Misusing Science
by BradfordA New York Times article entitled Science of the Soul? "˜I Think, Therefore I Am' Is Losing Force, illustrates how science can be misused to advance a mataphysical agenda. From the article:
Although he (Pope John Paul II) noted that in the intervening years evolution had become "more than a hypothesis," he added that considering the mind as emerging merely from physical phenomena was "incompatible with the truth about man."
But as evolutionary biologists and cognitive neuroscientists peer ever deeper into the brain, they are discovering more and more genes, brain structures and other physical correlates to feelings like empathy, disgust and joy. That is, they are discovering physical bases for the feelings from which moral sense emerges "” not just in people but in other animals as well.
Look at this. Neuroscientists have discovered that brain biochemistry correlates to feelings. Shocking huh. You know what's coming. Since there is a correlation, feelings are nothing more than manifestations of underlying biochemical reactions or perhaps we could say that feelings are an emergent property of brain biochemistry. That sounds impressive to a materialist without having to reveal anything new.
The result is perhaps the strongest challenge yet to the worldview summed up by Descartes, the 17th-century philosopher who divided the creatures of the world between humanity and everything else. As biologists turn up evidence that animals can exhibit emotions and patterns of cognition once thought of as strictly human, Descartes's dictum, "I think, therefore I am," loses its force.
Animals exhibit feelings and patterns of cognition previously thought to be the sole preserve of humans ergo Descartes dictum is losing its force? Descartes's dictum might have a philosophical statement to make about existence and consciousness but how was this mitigated by empirical findings? Don't hit a strawman on the way to the keyboard.
For many scientists, the evidence that moral reasoning is a result of physical traits that evolve along with everything else is just more evidence against the existence of the soul, or of a God to imbue humans with souls.
Or as V. S. Ramachandran, a brain scientist at the University of California, San Diego, put it in an interview, there may be soul in the sense of "the universal spirit of the cosmos," but the soul as it is usually spoken of, "an immaterial spirit that occupies individual brains and that only evolved in humans "” all that is complete nonsense."
"There may be soul in the sense of "the universal spirit of the cosmos,"- Thanks for your metaphysical input brain scientist but are you telling us that the negation of the second assumption ("an immaterial spirit that occupies individual brains and that only evolved in humans") is the result of an experiment you are aware of? For that matter was your prior statement empirically grounded as well? And what pope or scientist has declared that a soul had to evolve? Why would a scientist want to delve into this except to advance a personal metaphysical agenda?
July 1st, 2007 at 1:48 am
It's the New York friggin' Times, Bradford! Misinformation is their middle name!!!
Comment by Crandaddy — July 1, 2007 @ 1:48 am
July 1st, 2007 at 2:49 am
Bradford, never mind the correlations being discovered between physical states of the brain and mental states. What about correlations between physical states of stars and mental states? If we jiggered astrophysical states around a bit, maybe a lot of mental states would be correlated with those too. I'm not aware of that hypothesis having been properly tested, though I'm sure that every mental state is in fact correlated with some astrophysical state or other. So maybe the apparent correlation between brain states and mental states is merely coincidental. After all, such a merely coincidental correlation is bound to occur in at least one universe in an infinite multiverse, and so some people had to inhabit such a universe, and it just happens to be us.
And yet, oddly enough, only a few materialists think that minds are really just stars.
Of course, we already know that lunar states affect mental states. That why you sometimes hear 'brights' howling during the night like this:
Oooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!:evil:
Comment by stunney — July 1, 2007 @ 2:49 am
July 1st, 2007 at 6:22 am
Bradford,
You are spot-on. I originally got into science-blog-debating on PT when I argued with Wes Elsberry about level playing fields. He said that an ID paper would receive a fair hearing — and in a sense he was right–an ID paper that proposed a test would be published. But in the sense I meant it, I was right: that metaphysical musing is permitted, even in peer reviewed science papers, if if is agreeable metaphysical musing–such as multiple universes. And what you have posted here. I am guessing that the metaphysical sentiment that the soul is obsolete makes its way into the literature in spite of the fact that genes related to empathy would do no more harm to the concept of a soul than genes related to violence would do to the concept of evil. This is, in fact, representative of a long understood truth–that God employs secondary means.
Comment by David Heddle — July 1, 2007 @ 6:22 am
July 1st, 2007 at 7:23 am
The sheer incompetence of scientists here is astonishing. Not in their science, mind you–I have no doubt they can do it. But when they speculate beyond the science, they have absolutely no conception of what they are talking about. If they did, they would know that their new scientific findings provide no new relevant information for the matter. We've known for a very long time that the mind and the brain interact. Now we have a better idea just where those interactions localize in the brain. That's great for neuroscience, but the mind-brain question, and the existence of the soul, have never been discussed on the basis of a centimeter here, a centimeter there. It's been based, philosophically, physical systems' inability to account for all of our experiences (reflective self-awareness, rationality, consciousness, free will, and so on); and historically and theologically, on knowledge gained through God's word.
Cornelia Dean's competence as the writer doesn't exactly shine, either–she seriously misunderstood one of her contemporary sources, as the correction at the end of the article now shows. I suppose she's a science writer, and therefore somewhat forgivably not in touch with the philosophical and theological issues, though.
