Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why materialist neuroscience must necessarily remain a pseudo-discipline

Categories
Neuroscience
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
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
I wouldn't, get too excited Chris. I'll explain why it's no big deal when you finally answer my question. Unless your answer turns out to be very surprising. But I do wish you a happy day anyway :)Elizabeth B Liddle
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
01:01 AM
1
01
01
AM
PDT
Querius,
Keiths attempts to reason that If a separate personality exists in each hemisphere in a damaged brain, they must also exist in a normal brain, thus disproving existence of an immaterial personality.
Who are you quoting here? It certainly isn't me, as I claim nothing of the sort.keiths
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
12:56 AM
12
12
56
AM
PDT
Wow. Finally. You actually admitted it! I honestly never thought we'd get there. Thank-you very much, Lizzie. I shall go about my busy day with an even bigger smile on my face :-) Okay, onto theistic morality... ask away. Just about to get off the train and will be offline for most of the day, so may not be able to respond until this evening.Chris Doyle
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
12:54 AM
12
12
54
AM
PDT
Elizabeth,
But what keiths is talking about is a patient in whom the connection between the two hemispheres has been severed. Because most functions are substantially bilateral, each “half” has fairly well preserved function. --- Except that Abigail and Brittany have been separate since shortly after conception, whereas the two apparent “people” in a split brain person separated only after surgery in adulthoood. --- That seems to be the core of the conundrum keiths is posing. I don’t think its insoluble for the soul-hypothesis, but I do think it is a considerable challenge!
Keiths seems stuck on Hellenistic dualism, apparently not having read my explanations to him of the difference in meaning of the word soul in the Tanach and in the New Testament. Soul means a living being or as I prefer, a personality. The Bible also refers to people having a "spirit, soul, and body." Keiths attempts to reason that If a separate personality exists in each hemisphere in a damaged brain, they must also exist in a normal brain, thus disproving existence of an immaterial personality. Huh? We know that in a normal brain, several competing impulses are ultimately negotiated and fused into a single response. It's obvious that in a damaged brain, in this case one with a severed corpus callosum, this negotiated fusing does not take place. Also consider the effect of a prefrontal lobotomy in this context. Regardless of whether this state should be considered two distinct personalities (not to mention dissociative identity disorder), it does not disprove the concept of an immaterial personality. This is why Keiths never was able to answer my original question to him. So, in any case, I see Abigail and Brittany as a significant (and interesting) challenge only for cognitive neuroscience.Querius
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
12:53 AM
12
12
53
AM
PDT
Note that I have not agreed that devaluing the welfare of other human beings is necessarily rational. I have merely stipulated that it can be, and in that case, agreed that morality fails. Now, please tell me why, and how, under theism, in an identical scenario, it doesn't.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
12:50 AM
12
12
50
AM
PDT
Yes.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
12:47 AM
12
12
47
AM
PDT
Doesn't sound very sincere, Lizzie. Let's put it to the test: are we now in unequivocal, proviso-free, no-small-print agreement that in the perfectly rational and understandable absence of value for the welfare of others, morality fails if atheism is true?Chris Doyle
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
12:40 AM
12
12
40
AM
PDT
Querius: Thanks for your post at 332. Very lovely.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
12:31 AM
12
12
31
AM
PDT
OK, Chris, to please you, I will retract that proviso. Now, will you answer my questions?Elizabeth B Liddle
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
12:24 AM
12
12
24
AM
PDT
Elizabeth,
As the proverbial Still Small Voice, would be my best guess.
Just asking.
Not exactly sure why :) Can you elaborate?
