Brain, Mind & Neuroscience

[GEddie]

Non sequitur.

1. Belief in “a disembodied animist spirit” is not the **sole **alternative to materialism.
2. Christians believe God made man in His image and likeness.
3. "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” John 4:24
4. Therefore man has a **spiritual **as well as a physical nature.
5. Those who believe neuroscience can explain all man’s activity are not Christians.

Actually, there are many Christians who hold that the mind is natural, and human life ends with the body, only later to be reinstated at our LORD’s second coming.

So your point 5 is not altogether correct.

ICXC NIKA

 

[tonyrey]

Actually, there are many Christians who hold that the mind is natural, and human life ends with the body, only later to be reinstated at our LORD’s second coming.

So your point 5 is not altogether correct.

1. Is the soul totally divorced from mind and body?
2. How is free will possible if the mind is just brain activity?
3. In what respects are we made in God’s image and likeness?

 

[randybako]

I believe it was philosoher Rene Descartes who thought the brain and the mind are two separate things, but things change when you study Jungian doctors like Anthony Stevens who believed they were both in the hard wiring. A good book on neural plasticity is Jeffrey Schwartz’s book.

 

[Khalid]

Mindless bodies result from physical or biological damage to the head or body or both; while bodiless minds cannot be detected physically, if present.

Of the 2 conditions, I’d say the bodiless mind, if present, is more pitiful, as the mindless body is unaware of it’s condition, which will end with somatic death in any case, while the bodiless mind would be thoroughly aware of it’s darkness, motionlessness and amnesia (memories need a head to reside in), and that it’s suffering could conceivably last forever.

ICXC NIKA

God the Father is a bodiless mind.

 

[tonyrey]

Actually, there are many Christians who hold that the mind is natural, and human life ends with the body, only later to be reinstated at our LORD’s second coming.

So your point 5 is not altogether correct.

ICXC NIKA

The mind and the soul are both conscious, rational and autonomous.

It is uneconomical and incoherent to believe they are different entities.

A more cogent view is that the body, mind and soul are integrated **aspects **of one person rather than three distinct entities.

To equate the mind with the brain raises insurmountable problems.

Materialism implies that all living organisms - including human beings - are biological machines

 

[Sair]

Weak in the sense that it provides no compelling reason for someone inclined to the contrary to adhere to its declarations. Again, it is descriptive rather than prescriptive. Theistic morality assigns each individual with an intrinsic, transcendent value that makes us more valuable than anything else in the universe. This is why theistic morality is so much more rigorous than its materialistic counterparts. On materialism, a human being is no more significant than the dirt they stand on.

Yet this approach is problematic in itself.

Firstly, I would agree that the major perceived problem with any naturalistic conception of morality is that there just doesn’t seem to be a big enough stick to make people comply with the “rules” - certainly not when we live in a society that, at present at least, privileges the rights and interests of the individual over most other concerns. The carrot of individual reward, over the more pedestrian parsnip of general social harmony and the quiet personal rewards of altruism, is just too big and glamorous in its contemporary capitalist presentation. That has, certainly in my experience, been the core objection to a denial of “objective” morality imposed by a higher being.

But the fact that some people evidently require external reasons to behave morally is not a reason to suppose it’s actually true that there exists a supernatural law-giver, one who will reward and punish as individual human behaviour dictates.

Furthermore, I hardly need to elaborate upon the consequences of considering humans to be metaphysically special. It’s not just other species that have historically borne - and are currently bearing - the burden of human arrogance and our presently obsessive individualism; if the response to the carbon tax that has just come into effect in Australia is any indication, humans in general are not only prepared to disregard the interests of other sentient beings, but also of future generations of humans who will have to live with the consequences of our present behaviours. Perhaps what we really need is a swift injection of humility…

 

[inocente]

Non sequitur.

1. Belief in “a disembodied animist spirit” is not the **sole **alternative to materialism.
2. Christians believe God made man in His image and likeness.
3. "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” John 4:24
4. Therefore man has a **spiritual **as well as a physical nature.
5. Those who believe neuroscience can explain all man’s activity are not Christians.

Point 1 is irrelevant since I has responding to your claims alone. Your other points pave the way for trying to dictate what Christians must believe, but we belong to the Lord, how come you think it’s got anything to do with you?

