Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why materialist neuroscience must necessarily remain a pseudo-discipline

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

At MercatorNet today:

all that fMRI ((brain imaging) really does is show which brain areas have high oxygen levels when a person is thinking something. It simply cannot tell us what people are thinking, because many brain centres are active and those that are active may be activated for many reasons. Each brain is unique so data from studies must be averaged. But thoughts are not averaged; they belong to the individual.

Then, when you are done with that you run smack dab into the hard problem of qualia.

Qualia? As Mario Beauregard and I (Denyse O’Leary) wrote in The Spiritual Brain,

There are good reasons for thinking that the evidence for materialism will actually never arrive. For example, there is the problem of qualia. Qualia (singular, quale) are how things appear to us individually—the experiential aspects of our mental lives that can be accessed through introspection. Every person is unique, so complete understanding of another person’s consciousness is not likely possible in principle, as we saw in Chapter Four. Rather, when we communicate, we rely on general agreement on an overlapping range of meaning. For example, historian Amy Butler Greenfield has written a three-hundred-page book about one primary color, A Perfect Red.

As “the color of desire,” red is a quale if ever there was one. Reviewer Diane Ackerman notes:

Anger us, and we see red. An unfaithful woman is branded with a scarlet letter. In red-light districts, people buy carnal pleasures. We like to celebrate red-letter days and roll out the red carpet, while trying to avoid red tape, red herrings and going into the red. Indeed, fashion houses rise and fall on the subtleties of shades of red. Yet, however “red” affects us individually, we agree communally to use the word for a range of meanings and connotations, not merely a range in the color spectrum. (pp. 104–5)

Sometimes, the signals can be completely opposite and we still converge on a common meaning! In the United States, red connotes “conservative” in politics; in Canada, it connotes “liberal.”

Scan that, genius. Your first task will be to sort out the people who are exclusively Canadian in culture from those who are exclusively American in culture, and good luck with it. You picked it up; you own it.

Materialist neuroscience has a hard time with qualia because they are not easily reducible to a simple, nonconscious explanation. In The Astonishing Hypothesis, Francis Crick grumbles:

It is certainly possible that there may be aspects of consciousness, such as qualia, that science will not be able to explain. We have learned to live with such limitations in the past (e.g., limitations of quantum mechanics) and we may have to live with them again.

Crick was a real scientist, honest enough to admit that. Don’t expect quacks, cranks, and hustlers to notice, or want to. They take refuge in pseudo-disciplines, claiming that, as a book review in The Scientist put it,

“‘Brains are hot,’ Sally Satel and Scott O. Lilienfeld acknowledge in Brainwashed, their ‘exposé of mindless neuroscience’ (mostly practiced not by neuroscientists, they stress, but by ‘neuropundits,’ among others). The ‘mediagenic’ technology of fMRI imaging has made the brain, aglow with metabolic hotspots, into a rainbow emblem of the faith that science will soon empower us to explain, control, expose, exploit, or excuse every wayward human behavior from buying to lying, from craving to crime.”

This is not so much an unsolved problem as an unsolvable one, at least in the terms in which the materialist wants it solved.

