My Thought About Justice is Not Justice: Easy for ID; a Deal Killer for Materialism

_{Barry Arrington
February 5, 2018

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

At ENV Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor exposes how materialist metaphysics flounders on logical grounds in its theory of mind:

As an example, let us suppose that a certain pattern of neuronal activation in my cortex were shown to represent my thought about justice. Obviously that pattern is not my thought about justice itself — justice is a concept, not a bunch of neurons. And if that pattern of neuronal activation represented my thought about justice, it must map to my thought of justice, which presupposes my thought about justice and thus cannot explain it.

Succinctly, mental representation of abstract thought presupposes abstract thought, and cannot explain it. It is on abstract thought that materialism, as a theory of mind, flounders. Abstract thought, classically understood as intellect and will, are inherently immaterial. Any representation in the brain of abstract thought (while it may exist) necessarily presupposes abstract thought itself, which must, by its nature, be an immaterial power of the mind.

Comments

Mind and soul are not the same.ET_{February 6, 2018
February
02
Feb
6
06
2018
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

For those who doubt that Dr. Egnor's main reason for criticism of materialistic and others' views of thought, mind, consciousness etc. is not the promotion of the immaterial (immortal) soul: “Emergence” and the Soul https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/emergence-and-the-soul/ The Craniopagus Twins and Thomistic Dualism https://evolutionnews.org/2017/12/the-craniopagus-twins-and-thomistic-dualism/ What the Craniopagus Twins Teach Us About the Mind and the Brain https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/what-the-craniopagus-twins-teach-us-about-the-mind-and-the-brain/ A MAP OF THE SOUL https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/06/a-map-of-the-soulJ-Mac_{February 6, 2018
February
02
Feb
6
06
2018
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H- I happen to accept reincarnation because I just refuse to accept that a soul can be condemned to hell for the rest of eternity for something that happened in a relative blink of an eye. I say souls have to come back here until it gets it right. Here is hell for an immortal soul seeking to get into Heaven.ET_{February 6, 2018
February
02
Feb
6
06
2018
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT}

outside_observer @ 22 - thanks for that response. I suspect it's the second best possible (the best being ET's @ 20, but that makes some specific assumptions). The non-existence of the soul has parsimony going for it, even if that does not mean that it is correct.Bob O'H_{February 6, 2018
February
02
Feb
6
06
2018
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

J Mac brought up the soul, not the OP. The OP just says the mind and brain are not one in the same and that materialism cannot account for the mind.ET_{February 6, 2018
February
02
Feb
6
06
2018
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

"LoL! This is NOT about ID. This is about the soul." The OP is about ID. Are you suggesting that the soul was not part of the designed?Molson Bleu_{February 6, 2018
February
02
Feb
6
06
2018
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

In my toying with multi-user simulation, one of my goals was to make special non-special observers out of the clients. My intention was to put clients at the same level as the fully simulated actors in the simulation. I also wanted the clients and fully simulated actors to both have the same interface with the world. Also, I wanted to be able to reuse low level functions for simulated actions within the world. So, for clients, I essentially removed the higher order planning/intention/scheduling/decision state modules and replaced it with client input queuing/interpretation modules, and the input interpretation functions were replaced with client output functions, completely invisible to the physics of the simulation. You could also reduce the external soul from an independent, fully self sufficient client to a remote record of intention/character/experience, connected to physical body, that could be reconnected with something more of its own sort of non-volatile constitution. So, from my view, it can easily go either way, in any measure, though I prefer to err on the side of necessity. A fully material brain still puts a person beyond the reach of materialism, and ID can show this; but it's far more subtle than a structure remote to the dynamics of what is directly perceived.LocalMinimum_{February 6, 2018
February
02
Feb
6
06
2018
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

Molson Bleu:
ID is not about God and heaven.
LoL! This is NOT about ID. This is about the soul.ET_{February 6, 2018
February
02
Feb
6
06
2018
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

Seversky:
On the one hand he scorns the materialist position but, on the other, as a neurosurgeon he has spent his professional life working with a purely material or physical concept of the brain and the world.
He realizes that it did NOT come about by materialistic processesET_{February 6, 2018
February
02
Feb
6
06
2018
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

