Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Not Merely False

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

“We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men” (George Orwell).

The following statements are so obvious as to be considered truisms.

1. The primordial datum: I am subjectively self-aware.

2. It is not possible even in principle to account for mental facts, such as the primordial datum, on the basis of physical facts. They are different sorts of things; therefore one cannot account for the other. Trying to account for subjective self-awareness by suggesting it is an epiphenomenon of the electro-chemical process of the brain is like saying the color blue can be reduced to its constituent banana peels.

3. It follows that a reductionist materialism is not merely false but obviously false.

4. Just as obviously, it does not follow that committed materialists will admit that reductionist materialism is false, for they have reasons to put their faith in their metaphysical commitments that have nothing to do with the evidence and logic of the matter.

Comments
Mung says 'The mental can apprehend the physical, the physical cannot apprehend the mental. that’s how.' But my question is not about apprehension, but about the mental causing physical changes. Apprehension by the mental of the physical surely does not affect the physical in any way.[email protected]
September 14, 2014
September
09
Sep
14
14
2014
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
Acartia_bogart:
I can honestly say that I have never whinged about anything.
Then stop complaining. verb verb: whinge; 3rd person present: whinges; past tense: whinged; past participle: whinged; gerund or present participle: whingeing; gerund or present participle: whinging 1. complain persistently and in a peevish or irritating way. "stop whingeing and get on with it!" noun noun: whinge; plural noun: whinges 1. an act of complaining.Mung
September 13, 2014
September
09
Sep
13
13
2014
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT
Mung: "What is the ethical basis for your constant whinging about what Barry ought do and ought not do?" I can honestly say that I have never whinged about anything.Acartia_bogart
September 13, 2014
September
09
Sep
13
13
2014
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT
A_b, What is the ethical basis for your constant whinging about what Barry ought do and ought not do? That's what has many of us puzzled, in case you haven't picked up on it yet. You deny objective morality while constantly accusing others of being immoral, as if they ought to share your same lack of objectivity on the matter.Mung
September 13, 2014
September
09
Sep
13
13
2014
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT
Barry: "email protected, I see only one question. If there are two, please break them out." Hmmm. I count two question marks. I see two distinct questions. The second you simply sluffed off with no explanation. The first you did not answer. Please correct me if I am wrong councillor, but I dont see an honest attempt to answer to either question.Acartia_bogart
September 13, 2014
September
09
Sep
13
13
2014
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT
email protected, I see only one question. If there are two, please break them out.Barry Arrington
September 13, 2014
September
09
Sep
13
13
2014
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
@61 The mental can apprehend the physical, the physical cannot apprehend the mental. that's how.Mung
September 12, 2014
September
09
Sep
12
12
2014
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT
anthropic, your father was not Sgt Schultz was he? What is the truth Schultz, as you see it? I see nothing, I know nothing! Hogan's Heroes - Sgt. SchultzMung
September 12, 2014
September
09
Sep
12
12
2014
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT
Don't mean to brag, but even when I was very young my parents told me that I both knew and understood Nothing. Now that's something! ;)anthropic
September 12, 2014
September
09
Sep
12
12
2014
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT
Barry, you appear to have responded to my second question but I think you have ignored the first. I repeat, ''If, as you say, ‘It is not possible even in principle to account for mental facts, such as the primordial datum, on the basis of physical facts.’, then how is it possible to account for physical facts on the basis of mental facts?'[email protected]
September 12, 2014
September
09
Sep
12
12
2014
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PDT
Andre@38, Brilliant! Most people think they understand Nothing but they don't. ;-) Thank you. It's a keeper. -QQuerius
September 12, 2014
September
09
Sep
12
12
2014
09:14 PM
9
09
14
PM
PDT
Second comment, maybe slightly off topic but the talk about the eye and brain connection reminded me... In Mark 8:22-26 we are given an account of Jesus healing a blind man. What's particularly interesting about this is that, perhaps uniquely in healing accounts, Jesus performs two actions, not just one. First, Jesus spits(!) on the man's eyes and asks if he can see. The blind man replies, "I see people, they look like trees walking around." Then Jesus put his hands on the man's eyes and we are told that "his eyes were opened and he saw everything clearly." What fascinates me is that this account 2,000 years ago parallels what sometimes happens today after eye surgery. People who have been blind for a long time have trouble interpreting what their eyes see at first. Usually it takes several weeks before the brain learns to "see" properly. Obviously this wasn't known two millennia ago. The obvious inference is that this account is almost certainly historically accurate.anthropic
