
So is insanity.
The diving board he tried to jump off cracked before he got near the water
Illusion of what? They never say. Illusions do exist, they falsely represent something that actually exists. For example a mirage may appear as water on the horizon, and is actually thermal processes gyrating the air which refracts light. However, pools of water are real things. When someone says “consciousness is an illusion”, I always ask, “an illusion of what?” Crickets. Consciousness is what it is, and it is the primary fact of individual existence. Calling it an illusion is absolutely meaningless.
H’mm:
Further exchanges that imply more than A and C seem to fully realise:
Let’s ask, why?
ANS: Because this imposes an infinite regress due to its reflexivity. Every further conscious thought is an applicable instance for the same question, triggering an endless regression. In praxis, we lose sight and truncate in effect at a convenient point.
Once the notion is injected that there is a hard line between the conscious and the unconscious substructure of our interior thought life, with the link subject to radical doubt, we are in endless regress of doubts.
Far more prudent would be to hold that our thoughts and intents are like an iceberg, some below the surface of awareness, but organically connected. So, we can probe, evaluate and conclude to sufficient certainty as to whether a particular pattern is credible, not well warranted, an illusion or delusional. With recognition that as finite, fallible, morally and intellectually struggling creatures, our knowledge base is prone to error. Which is where self-evident first truths of reason become crucial for assessing the quality of our thought. Moral tests are also applicable, given how we can resort to undue suspicion, hostility or to a predatory mentality.
Notwithstanding various concerns and limitations, we are duty-bound to act reasonably and responsibly on the balance of evidence in hand.
KF
Of particular interest to Peter Carruthers self refuting claim of “I believe that the whole idea of conscious thought is an error ” is the fact that his self refuting statement is very similar to the self refuting liar’s paradox that Gödel used to prove his first incompleteness theorem
Thus Carruthers, inadvertently, with his self refuting sentence, ends up proving he very thing he was denying. i.e. proving the reality of the immaterial conscious mind. ,,,
The implication of Godel’s incompleteness theorem is often stated simply as such, “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove”
Godel put the implications of his incompleteness theorem as such:
Of related note: Gödel ‘s incompleteness theorem has now been extended to physics and refutes reductive materialistic claims that “form” is reducible to materialistic explanations:
This includes refuting the reductive materialistic claims of Darwinists for ever rationality explaining ‘biological form’:
JAD, excellent one-liner clip: “[Y]ou cannot suffer the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds. “ Only the conscious can have delusions; rocks have no dreams. However Carruthers is subtler in some regards. He notes the iceberg beneath the surface, i.e. there is a lot of unconscious or subconscious substructure connected to what we are directly aware of. His fatal step is to pour on corrosive hyperskepticism, so that in effect the surface is viewed as illusion as there is the sub-surface (which he seems to think cannot be accessed through metacognition). The subtext — there we go in a rhetorical yellow submarine again — is that the conscious is shaped by the effectively unaccountable subconscious. This then becomes infinitely regressive and self-referential thus utterly corrosive. In fact, we routinely reflect on the substructure of our surface thoughts, e.g. when we ponder why we have a strong emotional reaction to something or to an event or even to someone. KF
PS: I see emphases apparently only come out with read more! (For a longer comment.)
M62, you do not deserve down-voting for asking a very important but unwelcome question. KF
F/N: Notice C’s clear statement: “the whole idea of conscious thought is an error.” By injecting an unaccountable subsurface he creates a corrosive dichotomy that opens the door to arbitrary dismissal of rational, responsible thought. One that is infinitely regressive and self-referential. In effect, the underlying programming and hardware are in the driver seat, invisible, inaccessible, beyond reckoning — yet another ugly gulch notion; it invites — so then, why should we trust your unaccountable programming that led you and others to such notions? Of course, it seems very hard for many to grasp the import of such regresses and self referentiality. KF
I have mixed feelings about the new look. In a way I like it better because before I felt like I was interrupting a conversation if I wanted to make a point that didn’t pertain to the most recent comments. But now it’s a little hard to follow a conversation if I want to. Any way to get the best of both worlds?
