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
Dr Liddle So if killing those that are skeptical of claim that God exist,creates a peaceful society, you will accept that as moral? Oh ok....Andre
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
Axel: In case you missed my response to you the last time you posted this ridiculous surmise, I copied it over at TSZ. The original is here. Please at least read it before you post again that my "Christianity was scarcely a bedrock world-view for you at any time, and your claim of life-long, formal, Christian belief, highly questionable." And, if you still think so, then I must accuse you of "hyperskepticism".Elizabeth B Liddle
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
...to identify yourself as a life-long Christian believer is, at best, disingenuous.
That old "no true scotsman" line is a bit tired, Axel. Can anyone come up with an OP on, I don't know, something about new developments in ID science? That would make a change!Alan Fox
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
EL, with the context you give here, it is easy to see how 'you believed you believed' in Christianity, throughout most of your life, without any requirement of a personal relationship with God. It was, however, a notional allegiance very much in line with the atheists' accusation of a merely conventional, cultural inheritance. It is therefore perfectly foreseeable that there would be a 'falling away' from the faith, since Christianity was scarcely a bedrock world-view for you at any time, and your claim of life-long, formal, Christian belief, highly questionable. No-one is in a position to disparage you for the fecklessness or tepidity of that Christian 'belief' or want thereof, since God intended that we should all be free agents in that regard; but to identify yourself as a life-long Christian believer is, at best, disingenuous. You may consider this off-topic, but you seem to have a very catholic taste for props, which on examination turn out to be specious, and that is my reason raising the matter.Axel
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
Surely morals evolved...
Well, there's an argument to be made that some human behaviour is innate and subject to selection; suckling of new-borns, for example. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the basics of our tendency to organize socially has an innate element. Religion may have such a firm hold on the human psyche for that reason. There's no such thing as objective morality for anyone, of course.Alan Fox
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
Andre:
Dr Liddle Surely morals evolved, is evolution not scientific I’m trying to establish what your morals are based on Dr Liddle.
On the principles of what makes for a peaceful and productive society.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
That’s not a substantive response, that’s only emotional pleading – unless, of course, you can support your claim that “most people have non-self-interested motives”.
It's not "emotional pleading" at al. Your argument boils down to the argument that theists will do what they think is moral, even if they don't care about other people, because they believe that they don't they will suffer adverse consequences after death. My argument that people do exactly the same things (care about other people) that you call "moral" simply because they care about other people. I don't mind what we call it - being nice, being moral, being altruistic, or whatever - but the only thing theism adds, according to you, is a self-interest motive to do it. And yes, there is absolutely pots of evidence that people care about other people for no other motive than their concern for those people. I gave you the example of my atheist friend, but there are countless others, and countless secular organisations devoted to caring for other people. That's because most people value not only their own welfare but the welfare of others. That may seem irrational to you, but it's not irrational to most people. Most people want to live in a society where people take care of other people, so they do their bit.
You see, when you respond like this and do not address my long rationale about the inadequacy of the atheistic premise and the self-serving definitional fiat you keep applying, and about how you have no premise, definitional or evidential support for your idiosyncratic “Queen’s we” assertions about “what morality is”, then later claim I’ve provided “no rationale”, it seems to me that you are either subconsciously or willfully simply ignoring the big gaping hole in your “morality narrative” that I pointed out above and in prior conversations.
Well, in my view, William, I have addressed it many times. So there really isn't a lot of point going round the circle once again.
Perhaps you can answer some simple questions. Do you think a lot of religious people believe that “morality” is about serving the will of god, whether or not it makes “other people” happy?
Most religious people I know think that morality is about serving the will of God, and that that will includes caring for other people. I know of know religious people personally who would care more about doing what they thought God wanted than about other people, but there is at least a strand of Christian thinking that alleges that this would be correct - for example, slaughtering the men of your enemy, and their male children, and kidnapping their women for salves; killing your beloved son - if God commanded it. Fortunately I think most people would ignore such a command. On the rare occasions when they don't, the tend to end up in high-security mental hospitals. In other words, religious people recognise what is of God by what is good, not the other way round. In my experience.
If so, do you agree that under the atheistic premise of subjective morality, they are as entitled to their definition of what morality is about as you are?
What "atheistic premise of subjective morality"? I know of no such premise.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle Surely morals evolved, is evolution not scientific I'm trying to establish what your morals are based on Dr Liddle.Andre
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
Possibly only theism provides a self-interested motive to be unselfish. Fortunately most people have non-self-interested motives.
That's not a substantive response, that's only emotional pleading - unless, of course, you can support your claim that "most people have non-self-interested motives". You see, when you respond like this and do not address my long rationale about the inadequacy of the atheistic premise and the self-serving definitional fiat you keep applying, and about how you have no premise, definitional or evidential support for your idiosyncratic "Queen's we" assertions about "what morality is", then later claim I've provided "no rationale", it seems to me that you are either subconsciously or willfully simply ignoring the big gaping hole in your "morality narrative" that I pointed out above and in prior conversations. Instead of responding rationally to the points, you respond with emotional and "Queen's we" pleading. Perhaps you can answer some simple questions. Do you think a lot of religious people believe that "morality" is about serving the will of god, whether or not it makes "other people" happy? If so, do you agree that under the atheistic premise of subjective morality, they are as entitled to their definition of what morality is about as you are?William J Murray
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
Andre:
I’m trying to think about it, but since survival of the fittest is all there is why should I care about some cripple holding me back Lartanner? Seriously he is just holding me back.
YOu are confusing a scientific rule with a moral precept. There's no more moral reason to trample on the weak because of natural selection than there is to lie on the ground because of gravity. As for why you should care - because a society in which each seeks the welfare of others is a better society for all, and one that is a lot more enjoyable to live in.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
I meant, only theism offers a necessary reason to consider morality. Atheism offers no such necessary reason to care about morality.
Possibly only theism provides a self-interested motive to be unselfish. Fortunately most people have non-self-interested motives.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
Andre
Deflecting the question with a question is not so cool, I’m trying to establish if you consider porn a moral issue or not? What is your view on it?
I'm not "deflecting" it. I simply declined to answer it. If you want to have a conversation on the morality of porn, feel free to write a post at TSZ. But it seems utterly irrelevant to this thread.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT
If this is the only life we get then why should you care at all?Joe
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
Why should it not? I care more about what happens in this life because it's all we get.Alan Fox
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
Why would the exploitation of individuals even bother you Alan?Andre
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT
I’m trying to establish if you consider porn a moral issue or not?
Are you? Honestly? Why not then post an OP at TSZ? You may get all sorts of interesting responses. My concern with porn would be with exploitation of vulnerable individuals. Morality (in the Mrs Grundy sense) less so.Alan Fox
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
WJM @ 532, I don't understand what you are trying to say. To make an argument, you need three elements. There is the claim, first of all. This is the position you wish to defend. Next, you should supply evidence in support of the claim. Finally, the warrant explains the logic connecting the evidence to the claim. This part can be tricky, so it needs to be worked through patiently and carefully. If made your case with due attention to all three elements, I think everyone -- including you -- would benefit.LarTanner
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle Deflecting the question with a question is not so cool, I'm trying to establish if you consider porn a moral issue or not? What is your view on it?Andre
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
I'm trying to think about it, but since survival of the fittest is all there is why should I care about some cripple holding me back Lartanner? Seriously he is just holding me back.Andre
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
So, in a more succinct way: If one's metaphysical premise allows both X and not-X to be equally valid moral statements, it's nonsensical to care if X is moral or not.William J Murray
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
WJM: "Atheism offers no such necessary reason to care about morality." On the contrary. Atheism offers every necessary reason to care about morality. Think about it.LarTanner
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT
(1) Only ‘theism’ gives one a reason to be concerned with moral systems. This premise is clearly, self-evidently false.
I meant, only theism offers a necessary reason to consider morality. Atheism offers no such necessary reason to care about morality.William J Murray
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
WJM at 14
No, my point is that under atheism, there’s no reason to concern oneself with moral systems. If an atheist wants to adopt some moral system so they can feel good about themselves, my advice would be to skip the middle man, drop the moral system and just feel good about yourself without the psychological crutch of some made-up “morality”.
The logic of the first statement says: (1) Only 'theism' gives one a reason to be concerned with moral systems. This premise is clearly, self-evidently false. On the one hand, if you mean theism/atheism as ontological statements -- 'is' statements -- then strictly speaking neither theism nor atheism logically gives one a reason to be concerned about moral systems. On the other hand, if you mean theism/atheism as worldviews -- ideological positions -- then atheism has a philosophical freedom unavailable to theism, meaning that the atheist is open to moral precepts and principles from different groundings. Any philosophy 101 course surveys the problems of attempting to ground ethics in divinities. It simply doesn't work. The same course also review more realistic approaches (non-theist) to grounding morality. And finally, you don't explain why an atheist shouldn't concern oneself with moral systems. Even if atheism itself gave one no reason to behave morally to consider morality itself -- so what? You seem to agree that atheism does not prevent one from concerning herself or himself with morality. You also seem to agree that atheism doesn't discourage one from pursuing morality. I don't see what your problem is with atheism, especially when theism - to the extent that it pushes 'morality' in your world - often forces the believer to bigoted views and to un-loving behavior.LarTanner
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
Realizing that Dr. Liddle lives in what is pretty much a socialist country, I can see why she is so fixated on the "good-society" concept as a definition of morality; "morality", under socialism, is redefined as "what is good for the state". So ingrained is this concept of state-as-moral-goal that she cannot imagine others not accepting her socialist definition of morality.William J Murray
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
What makes morality a “psychological crutch”? It seems to be an excellent system for ensuring we all get a society that is good to live in.
If someone want to try and life their life in a way that "will help ensure that we all get a society that is good to live in" (whatever that happens to mean to any particular individual), there is no reason to organize such choices under the term "morality". Your question assumes your conclusion - that a system with such a goal "is" what necessarily defines morality.
If that’s a crutch, bring on the crutches! Nothing wrong with crutches if they mean you can get around better than without them!
There's no compelling reason to use the term "morality" for one's behavior if anyone is free to define any behavior as "moral". If morality is subjective, and anyone can define any behvior as "moral", calling what you do "moral" can only be a psychological, self-serving crutch intended to make yourself feel better about whatever you do - and a pretty hollow, self-deceptive crutch at that. My advice is to quit lying to yourself. Under atheism and subjective morality, saying X is moral is no different than saying not-X is moral. It's a meaningless claim.William J Murray
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT
Not persuasively, in my view.
There's a difference between providing rationales, and whether or not anyone in particular finds those rationales persuasive. You claimed I merely repeated assertions without rationales, which is a false claim. If lack of being persuasive voided the existence of lengthy rationales, then you have never provided a rationale for any of your assertions because they have not persuaded me. See how that works?
The “we” is not the Queen’s, nor yet mine, but human users of language. Why else would we (human beings) have universally AFAIK found a use for the word “ought” (or its non-English equivalents)?
"Ought" doesn't necessarily refer to anything moral. All you are doing here is doubling down on the Queen's "we" by insinuating that all humans agree with your definitional fiat.
And why else would we (human beings) have developed cultural systems for maximising the probability that other-centred oughts will be executed? We also have systems that maximise the probability that “self-oughts” will be executed (WeightWatchers, for instance), but we give them a different name.
