Intelligent Design Mind Naturalism

Once again, New Scientist needs us to know that our sense of self is an illusion

Spread the love

The latest pitch is from developmental psychologist Bruce Hood, author of The Self Illusion: How the Social Brain Creates Identity.

“You are actually a collection of conflicting messages and signals and thought processes,” says Hood. “And these are somehow brought together to experience as unified self.” Fine, so your self is just the “you” experiencing that, right? That becomes a Russian doll problem, says Hood. “There’s someone inside the head who’s having these experiences taking place inside their head and so on,” he says.

Catherine de Lange, “Who do you think you are? Why your sense of self is an illusion” at New Scientist

In reality, naturalism (nature is all there is), often called “materialism,” have gotten exactly nowhere in understanding consciousness. And the results are, as an article in Chronicle of Higher Education noted last year, bizarre. That is, ultimately, if you have a self, so does your coffee mug. So maybe you don’t have a self.

This stuff never gets old because naturalists need to believe it and to believe it, they must market it as science.

Note: There is an important sense in which our consciousness is an illusion, as Michael Egnor points out: We are aware of the outcome, not the processes. But he doesn’t mean what these people seem to mean. You really are you. You just don’t observe the processes enabling you.

See also: In one sense, consciousness is an illusion. We have no knowledge of the processes of our consciousness, only of the objects of its attention, whether they are physical, emotional, or abstract (Michael Egnor)

Post-modern science: The illusion of consciousness sees through itself

and

Consciousness Studies Is a “Bizarre” Field of Science
Follow UD News at Twitter!

4 Replies to “Once again, New Scientist needs us to know that our sense of self is an illusion

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Once again, far from proving that our sense of self is an illusion, Atheists merely prove that they are willing to follow the precepts of Atheistic naturalism/materialism off the cliff into the abyss of insanity.

    Who do you think you are? Why your sense of self is an illusion – 11 December 2019
    Most of us are convinced that we’re coherent individuals who are continuous in time. There’s just one problem with this sense of self – it can’t exist
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24432601-000-who-do-you-think-you-are-why-your-sense-of-self-is-an-illusion/

    There is a rather huge hole behind the atheist’s materialistic logic that drives them to their absurd claim that they are merely neuronal illusions:

    The Illusionist – Daniel Dennett’s latest book marks five decades of majestic failure to explain consciousness. – 2017
    “Simply enough, you cannot suffer the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds. This is so incandescently obvious that it is almost embarrassing to have to state it.”
    – David Bentley Hart
    https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-illusionist

    Consciousness is an Illusion but Truth is Not? – Maverick Philosopher – 2017
    Excerpt: But here comes Danny (Dennett) the Sophist who asserts that consciousness is an illusion. Well, that is just nonsense,,,
    If consciousness is an illusion, then it is an illusion for consciousness.,,,
    Consciousness is not only presupposed by the distinction between reality and illusion, it is also presupposed by the quest for explanation. For where would explanations reside if not in the minds of conscious beings?
    So I say consciousness cannot be an illusion. One cannot explain it the way Dennett wants to explain it, which involves explaining it away. For details, see Can Consciousness be Explained? Dennett Debunked.
    But if consciousness, per impossibile, were an illusion, why wouldn’t truth also be an illusion? Consciousness is an illusion because naturalism has no place for it. Whatever is real is reducible to the physical; consciousness is not reducible to the physical; ergo, consciousness does not exist in reality: it is an illusion.
    By the same reasoning, truth ought also to be an illusion since there is no place for it in the natural world. Note also that Dennett obviously thinks that truth is objectively valuable and pursuit-worthy. Where locate values in a naturalist scheme?
    Wouldn’t it be more consistent for Dennett to go whole hog and explain away both consciousness and truth? Perhaps he ought to go POMO (post modern). There is no truth; there are only interpretations and perspectives of organisms grubbing for survival. What justifies him in privileging his naturalist narrative? It is one among many.
    I say consciousness and truth are on a par: neither can be explained away. Neither is eliminable. Neither is an illusion. Both are part of what we must presuppose to explain anything.
    Nietzsche had a great insight: No God, no truth. For the POMOs there is neither. For me there is both. For the inconsistent Dennett there is the second but not the first. Again, there is simply no place for truth in a wholly material world.
    For an argument from truth to God, see here.
    http://maverickphilosopher.typ.....s-not.html

