A
- Status
G
GEddie
Guest
Thoughts anybody?
T
tonyrey
Guest
Science can measure the behaviour of “nerve cells and their associated molecules”but can it measure (in principle) the mechanism by which science accounts for scientists? That would amount for accounting for itself - which would be a most remarkable achievement, unparallelled in history and equivalent to the deification of molecular activity!
A
Alterum
Guest
If you’re interested in that, read this: thenewatlantis.com/publications/what-neuroscience-cannot-tell-us-about-ourselves
I’ve been studying (on the side, one mustn’t waste his time too much!) with some ‘neurophilosophers’ and neuroscientists, and they all tend to hold fairly nuanced positions regarding mind and brain, but most of it does amount to some version of physicalism. There seems to be a bit of a crisis in the field over what counts as scientifically explanatory, and some have suggested that we abandon the notion of ‘causality’ altogether – which I think is reflective of a growing uneasiness in philosophy of science regarding ‘deductive-nomological’ explanations. So I think there is a general move away from nomological explanations and towards functional or mechanistic or probabilistic explanations, but those obviously don’t work. The problem is really the assumed philosophical position – physicalism.
I’ve been studying (on the side, one mustn’t waste his time too much!) with some ‘neurophilosophers’ and neuroscientists, and they all tend to hold fairly nuanced positions regarding mind and brain, but most of it does amount to some version of physicalism. There seems to be a bit of a crisis in the field over what counts as scientifically explanatory, and some have suggested that we abandon the notion of ‘causality’ altogether – which I think is reflective of a growing uneasiness in philosophy of science regarding ‘deductive-nomological’ explanations. So I think there is a general move away from nomological explanations and towards functional or mechanistic or probabilistic explanations, but those obviously don’t work. The problem is really the assumed philosophical position – physicalism.
F
Faith1960
Guest
I’m wondering if all the advances in neurotheology, neuroscience etc. are closing in on proving (or if not proving, then strongly suggesting) that the human body hs no soul, our spirituality exists only in the brain and there is no God.
I don’t know about any of you, but this is really upsetting to me; but if it turns out to be truth, I’d have to learn to accept it.
I don’t know about any of you, but this is really upsetting to me; but if it turns out to be truth, I’d have to learn to accept it.
A
Alterum
Guest
Er, no, quite the opposite.
T
Trevor_Stamm
Guest
No, they are proving St. Aquinas right, yet again, on the subject of hylemorphic dualism. And, to no one’s great surprise, shutting down Cartesian dualism, though philosophy has already done this, scientifically. Seems as well that property dualism is down the tubes as well.
I
inocente
Guest
Quotes from the OP article are in italics.
Such findings show how intimately every aspect of our mental life is tied to neural processes, which often can be precisely located. The principal lesson that Jeeves and Brown draw from this (quite correctly, I think) is that our mental life is “embodied” and that concepts of the mind or soul as “free-floating” and “separate” from the brain and body must be rejected.
Currently all anyone can do is theorize as neuroscience is too new to give all the answers. Either we’ll be humbled by finding that our minds can be explained physically; or we’ll be humbled by failing to ever find a detailed explanation of mind and having to admit some things are forever beyond our capability.
But there is one key difference. Neuroscientists, unlike Descartes, tend to see the action as one-way: Matter can affect mind but not the other way around. Some justify this by saying that any effect of mind on matter would violate the laws of physics.
It mind emerges from matter then the question doesn’t arise – everything is matter.
The successes of contemporary neuroscience are also brilliant; but what was an obvious fact in 1961 remains so today. Science can measure the behavior of “nerve cells and their associated molecules,” to recall the words of Francis Crick, but it cannot measure “‘you,’ your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions.” That we are creatures of flesh and blood and bone—and, yes, nerves—no believing Christian or Jew has ever denied. But that these are “all there is to man” is quite beyond the power of any measurement or computation to demonstrate.
Duh, Professor Barr
.
Such findings show how intimately every aspect of our mental life is tied to neural processes, which often can be precisely located. The principal lesson that Jeeves and Brown draw from this (quite correctly, I think) is that our mental life is “embodied” and that concepts of the mind or soul as “free-floating” and “separate” from the brain and body must be rejected.
Currently all anyone can do is theorize as neuroscience is too new to give all the answers. Either we’ll be humbled by finding that our minds can be explained physically; or we’ll be humbled by failing to ever find a detailed explanation of mind and having to admit some things are forever beyond our capability.
But there is one key difference. Neuroscientists, unlike Descartes, tend to see the action as one-way: Matter can affect mind but not the other way around. Some justify this by saying that any effect of mind on matter would violate the laws of physics.
It mind emerges from matter then the question doesn’t arise – everything is matter.
The successes of contemporary neuroscience are also brilliant; but what was an obvious fact in 1961 remains so today. Science can measure the behavior of “nerve cells and their associated molecules,” to recall the words of Francis Crick, but it cannot measure “‘you,’ your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions.” That we are creatures of flesh and blood and bone—and, yes, nerves—no believing Christian or Jew has ever denied. But that these are “all there is to man” is quite beyond the power of any measurement or computation to demonstrate.
Duh, Professor Barr
.
