A More Localized Version of the Argument From Morality

[PRmerger]

Don’t forget that there is no coherent definition of this “soul”.

This is simply not true.

“In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person. But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.”–Catechism of the Catholic Church 363

There was another assumption made by the chemists in the 18th century: a substance called “phlogiston”, which was supposed to be a substance in all combustible substances. And there was the alleged “luminiferous ether”; the hypothetical substance through which electromagnetic waves travel. It was proposed by the Greek philosopher Aristotle and used by several optical theories as a way to allow propagation of light, which was believed to be impossible in “empty” space.

Isn’t it time to get rid of these nonsensical concepts? Are we not more advanced in physics, chemistry and biology so that we can toss these empty hypotheses into the trashcan?

Yes, you are correct here. Very Catholic, this!

 

[Mort_Alz]

When you think of something as being true, there is activity in specific areas of your brain, physical activity comprising electrical and chemical changes.

With you so far…

When you think of something as being false, different physical events will occur.

I’ve essentially already said that, so I’m with you there…

These different states are associated with actual,events that correspond to our definition of the terms true and false.

You’ll have to be more clear on your meaning here. How can an event correspond with our definition of the term “false?” How can an event be false?

I do know that you misunderstood me on one front, though. Thoughts can have the property of being either true or false. That includes more thoughts than those of me “thinking of something as being true or false.” Those are more accurately called beliefs which are different from thoughts because you can have thoughts which you don’t believe.

The thought “My sister is on her way to give me a ride home.” is either true or false; and it has this property of being true or false regardless of my belief about its truth or falsehood. That is a property which thoughts have. In contrast, the electrochemical brain event that occurs alongside that thought does not have the property of being either true or false, since you can’t say with any sense that an electrical activity is true or false.

A neuroscientist attentively observing brain tissue pulse with electricity is committing nonsense if he is standing there saying with every pulse, “That neuron firing is true! That one is false!” He may as well observe the planets and say “Jupiter’s orbit is true. Saturn’s is false.” There is no way to differentiate the truth or falsehood of such events because truth and falsehood do not belong to them.

But if you maintain that there is some form of dualism that we posess, then you must agree that it is not only present in humans. You were quite keen to represent it as the ability for rational thought but as we have seen, even crows exhibit rational thought processes. And I’m pretty sure that we could find examples throughout the animal kingdom.

What you say is true. If consciousness is supernatural, then animals which are conscious must also have a supernatural component to them similar to humans. I don’t follow why this is fatal to my view.

Likewise, I am certain that as you went further back in human history we would find that this ability for rational thought decreased to the point where it dissapeared as we reached a very early stage of our evolution.

So just play the tape forwards and we see rational thought, not turned ON at one single moment - yesterday we were mindless idiots, today we are tool making masters of the universe, but gradually developing.

I have already agreed that our ability to be conscious evolved gradually with our brains. I have also already explained why this is not a sufficient rebuttal to the claim that consciousness is not physical.

 

[inocente]

Asking “Is that electrical event true or false?” is a nonsensical question just as nonsensical as asking if the flower’s activity of turning towards the sun is true or false.

A neuroscientist attentively observing brain tissue pulse with electricity is committing nonsense if he is standing there saying with every pulse, “That neuron firing is true! That one is false!”

Every computer does it. Known in the trade as bits. The entire digital world is based on electrical events having values of true and false. If a digital TV can do it, the brain surely can.

Now we have just discovered something that is true of thoughts (that they can be either true or false) that is not true of the brain. Therefore, we have discovered one aspect of consciousness that is not physical; namely, thoughts.

If that was the case then it would have been major headline news all around the world.

Christian neuroscientists all use the scientific method, which operates on the working hypothesis that everything can be explained from the physical alone. They have never discovered anything to challenge that.

Fun fact: did you know that your entire visual perception, everything you “see” in your mind, is constructed by the mind entirely from a stream of bits? Because the only information which leaves your eyes, along the optic nerve, is a digital code. Same with sounds, same with touch. That’s not science fiction, and right now, those codes are being cracked - bbc.com/future/story/20141111-the-code-that-may-treat-blindness

 

[Mort_Alz]

The entire digital world is based on electrical events having values of true and false.

Are you referring to binary code? Ones and zeros? One being “true” and zero being “false?”

If that was the case then it would have been major headline news all around the world.

I was not referring to a global “we.” I think you know that.

which operates on the working hypothesis that everything can be explained from the physical alone.

That’s not a good definition of the scientific method. A better way to put it would be that the scientific method limits itself to studying the physical world. A “working hypothesis that everything can be explained from the physical alone” is not a scientific statement, but a philosophical one.

It’s even questionable whether or not math can be considered a science. Most think it is different from science. Which is strange, since math is generally accepted by the scientific community, yet math itself demonstrates that there are non-physical realities. There are mathematical truths which have no physical manifestations. Therefore, we know that there is reality which is non-physical.