If Catholic teaching really supports your take that the mind is disembodied then please link it, along with the explanation of how, for instance, a supernatural mind can possibly interact with the physical body whistle. Until then I’ll continue to believe you don’t have a leg to stand on.

 

[inocente]

Actually, there are many Christians who hold that the mind is natural, and human life ends with the body, only later to be reinstated at our LORD’s second coming.

So your point 5 is not altogether correct.

ICXC NIKA

Spot on.

 

[Sair]

I’m not sure what you mean by “rigorous”, but most moral codes prescribed by religion are notoriously demanding. In fact, it is these very moral systems that causes many to reject religion, most commonly the restraints it imposes on human sexual behavior. It’s funny how often even the most acclaimed anti-religious voices in our society illustrate the point. Sam Harris, Dawkins, etc. have all voiced their distaste for the sexual prohibitions of Judeo-Christian morality. In essence, they are, on this point at least, like a child who now “hates” his mother because she wouldn’t give him cookies when he wanted them.

On closer examination, the problem most public atheists really have with religiously-imposed sexual restriction is firstly that it tends to represent the human body as debased, fallen, unworthy, or any other derogatory adjective you might fancy. The prohibition of certain sexual activities is all too often imposed by the inculcation of the idea that the body and its attendant instincts are something of which we ought to be ashamed, rather than things we should respect and celebrate. That may not be the theory, but it certainly has been the practice in the experience of many who have grown up in religious families.

In addition, it’s almost ridiculously easy to connect any supposed religiously-derived sexual restrictions with man-made social restrictions, especially upon female sexuality. The perceived imperative of male paternal certainty has historically been the prime consideration in this regard. And that doesn’t even touch upon the failure of the restrictions in question to recognise different individual needs, even when it comes to something as fundamental to an individual personality as hetero- or homosexual inclination.

To borrow your analogy, the resentment of the child who was denied cookies would be all too understandable if the reasons given for the denial were that some people ate too many cookies and got fat, and therefore ought to be ashamed of themselves; while others were gluten intolerant or allergic to chocolate, or just didn’t particularly like cookies, or didn’t like the right kinds of cookies - therefore everyone must be denied access to cookies unless granted permission by the authorities, because, goodness knows, no-one is able to take a sensible, moderate approach to eating them…

 

[inocente]

A more cogent view is that the body, mind and soul are integrated **aspects **of one person rather than three distinct entities.

This is most encouraging. At last something we can agree on.

To equate the mind with the brain raises insurmountable problems.

How does this compute given the above? Are mind and body integrated or not?

 

[Sair]

Morality, on materialism, is just a psychological defense mechanism to help people sleep at night and look at themselves in the mirror in the morning. The truly honest and compassionate response to such an unjust world is to get rid of it. I respect that argument because it is honest about the consequences of its premises.

Actually, the genuinely compassionate response is to try to increase the total levels of happiness and well-being in the world. The options are not just theism or suicide. Though it has to be said, these are, in principle, easier than the ideal, just because they don’t demand that we work at improving life for ourselves and others while we last.

 

[levinas12]

But this is just the kind of observation we would expect from humans with a stance of intentionality, and a necessary insulation from the direct sense of “being conscious” as distinct from the experience of consciousness, on materialism.

I love the occasional detour into Heidegger and all that, but I’m always struck by the advancement of distinctions like “not of our genes” pit against “enticements of ‘disclosure’”, which I understand to be a distinction without a difference. The “enticements of ‘disclosure’” are the mechanism by which our genes drive us, no?

That is, if we understand, on naturalism, we’d expect our minds to have these intuitions about disclosure and/or an abstract “I”, so why doesn’t naturalism get the nod, here, just by virtue of its economy?

-TS

 

[GEddie]

God the Father is a bodiless mind.

But He is not a human being.

We are not spirits any more than we are gods. Our human mind requires a human head to operate from and to hold our memories.

ICXC NIKA

 

[tonyrey]

*A more cogent view is that the body, mind and soul are integrated **aspects ***

There is a difference between being integrated and being equated…

 

[Viviphilia]

But, anyway, to get back to the point at hand, it seems that you are saying that the existence of God, and thus the basis of that morality, has not been “rigorously” demonstrated (an argument which I would challenge, mind you.) This is not what I’m talking about.