Sure. I've found that a lot of people who aggressively find fault with the concept of God, would not be willing to encounter God under any circumstances. They find a simplistic rationale that they cannot be argued out of, but there usually some other reason behind their arguments. It might be bitterness over something or a fear that even a loving God would "cramp their style." Or whatever. What saddens me is people who've been intimidated or intellectually bullied out of their faith by scientific "facts" that eventually turn out to be not true after all, or need to be revised significantly. To me, Science is not a series of static facts, but rather a methodical way of gaining a better understanding of nature, and this understanding is being continually and endlessly modified--as it should be. I delight in observing and discovering things in nature, whether it's growing hydra that are amazingly long (9-10 cm), going "small game hunting" with my B&L binocular dissection microscope, or observing that a horned lizard angles its flattened body toward the sun in the morning. One of my most memorable experiences was observing the incredible beauty in the parts of a tiny Stellaria media flower in a botony class. My relationship with God is personal and profoundly wonderful, while my involvement in Science is driven by my insatiable curiosity. To me, there's no conflict and I prefer to follow the data, even when the path is twisty. I also assume that there's an intelligent design behind what I observe, and I'd like to find out what it is! :-) Incidentally, did you know that one of the earliest accounts of a scientific experiment is recorded in the Book of Daniel, which was probably written five or six hundred years before Christ? It involved a vegetarian diet and included a control group. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. After all, they were at least as smart as we are, and they didn't have daytime TV!Querius
July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
11:35 PM
11
11
35
PM
PDT
Ah, Lizzie, we've stumbled at the last hurdle. All we needed was two simple, unqualified, unambiguous "yes" responses and we would have actually reached significant agreement and made genuine progress. But then, you added dodgy smallprint. Oh well, Mark will be sorely disappointed, he's just itching to talk about his favourite subject: how much he hates religion! The first proviso you inserted in the scenario I described was that "devaluating" someone else's welfare "may itself be irrational". Actually, the opposite is true. Placing value on the welfare of someone you don't care about it irrational in the scenario I described. In fact, the less people inside your circle of care, the less people you have to worry about and the more people are there for the taking. So, let's be clear, there is nothing irrational about devaluing someone else's welfare, especially a stranger's. It is irrational to devalue your own welfare, it may even be irrational to devalue the welfare of people in your circle of care. But everyone else? There is no reason whatsoever to value their welfare in the scenario I described. Our atheist, Al, is being perfectly rational in devaluing the welfare of Jane. Until you accept that Lizzie, in an unqualified, unambiguous, proviso-free manner, we can go no further. The second proviso was less troublesome, but still unacceptable. You have a problem accepting that there are "very good" reasons to believe that any punishing consequences can be entirely avoided. A very good reason is simply one that applies flawless logic, based on sound judgment, an exhaustive rational analysis and full knowledge of the available empirical data. In the scenario, Al won't be caught, so he won't be punished. And he certainly won't punish himself: he doesn't care about Jane one single bit. So why seek other meanings for the word "good"? Indeed, why seek to remove it altogether? Al is totally rational, he is perhaps the most rational atheist alive: his reasoning is more than good: it is irresistible. Again, if you can't agree with this, then we've hit another dead-end.Chris Doyle
July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
11:28 PM
11
11
28
PM
PDT
keiths, this is frankly quite embarrassing that your more evolved brain can't pick this up. I agree completely that your straw man argument is unimpeachable and would not dare try to refute it (please don't try to make me as I have some dignity though I am not nearly as smart as you). I even told some foolish person who challenged you that you are allowed to operate this way in science because of your superior brain power. And here you are claiming that I see fault in your irrefutable logic proving the non-existence of the soul. Far from it! I'm your ally! What I'm plotting now is how can we increase the scope of your intellectual influence past this paltry website so as to shut down all the great monotheistic religions in the world that believe in souls and thus convert the world to the true religion of militant atheism where every man is a god unto himself. (cue evil laugh). PINKY AND THE BRAIN theme song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYXBzE-Cpecbornagain77
July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT
BA77:
keiths, you are under the mistaken impression that I challenged your straw man argument, I did not...
You can't spam your way out of this one, bornagain:
keiths, actually only your strawman version of soul, which you personally set up and knocked down, is relevant to what you hold. No one else has signed onto your strawman version and thus no one else, save you, is persuaded by your self fulfilling successful argument you have made.
So let's hear it, BA. How is my "version" of the soul a strawman? Which of these assumptions do you disagree with?
Assume that: 1. There is an immaterial soul. 2. The immaterial soul is the seat of knowledge. 3. The immaterial soul is the seat of the will. 4. The immaterial soul initiates voluntary actions. 5. The immaterial soul receives information from both hemispheres. 6. The immaterial soul sends commands to both hemispheres. [corrected numbering]
keiths
July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT
keiths, you are under the mistaken impression that I challenged your straw man argument, I did not, I fully acknowledged your more evolved brain's right to tailor science to meet your on a priori beliefs and chastised those who took exception to your right. Seems that someone with such intellectual prowess as yourself would pick up on that.bornagain77
July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT
BA77, No amount of spam will cover up the fact that you cannot back up your claim.keiths
July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
So as you can see keiths, the case against your split-brain argument is not nearly as strong as it may appear. But one thing at a time. Let's see if we can get your split-brain proof to Nagel, then tomorrow the quantum world (cue evil laugh) Supplemental note
Divinely Planted Quantum States – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCTBygadaM4#t=156s
Verse and music:
John 3:12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? High School Musical 2 - You are the music in me http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAXaQrh7m1o
bornagain77
July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
Where this non-local, ‘outside space and time’, quantum entanglement gains traction within molecular biology as to firmly establishing a transcendent soul for each man is here. Quantum entanglement/information has now been found within molecular biology on a massive scale:
Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA – Elisabeth Rieper – short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/ Quantum entanglement between the electron clouds of nucleic acids in DNA – Elisabeth Rieper, Janet Anders and Vlatko Vedral – February 2011 http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1006/1006.4053v2.pdf
It turns out, besides DNA, that non-local quantum entanglement/information has been confirmed to be deeply embedded in protein structures as well;
Coherent Intrachain energy migration at room temperature – Elisabetta Collini and Gregory Scholes – University of Toronto – Science, 323, (2009), pp. 369-73 Excerpt: The authors conducted an experiment to observe quantum coherence dynamics in relation to energy transfer. The experiment, conducted at room temperature, examined chain conformations, such as those found in the proteins of living cells. Neighbouring molecules along the backbone of a protein chain were seen to have coherent energy transfer. Where this happens quantum decoherence (the underlying tendency to loss of coherence due to interaction with the environment) is able to be resisted, and the evolution of the system remains entangled as a single quantum state. http://www.scimednet.org/quantum-coherence-living-cells-and-protein/ Physicists Discover Quantum Law of Protein Folding – February 22, 2011 Quantum mechanics finally explains why protein folding depends on temperature in such a strange way. Excerpt: First, a little background on protein folding. Proteins are long chains of amino acids that become biologically active only when they fold into specific, highly complex shapes. The puzzle is how proteins do this so quickly when they have so many possible configurations to choose from. To put this in perspective, a relatively small protein of only 100 amino acids can take some 10^100 different configurations. If it tried these shapes at the rate of 100 billion a second, it would take longer than the age of the universe to find the correct one. Just how these molecules do the job in nanoseconds, nobody knows.,,, Their astonishing result is that this quantum transition model fits the folding curves of 15 different proteins and even explains the difference in folding and unfolding rates of the same proteins. That’s a significant breakthrough. Luo and Lo’s equations amount to the first universal laws of protein folding. That’s the equivalent in biology to something like the thermodynamic laws in physics. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/423087/physicists-discover-quantum-law-of-protein/
Moreover, These following studies indicate that quantum information cannot be destroyed (i.e. quantum information is found to be ‘conserved’)
Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time – March 2011 Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html Quantum no-deleting theorem Excerpt: A stronger version of the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem provide permanence to quantum information. To create a copy one must import the information from some part of the universe and to delete a state one needs to export it to another part of the universe where it will continue to exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_no-deleting_theorem#Consequence
semi-related note:
The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings – Steve Talbott Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-unbearable-wholeness-of-beings
clear implications of all this?
Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff – video (notes in description) http://vimeo.com/29895068 Quantum Entangled Consciousness (Permanence of Quantum Information)- Life After Death – Stuart Hameroff – video https://vimeo.com/39982578
bornagain77
July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT
Now, Now, keiths I, a mere mortal, would not dare try to embarrass myself against such an unimpeachable proof against the transcendent soul that you, a super-genius, have presented. Anyone with half a brain, (or is that a split brain?), can see that such resistance is foolish and futile. Even any rigorous proof presented to you from quantum mechanics itself cannot stand against your impeccable reasoning abilities, but such seemingly rigorous proof will only melt away at the glaze of your all seeing eyes.
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 http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html “I’m going to talk about the Bell inequality, and more importantly a new inequality that you might not have heard of called the Leggett inequality, that was recently measured. It was actually formulated almost 30 years ago by Professor Leggett, who is a Nobel Prize winner, but it wasn’t tested until about a year and a half ago (in 2007), when an article appeared in Nature, that the measurement was made by this prominent quantum group in Vienna led by Anton Zeilinger, which they measured the Leggett inequality, which actually goes a step deeper than the Bell inequality and rules out any possible interpretation other than consciousness creates reality when the measurement is made.” – Bernard Haisch, Ph.D., Calphysics Institute, is an astrophysicist and author of over 130 scientific publications.
Preceding quote taken from this following video;
Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness – A New Measurement – Bernard Haisch, Ph.D (Shortened version of entire video with notes in description of video) http://vimeo.com/37517080 Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007 Excerpt: They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.” http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640
please note the extreme level of certainty to which this finding is confirmed:
Do we create the world just by looking at it? – 2008 Excerpt: In mid-2007 Fedrizzi found that the new realism model was violated by 80 orders of magnitude; the group was even more assured that quantum mechanics was correct. http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_reality_tests/P3/
And although I am not quite sure what it means to violate something by ’80 orders of magnitude’, (I suspect it is a very good level of certainty since the universe ‘only’ has 80 orders of magnitude subatomic particles in it), the following test went beyond even that 10^80 level of certainty:
A simple approach to test Leggett’s model of nonlocal quantum correlations – 2009 Excerpt of Abstract: Bell’s strong sentence “Correlations cry out for explanations” remains relevant,,,we go beyond Leggett’s model, and show that one cannot ascribe even partially defined individual properties to the components of a maximally entangled pair. http://www.mendeley.com/research/a-simple-approach-to-test-leggetts-model-of-nonlocal-quantum-correlations/
But to see how much confidence we can put in these quantum experiments, I was able to find another ballpark figure for how confident we can be that ‘transcendent’ quantum non-locality is real:
Closing the last Bell-test loophole for photons – June 11, 2013 Excerpt: that confirmed quantum entanglement to nearly 70 standard deviations.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-06-bell-test-loophole-photons.html
The following articles gives us a small glimpse as to what it truly means for entanglement to be confirmed to an order of ’70 standard deviations’:
Standard deviation Excerpt: Particle physics uses a standard of “5 sigma” for the declaration of a discovery.[3] At five-sigma there is only one chance in nearly two million that a random fluctuation would yield the result. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation#Particle_physics SSDD: a 22 sigma event is consistent with the physics of fair coins? – June 23, 2013 Excerpt: So 500 coins heads is (500-250)/11 = 22 standard deviations (22 sigma) from expectation! These numbers are so extreme, it’s probably inappropriate to even use the normal distribution’s approximation of the binomial distribution, and hence “22 sigma” just becomes a figure of speech in this extreme case… https://uncommondescent.com/mathematics/ssdd-a-22-sigma-event-is-consistent-with-the-physics-of-fair-coins/
That means we can have more confidence than we can even reasonably imagine that these findings for a ‘Theistic’ universe are correct. Thus as far as any supposed conflict between science and faith, it appears atheistic/materialistic religion is the one left holding the bag requiring its believers to have ‘blind faith’ with no real evidence that it is true:bornagain77
July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT
By the way, BA77, keep putting your eggs in Nagel's basket. You'll see why, later.keiths
July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
BA77,
Now keiths, why are you trying to get little ole dumb me to answer your questions?
Because "little ole dumb you" made the claim in the first place:
Now Querius, I hate to be the one to inform you, but keiths is allowed to set up a straw man definition of soul and knock it down.,,, That’s just the way it is.
Can you back it up, or will you embarrass yourself again? How is my definition a straw man, BA? What would you substitute in its place?keiths
July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT
Now keiths, why are you trying to get little ole dumb me to answer your questions? I told you we need to get that nifty unimpeachable proof to the esteemed Nagel so as to stop his heresies and to thus more effectively crush this nonsense of a transcendent component to man.! ,,, You act like I'm mocking your genius or something when I'm trying to help you spread the word on your Nobel winning proof???bornagain77
July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT
Hey LarTanner: Although you mocked those millions of NDE's as proof of life after death, the fact of the matter is that those millions of life changing NDEs are millions of times more observational evidence that Theism is true than the observational evidence that neo-Darwinism is true is, which is never,, Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist's Evidentiary Standards to the Test - Dr. Michael Egnor - October 15, 2012 Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE's are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception -- such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE's have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,, The most "parsimonious" explanation -- the simplest scientific explanation -- is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species (or origin of life, or a molecular machine, or a protein), which is never.,,, The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE's show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it's earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it's all a big yawn. Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/near_death_expe_1065301.html "A recent analysis of several hundred cases showed that 48% of near-death experiencers reported seeing their physical bodies from a different visual perspective. Many of them also reported witnessing events going on in the vicinity of their body, such as the attempts of medical personnel to resuscitate them (Kelly et al., 2007)." Kelly, E. W., Greyson, B., & Kelly, E. F. (2007). Unusual experiences near death and related phenomena. In E. F. Kelly, E. W. Kelly, A. Crabtree, A. Gauld, M. Grosso, & B. Greyson, Irreducible mind (pp. 367-421). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. verse and music: Romans 1:18-23 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. A special song for our soulless Darwinbots: Red - Feed The Machine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj2uZO7xnusbornagain77
July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT
Still avoiding the question, BA?
BA, If my definition of the soul is a strawman, you should be able to tell us why. Which of my assumptions do you disagree with?
Assume that: 1. There is an immaterial soul. 2. The immaterial soul is the seat of knowledge. 3. The immaterial soul is the seat of the will. 4. The immaterial soul initiates voluntary actions. 4. The immaterial soul receives information from both hemispheres. 5. The immaterial soul sends commands to both hemispheres.
I look forward to your evasions.
keiths
July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT
Now keiths, in my hope of getting into good favor with your towering genius, I know a good place we can send your rigorous proof for the non-existence of the soul to so as to crush the last remnants of hope of those who believe in the possibility of life after death. Thomas Nagel! "I have argued patiently against the prevailing form of naturalism, a reductive materialism that purports to capture life and mind through its neo-Darwinian extension." "..., I find this view antecedently unbelievable---a heroic triumph of ideological theory over common sense". Thomas Nagel - "Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False" - pg.128 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0199919755/ref=pe_240370_26181270_nrn_si_1_im The Heretic - Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? - March 25, 2013 Excerpt: Neo-Darwinism insists that every phenomenon, every species, every trait of every species, is the consequence of random chance, as natural selection requires. And yet, Nagel says, “certain things are so remarkable that they have to be explained as non-accidental if we are to pretend to a real understanding of the world.” Among these remarkable, nonaccidental things are many of the features of the manifest image. Consciousness itself, for example: You can’t explain consciousness in evolutionary terms, Nagel says, without undermining the explanation itself. Evolution easily accounts for rudimentary kinds of awareness. Hundreds of thousands of years ago on the African savannah, where the earliest humans evolved the unique characteristics of our species, the ability to sense danger or to read signals from a potential mate would clearly help an organism survive. So far, so good. But the human brain can do much more than this. It can perform calculus, hypothesize metaphysics, compose music—even develop a theory of evolution. None of these higher capacities has any evident survival value, certainly not hundreds of thousands of years ago when the chief aim of mental life was to avoid getting eaten. Could our brain have developed and sustained such nonadaptive abilities by the trial and error of natural selection, as neo-Darwinism insists? It’s possible, but the odds, Nagel says, are “vanishingly small.” If Nagel is right, the materialist is in a pickle. The conscious brain that is able to come up with neo-Darwinism as a universal explanation simultaneously makes neo-Darwinism, as a universal explanation, exceedingly unlikely.,,, ,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3 Doubting Darwinism (From Nagel) - JP Moreland, PhD http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcne7_DXv4c The keiths, once we can get Nagel to capitulate to your stunning intellectual prowess, then those pesky problems that are present in quantum mechanics should be no problem! And our quest to crush any hope of a after life will be complete (cue evil laugh) Free Will and Consciousness defended by Quantum Mechanics https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/can-a-darwinist-consistently-condemn/#comment-453600 Supplemental note: The Atheist’s Guide to Intellectual Suicide – James N. Anderson PhD. - video https://vimeo.com/60437420bornagain77
July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
keiths, that is the thanks I get for defending your more evolved brain's right to redefine science in a way so that it serves your own purposes? Or are you one of though evil intellectual tyrants that is indifferent to both those who recognize your genius and those who don't?,,, So much for trying to butter your more evolved big brain up with random acts of kindness!.bornagain77
July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
LarTanner:
Words and music: “It’s a Long Way to the Top (If You want to Rock ‘n’ Roll)”
We should all start doing that. :D Semi OT: Badass street musician plays AC/DC on bagpipes that shoot firekeiths
July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
Chris:
Two last steps, Lizzie: first, let’s assume atheism is true. Take an atheist (we’ll call him Al). Take someone else whose welfare that atheist doesn’t value (we’ll call her Jane). Suppose that Al could perform a moral act, which will be detrimental to his own self-interest, but will help Jane somehow. Now, we agree that Al has no reason to behave morally toward Jane. Therefore, if he is acting rationally, he will not perform a moral act which is detrimental to his own self-interest, for the sake of Jane because he simply doesn’t value her welfare. Morality fails. Do you agree?
With the proviso that his devaluation of Jane's welfare may itself be irrational, yes.
Secondly, we will again assume atheism is true. We will again take Al, who still doesn’t care about Jane. Now, let’s suppose that Al could perform an immoral act, which will promote his own self-interest, but will be detrimental to Jane’s self-interest. Further, suppose that Al has very good reasons to believe that he will escape any form of punishing consequences for performing this immoral act. He stands only to be rewarded for doing it. I hope you will also agree that Al has good reason to behave immorally toward Jane.
For certain meanings of "good", yes. I'd simply omit the "good".
Therefore, if he is acting rationally, he will perform an immoral act which promotes his own self-interest, even if it is detrimental to Jane’s self-interest because he simply doesn’t value her welfare. Morality fails. Do you agree?
Yes.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
keiths@312, Your assumptions fail to account for the dozens of videos posted to vimeo where earnest folks from the US heartland tell their NDE tales. Ergo, Allah. Words and music: "It's a Long Way to the Top (If You want to Rock 'n' Roll)"LarTanner
July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT
Querius, None of what you mention in your comment is relevant. I am addressing my argument to those who believe in an immaterial soul (or mind, or spirit, or whatever you want to call it) that thinks, knows, believes, desires, and chooses, that can carry out its choices via the body, and that is therefore morally responsible for a person's actions. Most Christians believe in a soul of this type. Chris Doyle, who is not a Christian, does also. If you have a different concept of the immaterial soul (or whatever word you prefer to use for that entity or group of entities), then spell it out and we can determine whether it fits the split-brain observations. I suspect that it won't, based on your earlier comments, but we'll see.keiths
July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
bornagain77,
Now Querius, I hate to be the one to inform you, but keiths is allowed to set up a straw man definition of soul and knock it down.,,, That’s just the way it is.
BA, If my definition of the soul is a strawman, you should be able to tell us why. Which of my assumptions do you disagree with?
Assume that: 1. There is an immaterial soul. 2. The immaterial soul is the seat of knowledge. 3. The immaterial soul is the seat of the will. 4. The immaterial soul initiates voluntary actions. 4. The immaterial soul receives information from both hemispheres. 5. The immaterial soul sends commands to both hemispheres.
I look forward to your evasions.keiths
July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
1 8 9 10 11 12 21

Leave a Reply