Fun fact: did you know that your entire visual perception, everything you “see” in your mind, is constructed by the mind entirely from a stream of bits? Because the only information which leaves your eyes, along the optic nerve, is a digital code. Same with sounds, same with touch. That’s not science fiction, and right now, those codes are being cracked - bbc.com/future/story/20141111-the-code-that-may-treat-blindness

So? That indicates nothing about consciousness’ physicality or non-physicality.

 

[Bradski]

I have already agreed that our ability to be conscious evolved gradually with our brains. I have also already explained why this is not a sufficient rebuttal to the claim that consciousness is not physical.

Something supernatural has evolved within all creatures?

Perhaps you can explain how you know this? Although I have a very nasty feeling that you are simply going to say that consciousness can’t be material, so…um…it must be supernatural.

 

[Mort_Alz]

Although I have a very nasty feeling that you are simply going to say that consciousness can’t be material.

It can’t. And you have not explained how it can be.

so…um…it must be supernatural.

If you have a problem with that word, then we don’t have to use it. We can just say it is not physical, which is a necessary inference. In other words, saying it is not physical is not attempting to fill a gap in scientific knowledge with religious hocus pocus.

 

[Mort_Alz]

And you have not explained how it can be.

Rather, it would be more accurate to say that you have not provided a solid refutation for my proof that it is not. So, it still stands that consciousness can’t be physical.

 

[o_mlly]

The crows had seen the tools before but they hadn’t seen other crows use them. This wasn’t learned behaviour. They weren’t copying other crows or indeed anyone else. They were actively thinking.

‘I need a long stick to reach the food but I can’t reach it in the cage. But if I remove the short stick from the string I can use that to get the long stick and then reach the food’.

‘I can’t reach the food myself so I need to use a long stick to do so. But the stick can’t pick up the food so I need to construct a hook on the end of it.’

That is without doubt an example of a rational thought process. If I saw a two year old doing either of these I’d be freaked out.

How do you know the state of the crow’s memory? Did I miss something in the video?

A child before the age of reason learns to swim purely on associative skills. Watch and mimic. Did the crows do much more than that?

But let stay on topic. What say you about the immorality of stealing? When is stealing the right thing to do?

 

[Bradski]

How do you know the state of the crow’s memory? Did I miss something in the video?

A child before the age of reason learns to swim purely on associative skills. Watch and mimic. Did the crows do much more than that?

But let stay on topic. What say you about the immorality of stealing? When is stealing the right thing to do?

Of course the birds did more than that. They hadn’t seen any other bird or anyone else use the tools. They worked it out themselves. They exhibited raional thought.

And as regards stealing, I think any disagreement may come down to the definition. I would define it as taking something from a person when that person would not have given permission for you to do so.

So that would include stealing food if your child is starving, stealing a gun to prevent a murder, stealing third base at the bottom of the ninth.

 

[Bradski]

It can’t. And you have not explained how it can be.

If you have a problem with that word, then we don’t have to use it. We can just say it is not physical, which is a necessary inference. In other words, saying it is not physical is not attempting to fill a gap in scientific knowledge with religious hocus pocus.

Mort, it may well be the fact that consciousness is a supernatural essence (?) that evolved after life began. You actually say that you proved this, although I must have missed that, because all you have done is assert it.

Your only argument is ‘Well, it must be’ and your only evidence is incredulity that thought processes are soley the result of physical processes.

Is there anything, anywhere that you can point to that suggests in any way whatsoever that consciousness is a supernatural essence (?) that actually evolved? Well I guess I can save you some typing time and give you the answer here: No, there isn’t.

I would hazard a guess that you might be the first person on the planet to suggest it.

 

[Mort_Alz]

Is there anything, anywhere that you can point to that suggests in any way whatsoever that consciousness is a supernatural essence (?)

Sure. I can “point to” the fact that purely physical consciousness, as a notion, is a contradiction in terms since the unconscious matter in our brains cannot, at the same time, be conscious.

 

[Bradski]

Sure. I can “point to” the fact that purely physical consciousness, as a notion, is a contradiction in terms since the unconscious matter in our brains cannot, at the same time, be conscious.

Again, this is nothing more than simple assertion.

Please point to anything at all to back up your claim that consciousness is a supernatural essence (I can’t think of another word to describe it) that has evolved.

And bear in mind that you have gone from rational thought to consciousness to some sort of supernatural essence to an evolved supernatural essence.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Sure. I can “point to” the fact that purely physical consciousness, as a notion, is a contradiction in terms since the unconscious matter in our brains cannot, at the same time, be conscious.

The problem is that you disregard the reality of “emerging attributes”. As matter becomes more complex, new emerging attributes come to the surface, which cannot be explained by (or reduced to) the underlying material. The attributes of chemistry cannot be reduced to physics. The properties of biology cannot be reduced to chemistry and physics. The rules of sociology cannot be reduced to physics, chemistry and biology. Every level requires its own study.

Maybe I wasted my time by pointing this out. If that is the case, it is too bad. But I am already accustomed to it.

 

[Mort_Alz]

Again, this is nothing more than simple assertion.

Matter can be conscious while also being unconscious?