September 12, 2014
September
09
Sep
12
12
2014
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT
Two comments, two posts. First, I agree with AB 56 that it is generally better to keep opposing posts online and debate them. For one thing, sometimes the opposition has a good point that has been overlooked. For another, this trains ID supporters to understand and meet objections. If the post is just a venomous bunch of ad hominem attacks, then removing them may be appropriate. We want light, not just heat. Just my two cents, BA. I'm new here so may well not understand the history. These calls are difficult sometimes.anthropic
September 12, 2014
September
09
Sep
12
12
2014
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT
A_b and Graham2, your childish antics grow tiresome.Barry Arrington
September 12, 2014
September
09
Sep
12
12
2014
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT
Mark Frank:
How does dualism solve this problem?
It begins by not engaging in the tu quoque fallacy and the fallacy of the excluded middle.Mung
September 12, 2014
September
09
Sep
12
12
2014
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT
"how is it possible to account for physical facts on the basis of mental facts? Is that not what dualism requires?" No, dualism does not require this. The premise of your question is false.Barry Arrington
September 12, 2014
September
09
Sep
12
12
2014
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT
If, as you say, 'It is not possible even in principle to account for mental facts, such as the primordial datum, on the basis of physical facts.' then how is it possible to account for physical facts on the basis of mental facts? Is that not what dualism requires?[email protected]
September 12, 2014
September
09
Sep
12
12
2014
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
A_B: But i will stick to your rules. Yes, we are self aware. And I may even concede that we have free will, although I don’t think that there is any way to unambiguously test this. But acknowledging that these occur is not proof that these are not the ultimate result of chemical reactions on the physical brain. One of the fallacies of materialist thinking is that everything can be reduced to a scientific issue. There seems to be an axiomatic assumption among materialists that there can be a scientifically established causal nexus between electrochemical phenomena and the attributes of consciousness. I can state philosophically that this is false but I can't prove it and you can't falsify it because it is outside the reach of science, therefore it is not science, which supports my view. If you think it is within the realm of scientific inquiry then go ahead, but there certainly is no scientific progress in this area in the last 300 years to support such an opinion. The physical sciences are just as stuck in the mud as ever on the questions of human suffering due to mental/moral states. This last is maybe not true of other avenues of research see my last point. The fact that we can interfere with these through the use of chemicals is a strong suggestion for the opposite. Bring up a video on your computer screen, open up the case and while it's playing drip salt water on the motherboard, and watch the screen. Then come back and tell us that the source of the video is the motherboard because of what you see using said chemical. Around 12 years ago the U.S. government resumed licensing the use of psychedelics (specifically psilocybin) in psychotherapy. The substances with their dramatic effects on consciousness happen to be the best tools for establishing some of the major underlying 'mechanisms' (poorly fitting word) of consciousness. In short, the best data to come out of consciousness research is from sessions with these powerful medical tools. And the results from these thousands of studies over the years do NOT support materialism in the least. Sorry that's just the way it is brother. In multiple sessions, the subject begins the experience of unfolding themes of personal, psychological, and spiritual nature. The breakthrough book on this is Grof: Realms of the Human Unconscious (1975) I have quoted on UD the mind-boggling opening paragraphs of Chapter 4 entitled "Perinatal Experiences in LSD Sessions". I have given this book to several materialists to read and they get bogged down in this chapter and quit. This last out of fear I'm assuming, it is too hard to give up the struggle against ones own nature after decades of harboring delusional beliefs.groovamos
September 12, 2014
September
09
Sep
12
12
2014
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
A_B, others have very ably engaged the points you raise.Barry Arrington
September 12, 2014
September
09
Sep
12
12
2014
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT
A_B's first comment:
Barry, with all respect, stating that these are truisms does not make them so. And ridiculing anyone who does not accept these as truisms, as you and others have a habit of doing, does also not make it true. If anything, it detracts from the arguments that you are trying to make.
Barry's comments since then:
#11: A-B, you are free to disagree with me. All I ask is that if you do disagree with me that you present arguments – logic and evidence — to support your position. So far, all you’ve done is whine.
#21: 20 comments in and A-B finally stops whining and makes an argument. Atta boy A-B; atta boy.