F
Faith1960
Guest
Have you read these articles? The findings in them (and some others) are what’s upsetting to me:
tlc.howstuffworks.com/family/brain-religion.htm
npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=110997741
tlc.howstuffworks.com/family/brain-religion1.htm
beliefnet.com/News/Science-Religion/2004/10/The-Brain-Chemistry-Of-The-Buddha.aspx
nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html
huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/the-fallacy-of-the-god-ge_b_448024.html
F
Faith1960
Guest
T
Trevor_Stamm
Guest
Before answering do you understand what I was stating earlier about hylemorphic dualism (Thomistic dualism)?
F
Faith1960
Guest
Honestly, no. Much of this is over my head.
T
Trevor_Stamm
Guest
No need for worry then, a few simple reads and the links you provided may be read in proper context.Honestly, no. Much of this is over my head.
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/08/vallicella-on-hylemorphic-dualism.html
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/08/vallicella-on-hylemorphic-dualism-part.html
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/08/vallicella-on-hylemorphic-dualism-part_25.html
reading.ac.uk/AcaDepts/ld/Philos/dso/papers/Hylemorphic%20Dualism.pdf
fordham.edu/gsas/phil/klima/BODYSOUL.HTM
And if you fancy a book, amazon.com/Philosophy-Mind-Beginners-Guide-Oneworld/dp/1851684786
Ok, may not be “simple” reads
but understanding this dualism is critical if you’re having a crisis of faith or doubts or what have you.Enjoy.
A
Alterum
Guest
I haven’t read the OP’s articles (I don’t have time) but if he has specific difficulties perhaps he can state them so we can address them.
One main point to grasp about ‘hylomorphism,’ to which another referred, is that ‘mind’ and ‘brain’/‘body’ are not separate things, and so it doesn’t even make sense to say that the mind ‘emerges’ from the brain.
That notwithstanding, talk of ‘emergence’ or ‘supervenience’ is neuroscience is generally incoherent. Is matter alive? No? Well then, vital functions can’t be explained by matter. A real live well-respected neuroscientist recently told me that they had solved the problem surrounding the unity of conscious experience by positing simultaneity of neuronal firing, as though the neurons each individually picked out objects in the world! It’s really laughable.
I think you should read the link I provided. Some of the other stuff is good (Feser), but some of it (Klima) is complicated. The link I provided is to an article which explains in plain English, without introducing any difficult philosophical concepts, that neuroscience simply can’t in principle explain ‘the mind’.
But again, if something in particular is bothering you, please say so. I’m sure it can be addressed adequately.
One main point to grasp about ‘hylomorphism,’ to which another referred, is that ‘mind’ and ‘brain’/‘body’ are not separate things, and so it doesn’t even make sense to say that the mind ‘emerges’ from the brain.
That notwithstanding, talk of ‘emergence’ or ‘supervenience’ is neuroscience is generally incoherent. Is matter alive? No? Well then, vital functions can’t be explained by matter. A real live well-respected neuroscientist recently told me that they had solved the problem surrounding the unity of conscious experience by positing simultaneity of neuronal firing, as though the neurons each individually picked out objects in the world! It’s really laughable.
I think you should read the link I provided. Some of the other stuff is good (Feser), but some of it (Klima) is complicated. The link I provided is to an article which explains in plain English, without introducing any difficult philosophical concepts, that neuroscience simply can’t in principle explain ‘the mind’.
But again, if something in particular is bothering you, please say so. I’m sure it can be addressed adequately.
T
tonyrey
Guest
If you believe what you read there is no “me” to upset or be upset about!
T
tonyrey
Guest
That amounts to believing neuronal firing explains the problem of neuronal firing…
F
Faith1960
Guest
If you believe what you read there is no “me” to upset or be upset about!
Nevertheless, do you have anything insightful to refute what these people are finding about science, neurotheology etc.?
T
Trishie
Guest
Faith, just because there are evangelistic atheists, either insidious and overt, whose aim is to destroy others’ faith, do not succumb to their objectives. They come in many forms.
They think that in proving that mind and brain have a wonderful completeness, that they are proving there is no soul. They are not.
The spiritual and the physical are two different things, and yes the mind and brain and boy in all their physicality will die but the soul does not.
The soul, being spiritual, is not measurable by the physical. So don’t allow these people to seduce you to think that the physically, scientifically measurable mind, and any part of the human that is measurable, is the soul, or the soul disproved.
They think that in proving that mind and brain have a wonderful completeness, that they are proving there is no soul. They are not.
The spiritual and the physical are two different things, and yes the mind and brain and boy in all their physicality will die but the soul does not.
The soul, being spiritual, is not measurable by the physical. So don’t allow these people to seduce you to think that the physically, scientifically measurable mind, and any part of the human that is measurable, is the soul, or the soul disproved.
T
ThereWasADream
Guest
It seems to me like even if neurotheological findings were, in fact, reliable, there would still be no need to doubt God’s existence, if that is indeed what this is about.
If I am happy because I just left Church, and my neurons fire to produce such an emotion, does that create some kind of problem? If I am given a vision and there is actually something going on in my brain as well, does that indicate that my vision was not authentic? Think carefully about this. One does not necessarily follow from the other.
If I am happy because I just left Church, and my neurons fire to produce such an emotion, does that create some kind of problem? If I am given a vision and there is actually something going on in my brain as well, does that indicate that my vision was not authentic? Think carefully about this. One does not necessarily follow from the other.
- Status