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
Why do you block porn on your website?
Blame Akizmet. No other blocks exist. But there are plenty of other sources if you are looking for porn, André!Alan Fox
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle Why do you block porn on your website?Andre
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT
WJM
I’ve provided the rationale several times, on several threads. You simply refuse to address the question of those that do not begin with the definition of morality that you have asserted semi-universal, without support, by employing the Queen’s “we”.
Not persuasively, in my view. 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)? 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. 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?Elizabeth B Liddle
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT
WJM
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”.
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 that's a crutch, bring on the crutches! Nothing wrong with crutches if they mean you can get around better than without them!Elizabeth B Liddle
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT
Those pesky meeses! Message!Alan Fox
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
02:54 AM
2
02
54
AM
PDT
Just passing on a meesage for KeithS in case anyone is unaware, due to technical issues so far unclarified by "management", KeithS is currently unable to post comments at Uncommon Descent. Anyone interested in further discussion is cordially invited to The Skeptical Zone where Keith can be found alive and well.Alan Fox
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
02:53 AM
2
02
53
AM
PDT
WM #512
It isn’t a disagreement over the deifnition of a word, it’s a disagreement over what definitions are allowable under her premise of atheism.
I don't understand how a meaning can not be allowed under atheism or indeed any other ..ism. Who is forbidding it? We don't generally have rules that say the meanings of words are only allowed under certain worldviews. Assuming we all mean the same by the word "moral" (and if not what are arguing about) then surely the question is simply what is that meaning?Mark Frank
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
10:44 PM
10
10
44
PM
PDT
Do you think a non-theist must, by necessity, hold dogmatically to not-subscribing to any moral principles whatsoever?
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".William J Murray
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT
So you keep asserting, but without rationale.
I've provided the rationale several times, on several threads. You simply refuse to address the question of those that do not begin with the definition of morality that you have asserted semi-universal, without support, by employing the Queen's "we".
We could as easily (more easily) say that theists have stolen morality from humanity.
Under subjective morality, I'm sure it's relatively easy to say anythiing that promotes your view.William J Murray
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT
If you and Liz mean different things by the word “moral” then all we are disagreeing over is the meaning of a word.
That's not what is going on. Liz's is making the case that moral means X or Y; I'm making the case that there is no reason why, under atheism, that should be the case. It isn't a disagreement over the deifnition of a word, it's a disagreement over what definitions are allowable under her premise of atheism. If, under atheism, morality is subjective, then Liz has no right to confine definitions to that which is convenient to her argument, especially since her definitions fly in the face of common usage of the term for hundreds of years by billions of people.
It doesn’t matter very much and can be settled by defining our terms. We could perhaps define “moral1? as “value others above ourselves” and “moral2? as “do God’s will” – end of dispute.
You don't understand the nature of the argument. If morality is relative, Liz has no right to declare what "morality" is, and is not. Therefore, she's committing a definitional fiat. Under atheism, morality nor more significantly means "value others above personal desires" than it means "fly airplanes into buildings and kill the inffidels". It's not an argument about which definition we agree upon, but rather what kinds of morality are justified under one's premise. Under atheism, any kind of morality is equally justifiable, so for Liz to say that morality "is" aobut valuing others is of no more significance than if I say it is about killing rabbits.
But actually I think the dispute is substantial and we all mean the same thing when we describe an act as moral or immoral. And as we atheists don’t believe in God we clearly don’t mean “doing God’s will”. But if you mean the same as us then you it follows that you don’t mean “doing God’s will” either.
I do think that being moral means "doing God's will", or more aptly, serving God's purpose - whether it apparently helps others or not.William J Murray
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
William #505 If you and Liz mean different things by the word "moral" then all we are disagreeing over is the meaning of a word. It doesn't matter very much and can be settled by defining our terms. We could perhaps define "moral1" as "value others above ourselves" and "moral2" as "do God's will" - end of dispute. But actually I think the dispute is substantial and we all mean the same thing when we describe an act as moral or immoral. And as we atheists don't believe in God we clearly don't mean "doing God's will". But if you mean the same as us then you it follows that you don't mean "doing God's will" either.Mark Frank
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT
You have to be a theist to be able to rationally justify a sound moral structure. Without god, all you have are stolen concepts and definitional fiats.
So you keep asserting, but without rationale. We could as easily (more easily) say that theists have stolen morality from humanity. Which is fine. Help yourself.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
I just can't recognise anything I know about humanity in what they say. But then I live in a country where religion really does not feature in our discourse.5for
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
It's a strange world that WJM and Chris Doyle live in, that's all I can say.5for
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
WJM, You are just being silly and obtuse in 506. Do you have something serious to say? Do you think a non-theist must, by necessity, hold dogmatically to not-subscribing to any moral principles whatsoever?LarTanner
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
Maybe X read the Confucian Analects and decided to model a personal morality on that.
If one is an atheist,why? Why bother?
Or maybe X was heavily influenced by the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. Or perhaps X adopted the Sayings of the Fathers from the great Jewish sages.
If one is an atheist, why bother? What's the point?