I really liked the “more button”. There are a couple long winded commenters, one of which has a habit of writing serial comments to get around the limit on the number of links that can be included in a comment. On many instances I prefer to scroll past these comments as I have already read everything of substance they have to say. And I know there are others who feel the same.
Perhaps Read More could be reinstated, but show more than the first version did, such as 15-20 lines or so? That would be enough to show the substance of the post without having to scroll through a number of screens to get through a very long post.
I also see that ability to re-order the posts has been removed, which was sort of nice.
And the option to Subscribe was removed: I liked that a lot.
And that threaded comments was removed: I think everyone thought that was not a good idea.
An alternative to reinstating the “more” button would be to add an “ignore” button. This gives all commenters the ability to ignore specific commenters. Once selected, the ignored person’s comments do not appear on the comment thread of the person who has ignored that person. I have seen it on other sites and it appears to work quite well.
Let’s have some fun with a few self-referential semantic statements. Do self-referential statements or sentences have a truth value? Let’s look at a few.
Statement #1: “This sentence has six words.”
Count the words. The sentence has five words. Therefore, it’s false. However, that does prove that at least some self-referential statements have truth value– that we can determine whether they are true or false. However, is this true of all self-referential statements?
Let’s consider statement #2:
“This sentence is true.”
So is it true or false? (It’s certainly true that it is self-referential.) However, it can only be true if we can prove that “All self-referential sentences have truth value.” That is they are provably true or false. How do we do that? Let’s consider statement #3:
“This sentence is false.”
Is that true or false? This leads a vicious cycle. If we claim that it is false as it says that it is, then it’s true but it claims that it’s false… ????
So logically what have we proven? Is it true or false that “All self-referential sentences have truth value,” or is it undecidable or indeterminate?
So then what do we make of the claim “that consciousness is an illusion” ?
I don’t see any way logically how such statement could ever be self-evidently true. Even if we give such a claim the benefit of the doubt, I don’t see that we conclude anything better than it is undecidable or indeterminate. That’s hardly a good starting point for an argument. As I have said before “to go anyplace with a deductive argument have to begin with premises that are either (1) self-evidently true, (2) provably true or (3) at least probably true.” That’s logic 101.
Thoughts?
to JAD:
in math, (4) axioms. We make the decision to assume they are true, and follow the logical consequences. This is different than being self-evidently true. For instance, the famous example is the three different axioms about parallel lines which lead to three different geometries.
Also, (3) leaves open the obvious problem with ascertaining how “probably true” the premise is.
And (2) just moves the situation backwards: if something is provably true (by deduction I assume you mean), then there must have been, at some point, premises which started the chain of proof.
And, I’ll note, this is really not on the thread topic of mind and consciousness, which doesn’t look like it’s going anywhere anyway.
Thanks for the page numbering. Might I also suggest that a featured feedback thread be posted for a couple weeks. In that way you could compile constructive feedback on the new format without hijacking this or other threads.
Thank you for the comment numbering. If anyone wants an ignore button they can just go to some other site. Willful ignorance is a problem with our opponents (and even those who say they are with us, but post contrary to that- hi Ed) and there is no need to be more enabling of it.
First, I love the new look. Nice and clean. I am a little bit bothered, however, by the front page with the centered text. Left alignment always looks better and is easier on the eyes.
Second, Peter Carruthers is just promoting the tired materialist propaganda that humans are just meat machines with no immaterial souls. It is easy to prove that we do have a soul, however. Consider beauty. It is not a physical property of the universe and yet we sense it. How? Since the brain is physical, it cannot sense beauty either. It follows that beauty is a property of something order than the brain.
The beauty that we see in nature is not in nature. It’s the beauty of our own souls. Nature just awakens it. Don’t let any brain-dead materialist tell you you are just a meat machine with no soul. Resist the propaganda.
Peter Carruthers is a fake philosopher, in my opinion. It takes courage to to be a seeker of truth. Happy new year.
Ed’s idea about a thread for just feedback on the new site is good,. But until then, a button at the top of the thread to jump to the last post would save a lot of scrolling through posts one has already seen.
ET@43, thank you for providing an example as to why an ignore button would be a good idea.