J Mac:
If we were created to live forever, why would we need an immortal soul?
Because you arte not alive without one
If we were created with an immortal soul, what’s the point of the prohibition of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil with the death sentence for disobedience?
It wasn't just knowledge of good and evil and the soul can still suffer by not being allowed in Heaven after the body dies
You don’t know what immortality means or don’t want to know…
Now I see why you get beaten over on TSZ every time you post. You don't know jack and your comprehension is abysmal.ET_{February 6, 2018
February
02
Feb
6
06
2018
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

critical rationalist: Why arbitrary? The whole purpose of the central nervous system is to process outer stimuli. It's absolutely logical that the interface must be at the end of the processing task. Our interface with our computer is at the screen and keyboard, not at the RAM or CPU.gpuccio_{February 6, 2018
February
02
Feb
6
06
2018
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

@gpuccio
No, of course. A brain is required for humans, in their physical life. That’s all.
If the supposedly non-material aspect of our "souls" can interact with the matter in our brains, then this same non-material aspect could just as well interact with the nerves in the rest of our bodies and the impulses in our eyes, ears, etc. If the gap can be bridged at our brain, it could be bridged at some furthermore point out. Again, the point at which this gap is bridged would be an arbitrary choice by the designer. Brains would be an arbitrary choice.critical rationalist_{February 6, 2018
February
02
Feb
6
06
2018
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT}

@BA
Excerpt: For Clark, thoughts merely appear out of matter, which has no properties, by the laws of physics, for generating thought. For Clark to assert that naturalistic matter as described by physics gives rise to the mind, without immateriality of any sort, is merely to assert magic.
We've been over this before. Is the universality of computation magic?
And I said continually said the very idea of emergence as a concrete explanation would represent a category error that Barry keeps perpetuating, as if he does not understand the concept, despite having been presented multiple clarifications and examples. One such example is the universality of computation, which Barry omitted and apparently objects to for some reason I still cannot understand. Barry’s extremely vague claim of some of supposed mistaken use by some unknown number of yet to be identied or quoted “materialists” doesn’t negate the fact that we have concrete examples of emergent properties of matter. Where are these “materialists”? Where are the relivant quotes? Just as we do not think our emergent explation of the universality of computation is “magic”, nor would we consider a future emergent explantion for consciousness “magic” either, or any more impossible. Again, there are no non-physical computers, yet the explanation for that universality is not found at the level of atoms. Nor does it require the existence of some non-material sea that surrounds some material bubble. So, what gives? Any such future explanation for consciousness would be in the same class and level. Just as what was a future explanation for the universality of computation. Nor are we somehow guaranteed to develop such an explantion. But perpetuating this absurd category error is, well, disegneous at best, or represents significant ignorance on what emergent phenomena is.
critical rationalist_{February 6, 2018
February
02
Feb
6
06
2018
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT}

@outside_obesrver So, if we take your view seriously, for the purpose of criticism, then you do not actually think a brain is required for consciousness. Our brains could be the size of a walnut, pea, flea or even completely absent, if that's how the designer wanted it to be. IOW, that we have a brain at all seems to have been an arbitrary choice by the designer. You're assuming the only reason it's necessary is because your assuming human beings were designed and that necessity was part of the design. Our point is that this arbitrary choice is not equivalent to being necessary for conciseness at all. There is an important distinction to be made in that our expiation for consciousness would, should we end up with one, be that conciseness is an emergent property of a complex material nervous system.critical rationalist_{February 6, 2018
February
02
Feb
6
06
2018
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT}