Comments
Phinehas:
Claudius and EL @571 and 572: I’m not sure returning to the scene of the crime is the best way to demonstrate that your concepts of morality are not stolen. :)
Isn't it obvious that those quotations by Claudius and EL are demonstrations that Judeo-Christian concepts of morality are stolen?Daniel King
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT
Phinehas:
WJM has been discussing atheistic morality, despite the many recurring attempts to change the subject.
Do we have a dichotomy on the table here or not? WJM has not yet made a coherent case for theistic morality. Indeed, in the statement I have quoted several times he contradicted the claim that a theistic morality is in any way superior to an a-theistic morality. What are we left with? Let's let WJM speak for himself.Daniel King
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT
DK: WJM has been discussing atheistic morality, despite the many recurring attempts to change the subject. Claudius and EL @571 and 572: I'm not sure returning to the scene of the crime is the best way to demonstrate that your concepts of morality are not stolen. :) WJM: Though frustrating, it should not be too surprising that those who credit emergence for the very existence of our minds would struggle with a concept of objectivity that fundamentally resists their entire emergent mindset. It's like trying to hammer out the definition of "foundation" with someone who has only ever drifted through space.Phinehas
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT
When Murray said that "morality by decree of authority (even supposedly by god)" is an example of a "not good" foundation for morality, the image of Yahweh imparting the ten commandments to Moses came to mind as a classic instance of morality by decree of a god. So I ask again, what is the source of Murray's objective morality?Daniel King
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
Murray, it would be a kindness if, when you say something like
Try reading more carefully. I didn’t say any such thing.
You would take the trouble to explain where your interlocutor has gone wrong in parsing your prose. This was your claim:
Which is one of the reasons why subjective morality, consensus morality, and morality by decree of authority (even supposedly by god) are not good foundations for morality.
In that quotation, are you or are you not claiming that morality by decree by a god is no better than any other kind of "consensus morality."Daniel King
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
Off-topic: In response to what I consider the completely unprovoked and unjustifiable banning of keiths, I will no longer participate in any conversations at Uncommon Descent. I'd like to think that I'll be missed, but I know better.Kantian Naturalist
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
I didn’t say any such thing.
Indeed. You appear to be a little clearer about what you don't say.Alan Fox
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
Now he says that morality decreed (supposedly) by a god is also “subjective.”
Try reading more carefully. I didn't say any such thing.William J Murray
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT
Andre @570
History is full of examples where people do bad things in the name of a good thing. History is full of examples that people of power has used what is good to advance their own ideologies which were not based on morality bit on hunger for power, greed and money. The crusades come to mind, Stalin, Hitler. The list is endless but none of those had anything to do with morality.
If you don't think that hunger for power and greed are moral issues, I suggest you refresh your memory about the Seven Cardinal Sins. If you think that the atrocities of the Crusades and of Stalin and Hitler were not immoral, I suggest that you have a peculiar conception of morality.Daniel King
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT
So where has he found “objective” morality in any of the many flavors of theism?
Nowhere that I can see. And it's taken an awfully long time to get there! :)Alan Fox
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
Murray @568 After I gave some examples of how Judeo-Christian morality is as subject as any other system of morality to historical contingency, Murray rejoined:
Which is one of the reasons why subjective morality, consensus morality, and morality by decree of authority (even supposedly by god) are not good foundations for morality.
I thought Murray's argument is that non-theistic morality is flawed by being "subjective." Now he says that morality decreed (supposedly) by a god is also "subjective." So where has he found "objective" morality in any of the many flavors of theism?Daniel King
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
Sure, let’s just invent new definitions for terms after the definitions we provide are shown to contradict our use of the term, all for no reason than to avoid an unpalatable conclusion – that morality, under atheism, is necessarily subjective in nature. I think that’s about all the intellectual dishonesty I can stomach for the time being.
That you cannot see that definitional precision is the heart of intellectual honesty, not the negation of it, is a problem. So as my stomach is churning too, let's stop.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
IOW, you attempted to put me on a wild goose chase, got called out on it, and are now issuing cover for yourself.
No.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT
WJM:
You haven’t offered the specified conditions that you claim “altruism” is the rationally necessary behavioral mode in response to.