Ed George@46- Just leave, Ed. You clearly don’t have anything of substance to offer.
Besides Peter Carruthers I know of at least a couple other “philosophers” who try to defend the view that consciousness is just an illusion. I have already mentioned Daniel Dennett who is a professor at Tuft’s University (see my comment #25.) Alex Rosenberg is another professor (Duke) who makes basically the same claim.
Here is a blog by a self-identified atheist, Gregg Henriques, who takes exception to the title of Rosenberg’s book, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, because he “found Rosenberg’s vision to be a deeply misguided, misleading, and blatantly self-contradictory approach to both atheism and scientific knowledge.”
“The major argument that Rosenberg makes,” he writes, “is that physics is the ultimate arbiter of truth, that the physical reality is the only reality, that nihilism is unfortunately true, and that everything that doesn’t easily and immediately fit into a physical property framework—things like thoughts, consciousness, the self, purpose, and morality—are all illusions. If Rosenberg’s work is not about atheism, then what is it about? In short, the book advocates for a narrow, reductionistic philosophy of science called physicalism.”
He then goes on to point out how physicalism is self-refuting.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/experts/gregg-henriques-phd
In other words, you don’t need to be an ID’ist or a theist to see the logical flaws with the view that consciousness is an illusion. Of course, you have to know something about logic to understand whether or not someone is making a logically valid claim. On the other hand, if you don’t believe in logic then there is no reason for you to even consider any kind of logical claim. One has to wonder if Rosenberg, Dennett or Carruthers disbelief extends to logic and reason itself. After all, to think at all don’t you at least have to be conscious?
to JAD at 48. Carruthers is not arguing at all that consciousness is an illusion, I don’t think. The first four paragraphs make that clear, I think. Can you point to someplace in the article where he says, or implies, that consciousness is an illusion?
This is why I think non-materialists, such as myself, can find some interesting things to think about in the article.
to ET at 47: But you could push the Ignore button on Ed also. Why bother reading people who have nothing to offer?
This is probably more programming than is possible, but an ignore button could hide all the text (just a Read More link), but still leave the post there in case someone want to read something by someone they had marked as Ignore.
Hazel- I love exposing the willfully ignorant for what they are. The only people I would ignore aren’t allowed here anymore.
More to JAD at 40. Your “(3) probably true” doesn’t apply to math, as in math things are either assumed true or proven true. Sometimes we have a conjecture that we think might be true but is unproven, and then the goal is to start from that which is already established and prove the conjecture.
There are two ways that we occasionally assume that something is true that is in fact yet unproven. The first is with proof by contradiction: we want to prove that P is true, so we assume not-P is true and show that leads to a logical contradiction, thus proving that P is true. The iconic example is the proof that sqrt(2) is irrational.
Also, and I have done this a few times, we assume an unproven fact as true as a way of exploring its consequences to see if it will lead us to some ideas about a possible proof. For example, if I assume unproven fact P is true, and then deduce Q, which I know is true, that might help me find a way to start with Q and work backwards to prove P. In this case, assuming that P is true is a learning tool, but not something that directly leads to deductive truth.
Just some more thoughts on your post.
JAD @ 48, as to:
If only Rosenberg really believed that were true.
Quantum Mechanics has, in no uncertain terms, refuted, not only the reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought, but has also refuted ‘realism’, which is the belief that a physical reality exists ‘out there’ completely independent of conscious observation.
A few notes to that effect:
Due to advances in quantum mechanics, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:
None of this should be surprising. After all, modern science itself was born out of basic Christian presuppositions of the (rational) Mind of God creating this universe and upholding this universe in its continual existence. In other words, consciousness, although it gives modern day materialists unending headaches, was not a problem at all for the medieval cosmologists who gave rise to modern science in the first place,, Especially since they presupposed the Mind of God, not material particles, as the primary basis for reality:
Verse:
to Jack Cole, web designer: Could you possibly put that Subscribe feature back in? That would be extremely convenient.