 

[Mort_Alz]

Sure. I can “point to” the fact that purely physical consciousness, as a notion, is a contradiction in terms since the unconscious matter in our brains cannot, at the same time, be conscious.

One thing about this that is NOT mere assertion is that it DOES produce a contradiction in terms. Pointing to matter and saying “That matter is unconscious.” Pointing to the same matter and saying at the same time, “That matter is conscious.” That’s a contradiction in terms.

It’s fair to draw a conclusion from that. We do it in math. If we work out an equation and it ends in 2=3, then we have either made a mistake in our calculations or else the equation itself is false. Putting faith in that we have made a mistake requires a philosophical assumption which is also mere assertion.

 

[Mort_Alz]

As matter becomes more complex, new emerging attributes come to the surface, which cannot be explained by (or reduced to) the underlying material.

Maybe. Even if we can’t explain the particulars, it at least does not produce a contradiction to imagine how you can go from physics to chemistry, chemistry to biology, etc.

What is chemistry but how atoms physically react to each other? What is biology but chemicals reacting to make structures which then act according to physics?

 

[inocente]

Are you referring to binary code? Ones and zeros? One being “true” and zero being “false?”

No, there are two electromagnetic states, which, depending on the instruction and usage, are construed as false/true in logic, 0/1 in ordinary arithmetic, or fail/success, etc.

I was not referring to a global “we.” I think you know that.

Sorry, lost you. You said you’ve proved that there’s an aspect of consciousness and a reality which is non-physical, and I’m saying if you had then it would have been major headline news all around the world.

That’s not a good definition of the scientific method. A better way to put it would be that the scientific method limits itself to studying the physical world.

I didn’t make any definition and the method doesn’t limit itself, see for instance livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html

It’s even questionable whether or not math can be considered a science. Most think it is different from science. Which is strange, since math is generally accepted by the scientific community, yet math itself demonstrates that there are non-physical realities. There are mathematical truths which have no physical manifestations. Therefore, we know that there is reality which is non-physical.

You appear to think abstractions are concrete. Yes, that is strange. Think again .

 

[Mort_Alz]

No, there are two electromagnetic states, which, depending on the instruction and usage, are construed as false/true in logic, 0/1 in ordinary arithmetic, or fail/success, etc.

You’ll have to give me an example of an “instruction and usage” in which an electromagnetic state can be true or false. I understand the other two.

Sorry, lost you. You said you’ve proved that there’s an aspect of consciousness and a reality which is non-physical, and I’m saying if you had then it would have been major headline news all around the world.

How many scientists who made brilliant discoveries had their findings immediately published and accepted? Some of them took years before mainstream acceptance. Now you’re just being silly.

I didn’t make any definition and the method doesn’t limit itself, see for instance livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html

From your own link:

“One important aspect of the scientific process is that it is focuses only on the natural world, according to the University of California. Anything that is considered supernatural does not fit into the definition of science.”

You appear to think abstractions are concrete.

Concrete is the antonym to abstract, so, no, I don’t think this. You appear to think knowledge must be concrete in order to be valid.

Yes, that is strange. Think again .

How distastefully condescending.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Maybe. Even if we can’t explain the particulars, it at least does not produce a contradiction to imagine how you can go from physics to chemistry, chemistry to biology, etc.

There is no contradiction, either here of any of compound structures.

What is chemistry but how atoms physically react to each other? What is biology but chemicals reacting to make structures which then act according to physics?

What you suggest is called “reductionism”, and it is simply incorrect. The point is that not just “according to physics”. Just think about NaCl (ordinary salt) which is the composition of Natrium (Sodium) and Chlorine. Neither one of the elements is “salty”, but the composition is salty. That is NOT a contradiction. Neither Hydrogen, nor Oxygen are “wet”. The concept of “wetness” is undefined on the atomic level. But if you combine one Oxygen atom and two Hydrogen atoms, you will get “water”, which is “wet”. And that is not a contradiction.

 

[o_mlly]

Of course the birds did more than that. They hadn’t seen any other bird or anyone else use the tools. They worked it out themselves. They exhibited raional thought.

If the crows never saw a human fashion tools that obtained the food then you’d have a case. The BBC admitted the birds were familiar with the tools. But in the other videos I watched that was not stipulated. From a commonsense viewpoint, those other videos were highly staged and we don’t know how many takes or what editing followed. Who would want to put up a 10 min. video on youtube of a frustrated crow?

And as regards stealing, I think any disagreement may come down to the definition. I would define it as taking something from a person when that person would not have given permission for you to do so.

So that would include stealing food if your child is starving, stealing a gun to prevent a murder, stealing third base at the bottom of the ninth.

Whoa! Your edited definition of stealing is not the definition of stealing as it lacks the wrongful or illegal component. Under your definition lawful taxes are government stealing.

The starving child has a greater right to the food as his right to life is greater than your derived right to own property. Remember, the property first belongs to the community.

We’ve covered the chaos that would occur if the community allowed the preemptive taking of a neighbor’s property. Yes, w/o community authority taking your neighbor’s gun because you think he will use it in a future criminal act is stealing.

You may take your base.