Stupid Theist Tricks: Denial of Physical Reality
This is the first of a series called "Stupid Theist Tricks" that will focus on the various ways theists use false logic and similar sleights of hand to support their belief in God.
Today's topic is the denial of what we observe in nature. Specifically, what we observe is that nervous systems in biological creatures produce various levels of cognitive function, and the most complex nervous systems can produce cognitive function on the level that we would regard as "mind" capable of rational thought. Theists beg to differ. They insist that mind can only result from some non-material source.
It is not my intention here to try to convince them that empirical evidence and science are not on their side in this debate. They've heard it all before. They know enough of the facts that they should at least have strong doubts about the superstitious nature of their own beliefs. But they cling obstinately to those beliefs despite the facts.
Victor Reppert has written a book that defends this notion that mind cannot arise from purely physical causes. His logic amounts to an argument from ignorance. He says something like this: There are no mental objects at the most fundamental level of physical reality, along with the subatomic particles that form the building blocks from which physical things are made. And therefore, there are no building blocks for mind. This leads to the conclusion that mind is fundamentally non-physical. In other words, I don't understand how a physical system could result in rational thinking. Therefore it must be impossible.
The observed facts tell a very different story. First, mind is not an object that is made of physical component pieces. Mental activity (what we call mind) is a function. It is the activity of a physical object that we call the brain, in much the same sense as "computing" is the activity of computer. Without the computer, there is no computational function. Would Victor insist that since there are no fundamental particles called "computons", that the activity of computers must be non-physical?
But computing is not exactly the same as mind. The computers we have today certainly are different from thinking brains. In some respects, they are faster and more accurate than human minds, and in other respects, they don't have the same level of comprehension or understanding that minds have. Does that imply that it is not possible, even in principle for a computer to have sufficient complexity to perform cognitive functions on a similar level to that of humans? Theists would argue that they don't and can't ever have any understanding at all. This is based on the religious belief that understanding derives from something other than physical stuff. But computers get more powerful every year, and they already have achieved amazing levels of cognitive ability. Many people believe that the time is not so far off when they will match or exceed the cognitive capability of a human mind.
Evidence tells us that our cognitive function is physical. We see that brains (or nervous systems) of different complexities give rise to cognitive function of corresponding complexity. We see that if the brain is physically damaged, cognition is damaged as well. We see that when the brain dies, cognitive function ceases. None of these things would be entailed by the theists' theory of a non-material mind. Indeed, they insist that the mind lives on after the death of the body, and that it is the materialist who denies reality.
I agree that between theists and materialists, at least one is in denial. The theists' version if reality is unobservable, unexplainable, and contrary to what we see in our world. It is based on the fear of dying - it provides the comfort of believing that the person lives on after the body is dead. The materialists' version is at least consistent with our observations of the world and the physical behavior of biological systems. While it may not be comforting for some to realize that death is the end of their existence as a person with a mind, it is the reality that we see, rather than the fantasy world that we hope for.
Evidence tells us that our cognitive function is physical.
ReplyDeleteIt does nothing of the sort. Evidence tells us that the processing of thoughts (cognitive function) is performed by physical agents.
We see that brains (or nervous systems) of different complexities give rise to cognitive function of corresponding complexity.
We do not see anything of the sort. What we do see is that brains of higher complexity are required for the processing of more complex thoughts. What gives rise to those thoughts is not indicated at all.
We see that if the brain is physically damaged, cognition is damaged as well. We see that when the brain dies, cognitive function ceases.
Again, we see none of this. What we do see is that when a brain is damaged, its ability to process thoughts is also impaired, and when a brain ceases to function (dies), it will no longer process those thoughts. Whether or not those thoughts (a.k.a., consciousness) still exist is not demonstrated in the slightest.
You have demonstrated nothing, other than your own (skewed? biased? predetermined?) interpretation of evidence that is steadfastly neutral to this discussion. Nothing that the human brain either does or does not do sheds even the slightest light on the nature of consciousness. It only tells us how our physical structures interact with consciousness. Your argument here is a classic example of arriving at your conclusion first, and then shoehorning the evidence into a box that fits your conclusion.
"Evidence tells us that the processing of thoughts (cognitive function) is performed by physical agents."
Delete- A thought is not an object that passes through some kind of process. A thought is a perception we experience (in the form of silently verbalized words) that results from part of our cognitive activity. Basically, it amounts to speaking to ourselves. There is much cognitive activity that precedes this verbalization, so it would not be correct to say that the verbalization, in itself, constitutes the thought process, but rather that the thought, as we perceive it, is at the end of a chain of cognitive events, most of which happen in the brain without our awareness. If by "physical agents" you mean brains, then I would agree. The brain if very clearly the organ that accomplishes this function.
"We do not see anything of the sort. What we do see is that brains of higher complexity are required for the processing of more complex thoughts."
- As I explained, cognitive function is much more than just having 'thoughts". In fact, verbalized thoughts require language processing capabilities, so animals without language are incapable of having verbalized thoughts, yet they can still have significant cognitive function. What gives rise to this function is their brain.
"Whether or not those thoughts (a.k.a., consciousness) still exist is not demonstrated in the slightest."
- Now you are trying to inject your religious belief into the conception of consciousness. There is no evidence that biological consciousness of any kind is sustained without a functioning brain. We do know that even with a brain, consciousness is not always sustained. In other words, it can be turned off temporarily under various conditions, including sleep or coma. But consciousness is nothing more than our perceived experience of sensations, emotions, and certain cognitive activities, including those verbalizations we call thoughts.
"Your argument here is a classic example of arriving at your conclusion first, and then shoehorning the evidence into a box that fits your conclusion."
- My argument is based on the (admittedly imperfect) evidence-based scientific understanding that I have. Yours is based on superstition, and not on evidence.
A thought is not an object that passes through some kind of process.
ReplyDeleteSez you. I say it is. We can liken the brain to a smartphone. In the phone world, there are signals out there (calls, text, data) existing independently of the device. We use a phone to process these signals. In an analogous manner, the brain is what the body uses to interact with what (for analogy purposes only) we can call "signals" (thoughts, consciousness). When the brain is sick (a.k.a., malfunctioning), or asleep (a.k.a., off), or dead (a.k.a., dead), then the signals will not be processed.
And just as a primitive device (say, a Jitterbug) cannot process complex signals (you need an iPhone (or its equivalent) for that), in like manner an animal's brain is not capable of operating at the human level. So much for your second point.
Now you are trying to inject your religious belief into the conception of consciousness.
No, what you are trying to do is to inject your atheistic conceptions into the discussion. I never mentioned religion, God, or anything of the sort. Please show me where I did.
There is no evidence that biological consciousness of any kind is sustained without a functioning brain.
And there is no evidence that it is not.
We do know that even with a brain, consciousness is not always sustained. In other words, it can be turned off temporarily under various conditions, including sleep or coma.
You are repeating what I said in my first comment (in my next-to-last paragraph). Does that mean that now you are trying to inject religion int this discussion?
Yours is based on superstition
Really? Again, show me where I invoked superstition. All I have done is show how you have no grounds to reach the conclusions that you have, based on the evidence, which is resolutely neutral as to the ultimate nature of consciousness. As I have demonstrated, the very same evidence you used can lead to radically different conclusions.
"Sez you. I say it is. We can liken the brain to a smartphone."
Delete- And where is your evidence for this? If thoughts were some kind of signal that could be picked up by a brain detector, we should have evidence for that, but I challenge you to show any scientific literature that supports such a notion. The literature does show that the inputs to the brain are sensory signals (sight, sound, etc.). These are the signals that are processed by the brain. They don't correspond or translate directly to thoughts, but perception of these signals does constitute part of part of the cognitive processing that can produce what we call "thoughts".
"in like manner an animal's brain is not capable of operating at the human level."
- That is consistent with what I said. I don't know what point you're trying to dispute.
"No, what you are trying to do is to inject your atheistic conceptions into the discussion. I never mentioned religion, God, or anything of the sort. Please show me where I did."
- What I'm injecting is scientific understanding. Period. No preconceived notions - just an evidence-based conception of mind. When you postulate thoughts as signals that don't originate from the brain, you are introducing a religious-based notion of dualism that has no support whatsoever in empirical observation or science, aside from unscientific or pre-scientific notions that many people have about where their thoughts come from.
"And there is no evidence that it is not."
- Aside from dead people or those whose brains do not function normally. They exhibit no sign of cognitive function, as opposed to live people who do. I'd call that evidence. I don't know what you call it.
"You are repeating what I said in my first comment (in my next-to-last paragraph). Does that mean that now you are trying to inject religion int this discussion?"
- What you said is: "Whether or not those thoughts (a.k.a., consciousness) still exist is not demonstrated in the slightest." In other words, you hold open the idea that thoughts exist in the absence of a functioning brain. I don't. There is no evidence to support that, and it is entirely inconsistent with any scientific postulation of cognitive function.
"Really? Again, show me where I invoked superstition. All I have done is show how you have no grounds to reach the conclusions that you have, based on the evidence, which is resolutely neutral as to the ultimate nature of consciousness. As I have demonstrated, the very same evidence you used can lead to radically different conclusions."
- I already showed what you said that is based on superstition. The evidence does not support your dualism, but it does support the scientific view that mind is the function of the brain. If you would like to dispute this, please show me the non-theistic literature that backs up your views.
Your last comment demonstrates to all objective readers that you are entering this discussion with your mind made up before it ever began. You know what you wish for the evidence to say, and you will do whatever necessary to twist, squirm, and bend the interpretation of such until it fits your preconceived outcome. It is truly sad that you are so blind to what is so screamingly obvious. You have no interest in honest inquiry, but only wish to shout down all threats to your "safe zone" of atheistic materialism with accusations of "Superstition!" and "Religion!" as though that were some sort of actual argument. Really. Your method of argument resembles nothing so much as a Bible Belt fundamentalist tent revival preacher spouting the "Word of God" - only in your case, all it takes is an invocation of "the scientific view" to shut down to the debate.
ReplyDeleteCan you not see this? Are you that blind to how blinkered your worldview is? It is small wonder that you are so off the mark as to the nature of thought, when you think so little as it is. Maybe when you learn to reason and engage in some genuine thinking, you might get the first glimmering of what consciousness actually is. I doubt that a stone has any idea of what thought consists of. You first need to think!
planks length,
DeleteYour comment screams of projection. You say that I sound like a religious fundamentalist? Why? Because I base what I believe on evidence and not on your theistic assumptions?
You say I am not interested in an honest inquiry? I explained my position and I noted that it is supported by evidence. I made no claims about having solid proof of anything. The best we can do is take into account what is observable. I asked you what evidence you have for your belief. Instead of giving me an honest answer, you simply rattle off your anti-atheist spiel.
You say I shout down all threats to my atheistic materialism? Please quote the "shouting down" that I have done. I thought I was being courteous. I genuinely want to hear what you have to say, but it seems you don't want to present your case.
I am interested in an honest inquiry. Please make your own case. Please provide the basis for believing what you believe. If you have reason to believe in dualism, what is it? And is that reason something that I should accept?
And by the way, before you even think about playing the "you're just as biased as me" game, consider that I repeatedly stated that the evidence was neutral, that it supported neither my point of view nor yours. Everything depends on one's interpretation - but the available facts tell us absolutely nothing about the nature of thought or consciousness. All they tell us is how the brain works. You can interpret them as indicating the brain's activity causes the thoughts, or that it reacts to them. There is no way to distinguish which at present.
ReplyDeleteAnd if you ask, where is the evidence of such independently existing thoughts, I would point to those very same brain functions. Just as my ear reacts to sound, or my eye processes light, or my nose determines what things smell like, so does my brain process thought. The very fact that it is functioning can be legitimately interpreted as evidence of their independent existence. And even more tellingly, the fact that when the brain ceases to function, consciousness also does not interact with the body, this can be strongly indicative of their external nature.
But if you have already made up your mind and are impervious to alternate explanations, then I cannot help you. But please remember, you came to your conclusion first, then looked for "evidence" to fit your predetermined outcome. The very opposite of genuine science.
"I repeatedly stated that the evidence was neutral, that it supported neither my point of view nor yours."
Delete- The evidence doesn't support the idea that mind is a physical process? All the evidence we have is physical. The brain is physical, its activities are physical. There is no evidence whatsoever for anything BUT a physical mind.
"Everything depends on one's interpretation"
- You got that right. If you insist on believing in a non-physical mental function, it isn't because of any evidence - that is, unless you can show me some.
"Just as my ear reacts to sound, or my eye processes light, or my nose determines what things smell like, so does my brain process thought."
- That's not true at all. The brain receives signals from the sense organs. The physical mechanisms are well understood, and the neural pathways from those organs to various processing centers in the brain are well-known. The brain itself is not a sense organ. It has no mechanism for receiving any input signals except for those transmitted from the sense organs. If you want to speculate that the brain does have some kind of sensory capability, you are merely supposing a mechanism that is completely unknown in the brain. You really need to have some kind of evidence. What is this sensory structure? Where is it? How does it work? You might be able to get away with making claims like this in a philosophical discussion, but there is nothing scientific about it (read that as NO EVIDENCE).
"But if you have already made up your mind and are impervious to alternate explanations, then I cannot help you. But please remember, you came to your conclusion first, then looked for "evidence" to fit your predetermined outcome. The very opposite of genuine science."
- I think it is you who have your mind made up and you are unwilling to look at real evidence. There are plenty of books on this. Maybe you should try reading a few of them. I'm not talking about philosophy - I'm talking about evidence-based science. You just might be surprised to learn just how much really is understood about how the brain functions. Then you can tell me how unwilling I am to consider alternate views. The fact is, I'll listen to any view, but if it isn't supported by evidence, I'll favor the one that is.
I truly regret ever attempting to have a conversation with you. It is abundantly clear that your mind is made up like a troll who's turned into stone, and are impervious to reason. So I will bid you adieu and wish you good luck in thinking that you don't think! (Just try to wrap your head around that one. Oh, I forgot, you don't acknowledge a head that needs wrapping!)
ReplyDelete"Nor until then did his controllers allow him to suspect that death itself might not after all cure the illusion of being a soul - nay, might prove the entry into a world where that illusion raged infinite and unchecked. Escape for the soul, if not for the body, was offered him. He became able to know (and simultaneously refused the knowledge) that he had been wrong from the beginning, that souls and personal responsibility existed. He half saw: he wholly hated. The physical torture of the burning was not fiercer than his hatred of that. With one supreme effort he flung himself back into his illusion. In that attitude eternity overtook him as sunrise in old tales overtakes and turns them into unchangeable stone."
(C.S. Lewis, That Hideous Strength, pp. 355-6)
You liken me to the "like a troll who's turned into stone" because I don't buy into your belief system without having evidence to support it. I asked you for your evidence, and you offered nothing but ad hominem attacks on me.
DeleteDon't you understand that from my perspective you are the one who refuses to listen? I suggested that you do some reading and learning on this topic that you like to pretend you know so much about. What do you know about it except for your religious-based beliefs? What evidence do you have.? All I have asked of you is to give me some substantial reason to believe it, and you have given me nothing, quotations from CS Lewis aside.
You say I won't listen. I keep telling you that if you provide something that amounts to an actual argument or objective evidence, I will listen. But what you have done is accuse me, over and over, of not listening. For Christ's sake, say something to convince me that you are anything more than a religi-bot. So far, I haven't herd it.