No. I’m saying that theistic morality depends on a belief in a deity and many peole do not believe in any deities. Therefore, morality based on a deity fails for many people and those people must find some other first principles on which to build an ethics.

Founding your philosophy on a logical fallacy is never a good idea. This begs so many questions I don’t know where to begin. I guess the first would be how do you judge the value of existent morality vs. human suffering? Etc., etc., etc.

You have not explained how the tautology I mentioned could be a fallacy. In fact it is not a fallacy, and it is well justified by the logic I used in that post.

The problem of evil is far more difficult for a morality which depends on a deity which is perceived as being benevolent than it is for any secular philosophy.

I have a friend (an agnostic) who makes a rather compelling case that the most moral thing a person could do would be to wipe us out and thus end the violence and suffering that both we and nature inflict upon us. The argument can quite simply be reduced to the following sentiment: If there is no God or ultimate justice in the universe, the suffering of a single human being outweighs all the good in the world. The balance is immediately shifted in favor of evil. Morality, on materialism, is just a psychological defense mechanism to help people sleep at night and look at themselves in the mirror in the morning. The truly honest and compassionate response to such an unjust world is to get rid of it. I respect that argument because it is honest about the consequences of its premises.

By Humanist morality, your friend is promoting the ultimate evil in the suggestion that Humanity should be wiped out. I don’t see how any reasonable person could respect such evil.

 

[Viviphilia]

The fatal flaw in Humanism is that it arbitrarily selects one species (one’s own of course) to be the sole basis of morality.

Here is your contradiction. First you claim that Humanism selects arbitrarily, then you say “one’s own of course.” The latter is true and the first is nonsense. Of course Humanism selects Humans as the basis for morality.

Man is exalted as the measure of all things. If any ethical view is anthropomorphic we need look no further…

Theism - Humanism - Nationalism - Tribalism - Nepotism - Egoism - Nihilism

There are only two logical positions on this slippery slope : the first and the last.

Take your pick!

That’s a poor excuse for a slippery slope argument.

 

[Viviphilia]

So true. Speaking from my own experiences of both myself and many friends and associates, I have found it to be true that materialism DOES necessarily lead to nihilism. It just also typically leads to denial.

I am a materialist and I respect Christianity and tradition. I am quite opposed to nihilism and I feel no attraction to nihilism whatsoever. I’m not sure why anyone would believe materialism could necessarily lead to nihilism.

 

[GEddie]

I am a materialist and I respect Christianity and tradition. I am quite opposed to nihilism and I feel no attraction to nihilism whatsoever. I’m not sure why anyone would believe materialism could necessarily lead to nihilism.

It makes perfect sense scientifically.

Materialism holds that matter, or physicality, is all that “is.”

The law of entropy requires that all matter, energy (which interconverts with matter via E = mc[sup]2[/sup]) and therefore physicality, runs down toward final heat death.

Therefore, matter and physicality can lead only to nothingness.

ICXC NIKA

 

[tonyrey]

The fatal flaw in Humanism is that it arbitrarily selects one species (one’s own of course) to be the sole basis of morality.

Arbitrary favouritism based on a **biological **fact is not a rational basis for morality

Man is exalted as the measure of all things. If any ethical view is anthropomorphic we need look no further…

Theism - Humanism - Nationalism - Tribalism - Nepotism - Egoism - Nihilism

There are only two logical positions on this slippery slope : the first and the last.

Take your pick!
That’s a poor excuse for a slippery slope argument.

An unsubstantiated assertion is worthless.

What is **the reason **for being morally anthropocentric?

 

[Viviphilia]

Arbitrary favouritism based on a **biological **fact is not a rational basis for morality

Arbitrary favouritism? I have no idea how you got to such a bizarre conclusion. Are you really suggesting that goldfish could be more important than Humans?

The fact that we are Humans is a rational basis for maintaining an ethics which serves Humanity. Humanism is the natural morality for Humans since we’re Humans.

What is **the reason **for being morally anthropocentric?

The reason our morality must be anthropocentric is because we are Humans, obviously.