Also, I’ll note that when at the bottom of the comments, as I am know in writing this, the name of the post is not visible. Could there be a header with that info that was always visible no matter how many comments there were?
h@41, 52 referring to jad@40
In mathematics, most of the traditional axioms/postulates were self-evidently true to the Greeks of 300 BC. The parallel postulate is completely obvious to someone who is only considering ordinary planar geometry. It took people like Hilbert to illustrate naive assumptions underlying Euclid’s arguments, such as the Axiom of Completeness which is now taken as self-evident since its denial would leave the real number line full of gaps.
I would have to say that the Axiom of Choice was the first major principle whose validity was somewhat doubted (almost everyone at that time believed the Continuum Hypothesis would be derived as a theorem). Cohen and Godel have shown us that Choice is independent of and consistent with the rest of ZF set theory. But lots of interesting mathematics flows from (or is logically equivalent to) Choice: Zorn’s Lemma, Tychnov’s Theorem, the existence of a non-measurable set. I am unaware of significant mathematics arising from the denial of Choice.
p.s. hazel writes:
“Sometimes we have a conjecture that we think might be true but is unproven, and then the goal is to start from that which is already established and prove the conjecture.”
to which I ask in response:
What is the truth status of the conjecture prior to its proof? What if I were to find a truly marvelous proof, but lack space in the margin to write the proof. Only I know its veracity. What is the truth status of the conjecture to the rest of the world?
Hi math guy. I think we discussed this on the Ed George thread, and I had a number of posts about the general topic over there. Math facts are true, or not, within the appropriate logical system, irrespective of whether anyone had proved them, or not, I think. Also, I’m inclined to think that Fermat did not have a proof of his Last Theorem, but maybe he did.
Hazel, that was part of the plugin that had some of the other features that were undesirable. I’ll have to check to see if there is a standalone plugin for that.
I figured as much. I know how these things work. However, it would be great to get an email when there was a post on a thread I was interested in. I wonder how others feel about the usefulness of such a feature.
Again, I think we all appreciate the work you’re doing.
hazel,
I’ll use this thread to answer a question you posed: who are the A-mats that are conspicuously absent from discussion of the platonic realm? That would be those answering to the nom de plume of Seversky, goodusername, William Spearshake, Elizabeth Liddle, and several others which have slipped my mind.
Thanks. Seversky is the only one of those that I recognize as having posted here, so perhaps the others were before my time and are gone now. At 51, ET refers to people who are not allowed here anymore, so that might be some of them.
Hmmm. All of a sudden the comment numbers are one higher than they were. How did that happen? If that is a feature and not a bug, that would not be good, as we often refer back to previous comments by number.
Jack Cole, do you know how a comment got inserted somehow?
probably things from moderation
I see, kf. You’re probably right.
F/N: A reminder of how some naturalists think, and of the evolutionary materialistic scientism that drives it:
Then, Provine in the 1998 U Tenn Darwin Day address:
And we must not forget Crick:
Philip Johnson has replied that Sir Francis should have therefore been willing to preface his works thusly: “I, Francis Crick, my opinions and my science, and even the thoughts expressed in this book, consist of nothing more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.” Johnson then acidly commented: “[t]he plausibility of materialistic determinism requires that an implicit exception be made for the theorist.” [Reason in the Balance, 1995.]
In short, it is at least arguable that self-referential absurdity is the dagger pointing to the heart of evolutionary materialistic models of mind and its origin. For, there is a very good reason we are cautioned about how easily self-referential statements can become self-refuting, like a snake attacking and swallowing itself tail-first. Any human scheme of thought that undermines responsible [thus, morally governed] rational freedom undermines itself fatally. We thus see inadvertent, inherent self-falsification of evolutionary materialism. But, “inadvertent” counts: it can be hard to recognise and acknowledge the logically fatal nature of the result. Of course, that subjective challenge does not change the objective result: self-referential incoherence and irretrievable self-falsification. (An audio clip, here, by William Lane Craig that summarises Plantinga’s argument on this in a nutshell, is useful as a quick reference.)
That wider context colours how we should understand Sci Am’s editorialising in the subhead (which purports to quote or at least summarise Carruthers) and how we should understand the ideas he presents.
All of this fits with a dominant view of mind which is fatally self referentially incoherent and necessarily false.