In each instance, the subject, X, has chosen the principles and precepts of a moral life and decided to try and live accordingly.
If one is an atheist, why bother? What's the point?
X then faces two consequences in actions/behaviors that fail to meet the standards: (1) the practical real-world consequences of interacting with people [e.g., X insults Y, Y gets angry or violent, perhaps], and (2) the psychic consequences of dealing with moral failure.
None of which are necessary; they are haphazard and arbitrary. Bad acts can as easily lead to good fortune as good acts can lead to bad fortune.
X’s specific theory of morality might not concern me so much as X’s actual practiced moral values. I would be more concerned if X held to no moral code whatsoever, in either theory or practice. Wouldn’t you?
Irrelevant to the argument. The argument is about the logical ramifications of atheistic/subjective morality, not how any particular person acts.William J Murray
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
My answer would be that we simply do not use the concept for anything else. We use the word “ought” for things that we value but which conflict with our present pleasures.
Who is "we"? Morality doesn't mean "valuing others above self" to me. Morality doesn't mean "valuing others above self" for billions; for billions of people, morality means "doing god's will". Most religious people value god's will, and what is right, above "other people" and their feelings, or even their well-being (if the two contradict). You're not the queen, Liz, and you don't speak for "we".
So I think there are only those two options.
So you get to decide what the only two options are when it comes to defining what morality is? You are attempting a definitional fiat here - that morality can only mean that which comports with what you have a good argument prepared for - but, the problem is, that your "queen's we" assertion doesn't comport either with the position that morality is a subjective, culuture to culture, person to person feeling, nor with how billions have defined "morality" for thousands of years.
And as the other-centred “ought” is the one we adopt at the level of a society, it’s the one that tends to get the label.
As I argued at the other sight, your idea that morality is about how to best keep a society functioning is in disagreement with a large number of people - perhaps a majority. Most people, I'd wager, don't consider "morality" and the idea of "how a society can best function to keep the most people happy" the same thing.
I don’t think this is rocket science.
The implication here, of course, is that everyone (billions!) that disagree with your definitional fiat are dumb.
And you certainly don’t have to be a theist to figure it out, although having figured it out, you might be led to infer good God as its origin.
You have to be a theist to be able to rationally justify a sound moral structure. Without god, all you have are stolen concepts and definitional fiats.William J Murray
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
It strikes me that most arguments about morality is not what it is (valuing the well-being of others ) but what that entails: who counts as an "other" (cf "who is my neighbour?); what constitutes her well-being? That's why I love that Einstein quotation I quoted at 375.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
Well, fortunately Chris and I seemed to agree on that. My answer would be that we simply do not use the concept for anything else. We use the word "ought" for things that we value but which conflict with our present pleasures. We do not use the word to refer to an "ought" that refers to our future pleasure - we usually call that "self-discipline". So that really leaves other people as the other "ought". I guess a few people do think that they are exercising some kind of moral discipline when they do something painful now to increase their pleasure in the future, but they seem to be in a minority. So I think there are only those two options. And as the other-centred "ought" is the one we adopt at the level of a society, it's the one that tends to get the label. I don't think this is rocket science. And you certainly don't have to be a theist to figure it out, although having figured it out, you might be led to infer good God as its origin.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
WJM @ 500, Who accepts that definition of morality as "nothing more than subjectively invented behavioral guidelines with no necessary consequences"? Not me. I don't think EL or keiths or anyone else, either. But even if - for argument's sake - our hypothetical person named X holds to your pet definition, wouldn't you also say that X has adopted for herself/himself a certain standard by which s/he agrees to live? Maybe X read the Confucian Analects and decided to model a personal morality on that. Or maybe X was heavily influenced by the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. Or perhaps X adopted the Sayings of the Fathers from the great Jewish sages. In each instance, the subject, X, has chosen the principles and precepts of a moral life and decided to try and live accordingly. X then faces two consequences in actions/behaviors that fail to meet the standards: (1) the practical real-world consequences of interacting with people [e.g., X insults Y, Y gets angry or violent, perhaps], and (2) the psychic consequences of dealing with moral failure. X's specific theory of morality might not concern me so much as X's actual practiced moral values. I would be more concerned if X held to no moral code whatsoever, in either theory or practice. Wouldn't you?LarTanner
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
If, as Liz says, morality "is" "valuing others above one's own desires", it begs the question: why should I value others above my own desires? It also begs the question, who says that is what morality is?William J Murray
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
Say X has no belief in gods. Now say X has to make a moral choice on something. X must have a point of reference for reasoning through what is the right thing to do. Since X wouldn’t appeal to what a certain god commanded, then X can by your account still rely on inborn predispositions. X can also evaluate moral teachings from parents, peers, and other cultural influences. X’s self-interest is one factor up for consideration in making the decision.
If one accepts morality as nothing more than subjectively invented behavioral guidelines with no necessary consequences, why bother will all that? What's the point?William J Murray
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
Morality consists in not serving our own well-being at the expense of the well-being of others. (I think we agree on this.)