For those who did not read it yet, this previous article from Dr. Egnor is also of related interest to his topic of abstract concepts of the mind which have no material reference point for atheists to appeal to:
Naturalism and Self-Refutation - Michael Egnor - January 31, 2018 Excerpt: For Clark, thoughts merely appear out of matter, which has no properties, by the laws of physics, for generating thought. For Clark to assert that naturalistic matter as described by physics gives rise to the mind, without immateriality of any sort, is merely to assert magic. Furthermore, the very framework of Clark’s argument — logic — is neither material nor natural. Logic, after all, doesn’t exist “in the space-time continuum” and isn’t described by physics. What is the location of modus ponens? How much does Gödel’s incompleteness theorem weigh? What is the physics of non-contradiction? How many millimeters long is Clark’s argument for naturalism? Ironically the very logic that Clark employs to argue for naturalism is outside of any naturalistic frame. The strength of Clark’s defense of naturalism is that it is an attempt to present naturalism’s tenets clearly and logically. That is its weakness as well, because it exposes naturalism to scrutiny, and naturalism cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny. Even to define naturalism is to refute it. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/naturalism-and-self-refutation/
bornagain77_{February 6, 2018
February
02
Feb
6
06
2018
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT}

KF: "Her spirit shines through and now carries her frame with dignity and courage" :) :)gpuccio_{February 6, 2018
February
02
Feb
6
06
2018
02:10 AM
2
02
10
AM
PDT}

mikeenders: Very well said. Again, the point is that humans have to use their physical brain to relate to their physical environment. So, their consciousness is mainly expressed thorugh their physical brain. At least, during their physical life.gpuccio_{February 6, 2018
February
02
Feb
6
06
2018
02:08 AM
2
02
08
AM
PDT}

critical rationalist: "So God isn’t conscious because a brain is required to be conscious? I don’t think that’s what you mean." No, of course. A brain is required for humans, in their physical life. That's all.gpuccio_{February 6, 2018
February
02
Feb
6
06
2018
02:05 AM
2
02
05
AM
PDT}

Seversky: "On the one hand he scorns the materialist position but, on the other, as a neurosurgeon he has spent his professional life working with a purely material or physical concept of the brain and the world." Waht's the problem? The brain is material. It is a physical organ. "I assume that, when performing surgery on a brain, he does not do a Luke Skywalker and lower the blast-shield on his helmet, reach out with his feelings and trust the Force to guide his hands. At least, I certainly hope he doesn’t. I assume that in practice he uses his detailed knowledge of the anatomy and functions of the physical brain assisted by the latest technology." Of course. "Could it be that he has found that, for all his beliefs in the non-material, when it comes to treating disorders of the physical brain he has found that surgery tends to work better than prayer?" He has certainly found that surgery works. What has that to do with prayer?gpuccio_{February 6, 2018
February
02
Feb
6
06
2018
02:03 AM
2
02
03
AM
PDT}

Seversky: "So your argument is that the immaterial soul can’t interface directly with the physical body, it has to use the brain as an intermediary? But if the soul needs a material intermediary to act on the material body, why doesn’t it need another material intermediary to act between it and the material brain. And then another material intermediary to act between it and that intermediary and so on ad infinitum." I cannot see any problem here. The interface is between consciousness and the body, and the main interface is thorugh the nervous system and in particualr the brain. What's the problem? The nervous system is a part of the body. It controls the body in well known ways. So, if you have an interface to the nervous system, that is indeed an interface to the whole body. And, through the body, to the physical world of which the body is a part.gpuccio_{February 6, 2018
February
02
Feb
6
06
2018
01:59 AM
1
01
59
AM
PDT}

outside_observer: "Which is not to say that one is wrong to wonder, but at this point we have gone beyond science and are now asking fundamental religious/philosophical questions like “Why are we here?” “What is our purpose?”, etc." A very good point! We should always try to discriminate between what is a scientific problem and what is a philosophical problem, even if the two things are often related. Both science and philosophy are important and valid tools for cognition. However, there are some differences between them. I would say that, however one wants to define science, there can be little doubt that scientific arguments depend strictly on observable facts, and what we can directly infer from them. Philosophical reasoning is not disconnected from facts, of course, but I think that it is in some way more independent. As I have said, both are necessary, but they are slightly different things.gpuccio_{February 6, 2018
February
02
Feb
6
06
2018
01:54 AM
1
01
54
AM
PDT}

