C
ccmnxc
Guest
On the whole non-existence of a soul thing…this is a rather good summary I have found on the topic:
"I was watching the Craig versus Rosenberg debate and saw some rather surprising axioms being accepted from both sides; that being the loss of intensional meaning on naturalism. Typically when I argue against naturalism it is from the position that naturalism entails epiphenominalism which entails determinism, and then I underscore the logical absurdities that comes from determinism on Darwinian evolution. What Craig did was surprising, he went right for the throat of intensional identity which I was almost certain Rosenberg would cleanly object to even if he had to accept some bizarre notions. I honestly did not (and applaud him for his honesty) expect him to bite the bullet and accept the loss of basically identity altogether. This is, to me, a completely game breaking defeater for naturalism. One simply must accept the existence of the soul lest one basically deny their own existence.
So I wanted to do a quick talk on what exactly this means, and why it’s so devastating for naturalism/atheism.
Intensional Identity - Is the identity conferred onto something by title or descriptor, or through interpretation. For example, when you point at a dog and say, “That is a dog,” you are creating an intensional identity. When you read a story and two paragraphs in say, “This is Harry Potter,” you are recognizing its intensional identity. Even pointing at a road and saying, “That is Queen Street,” is appealing to an intensional identity.
Extensional Identity - Is basically “that which is” objectively. In essence, what that thing is regardless of what anyone calls it or thinks of it. For example, the dog is a collection of proteins and amino acids, further reduced it is simply a chunk of matter. The book, Harry Potter, is simply another chunk of matter. And the street, ultimately, is just concrete without title and is, as such, simply another chunk of matter.
Epiphenominalism - The belief that the mind stems from the physical processes of the brain, and is not in causal authority over the brain. “You” are in essence the chemicals and electrical signals that fire in your brain.
Determinism - The philosophical view that that which happens, could not have happened any other way. Sort of like Calvinism for atheists.
Now naturalism entails the complete physicality of all thought and action. Epiphenominalism is necessarily true considering “me” or at least the mind that I consider to be me is simply arising from physical processes of the brain which are, in return, reacting to external stimuli. Considering a physical system can be reduced down to it’s physical components, all action is basically determined through experience of the outside world. Example:
Suppose I see a dog, point at that dog, and say, “That is a dog.” On naturalism that is not what’s happening. Photons are bouncing off of the dog and travelling into my retina which in turn activates an electrical signal within the optic nerve. This electrical signal travels to the vision center of the brain which in turn activates a new set of chemicals to be released leading to further chemical and electrical discharge. Due to the manner at which the charge strikes the optic center of the brain, chemicals release causing further electrical discharge to move both towards the muscles of the arm and throat. These signals then activate the bundles of nerves along the muscles of the throat and arms, which in turn send signals to the muscles causing them to contract. These contracting muscles, due to the electrical signals, fluctuate the throat in such a way as to cause a vibration in the air. If your eardrums pick up this vibration this creates signals in your nerves which in turn are sent to your brain, thus creating another set of chemical and electrical reactions.
Since all action, thought, and motive are simply a chain reaction of physical cause and effect, at no point throughout the entire proceeding can a chemical “stop and think” or an electrical signal “consider” where it will go. It is simply a reactionary event causing all “choice” to break down, ultimately, to the body’s reaction to chemicals and electrical signals. If this is true (and on naturalism it is) then we lose all intensional identity. For example: You are not reading and interpreting this sentence, the photons that bounce off your computer screen merely react to your optic nerve in such a way as to cause a certain chemical and electrical reaction in your brain which reconfigures the neural pathways of the physical brain. There is nothing “reading” this, as “you” do not exist. All that is happening is that these words I write are causing the photons to bounce into your eyes in just such a way as to restructure and reconfigure your physical brain. But even that is not true! Because you see “I” do not exist, what is happening is a physical construct of matter, chemicals, and energy is reacting to previous stimuli by pushing it’s fingers onto little squares of plastic that, in turn, write these words onto the screen which cause the photons to bounce.