What if an atheist decides that morality consists of doing whatever suits their own best interest? It's convenient that Liz, an atheist, agrees with the morality as defined and espoused by the theist. The problem, though, is under atheism their agreed-upon moral basis is not an objective standard - they just happen to agree on it. Under atheistic relativism, morality is whatever anyone believes it to be. How would Liz respond to a morality that did not place value on other human beings? Or to a morality that selectively placed values on other human beings - say, only human beings of the same race, or only adult males? That is where atheisic "morality" more obviously collapses, and where few atheists will maintain intellectual honesty.William J Murray
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
EL -
What did I get wrong?
Your question is not made to me, but you might like to know I think you are spot on. I also happen to think that because a non-theist (an atheist) is not using the theist's "CCTV camera" (I disagree that its particularly efficient), the non-theist gets her or his CCTV camera from elsewhere. There are plenty of sources for a moral CCTV camera, including the intrinsic/internal one that Chris and I have already discussed. Parental values, for another instance, can be particularly powerful - dare I say more powerful than theism? Yes, various forms of theisms assert their god as a moral police officer and ultimate judge of deeds. So what? Historically it has been weak and shifting sauce. On the other hand, non-theism does not leave a moral vacuum but simply locates the sources of real morality both in people and in social structures and institutions.LarTanner
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
Speaking of which, you have admitted that atheistic morality fails, effectively.
And no. I was extraordinarily careful not to do that, because I do not consider it true. And you clearly know this, hence your addition of the word "effectively". Here is how I see it: Morality consists in not serving our own well-being at the expense of the well-being of others. (I think we agree on this.) It follows that if we place a high value the well-being of others, we will be motivated to act morally (it will indeed be rational to do so as it is rational to be willing to sacrifice our present pleasure for what we value more). It follows therefore that anyone, theist or atheist, who puts a high value on the well-being of others will be a moral person. It follows, therefore, that the reason it is that leads someone to value the well-being of other people is irrelevant to whether they are moral or not - what matters is that they place that value on the well-being of others. There are many reasons why people place a high value on the well-being of others, and not all of them are theistic. Therefore it follows that being moral does not depend on being a theist. *********************************************************** However. Most people from time to time, even if they do put a high value on the well-being of others, are tempted by the high value they place on the pleasure of the present moment to devalue it. So most people behave immorally sometimes, even if their basic stance is to place a high value on the well-being of others. If that person is an atheist, in those moments, she may think: heck, it would be nice to keep this wodge of money left in my taxi, and the person who lost it was obviously far richer than me anyway, and my kids are hungry - I'll keep it. Or she may not. Or she may think - but the customer might remember it and I'll go to jail. If that person is a theist, in those moments, she may think: heck, it would be nice to keep this wodge of money left in my taxi, and the person who lost it was obviously far richer than me anyway, and my kids are hungry - and I probably wouldn't go to jail. But, hang on - I might be condemned to eternal damnation in the afterlife. In other words, what theism does is not make a person more moral but simply acts as a super-efficient CCTV camera so that in the face of temptation, self-interest may nonetheless win the day. That's what I'm taking away from this discussion. What did I get wrong?Elizabeth B Liddle
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
Sorry LT, we are now out of time. I wish you joined in sooner! You may find the answers you are looking for in some of my earlier posts, some in the 300s, give or take a 100. But this will be my final post on this thread. See you on another one the next time, time permits. Until then, all the best LT. Over and out! Whoooooooooooooosh...Chris Doyle
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
Chris, there is an alternative interpretation of the data. At least open your mind sufficiently to consider it. Cheers LizzieElizabeth B Liddle
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
I haven't missed a thing, Lizzie. I assure you, neither you nor Mark offered a single new or original argument: both when you failed to defend atheistic morality; and failed to even land a blow against theistic morality. I admit, I feel slightly disappointed that your mind is so closed when it come to atheism. I expect it of Mark: he has always been a God-hating atheist! But, I sense that you are searching for a way back to the Straight Path, the one that you spent most of your life following. Regrettably, I am not the one who can guide you back. And you must take the first step yourself by considering that you have made a terrible mistake in embracing atheism. I do hope you reflect upon how badly atheistic morality fares when you shine the light of reason on it. Speaking of which, you have admitted that atheistic morality fails, effectively. It's great when atheists do that! So, it was worth the disappointment. That's good enough for me.Chris Doyle
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
Chris,
we are only discussing what the rational theist or atheist would do
That's fine. What role, then, do you think atheism specifically plays in moral decisio-making? Say X has no belief in gods. Now say X has to make a moral choice on something. X must have a point of reference for reasoning through what is the right thing to do. Since X wouldn't appeal to what a certain god commanded, then X can by your account still rely on inborn predispositions. X can also evaluate moral teachings from parents, peers, and other cultural influences. X's self-interest is one factor up for consideration in making the decision. Yet in all this I fail to see how non-belief works as an influencing factor, as in "because I am a non believer in gods a, b, and c, I must behave in a certain way.LarTanner
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
Chris, just because you think our arguments have been refuted, doesn't mean they have! I think you've missed something pretty crucial that's been said here. Clearly you disagree. But I do appreciate the effort, truly. Cheers LizzieElizabeth B Liddle
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 21

Leave a Reply