Axel: You are right in mentioning NDEs. They are probably the single most important scientific evidence in favour of cosnciousness survival after death. However, as I have said at #51, that problem, which is certainly extremely important and relevant, is not directly linked to design inference, and therefore for ID theory. To be more precise, the idea that conscious beings can exist without a physical interface is indirectly connected to ID, because for biological objects a non physical designer is certainly much more likely than a physical designer. And that idea is certainly strongly supported by NDEs. But "immortality" is not really a requisite for ID reasoning.gpuccio_{February 6, 2018
February
02
Feb
6
06
2018
01:48 AM
1
01
48
AM
PDT}

Molson Bleu: "There is little doubt that we are conscious, self aware and have free will. Why wouldn’t the designer be satisfied with that? Why would he feel it necessary to make that soul/mind immortal? The immortal soul seems more like the mythologized desires of humans rather than the goals of a designer." Well, I think you are right on one simple point: ID theory has nothing to say about the immortality of the soul. The immortality of the soul is, IMO, an important philosophical and religious issue, but it is not part of ID theory. An empirical approach to consciousness is enought to support ID reasoning, and it does not require any special scientific inference about the survival of individual consciousness after death.gpuccio_{February 6, 2018
February
02
Feb
6
06
2018
01:42 AM
1
01
42
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H: "But the body isn’t immortal, so an immortal soul would only be able to express itself in this natural world for a brief period of its existence" Of course, that's the idea! "which makes me wonder what the point is." And that's a very good question, that we all should wonder about.gpuccio_{February 6, 2018
February
02
Feb
6
06
2018
01:37 AM
1
01
37
AM
PDT}

mike1962: "Nobody is saying (AFAICT) that the brain is not involved in the thinking process. I think it is patently obvious that it is. When I consume alcohol to excess, my intellectual abilities are manifestly downgraded. Even moreso when I’m asleep. But consciousness is not thinking. Thinking is a process determined by a cooperative interaction between consciousness and the brain. The brain is a bi-directional interface that is a tool that consciousness “uses” to interact, both intellectually, and as a sensory interface, to spacetime." Very well said! :)gpuccio_{February 6, 2018
February
02
Feb
6
06
2018
01:35 AM
1
01
35
AM
PDT}

ME, you have described in a nutshell what I have seen with my parents. I know what my father (lucid to the very last) went through at the end, when he turned to me and a caregiver to bid farewell then looked up to One we could not see and surrendered his spirit. My mom faces Alzheimer's and has shown evidence of a mind locked in and reviewing the past, even through clearly increasing physical deterioration now at the stage of loss of much of the ability to communicate. Her spirit shines through and now carries her frame with dignity and courage. KFkairosfocus_{February 5, 2018
February
02
Feb
5
05
2018
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT}

terminal lucidity is an interesting phenomenon that most people do not know of but has been observed for over 2 centuries. Its where even people who have had severe mental disorders have suddenly become lucid within a week to one day of their death. Materialists have no rational explanation for it since they consider the mind and brain to be one and the same. Non materialists don't have any problem explaining it since as the person goes toward death the connection between body and mind could theoretically change to allow the soul to shine through. the radio example was a pretty good example but we have to remember its a two way street. A brain is needed to express control over the body but its also needed the other way - to process physical information back to the soul. I'd refine the analogy as that of a microphone and a headset. If those are damaged and attached to how you hear and communicate then they are going to affect you (soul) but the damage of the headset and microphone need not be a primary damage to the mind/soul. Most of us have had some experience with someone who we know having a mental disorder and yet still we see from time to time the person we knew shining through. Not sure what jmacs rational objection is - no one is claiming that we live in a spiritual dominated world and communication between dimensions would always require a mechanism to translate back and forth with the mechanism itself being part of the experience.mikeenders_{February 5, 2018
February
02
Feb
5
05
2018
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT}

“Molson Bleu- The immortal soul goes hand-in-hand with God and Heaven.” ID is not about God and heaven.Molson Bleu_{February 5, 2018
February
02
Feb
5
05
2018
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT}

@41 CR I was thinking the same thing... unless OB meant something else possibly...J-Mac_{February 5, 2018
February
02
Feb
5
05
2018
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT}

@41 critical rationalist Yeah, I guess I assumed that the context made it clear enough, and apparently you did understand the basic intent. But I'll endeavor be more clear going forward. ;)outside_observer_{February 5, 2018
February
02
Feb
5
05
2018
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next