#35: I have seen it many times, but I am nevertheless amazed afresh each time I see it — someone stamping their feet and getting red in the face as the absolutely insist they do not exist and neither does the person they are addressing.
#48: Wonderful! Thank you Graham2. I knew this was coming, but that you would jump in with it right up front is a treat. What does a materialist do when he has no good argument? Very often he resorts to the “me no speaka the English” distraction. Thanks for the illustration.
Barry, I think that you have made my point for me. Rather than discuss the dissenting comments, you have simply tossed them aside with condescension and ridicule. I also have a tendency to fall into this behaviour but at least I admit it. So, let's just look at your actual OP. You have made four statements of fact (truisms) but refuse to provide any evidence why they are truisms. Some of the other commenters have asked me why OUGHT you? And fair enough, it is your post and you are the UD moderator. But evidence would certainly add context for discussion. Your first truism, that we are self aware (whatever that means), I will give you. It would be impossible to argue against this because we all experience it. But this is not proof that this self awareness is outside the physical nature of our body. As previously mentioned, numerous clinical observations and directed research have shown that destructive and non-destructive actions on the brain can temporarily or permanently affect this self-awareness, and other mental functions. Studies have also shown that the sensations that have been reported during NDE can be replicated in the laboratory. I am not saying that this is conclusive evidence that your statement is false. It may turn out to be true. But to call it a truism at this point is simple false. And as such, proceeding to your third and fourth statements are simply unwarranted extrapolation based on a questionable assumption.Acartia_bogart
September 12, 2014
September
09
Sep
12
12
2014
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
Graham2 @ 33:
If you people insist on such vague, slippery terms such as a ‘mental fact’ then these discussions are pretty pointless. What on earth is a ‘mental fact’ ? How do we account for such a thing ‘on the basis of’ something else ?
Wonderful! Thank you Graham2. I knew this was coming, but that you would jump in with it right up front is a treat. What does a materialist do when he has no good argument? Very often he resorts to the “me no speaka the English” distraction. Thanks for the illustration.Barry Arrington
September 12, 2014
September
09
Sep
12
12
2014
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
No evidence to adduce for your case, A_c? Just, why me? Box: What's more sight has been proven to be not always dependent upon our eyes, both by people who have undergone NDE's under tightly-controlled conditions, but by a lesser known, I think, female, saint a century ago or more. Anecdotal but surely reliable, in view of its permanence; perhaps proved at the time by describing things or scenes, blindfolded.Axel
September 12, 2014
September
09
Sep
12
12
2014
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT
Acartia_bogart #20: If we remove the eyes, we are blind. That is pretty conclusive evidence that the eyes are critical for sight. If we damage the visual centre of the brain, we are also blind. again, demonstrating that sight is probably due to chemical and physical properties.
You argue that (external) sight is reducible to the eyes and the brain. However true blindness occurs when ‘inner-sight’ is lost. Similarly, not able to ‘hear’ one’s thoughts is far worse than being deaf. Similarly, not being able to think is far worse than not being able to speak. Notice that the inner ‘counterpart’ is always fundamental to the external. Would you or anyone suggest that reason is reducible to a speech organ and the part of the brain responsible for its mechanics? The eye is an instrument of sight, like a speech organ is an instrument of reason.Box
September 12, 2014
September
09
Sep
12
12
2014
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT
The whole point of an obvious truism is that it would be 100% obvious to an adolescent with IQ identical to his age. In such cases, even if one were foolish enough to undertake explaining it, it would be very difficult to know where to start, because wherever one did start, one would feel extremely foolish - stating the obvious. It is for you to question the adduced obvious truism, on the basis of evidence and logic - not continuing to whine.Axel
September 12, 2014
September
09
Sep
12
12
2014
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
A-b #6 No surprise, A_c. You don't see design in nature - never mind see it as an obvious truism!Axel
September 12, 2014
September
09
Sep
12
12
2014
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT
Mark Frank.... It must be really horrid to know you can't trust the convictions of your own mind. Your mind has been developed from the lower animals right? “But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”Andre
September 12, 2014
September
09
Sep
12
12
2014
02:15 AM
2
02
15
AM
PDT
#41 Hi Heks I was not intending to embark on a full blown discussion of the philosophy of mind. I can see it leading very quickly to the pack descending on me, hot tempers, and wasted time. I just wanted to challenge your assertion that the standard view of materialism is that our conscious experience is illusory. (This would indeed be circular as illusions are part of our conscious experience) MarkMark Frank