Once again, you are simply insisting on your definitional fiat as having exclusive rights to the word "morality". Pease note, I'm not arguing that your "how to treat others" is not an acceptable moraly system under atheism, but only that if morality is subjective, and from a historical and current sampling perspective, "how we ought treat others" does not exhaust the potential definitions of what morality means. In fact, I cannot find a single definition of "morality" that refers to "how we treat others". All the dictionaries I've looked at define morality as a code about how people should behave; "towards others" doesn't even get mentioned. As I have repeatedly pointed out, many people think (and have thought) that morality has to do with obeying the will of God, whether that will has anything to do with "others" or not. I've been involved with other spiritualties where "morality" has nothing whatsoever to do with others - it's only about obeying what is true for oneself.
But whether we call the “other-ought” principle “morality” or “as;ldkjf;ldfj” – is it not absolutely clear that universally, the “other-ought” principle has a name and is different from the “self-ought” principle? Is it really so difficult to imagine that atheists can make that distinction?
You see, when you insist on avoiding the very point that I make, gloss over it and continue on as if your definition of what morality is about is "the" necessary definiton, and that "we" should all agree with it despite the fact that your definition is nowhere to be found except in your arguments, my conclusion is that you are either unconsciously or willfully simply ignoring the glaring hole in your arguments about morality. Yes, you have a compelling argument if we all agree to your idiosyncratic definition of what morality is, but that's the very point, the very problem, that you are ignoring: unless you are claiming that morality is absolute, and that nobody has a right to define it differently than you, then all your arguments that follow from your defintion are irrelevant. They are irrelevant because there is no necessary reason for an atheist, who agrees that morality is not absolute, to commit to your definition of morality in the first place. Everyone, under atheism, is free to invent their own definition of morality, and your system has no justifiable means, other than might makes right (because I say so) to disagree with, condemn or put a stop to any other behavior that anyone calls moral, including exterminating Jews and torturing children for fun. IOW, under the premise (subjective morality) that allows you to cling to your particular, idiosyncratic definition of "morality", others are free to invent or cling to their idiosyncratic definitions of morality. Thus your founding premise - atheistic, subjective morality - validates gassing Jews, tossing imperfect babies off of cliffs, mutilating genitalia of infants or children, burning witches, beheading homosexuals - anything - as just as intrinsically moral as anything else.William J Murray
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT
But I do have one for you, Andre: If someone posted a porn link here at UD, would you expect Barry to ban the poster?Elizabeth B Liddle
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT
If there are multiple answers to your question, Andre, I will give more than one. But many people (including myself) do not want to inadvertently download porn, or have porn links recorded in their browing history, for many reasons. It could be that they find porn offensive; it could be that they don't want other people to conclude that they were searching for porn (when they were not). And so I will ban anyone who posts such links or material on my site. If you were asking whether I personally find porn offensive, then why didn't you ask it straight? However, you have now. And I will not answer it.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT
So a picture of some people having sex will make my computer explode if I open it and that's the only reason? Or perhaps by making it safe on your site, I will not get HIV? Seriously Dr Liddle Do you ban porn because the links are unsafe or do you ban porn because it has an unsavory element? I'm not sure why answers are always cloaked in a million reasons. Do you Dr Liddle find porn offensive or not is what I should have asked?Andre
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT
Andre:
Dr Liddle Why do you block porn on your website?
Well, the vast majority is blocked automatically as part of Akizmet, as Alan says, and most spam and spammers are automatically blocked as well. The only time I have to make a manual decision as it were, is if a regular poster posts malware (not so far) or illegal stuff (not so far) or porn (happened once), and the reason is that I want my site to be safe for people to visit, and for them not to have to worry that any links people provide, or images they post are going to be of or to stuff that they wouldn't want on their computer. And if a poster does do that, then they will be banned permanently, because I simply do not want to take the risk that they may do it again. There are no other criteria for banning, although it is possible that something I haven't thought of may come up. My principle is that anyone can comment, and most people can post, but they may have to ask, because I have to set the permission manually. And you'd be very welcome Andre! Just let me know if and when you register (which will allow you to comment), if you would like to post an OP.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 21

Leave a Reply