    As alluded to above, the atheist, (via following the precepts of his naturalistic worldview), in his absurd claim that he is merely a neuronal illusion, winds up in catastrophic epistemological failure, and undermines any claim that he is making rationally coherent argument in the first place:

    The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – Ross Douthat – January 6, 2014
    Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession (by Coyne) that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary.
    https://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?mcubz=3

    Although the Darwinist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science, (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that Darwinists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. EVERYTHING, including the atheist himself, is ultimately illusory and imaginary in his materialistic worldview.

    Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must hold beauty itself to be illusory.
    Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    Darwinian Materialism and/or Methodological Naturalism vs. Reality – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaksmYceRXM

    Moreover, in irony of ironies, not even the material particles themselves turn out to be solid, and concrete, and therefore ‘real’ on the materialistic definition of what is supposed to be ‘real’, but the supposedly solid and concrete material particles themselves turn out instead to be made of “abstract” immaterial information that represent, as Werner Heinsenberg himself stated, “our knowledge of this behavior”

    “The conception of objective reality of the elementary particles has thus evaporated not into the cloud of some obscure new reality concept but into the transparent clarity of a mathematics that represents no longer the behavior of particles but rather our knowledge of this behavior”
    – Werner Heinsenberg – The Representation of Nature in Contemporary Physics – pg. 100

    Thus far from consciousness and our sense of self being illusory, as Darwinian materialists are forced to believe because of their unwarranted presupposition of reductive materialism and/or methodological naturalism, it turns out that the material particles themselves are what are in fact found to be abstract and illusory.

    As Physics professor Richard Conn Henry stated in response to the experimental falsification of ‘realism’ by Leggett’s inequality, “if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the “illusion” of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism”,,,

    Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry – Physics Professor – John Hopkins University
    Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the “illusion” of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry’s referenced experiment and paper – “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 – “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (Leggett’s Inequality: Violated, as of 2011, to 120 standard deviations)
    http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html

    Or to put the implications from these recent advances in quantum mechanics that have falsified ‘realism’ much more simply, as Physics professor Richard Conn Henry put it at the end of the following article, “The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.”

    The mental Universe – Richard Conn Henry
    The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.
    Excerpt: “The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.”
    – Richard Conn Henry is a Professor in the Henry A. Rowland Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
    http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf

    Bottom line, it would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

    Only in a Theistic worldview can the entire ‘concept’ of reality itself find a firm foundation that does not collapse into the absurdity of unfettered illusion.

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

    Matthew 7:24-27
    24 “Anyone who listens to my teaching and follows it is wise, like a person who builds a house on solid rock. 25 Though the rain comes in torrents and the floodwaters rise and the winds beat against that house, it won’t collapse because it is built on bedrock. 26 But anyone who hears my teaching and doesn’t obey it is foolish, like a person who builds a house on sand. 27 When the rains and floods come and the winds beat against that house, it will collapse with a mighty crash.”

  2. 2
    tjguy says:

    “You are actually a collection of conflicting messages and signals and thought processes,” says Hood. “And these are somehow brought together to experience as unified self.” Fine, so your self is just the “you” experiencing that, right? That becomes a Russian doll problem, says Hood. “There’s someone inside the head who’s having these experiences taking place inside their head and so on,” he says.
    Catherine de Lange, “Who do you think you are? Why your sense of self is an illusion” at New Scientist ”

    Hmmm. Is that really the BEST EXPLANATION for “self”? Maybe the best among all “scientific” explanations, but there are other explanations that make much more sense. If it is the “best explanation” among a bunch of wrong explanations, so what? How impressive is that? NOT VERY!

  3. 3
    EugeneS says:

    Since Darwin, science has been solipsistic. Now it, expectedly, is obvious to people who consequently lose trust in it. And rightly so. Why trust an illusion?

  4. 4
    Truthfreedom says:

    Matthew 16:24: ‘Then Jesus said to his disciples’
    “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves”…

    Hehehe.

Leave a Reply