KF
kf and JAD, and let’s not forget Thomas Nagel, an atheist professor who has spent a long distinguished career studying consciousness, devastating critique of purported materialistic explanations of consciousness in his book sub-titled, “Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False”.
Nagel is also brutally honest as to why he rejects Theism: i.e. he has a “cosmic authority problem”.
On the new format, I think that, on balance, I prefer it. The only problem is that I find the font a little small and faint for my aging eyes but nothing I can’t cope with.
Math Guy@ 61
For what it’s worth, as an a/mat, I regard Platonic ideals as occupying the same realm as Middle Earth or The Shire or the Star Wars universe – that of the human imagination. They can be said to exist to that extent but whether or not they are ‘real’ depends on how you define reality.
Math Guy
Is it not equally as likely that this is a topic that does not interest those opposed to ID?
Seversky:
That is too funny coming from a person whose entire position is nothing but imagination.
Here is a brief lecture by Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor where he defends the idea that even though we use our brains to think and reason that conscious thought is not something that can be reduced to brain activity. He agrees with other modern dualists, like UCLA’s neuropsychiatrist Jeffrey M. Schwartz* who argues that “you are not your brain.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXOX3RCpEbU
So who has the better argument? Ivory tower “philosophers” who begin their arguments with self-refuting premises, or researchers who actually study the brain first hand? Egnor is a surgeon who understands how the brain works and has opened up peoples skulls to treat neurological disorders. Schwartz has studied the brain using PET scans and fMRI. He has also developed therapies to help people afflicted with obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) that assumes that people have free-will and there really is such a thing as mind-over-matter.
PS here is an article where Egnor covers much of the same ground as he does in the video.
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2018/september-web-only/more-than-material-minds-neuroscience-souls.html
Math Guy:
Equally interesting is the fact that so few non-materialists are willing to discuss it., and that while A-Mats keep trying to find a materialist theory of mind, non-materialists seem large uninterested in developing a theory of mind, which must simultaneously account for shared absolutes that are universally experienced, AND non-consensual imaginative features.
It seems to me that you cannot have it both ways – you can’t dismiss the mind as a solipsistic experiential category while insisting it is home to universal forms and values AND the home of critical thinking, which we rely on in making determinations about the relative reality values of our experience.
To the site administrator and/or programmer:
A deleted comment should be replaced with a blank comment with the same comment number so as not to skew the numbers.
Thank you
Seversky (assuming that “he” really exists), states:
And just who is this imaginary “I” that “you” refer to in “your” sentence that does not believe in imaginary mathematics?
Sev, 69: “Platonic” themes first came up in discussing the reality of some very specific abstract entities of vast general utility — numbers. Likewise, mindedness is a very crucial issue. KF
Seversky (again assuming that “you” really exist as a real person), if mathematics (and agent causality) were truly imaginary as you hold in your A-Mat worldview, then mathematics, like pink fluffy unicorns, should have absolutely no effect on the ‘real’ world of material particles. But that is not the case, virtually all of modern technology testifies to the fact that mathematics, which you hold to be imaginary, has ‘real’ effects on material particles:
Indeed, without the ‘non-physical’ entities of software and immaterial mind, the computer that you are sitting in front of right now would not exist:
So Seversky, (again assuming that “you” really exist as a real person), to be consistent in your reasoning you would have to say, besides mathematics and consciousness being imaginary, that the computer sitting in front of you right now is imaginary to.
Or else, to preserve sanity, you could just admit that Atheistic materialism is completely insane.
Sadly, after years of dealing with you, I can safely say that you prefer the insanity of Atheistic Materialism rather than ever honestly admitting Christian Theism is true.
Supplemental notes:
Seversky @69 so you think numbers and geometric objects are imaginary? You have a good imagination! 😀
Eugen @78,
If something is not composed of particles or does not have physical properties (e.g., mass, energy, orientation, position, etc), it is abstract, i.e., spiritual. Numbers, distance, time, beauty, ugliness fall in that category. It is amazing how many things fall in that category even though most of us, including scientists, swear they exist physically. My favorite is distance. 😀