I'm saying that the underlying principle that will lead independent rational agents to agree in specified conditions is reciprocal altruism. For example: What do I do when my mother gets Alzheimer's? Who will benefit if I put her in the cheapest care home I can find and forget about her? Me - more time and to spend on what I want. Who will benefit if I put her the best care home I can find and afford, and visit her as often as I can? My mother - good care, and a chance to maintain a relationship with her child as long as she can. Me - the satisfaction of seeing my mother in the best possible hands, and a chance to maintain my valued relationship with her. Conclusion, using the altruism principle: Find the best care-home I can afford. On the other hand, if we apply some other principle, such as "do what ensures the best outcome for yourself" we might get: What do I do when my mother gets Alzheimer's? How much will I benefit if I put her in the cheapest care home I can find? Me, in the near future, but what about the far future? Won't my children do the same with me, if they see what I did to my own mother? How much will I benefit if I put her the best care home I can find and afford, and visit her as often as I can? Not me, because it will cost me time and money I could spend on myself, but on the other hand, it would stop me feeling a complete rat if I didn't do the best for her, and have a chance to see her smile at me again. In other words, self-prioritizing behaviour does not lead to clarity regarding possible courses of action. It cannot result in a universally applicable course of action, because what suits me now is likely to have adverse consequences for the way I am treated in the future. When there is conflict between two course of action with different repercussions for the well-being of those involved, reciprocal altruism provides a consistent criterion; self-prioritisation merely shifts the conflict to a decision between my proximal benefit, and my distal benefit. It doesn't work. Despite that, many people think it does. I would say that it's because they haven't thought it through. Or they think they can cheat (get goodies now AND benefit from a peaceful generous society). Hence the need for a code of conduct - a system of rules, with penalties (whether legal or social) for violation.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
Read your own philosophy books. I am not citing them as authorities, merely philosophers who have taken an empirical, rational, and secular approach to constructing a code of conduct. If you think they don’t support my approach fine. It’s a while since I’ve read any of them. It could be that I got the wrong end of the stick and that my view is entirely original. I don’t think so though.
IOW, you attempted to put me on a wild goose chase, got called out on it, and are now issuing cover for yourself.William J Murray
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT
So no, I don’t rescind my claim, but I will qualify it with the caveat that “independent of mind” means “can be independently observed by people with different minds”.
Sure, let's just invent new definitions for terms after the definitions we provide are shown to contradict our use of the term, all for no reason than to avoid an unpalatable conclusion - that morality, under atheism, is necessarily subjective in nature. I think that's about all the intellectual dishonesty I can stomach for the time being.William J Murray
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT
WJM:
Quote & link, please.
Read your own philosophy books. I am not citing them as authorities, merely philosophers who have taken an empirical, rational, and secular approach to constructing a code of conduct. If you think they don't support my approach fine. It's a while since I've read any of them. It could be that I got the wrong end of the stick and that my view is entirely original. I don't think so though.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT
WJM
Atheism.
So your claim is that view that there can be an "objective standard about how humans ought to behave" is inconsistent with atheism. I disagree. I think, that just as it is perfectly possible to reach an "objective standard about what is safe behaviour" without reference to god, it is equally possible to reach an "objective standard about what is good behaviour". The first refers to what keeps people healthy and alive. The second refers to what keeps society healthy and alive. If you don't like the word "objective", substitute "empirically, rationally and independently determined".Elizabeth B Liddle
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT
WJM
The definition refers to morality as a system of oughts (normative) – a code of conduct (how humans ought behave). Dr. Liddle, is it your contention that “oughts” (morality) exist independently of mind, as required by your definition of “objective”?
Independently of an individual mind, i.e. not subjective.
Or do you now rescind your claim that, under atheism, morality (oughts) can be correctly characterized as “objective” (existing independently of mind)?
Well, tbh, I don't think any thing exists independently of mind, by which I mean that "things" are mental models we make in order to predict what will happen next. But I would say that a "thing" has objective existence if its existence (in other words if it can be similarly modeled as a "thing") by independent observers. So no, I don't rescind my claim, but I will qualify it with the caveat that "independent of mind" means "can be independently observed by people with different minds". My claim is simply that if groups of people sit down and think about how to draw up a code of conduct for their society, they will come independently to the conclusion that the rational basis for a code of conduct is reciprocal altruism. And that you need not posit a God to come to this conclusion, although you may well (as Kant did, I think - but of course I'm no philosopher) that the existence of God follows from this conclusion. In other words I am making the perfectly unoriginal claim that perception of good precedes perception of God, not the other way round.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT
It’s further down that page, William. Aquinas, Locke, Hobbes, for a start.
Quote & link, please.
What are these “worldview premises” William?
Atheism.William J Murray
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT
It's further down that page, William. Aquinas, Locke, Hobbes, for a start.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT
WJM
I’m not saying atheists hold such a view; I’m saying that if they do not, they are being inconsistent with their worldview premises.
What are these "worldview premises" William?Elizabeth B Liddle
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT
Not idiosyncratic, William. Check out the “Natural Law” approaches to normative morality.
Offer your quote and reference. It's not my job to search out and support your claims.William J Murray
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT
No, all along I have been using the word in the normative sense, and arguing that the “code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons” is that of altruism. In other words, that if rational persons were to put forward a code of conduct, they would independently find that reciprocal altruism was the basis for that code.
What "specified conditions" are you referring to?