"I was watching the Craig versus Rosenberg debate and saw some rather surprising axioms being accepted from both sides; that being the loss of intensional meaning on naturalism. Typically when I argue against naturalism it is from the position that naturalism entails epiphenominalism which entails determinism, and then I underscore the logical absurdities that comes from determinism on Darwinian evolution. What Craig did was surprising, he went right for the throat of intensional identity which I was almost certain Rosenberg would cleanly object to even if he had to accept some bizarre notions. I honestly did not (and applaud him for his honesty) expect him to bite the bullet and accept the loss of basically identity altogether. This is, to me, a completely game breaking defeater for naturalism. One simply must accept the existence of the soul lest one basically deny their own existence.
So I wanted to do a quick talk on what exactly this means, and why it’s so devastating for naturalism/atheism.
Intensional Identity - Is the identity conferred onto something by title or descriptor, or through interpretation. For example, when you point at a dog and say, “That is a dog,” you are creating an intensional identity. When you read a story and two paragraphs in say, “This is Harry Potter,” you are recognizing its intensional identity. Even pointing at a road and saying, “That is Queen Street,” is appealing to an intensional identity.
Extensional Identity - Is basically “that which is” objectively. In essence, what that thing is regardless of what anyone calls it or thinks of it. For example, the dog is a collection of proteins and amino acids, further reduced it is simply a chunk of matter. The book, Harry Potter, is simply another chunk of matter. And the street, ultimately, is just concrete without title and is, as such, simply another chunk of matter.
Epiphenominalism - The belief that the mind stems from the physical processes of the brain, and is not in causal authority over the brain. “You” are in essence the chemicals and electrical signals that fire in your brain.
Determinism - The philosophical view that that which happens, could not have happened any other way. Sort of like Calvinism for atheists.
Now naturalism entails the complete physicality of all thought and action. Epiphenominalism is necessarily true considering “me” or at least the mind that I consider to be me is simply arising from physical processes of the brain which are, in return, reacting to external stimuli. Considering a physical system can be reduced down to it’s physical components, all action is basically determined through experience of the outside world. Example:
Suppose I see a dog, point at that dog, and say, “That is a dog.” On naturalism that is not what’s happening. Photons are bouncing off of the dog and travelling into my retina which in turn activates an electrical signal within the optic nerve. This electrical signal travels to the vision center of the brain which in turn activates a new set of chemicals to be released leading to further chemical and electrical discharge. Due to the manner at which the charge strikes the optic center of the brain, chemicals release causing further electrical discharge to move both towards the muscles of the arm and throat. These signals then activate the bundles of nerves along the muscles of the throat and arms, which in turn send signals to the muscles causing them to contract. These contracting muscles, due to the electrical signals, fluctuate the throat in such a way as to cause a vibration in the air. If your eardrums pick up this vibration this creates signals in your nerves which in turn are sent to your brain, thus creating another set of chemical and electrical reactions.
Since all action, thought, and motive are simply a chain reaction of physical cause and effect, at no point throughout the entire proceeding can a chemical “stop and think” or an electrical signal “consider” where it will go. It is simply a reactionary event causing all “choice” to break down, ultimately, to the body’s reaction to chemicals and electrical signals. If this is true (and on naturalism it is) then we lose all intensional identity. For example: You are not reading and interpreting this sentence, the photons that bounce off your computer screen merely react to your optic nerve in such a way as to cause a certain chemical and electrical reaction in your brain which reconfigures the neural pathways of the physical brain. There is nothing “reading” this, as “you” do not exist. All that is happening is that these words I write are causing the photons to bounce into your eyes in just such a way as to restructure and reconfigure your physical brain. But even that is not true! Because you see “I” do not exist, what is happening is a physical construct of matter, chemicals, and energy is reacting to previous stimuli by pushing it’s fingers onto little squares of plastic that, in turn, write these words onto the screen which cause the photons to bounce.