Here's my new argument for dualism. By dualism, I mean the view that consciousness is not caused by the activity of the brain.
The proof is simple: the components of the brain are not united, they are separated by little gaps, such as the synaptic gap. On the contrary, consciousness is a unitary phenomenon. Suppose that I see a white spot: the perception of this spot is unitary. But according to materialists, this unitary phenomenon is produced by an object which is not unitary. If consciousness were produced by the brain, we should expect that consciousness would not be unitary, but as fragmented as the brain.
Therefore, consciousness is not produced by the brain.
You will say: 'Yes, but all the evidence in neuroscience points to…" and besides “Your theory is an obstacle to scientific research” I reply that we can warrant scientific research with the hypothesis that the soul, that consciousness belongs to, is mistakenly identified with the body. The soul “thinks” that it is identical with the body, and it behaves as if there were no difference between the body and the soul. Perhaps at the death, the soul realizes that it is not identical with the body and simply goes away.
How can you explain the fact that the physical condition of our brain effects our thoughts?
If you can give me an example of one thought uneffected by physical conditions then you have a case for dualism. Until then I see no strong supporting logic.
Well, you know, I have found an interesting suggestion in Indian philosophy, precisely in the Sâmkhya-Yoga tradition.
The soul exists, but «believes» that it is identical with the body. Therefore the soul links its fate to the fate of the body. This identification is so strong that even when the body is in a state of rest (sleep), the soul remains tied to it, and does not experience anything…
I am not bound to give an example of a thought independent of the body… I don’t hold this kind of dualism…
As far as i am aware, no part of the brain is completely isolated from all others. Provide a link to some evidence (i wikied synaptic gap and got nothing).
Even if there were, there is no reason to assume all the brain together is responsible for consciousness.
My experience of consciousness is not unitary anyway. Although if im focusing on a white dot my thoughts might be focused too, usually im thinking about one thing and half thinking about what i am doing, as well as all the other half automatic processes that go on without my explicit say so (checking to cross the road, washing my hands after going to the toilet, etc).
I dont see how you can say that the mind/soul is “tied” to the body, this is something physical. How can you explain the link between something physical and something not physical?
To say that the soul “believes” that it is identical with the body is to suggest that the soul has an independant mind and this seems very unplausable.
If the countless neurons in the brain were not attatched to each other they would be floating around like soup and none of us would be here.
I’m sure you’ve seen a brain outside a skull before. Not the distinct ‘Non-soup-like’ solid form it takes. Have you tried looking the brain up in a medical book?
But I do think that the soul is seperate from the brain, so seperate in fact it is impossible to show if anyone has one or not. Hang on, I’ll just look up ‘soul’ in the medical encyclopeadia…
This is a philosophical dogma that something non-physical is too different from something physical to have a relation with it. But I don’t say that non-physical is “opposed” to physical… they are just different. It’s like: is something non-human, say an animal, opposed to a human being? No, they are just different, and this does not prevent them to interact. What is different is that we see the resemblance between a human being and an animal, but we can’t see the resemblance between a body and a soul, because our mind is not made to understand spiritual realities. But I believe that they are indeed similar, so that their interaction is not surprising.
How do you tackle the explanatory gap? As Angst pointed out, how does the non-material affect the material world? Especially if its existence is not even caused by the material?
How would your theory handle the zombie hypothesis?
I’m not saying you are wrong, but I don’t think you are right.
I tend to see what people call brain and what people call mind to be one in the same. Our thoughts and physical actions seem to be the effect of neurons firing up feeding info into fibers which make things happen.
You just mean the synaptic cleft? You do realise thats a design feature that allows communication, not some sort of dodgy wiring.
[/quote]
Im not familiar enough with neurology to say one way or the other, but i see no reason to doubt given my understanding. What do you know about neurology that leads you to believe it is not “unitary”?
Also, remember that you are only experiencing the front end: the result of the calculations, not the calculations themselves. I mean, you look at a computer’s insides and they dont have to resemble your desktop for one to come from the other.
That’s another problem. I am not sure that the mind can act upon matter. But my doubts are not caused by the poor idea that a non-physical entity, just because it is different from a physical entity, can’t have a relationship with it. I think that mind and matter are similar, but that the brain is not made to conceptualise these similarities, as it can do with two physical objects…
so wait are you saying that there is no material consciousness because the brain itself works independently in different areas? or are you saying that there is no consciousness because the brain doesnt have physical connections?
I’ll try and get the right spelling… but it basically means that all matter has a form of conscious somehow. It’s a trap alot of dualists often fall into…
in other words, unless I’ve misread… what your saying would make sense not only for brain matter, but just matter in general.