September 12, 2014
September
09
Sep
12
12
2014
01:44 AM
1
01
44
AM
PDT
@Mark Frank #36 Hi Mark, It seems from your comment that you think forms of physical monism somehow solve the problem. The category of "Physical Monism" is merely a storehouse for materialist conceptions of mind, which still essentially deny the real existence of a subjective internal life. Of course, in some cases they try to assert that something like what people consider a mind might in some sense be an emergent property of matter, though the relationship is always from some physically determined brain state to some corresponding "mental state" without the ability of the mind to in any way impact brain states, which creates an obvious problem for free will or for the concept that our thoughts are anything other than chemical reactions taking place in a physically predetermined way. None of these theories of mind account for intentionality or a real subjective internal life. They are motivated by the desire to limit reality to the material in the hopes that everything about reality is accessible and knowable to materialistic science ('What a piece of work is the materialist scientist ... In apprehension how like a god!'). All these materialist conceptions of mind are reductive, which is to say that they all reduce anything resembling a mind to mere properties of physical stuff and so they are forced to merely make assumptions and assertions that perhaps something that would appear to us like aspects of a mind might be able to be generated by matter alone. But the evidence for the ability of matter to generate even some kind of pseudo-mind comes primarily from the assumption that materialism must be true. Eliminative materialism is itself just another more extreme form of physical monism that holds that even our current methods of thinking about and discussing mental life will eventually be discarded once it is better understood that matter is all there is. Of course, how we could be thinking about anything in the first place in order to change the way we're doing it remains unclear. In any case, none of these concepts in the storehouse of Physical Monism have any ability to account for the full breadth of the human mental experience. Eliminative conceptions address the problems of mind by simply denying the mind exists at all. Less extreme versions are actually more problematic in some ways, since in trying to maintain any sense of a mind they must then actually face the problems of mind rather than simply sweeping them aside and so must attempt to account for the emergence of self-consciousness and intentional thoughts from meaningless conglomerations of atoms, which none of them have done at all convincingly. I hasten to add that all these views about the potentiality of matter seem all the more absurd if one eliminates the possibility of Intelligent Design, which would at least allow for the possibility that some agent intentionally constructed matter in such a way that phenomena as bizarre as self-consciousness as intentionality might emerge from very specific configurations of an otherwise inert substance. I might also add that many would take serious issue with the idea that physical objects precede mind in light of the discoveries of Quantum Mechanics, which has suggested even to some atheists that the reality is precisely the opposite, which has in turn caused them to switch from atheism to either theism or deism. Interestingly, on this view of Quantum Mechanics, if any type of monism was going to be supported it would be of the non-physicalist variety, such as some form of Idealism. It seems telling to me that even many atheist materialists find these physical monist options unconvincing and feel forced instead to adopt an eliminative view of mind, denying that it really exists at all. Whatever option the materialist chooses, the problems stand.HeKS
September 12, 2014
September
09
Sep
12
12
2014
01:16 AM
1
01
16
AM
PDT
#39 Florabama
Certainly the AB’s of the world should be able to acknowledge that if your mind is nothing more than electrical signals in the brain, then there’s no way to tell whether what you see and feel are real or whether you’re just a battery in the Matrix. How do you know, AB?
How does dualism solve this problem?Mark Frank
September 12, 2014
September
09
Sep
12
12
2014
01:07 AM
1
01
07
AM
PDT
A few atheists are admitting that materialism can't explain the mind -- and that a self aware mind is contraindicated by Darwinism. Chief among the atheist rebels is Thomas Nagel. I read the book a couple of years ago and it was an interesting tour of the various theories of the mind that by all materialist accounts shouldn't be there. Nagel pulls no punches. Darwinism must be false he says which leaves him stranded -- a man without a home. That the self aware mind shouldn't be there, is a straight forward and obvious point unless one has an a priori religious commitment to materialism. Certainly the AB's of the world should be able to acknowledge that if your mind is nothing more than electrical signals in the brain, then there's no way to tell whether what you see and feel are real or whether you're just a battery in the Matrix. How do you know, AB? http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception-ebook/dp/B008SQL6NS/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1410508160&sr=1-1&keywords=mind+and+cosmos+thomas+nagelFlorabama
September 12, 2014
September
09
Sep
12
12
2014
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply