Can neuroscience eliminates freewill and the soul?

[Al_Moritz]

Oh boy. I suddenly understand that sense of dread quantum physicists have when attempting to talk about their work - mostly with people who are interested in quantum physics but not so much the scientific aspects of the work…more the philosophic.

I can tell you point blank having done a lot of work in this field, no one wakes up in the morning and says “I’m going to Prove or Disprove Consciousness today!”

In fact many of the topics you just raised are usually brought up by folks who inhabit the academic field of the Philosophy of Mind - not really by us…at least not professionally.

Here’s a hint: one of the reasons why you have so many people walking around talking about the wonders of Neuroscience and staking out a variety of positions such as:

youtube.com/watch?v=N6SbPPL8tOI&list=UUa7iYmvqxcU22E5Qi-iMzTg&index=3&feature=plpp_video

or

youtube.com/watch?v=PyWfVyoz7BQ&feature=related

or

youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo&feature=relmfu

(and there’s a lot more actually)

Is because…we’re not anywhere near to disproving any of their positions yet. Its precisely because there’s a lack of data that EVERYONE (from Sam Harris to the Dalai Lama) is staking out positions.

I would compare this to making an argument about whether or not life exists on other planets. Of course anyone could make an argument about that either way…

…yet we lack the capability of verifying any of their answers…yet…

Thanks for your honest assessment.

 

[cornbread_r2]

I don’t know what the acronym “TIA” means, but I can tell you that Dr. Feser did just, in fact, write an article on St. Thomas’s conception of the duality of the body and soul. It’s expressed in a different way than most people would think, though.

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/09/was-aquinas-dualist.html

TIA = thanks in advance

I was actually looking for something with data. While that was an interesting article, it demonstrates what I was alluding to when I wrote about an apparent lack of methodology (beyond syllogisms) for resolving competing truth claims about supernatural stuff like the nature of the soul.

Thanks again

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I advised you to allow Aquinas to explain himself. I then quoted directly from his text. Whether or not you “buy an opinion” has no bearing on whether it is true or false.

Because a position is challenged does not mean it is wrong or weakened. The reason it is not clear to modern readers is not the fault of St. Thomas, but because it takes a vast amount of learning to understand it. If someone’s complaint is that the language is archaic, then there is nothing stopping them from learning Latin and reading it in its original language. Secondly, if one wants quick answers without taking the time to understand why those answers are true, they can simply look to the authority of the Church. There is no point in appealing to Dr. Feser to people who do not consider him an authority.

Sorry, I don’t even know how to respond. What you’re saying doesn’t even really make sense to me.

 

[TheAtheist]

Thanks for your honest assessment.

Its just the truth. Don’t get me wrong, we are making advances everyday - its just that the approach we take and the discoveries are small things in and of themselves.

Its when you are able to put it all together - that’s when we won’t have all these multiple theories of the mind - we will have a theory (or three).

The best analogy i can use is one that a friend who works in the History/Philosophy of Science once gave me.

There is a cup with fluid inside of it. People are arguing over the contents of the fluid - whether its flammable or not.

Some will say that a valid source that they trust told them that the fluid is flammable. Others will say that its impossible for the fluid to be flammable because all other fluids are in area are not flammable. Ergo - why should they expect this one to be.

So you can build tremendously large long drawn out arguments and systems about whether or not the fluid in the cup is flammable. All of these arguments will be logical - because they will be based on assumptions that the arguing parties will consider to be self-evident.

You can debate this until eternity ends.

Or…you can take the fluid out of the cup and throw a match on it and see what happens. And alter environmental conditions and try it again. Use a different match and try it again, etc. etc. etc.

That pretty much highlights the difference between we folks in the lab and those on the speaking circuit. We simply feel that the Dennetts, Pinkers, et al are calling out the answer waaay to early.

 

[tonyrey]

Many scientists have suggestd that neuroscience is the answer to all mysteries including consciousness, subconsciousness, morality, even free will and the concept of soul. Is this true. Can developments in this field successfully bring down these concepts to basic biological mechanism, thus reduce God into mere human imagination?

If neuroscience were the answer the neuroscientist would have no control over his conclusions. They would be caused by physical events and as fallible - and misleading - as instincts. In other words his research is self-destructive if it claims to explain all mental activity. It fails to take into account the independence of his mind.