Indeed, but my argument is that altruism IS that code of conduct that rational persons would put forward. That altruism follows nomically, as it were, from the normative defintion.
You haven't offered the specified conditions that you claim "altruism" is the rationally necessary behavioral mode in response to.
What’s a “subjective rationality”, William?
Any rationality that doesn't exist independent of individual minds, according to your definition of "objective", and given that "subjective" means the converse.William J Murray
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT
Now, Dr. Liddle, I make a further challenge: You claim that atheistic morality can be justifiably called "objective". The definition you offered for "objective":
of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind [objective reality]
The definition you offered for morality:
normatively, to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
The definition refers to morality as a system of oughts (normative) - a code of conduct (how humans ought behave). Dr. Liddle, is it your contention that "oughts" (morality) exist independently of mind, as required by your definition of "objective"? Or do you now rescind your claim that, under atheism, morality (oughts) can be correctly characterized as "objective" (existing independently of mind)?William J Murray
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT
Dr. Liddle asks,
Can we agree on this summary of our positions?
No, because you have been insistent that morality necessarily means “altruism” or “valuing others and treating them well”; that is not included in any definition in that quote (hard to tell what the “2nd” definition is, the formatting is terrible). That has been your position all along.
No, all along I have been using the word in the normative sense, and arguing that the "code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons" is that of altruism. In other words, that if rational persons were to put forward a code of conduct, they would independently find that reciprocal altruism was the basis for that code.
Now you want to change your characterization of “morality” to, I guess,
a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
… which has no mention of “treating others” or “altruism”.
Indeed, but my argument is that altruism IS that code of conduct that rational persons would put forward. That altruism follows nomically, as it were, from the normative defintion.
Perhaps you will now agree with me that morality doesn’t necessarily mean “altruism”, nor does it necessarily have anything to do with how one treats others, because neither of those things are mentioned or implied by the definition you have offered.
I certainly agree that it can be used in more than one sense, and that even used normatively, not all people mean altruism. I just think that those people are not being rational :)
You might want to think about what that definition means (if that’s the one you’re about to use), because it requires that logic (the source of “being rational”) be an objective arbiting commodity in all “rational” people – no room for individual, cultural, idiosyncratic, subjective rationalities that would morally justify both behavior X and not-X from one person to the next.
What's a "subjective rationality", William?Elizabeth B Liddle
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT
Not idiosyncratic, William. Check out the "Natural Law" approaches to normative morality.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT
I challenged:
Please direct me to a dictionary or other resource that agrees with your definition of “morality” – that it is necessarily about altruism, or valuing others and treating them well.
Liz responded with this definition:
The term “morality” can be used either descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or, some other group, such as a religion, or accepted by an individual for her own behavior or normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
So, I win that challenge. Nowhere in that definition of morality is "altruism", "valuing others", or "treating others well" mentioned or implied. You have been using an idiosyncratic, convenient definition of morality.William J Murray
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT
Dr. Liddle asks,
Can we agree on this summary of our positions?
No, because you have been insistent that morality necessarily means "altruism" or "valuing others and treating them well"; that is not included in any definition in that quote (hard to tell what the "2nd" definition is, the formatting is terrible). That has been your position all along. Now you want to change your characterization of "morality" to, I guess,
a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
... which has no mention of "treating others" or "altruism". Perhaps you will now agree with me that morality doesn't necessarily mean "altruism", nor does it necessarily have anything to do with how one treats others, because neither of those things are mentioned or implied by the definition you have offered. You might want to think about what that definition means (if that's the one you're about to use), because it requires that logic (the source of "being rational") be an objective arbiting commodity in all "rational" people - no room for individual, cultural, idiosyncratic, subjective rationalities that would morally justify both behavior X and not-X from one person to the next.William J Murray
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT
The trick is, that these terms sound close enough to recognise that you and others have been made in Imago Dei, so have an objective value including certain inalienable rights granted by the Creator.
Exactly, KF. Dr. Liddle is once again stealing a concept. She can certainly, subjectively, apply her particular concept of "how humans should behave" to the term "morality" and live accordingly, but what she has no right to do, under atheism, is to deny any other conflicting concept of how humans should be have and call that behavior "immoral". "How humans should behave" is an ought; oughts only exist in minds. The term "objective" means "existent independent of mind". Under atheism, there can be no objective standard about how humans ought to behave. This means that Atheism equally justifies all behavior as "how humans should behave", rendering atheistic morality entirely subjective. I'm not saying atheists hold such a view; I'm saying that if they do not, they are being inconsistent with their worldview premises.William J Murray
July 20, 2013
July
07
Jul
20
20
2013
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT
1 2 3 21

Leave a Reply