The real blame goes to the scientists who are speaking so outside their field they can't even see it from there.
Comment by TomG — July 1, 2007 @ 7:23 am
July 1st, 2007 at 8:03 am
Given the precedents that have been established, fast-forward a couple of decades. Do you think there might be those who will argue that a neuroscientist who believes in the soul should be denied tenure, since such belief would demonstrate an inability to grasp science?
Comment by MikeGene — July 1, 2007 @ 8:03 am
July 1st, 2007 at 8:09 am
"Science of the Soul?"…
Update July 1: Other thoughtful responses to this article……
Trackback by Thinking Christian — July 1, 2007 @ 8:09 am
July 1st, 2007 at 8:15 am
Scary thought, MikeGene–not just because of what it would mean to our understanding of God, humans, and the world, but also because it would mean scientists had really cut themselves off from other fields of knowledge–even more so than today.
Comment by TomG — July 1, 2007 @ 8:15 am
July 1st, 2007 at 8:27 am
David Heddle:
I'm thinking that the soul is obsolete mantra will infiltrate the literature as well. At some point it could represent conventional wisdom backed by "scientific data." Actually the existence of genes that predispose one to violence, alcoholism etc. would be consistent with the concept that humans are innately sinful.
Comment by Bradford — July 1, 2007 @ 8:27 am
July 1st, 2007 at 8:35 am
TomG:
Good point. The inability to account for the experiences mentioned is revealed by phrases like "emergent property of" which is no more substantive than a proclamation that life is an emergent property of matter.
Comment by Bradford — July 1, 2007 @ 8:35 am
July 1st, 2007 at 8:46 am
Mike Gene:
PZ would deny tenure today on that basis. A steady drumbeat of papers echoing the theme that science has debunked the concept of a soul would act like a conditioning process greasing the skids for those wanting to exert a metaphysical claim and link it to the prestige of science.
Comment by Bradford — July 1, 2007 @ 8:46 am
July 1st, 2007 at 8:52 am
TomG:
There is a loss of a sense of scientific boundaries. Making claims about untestable matters, based on data that does nothing to actually test them, can politicize science.
Comment by Bradford — July 1, 2007 @ 8:52 am
July 1st, 2007 at 8:55 am
Crandaddy:
Articles like this can serve a purpose that the author did not intend for it.
Comment by Bradford — July 1, 2007 @ 8:55 am
July 1st, 2007 at 8:57 am
stunney:
Some of the claims have the force of astrology.
Comment by Bradford — July 1, 2007 @ 8:57 am
July 1st, 2007 at 10:27 am
The fact is that the concept of an immaterial soul has taken a battering at the hands of science. There is a reason that dualism has been pushed to the fringes of neuroscience, and it's not because some arbitrary metaphysical dogma is being foisted on neuroscientific practitioners. The reason is the evidence.
There are some arcane versions of the soul concept that have no empirical implications, and are thus inaccessible to science. Most people, however, throughout history and up to the present, have held ideas about the soul which do have observable consequences, and are thus quite amenable to scientific study — and falsification.
God's role in the universe has been circumscribed by scientific discoveries and relegated to the ever-shrinking gaps in scientific knowledge. In exactly the same way, the role of the soul has shrunk as well.
For example, many people believe that OBEs (out-of-body experiences) are not just apparent, but real, and that the soul actually leaves the body during these experiences and travels to other locations. Most people who have had an OBE report that their senses were intact (and often heightened, in fact) during the experience.
This presents a perfect opportunity for a scientific test. If the soul is capable of "seeing" during its peregrinations, then it should be able to acquire information that is unavailable at the location where the body is situated. This has studied experimentally by placing "targets" (e.g. random numbers) in certain locations and inviting OBE subjects to "travel" to these locations to read the the targets. Interestingly, the subjects are often quite confident that they have successfully read the targets, but they are wrong. No such capability has been demonstrated. See the second part of this comment for more on this.
Another example: many people see the immaterial soul as the seat of the will, and hold it responsible for the decisions a person makes (particularly the morally significant ones). The fact that the will seems to be utterly dependent on the brain and unable to function without it, and the fact that a person's morality can be dramatically altered by damage to the brain, both suggest that this idea is outdated. See this comment for an excerpt from a Scientific American article discussing the impact, on the will, of damage to a part of the limbic system.
Comment by keiths — July 1, 2007 @ 10:27 am
July 1st, 2007 at 10:35 am
Hi everyone,
Since it is Sunday morning, here's a thought. I'm not sure why such findings pose any problem with the traditional Christian worldview. According to this view, we are created as bodily beings, God incarnated as a bodily being, Christ was bodily resurrected, and the after-life includes a bodily resurrection.
Comment by MikeGene — July 1, 2007 @ 10:35 am
July 1st, 2007 at 12:21 pm
In fact the concept of evil (and free will in general) is being rendered obsolete, more by neurosciene than genetics, but it's part of the same thing — the more we know about the material basis of mind, the less room there is for traditional concepts of the soul and self. In law, we already have the concept of the insanity defense, recognizing that some people can't be held responsible for their actions — their brain made them do it. The problem is, that explanation holds for normal people as well as those suffering from insanity. We're all doing what our genes and brains are making us do.
In the presence of increasing scientific knowledge, the self, soul, and free will start to look like necessary fictions. But the "necessary" part of that is just as important as the "fictions". We can't get rid of our souls, but we don't, at present, have very good methods for integrating these fictions with objective scientific knowledge. A newspaper article is not going to be able to do more than note the tensions, but there are plenty of thinkers who have tackled these issues head on (Dennet, Owen Flanagan, Douglas Hofstadeter are the ones I know who are coming at it from the materialist side — Dennett's "The Self as the Centre of Narrative Gravity" is a good place to start.
Comment by mtraven — July 1, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Hi Mike,
There may indeed be some Christians who would be comfortable with the idea that the soul is a purely material entity.
Other Christians would object, for one or more of the following reasons:
1. Free will and moral responsibility. Some people believe that if the will is materially based, then free will and moral responsibility are illusory. Sin and judgment then become problematic concepts.
2. Continuity of self. If the soul ceases to exist when the body dies, but is then reconstituted when the body is resurrected, then is it really the same soul, or just an identical one?
3. Creation of souls. If a collection of atoms arranged in a particular way constitutes a person with a soul, then humans may someday be able to create souls. This is problematic for those who believe that this ability is reserved to the Deity.
4. Specialness of humans. Some people like to think of an immaterial soul as a differentiator between humans and animals.
5. The period between death and resurrection. Many (if not most) Christians believe that the soul continues to function between death and resurrection, having thoughts, emotions, memories, pleasures and/or pains.
For example, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory holds that some souls, due to unabsolved sins, require a sort of purification by fire before being admitted to heaven. Augustine described the pain these souls experience as worse than any pain it is possible to experience on earth.
Clearly this doctrine makes no sense if souls are not capable of experiencing pain, and if they are not morally responsible and hence susceptible to purification apart from the body.
Of course, the best evidence that most Christians believe in an immaterial soul, and are threatened by the possibility that it might not exist, is the vehement opposition they mount in threads like this. I've seen it many times.
Comment by keiths — July 1, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 12:56 pm
mtraven wrote:
Owen Flanagan's view of these issues is presented in his book The Problem of the Soul. I commend it to those interested in the topic.
Comment by keiths — July 1, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Keiths:
Keiths, your claims that you are subjecting an immaterial concept to testing ring hollow. Unless you are able to specify properties of an immaterial x that could be tested by such and such under y conditions then you are merely indulging your own metaphysics under the guise of science. The out of body experience is an example. Results are mixed but any testing results do not address a central claim of the soul namely, its survival beyond the permanent death of the body of an organism. If you cannot deal with this claim and unequivicably resolve it empirically, then all the subsequent theories based on testing are blowing smoke and a waste of valued funding revenue.
Comment by Bradford — July 1, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 1:31 pm
mtraven:
Only when you enter the analysis with a skewed view of the data and what is being tested. Evil is focused around a value system and that is not determined by a genomic readout. Right and wrong cannot be rendered obsolete by neuroscience or genetics because those disciplines are not suitable vehicles by which to determine what is right and wrong.
The legal concept is instructive. It revolves around a determination made, largely by ordinary people, not particularly well versed on the underlying issues, who must decide issues based only on the expert testimony presented at trial and the skilled argumentation of opposing counsel. Hardly the makings of an objectively arrived at scientific conclusion. Biochemistry does influence behavoir. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute, and not scientifically established, is the contention that free will is solely reducible to underlying brain biochemical activity. Those advancing a materialist argument have a metaphysical axe to grind on pseudoscience.
Comment by Bradford — July 1, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Bradford wrote:
I am able to do so. Didn't you read what I wrote about OBEs? The hypothesis is that
1) there is an immaterial soul that inhabits the body;
2) the soul can leave the body and travel during OBEs;
3) when traveling, the soul retains its ability to see;
4) afterward, subjects remember what their souls "saw" during their journeys.
This hypothesis has empirical consequences. If it is true, then we should be able to carry out experiments in which OBE subjects obtain knowledge via OBEs that they could not have gathered while remaining "inside" their bodies.
Such experiments have been carried out, with negative results.
Furthermore, it's not just that OBE subjects fail to obtain the target information. Many of them are confident that they have succeeded, yet turn out to be wrong. This is a big problem for the hypothesis.
So we have a hypothesis (based on someone else's metaphysics, by the way, not mine) which makes testable predictions, and we have experiments which test these predictions and fail to confirm them. How does this amount to "indulging my own metaphysics"
No, but why should knowing what happens to the soul after death be a prerequisite for asking what functions, if any, it serves during life?
And if science shows that it has no independent functions during life, then what would it even do after death? Why suppose it even exists, if there is no evidence for it? Why should your religious preconception be the default hypothesis, to be retained until it is conclusively disproven? Why not pick the hypothesis that best matches the evidence?
That's absurd. It's like saying that unless we know how humanity will end, then there is no reason to study humans now — all of history and psychology and neuroscience are "blowing smoke and a waste of valuable funding revenue".
And speaking of funding, most of the research that has undermined the concept of the soul has been undertaken for a different reason: to understand how the brain works. The health benefits alone justify the funding for this research. The fact that it is helping us to jettison an ancient and outmoded superstition is a bonus.
Comment by keiths — July 1, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Suppose someone's brain is missing. Would a person's will be able to function without it? Well, not in this world. Why? Well, because someone whose brain is missing would be dead. Similarly, someone whose heart is missing would be dead. But we don't say that the mind just = the heart, even though for a human intellect and will to act in the world, humans need a heart (and lungs, and other body parts too).
What about damage to the brain? Or just general anaestheia? Well, what about it?
One needs to think about how to design an embodied, spatiotemporal creature endowed with rationality and moral autonomy. What kind of universe would be required for, and consistent with, such a creature? I referred to the kind of universe it would have to be from a purely physical point of view in another thread.
But a creature endowed with what the term 'soul' refers to, namely conscious rationality and moral autonomy, needs more than just physics, because the essential properties of rational thinking and autonomous willing are just not physical ones nor reducible to physical ones. (Incidentally, in denying the existence of the soul on my definition of that term, one would be denying the existence of conscious rationality and morally autonomous willing–which is surely incoherent.)
So God needed, in order to create bodily creatures endowed with conscious rationality and moral autonomy, to design and instantiate some psychophysical laws as well as some purely physical laws (and constants). And these laws are contingent. That is, such laws are not, or do not represent, necessary truths. There are logically possible worlds in which Ohm's Law, say, doesn't obtain and in which there are zombies. In other words, both the physical and psychophysical laws that obtain in our world needn't have obtained, but they do, by God's design.
Consider this possibility: the psychophysical laws God has designed entail the following propositions:
1. A living human body is causally necessary for all mental states that body has.
2. A living human body is causally sufficient for all mental states that body has.
3. Propositions 1 and 2 are not necessary truths, but contingent truths.
4. Mental states are neither identical with, nor reducible to, their bodily causes, since effects in general are neither identical with, nor reducible to, their causes.
5. Some mental states cause some bodily states.
6. A human being is one substance, which has physical and non-physical properties.
What is the origin of human reason"”the type of rationality that enables us to discuss this issue, as well as do very abstract mathematics and apply it in particle accelerator experiments, to build particle accelerators, to translate Japanese into Finnish, and to fret about the limits of free speech, the causes of rising gas prices, and what to do about global warming?
If we look at the emergence of modern homo sapiens, something very dramatic does seem to have occurred roughly 50,000 years ago. My theory would be that God, say 50,000 years ago, created a new contingent connection between certain human brain states and certain types of essentially non-material higher mental states"”—those, for instance, involving language, abstract thought, morality, and so forth. I think I would also say that earlier, either at the OOL point or subsequently, God created a contingent connection between physical life (or forms of physical life of a certain minimal degree of complexity), and what we can call broadly sentience—"”which would then give rise to various species of consciousness: frog consciousness, bat consciousness, dolphin consciousness, bonobo consciousness, etc all the way up to fully developed human consciousness.
In short, God, not matter, designed qualia and intentionality (God is the creator, after all). For it's extremely implausible that an impersonal natural process would generate a contingent connection to such a thing as a rationally conscious mind (with all its knowledge of complex necessary truths of mathematics, logic, physics, chemistry, etc). So, such a connection in my view almost certainly had to have been created on purpose by a very intelligent non-material agent.
People say nice things about the mental abilities of chimpanzees and such like. But chimpanzees and other similar primates are no closer to mastering theoretical physics than their ancestors of 1,000,000 years ago. At the very least, giving a persuasive naturalistic account of how very complex, very abstract mathematical beliefs such as those involved in set theory, Lie groups, and the like are justified is far from easy, which is worth mentioning if only because of how much reliance is placed on mathematical beliefs in the methods and practice of the natural sciences.
An additional reason for insisting on the contingent nature of organism-consciousness connections derives from one of Saul Kripke's celebrated arguments against mind-brain identity: roughly, if the mind just is the brain, this would have to be a necessary truth (since for all x, x=x); and surely it is not. For if it were a necessary truth, that would entail that in every possible world containing minds, those minds would all be human brains. But that seems extremely implausible. It seems quite possible to conceive of minds that are not identical with human brains. These could include God's mind, angelic minds, alien minds, robot minds, Cartesian minds, etc; or, perhaps just as or even more plausibly, our minds. But then, if the connection is a logically or metaphysically contingent one, it's extraordinarily improbable for it to have arisen unintentionally. Which is why the naturalist needs to sing this song again:
Here comes the multiverse, do do do do
Here comes the multiverse, and I say
It's all right
Little darling
It's been a long cold lonely winter
Little darling
It feels like years since it's been here
Here comes the multiverse, do do do do
Here comes the multiverse, and I say
It's all right
Little darling
The smiles returning to the faces
Little darling
I seems like years since it's been here
Here comes the multiverse, do do do do
Here comes the multiverse, and I say
It's all right
Multiverse, multiverse, multiverse, here it comes
Multiverse, multiverse, multiverse, here it comes
Multiverse, multiverse, multiverse, here it comes
Multiverse, multiverse, multiverse, here it comes
Little darling
I feel that ice is slowly melting
Little darling
It seems like years since it's been clear
Here comes the multiverse, do do do do
Here comes the multiverse, and I say
It's all right
Here comes the multiverse, do do do do
Here comes the multiverse
It's all right
It's all right
Comment by stunney — July 1, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Una vez mas:
It makes no more sense to invoke the fact that mental states apparently depend causally upon brain states, as evidence that mental states just are brain states, than it does to invoke the fact that brain states apparently depend causally upon mental states, as evidence that brain states just are mental states.
First, something that is literally completely devoid of mental states cannot have a living human brain. If one deprived a person of literally all of their mental states, you would deprive that person's brain of its owner"”-that is to say, it would no longer be a living brain.
Second, none of us ever has any epistemic access to the things we call brains, or to anything else for that matter, independently of our mental states.
In other short, there is no such thing as a human 'brain' if there is no such thing as human mental states.
Comment by stunney — July 1, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Some stunneyism:
It makes no more sense to invoke the fact that digestion apparently depends causally upon certain physiological processes, as evidence that digestion just is these processes, than it does to invoke the fact that certain physiological processes apparently depend causally upon digestion, as evidence that these physiological processes just are digestion.
See? I can be a stunneyist too!
Comment by keiths — July 1, 2007 @ 3:08 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Keiths, OBE claims are sporadic and do nothing to establish the existence of a soul as biblically defined. Years of experience with these forums has demonstrated that debunking biblical claims is the motivation of those with views like your own. The point of testing is that the OBE claim is utterly inadaquate to address the main issue of an immaterial soul. It could exist without any OBE evidence. Its debunking is outside the realm of science.
Keiths:
My conception is not a default hypothesis. It is my personal non-scientific view as is your opposing view. Your hypothesis of OBE addresses not even a scintilla of the claim so why take it seriously? What would happen after death is outside the domain of science and as a defender of science I am highlighting those like yourself who would undermine its integrity for metaphysical purposes.
If you cannot deal with this claim and unequivicably resolve it empirically, then all the subsequent theories based on testing are blowing smoke and a waste of valued funding revenue.
No, its like saying if you cannot test a belief by scientific methodology then don't waste time or resources.
Comment by Bradford — July 1, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 4:49 pm
mtraven wrote:
You'll need to elaborate for me why you think it can be used to argue that all minds are identical to my brain—-assuming for present purposes that you're no dimmer than a dim ten-year-old.
I think it's you who is amazingly stupid; or else, like a lot of 'brights', you're simply as ignorant as a very ignorant thing, or, to use the technical expression, amazingly ignorant. "For all x, x=x" is a logical truth. It simply states that everything is self-identical. Modalized, it states that everything is self-identical in every possible world in which it exists. I.e. it states that everything is necessarily self-identical. So the argument is this:
1) Every brain is necessarily identical with itself.
2) If every mind M is identical with a brain B, then every mind M is necessarily identical with a brain B.
3) For, necessarily B=B.
and
4) If necessarily a=a, and if a=b, then necessarily a=b.
5) Since M=B ex hypothesi, then necessarily M=B.
C) Hence in every possible world containing minds, those minds would all be brains.
And Kripke's point is this conclusion is extremely improbable, since we can conceive of worlds in which there are minds but no human brains. That is, there's no good reason to accept the consequent in 2. For more, go here.
Comment by stunney — July 1, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Does anyone doubt that digestion is a physiological process?:roll:
Certainly, it makes no more sense to say that digestion is a specified physiological process, than it does to say that that specified physiological process is digestion.
But the sensations associated with indigestion are a different matter, of course.:roll:
Comment by stunney — July 1, 2007 @ 5:12 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 5:23 pm
mtraven wrote:
Well, the extension of the term 'brain' in the premises is the set of human brains, since that's the reference class of the word 'brain' in the context of the mind-brain identity theories that Kripke's argument is addressing.
If you use 'materialism' to mean something other than such theories, that in no way affects Kripke's argument to the conclusion that those theories are false.
However, many philosophers (including many materialists such as your pal Dennett) do not believe that any genuinely physicalist theories of the mind can legitimately avoid ontological identity between mind and brain, however much our concepts may fail to reflect that identity. And I agree with that, though of course not with their claim that such an identity actually holds true.
Comment by stunney — July 1, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 5:40 pm
mtraven asks:
Um, here, for instance:
Comment by stunney — July 1, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 5:57 pm
mtraven,
I tossed your comment into the hole. Why? I don't know - my brain made me do it.
Comment by MikeGene — July 1, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 5:57 pm
It happened again! Damn brain….
Comment by MikeGene — July 1, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 5:58 pm
There goes another one. Hope you're not planning to hold me responsible.
Comment by MikeGene — July 1, 2007 @ 5:58 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 6:45 pm
LOL!
To address mtraven's point about the legal issue of responsibility, I believe it would be a misrepresentation to say that our allowance of the insanity defense is for cases where as mtraven says "their brain made them do it". Rather, I believe the legal question is about whether they were capable of understanding what they did and distinguishing that their actions were wrong.
It has nothing to do with affirming or denying whether their brain is making the choice vs. a mind distinct from a brain. When an insanity defense is used, that is not a claim that someone has entered a state where they no longer have a mind distinct from their brain, while sane people still have minds distinct from brains. They are unrelated issues.
p.s. After posting this, I was genuinely sorry to see mtraven's response to MikeGene's response. I don't know whether Mike actually moved comments or just claimed to, or if he did so because he had other reasons to do so and used the opportunity to make his point. (I find plenty of comments around that Mike and the other moderators likely don't agree with.) But I don't believe the outcome of souring mtraven was the intent.
Comment by eric — July 1, 2007 @ 6:45 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 7:11 pm
mtraven:
I just tossed two more in the hole. It's become a feeding frenzy for which genes expressing proteins used by my brain cells are totally responsible.
Comment by Bradford — July 1, 2007 @ 7:11 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 7:14 pm
C'mon Eric, the irony of it is
Comment by Bradford — July 1, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Hi Bradford and MikeGene,
You guys are having too much fun.
BTW, I wouldn't have even bothered to read mtravens comments if you guys hadn't thrown it is the memory hole ("Banned in Boston" syndrome).
Then I had to read this thread to see what the heck is going on.
IMO, how the law treats the question of mind and insanity has absolutely no baring on science or reality.
You might as well reference Keller's Catch 22 for the "scientific" insight that any and every sane person would plead insanity to escape the madness of the war. (BTW, the "war" was Keller's metaphor for reality, IMO)
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 1, 2007 @ 7:39 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 7:43 pm
I don't deny the humorous irony of the idea. That's why I really did laugh out loud. Nothing pokes through a hole in an idea like a vivid case in point.
That said, I would want to have a good laugh all together with mtraven included, hoping that he appreciates the irony of the idea as well. I wouldn't enjoy laughing at mtraven, and I was trusting that there was no real prevention of him expressing himself (within the universal requirement of certain Comment Guidelines, etc.).
Comment by eric — July 1, 2007 @ 7:43 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 7:53 pm
I was especially wondering about the writer. Why bring in Descartes' cogito ergo sum at all? Were the scientists really claiming that was relevant or just the writer trying to be clever.
Descartes was contemplating about what we can know. That is a question of epistemology. The question of of the mind / brain distinction is a question of the philosophy of the mind. The author is quite confused about categories, connections, and consequences.
Even if we only think with a brain, and there is no truly distinct mind or soul or spirit, that would not imply we don't think or that we don't exist or that we can no longer know that we exist.
But I also agree that scientists in general have no special aptitude when they step outside their expertise, so the errors in thinking can be just as faulty.
Comment by eric — July 1, 2007 @ 7:53 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Eric:
The demonstration is over but it does illustrate something the reality based community needs to heed. By our actions we demonstrate in the clearest way our real beliefs. Yeah, I know about the illusion of free will blah, blah… But just try and use my brain made me do it as an excuse and see how far it gets you. Darwinian extremists can only prevail with heavy reliance on intimidation. I read MG's 'about me' piece which he linked to in responding to bj. The reaction of the profs reminded me of the old Grey Poupon commercial. There are just certain concepts that must not be advanced if one is into the sophisticated veneer thing.
Anyway mtraven, I hope you see the humor in it too.
Comment by Bradford — July 1, 2007 @ 7:57 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Bill Vallicella blogged on this same article, and a commenter there brought in an article by J.P. Moreland (pdf). Looks to me like a very strong case that science has no competence on the question of souls. (Sure, it might show that OBEs aren't what they're claimed to be, but so what?) It's just the wrong method of inquiry into the matter.
Comment by TomG — July 1, 2007 @ 10:14 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 10:16 pm
I mean to include the link to that blog, but I forgot. Here it is.
Comment by TomG — July 1, 2007 @ 10:16 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 10:31 pm
This, from Kenneth Miller, just caught my eye. It's at the end of the article:
This bit about "everything we know about the biological sciences…" is typical scientism, and it's still amazing to me that a confessing Catholic would lunge for it the way Miller does. He's implying that everything we know about biology is everything we can know about life; that there is no knowledge except scientific knowledge. That's an unsupportable belief–especially if you try to use the sciences to support it, since it's not at a belief that's susceptible to scientific investigation.
One would expect that as a Catholic he would be open to knowledge from the Bible; if not for something as controversial as evolution, at least for something as basic as the existence of the soul. But he doesn't seem to be looking to Scripture as a source of knowledge about anything at all.
For those readers here who think Scripture is non-informational in general, let me steer you back to the primary point here, which is not a defense of God's revelation. The point is that Kenneth Miller has only one source of information, apparently, which is science. But that view of knowledge went down in philosophical flames long ago.
Comment by TomG — July 1, 2007 @ 10:31 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Nor does he seem to accept the fact that the pope specifically identified the point of mind/soul as arising from matter or being epiphenomena as something that is inconsistent with the truth about man, despite his catholicism.
In defense of a fair representation, he does appear to affirm the virgin birth as a miracle in Finding Darwin's God, and IIRC he might also affirm the resurrection.
Yet, why one should accept those and not others is a mystery, given that those he accepts obviously involve recognizing the supernatural.
Comment by eric — July 1, 2007 @ 10:59 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Life does operate in accordance with laws of physics and chemistry but that does not signify that such laws are sufficient to account for life's origins. The functional utility of nucleic acids and proteins is attributable to the identity and sequential order of their nucleotides and amino acids. Scramble their order and we still have nucleic acids and proteins (the chemical identity remains) but we lose biological function. There is no law of chemistry predictive of life friendly sequential order arising in a prebiotic environment. Miller's statement, to quote PVM, is vacuous.
Comment by Bradford — July 1, 2007 @ 11:46 pm
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:33 am
Hi Eric,
You wrote…
Because Miller embraces NOMA!
Accepting the supernatural in the metaphysical magisterium doesn't cause a conflict for him because he believes you can keep the two separated.
I suggest Miller can accept any supernatural Truth his religion demands.
Just don't ask him to call these Truths "science."
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 2, 2007 @ 12:33 am
July 2nd, 2007 at 1:53 am
On the other hand, there are cases of NDE's where the knowledge has been gained while outside the body. See http://www.near-death.com/expe...
orion
Comment by orion — July 2, 2007 @ 1:53 am
July 2nd, 2007 at 9:51 am
Bradford writes:
Excellent point, Bradford. It is because of this that I continually ask materialists or philosophical naturalists the following question, in various forms:
How has it been established or confirmed scientifically (note the emphasis on science) that the properties of:
(take your pick)
1. the cosmos are such that any apparent design observed in natural systems can not be actual design, even in principle?
2. biological systems are such that any apparent design we observe can not be actual design, even in principle?
3. the cosmos are such that no non-material being (assuming such a being exists) could have any empirically detectable interactions with the material properties and forces of natural systems, even in principle?
4. that the properties of the entire cosmos are such that they could only be the result of the blind, purposeless forces of matter and energy acting through chance and necessity over eons of time?
5. the cosmos would be entirely different if they were the result of the creative act of a non-material entitiy, such as a god or gods? (as claimed by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion.)
Thanks to the article referenced by Bradford, we can now add to the above:
6. the biochemical processes of the brain are such that no immaterial soul or spirit could either interact with or ennervate them, even in principle?
Of course there are no scientific answers to any of these questions, but there are lots and lots of theological, philosophical and metaphysical ones. However, it appears to be entirely acceptable to cross the scientific boundary into the realm of untestable metaphysical speculation when heading in the direction of naturalism (or something like it); it is entirely unacceptable if one heads in the direction of theism, or worse, a specific type of theism, such as Christianity. Hence, I think the fear raised by Mike Gene is entirely within the realm of possibility…alas!
Comment by DonaldM — July 2, 2007 @ 9:51 am
July 2nd, 2007 at 9:54 am
Orion:
Obviously these people are either mistaken, deluded, or they are lying. Take your pick! Oh it's so easy being a materialist.
Comment by Jean — July 2, 2007 @ 9:54 am
July 2nd, 2007 at 10:07 am
Why do you think you need to "fast-forward a few decades" This is the case today in most departments, both for tenure, hiring, and granting doctorates. . .
Comment by mcromer — July 2, 2007 @ 10:07 am
July 2nd, 2007 at 10:11 am
Most non-crisis OBEs are dreams.
However, OBEs associated with near-death experiences do produce verifiable evidence. Apparently you are unfamiliar with it, I'd recommend you google "Pam Reynolds", and you can read about this case on my blog.
Comment by mcromer — July 2, 2007 @ 10:11 am
July 2nd, 2007 at 10:27 am
Real mature, there, Mike. If you wanted to make this "joke", you could have done it without actually moving mtraven's comments to the Hole.
Grow up.
Comment by keiths — July 2, 2007 @ 10:27 am
July 2nd, 2007 at 11:24 am
Bradford wrote:
Bradford,
You're not defending science from the soul; you're defending the soul from science. Science has no trouble dealing with testable hypotheses, and is in no way endangered by them. The immaterial soul, on the other hand, has not fared too well in the light of science lately.
Comment by keiths — July 2, 2007 @ 11:24 am
July 2nd, 2007 at 11:32 am
Keiths:
Keiths, could you kindly point me to the peer reviewed scientific research reports that comfirm (or disconfirm) anything at all about immaterial souls? Stating that the " immaterial soul… has not fared too well in the light of science…" implies that science has indeed tested hypothesis regarding the immaterial soul. I would love to see this research, as I'm sure many others would.
Thanks!
Comment by DonaldM — July 2, 2007 @ 11:32 am
July 2nd, 2007 at 11:37 am
You keep saying this as if it were almost fact. The only thing I've seen you do so far is reference scientists who are (of course) materialists and who firmly believe there is a materialistic answer to the problem of consciousness. Nothing more, nothing less. I've seen others respond to your posts from which an objective observer can only deduce that the problem is far from answered and not nearly as conclusive as you pretend it to be.
Also as Donald said, would you point out the scientific research that has been done regaring "souls" The only study I am aware of that would even come close to that description would be the Lancet NDE study, and that study is hardly evidence for your preconceived materialistic opinion.
Comment by Jean — July 2, 2007 @ 11:37 am
July 2nd, 2007 at 11:47 am
Keiths:
No, I'm attempting to separate pseudoscientific efforts to debunk an immaterial concept from legitimate scientific endeavors.
Then kindly cite a hypothesis whose testing would confirm or negate the concept that a soul exists.
A more accurate statement would be that those believing the foregoing are embarrassing legitimate science but that most conventional thinkers are too timid to take you to task for this.
Comment by Bradford — July 2, 2007 @ 11:47 am
July 2nd, 2007 at 11:57 am
Keiths:
That imperative makes no sense if Mike lacks free will.
Comment by Bradford — July 2, 2007 @ 11:57 am
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:04 pm
I'm a compatibilist, Bradford. I think Mike does have free will.
Comment by keiths — July 2, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Donald, Jean –
Anything that the brain does cannot be solely a function of the immaterial soul. Therefore, much brain research is relevant to questions regarding the properties of the soul, if it exists at all.
See this regarding the physicality of the will.
See my link earlier in this thread regarding OBEs.
For the effects of brain damage on personality and morality, see the well-known story of Phineas Gage.
On the physicality of memory, see my response to Joy regarding her medicine wheel.
On the (lack of) unity of the soul, see the research on split-brain patients. I've commented before on this at TT, but I don't have the link at hand; I'll post it later.
There is abundant evidence that cognition, memory, will, pain, pleasure, emotion, humor, and personality are all dependent on the brain. The question for believers in an immaterial soul is this: What does it do? What is the evidence for it, if it can't do any of these things on its own?
Comment by keiths — July 2, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Bradford,
Gods, souls, and protons (for that matter) can all be defined in ways that are empirically inconsequential and thus inaccessible to science. They can also be defined in ways that are testable by science.
For example, I've made the point many times at TT that the YEC God, who is held to have created the earth less than 10,000 years ago, is a testable concept (provided that He is assumed not to be deceptive). This God is falsified by all of the evidence from geology, biology, paleontology, and astronomy that indicates that the world is almost a million times older than the YECs believe.
Tell us about your concept of the soul, and then we can decide whether or not it is amenable to scientific investigation. You seem to believe that the will is (at least partially) immaterial, for example. If so, how do you reconcile its existence with the phenomenon of PAP, as exemplified by Mr. M?
Comment by keiths — July 2, 2007 @ 12:25 pm
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Keiths, noone disputes behavoiral influences of brain biochemical changes. The point of the post is to illustrate the silliness of proclamations about the soul based on empirical studies.
Comment by Bradford — July 2, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:45 pm
keiths, thanks for speaking up. I was kind of hoping stunney would also, since it was our argument that was interrupted, letting him "win" by default, but perhaps that was expecting too much. Anyway, I'm out of here; arguing with crackpots is pretty much a waste of time, and it's certainly a waste of time if my postings are going to be subject to arbitrary censorship by dimwits with a childish sense of humor. I've learned a bit from your postings and others.
Comment by mtraven — July 2, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:54 pm
mtraven,
I'm sorry to see you go.
The diehards may be immovable, but I suspect that more than a few lurkers benefitted from your lucidity.
Best wishes,
Keith S.
Comment by keiths — July 2, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Bradford wrote:
But empirical studies do have something to say about the existence of a soul, provided that the concept of the soul in question has empirical consequences.
The YEC God has empirical consequences, and science falsifies them. That is a perfectly legitimate use of science. It's not silly at all.
I maintain that the soul, as envisioned by most believers, also has empirical consequences that are addressed by science.
Look at your concept of the soul and ask yourself a few questions. Do you believe that the immaterial soul is the seat of the will? Do you believe that the soul is morally responsible for a person's actions? If so, how do you reconcile your beliefs with the scientific observations regarding Mr. M's predicament? Regarding moral responsibility, what about Phineas Gage?
Comment by keiths — July 2, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
July 2nd, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Keiths:
Yet you have not specified the related testable hypothesis asked for.
The age of the universe is an empirical claim. Where is the hypothesis about souls?
Thanks for your personal view. Where's that hypothesis?
Comment by Bradford — July 2, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
July 2nd, 2007 at 1:23 pm
keiths, when I read this,
I couldn't help thinking of the immortal line at the close of The Pirates Who Don't Do Anything: "You just don't get it."
You say that the concept of the soul has empirical consequences, but are those scientific empirical consequences? What is the strictly empirical test? Have you studied the papers on the topic? Have you noticed that they all rely on philosophy rather than science to make their major points? (Compare the J.P. Moreland paper [pdf] I previously referred to on this.)
You won't get anywhere with this bunch unless you can show us in very specific ways that this is an empirical problem, with relevant empirical research in the literature, that pays proper attention to the unavoidable philosophical aspects of the issue. If you do that, you will be the first ever; I recommend you publish someplace more prominent and better paying than a blog (no offense to the TT blog-meisters).
The reason it hasn't been done seems to be because it cannot be done.
Comment by TomG — July 2, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
July 2nd, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Keiths (along with the article) is still conflating Cartesianism with traditional Christian metaphysics on the soul.
He therefore also doesn't get that the data he keeps citing in relation to the dependency of mind and will on the brain is consistent with both materialism and non-materialism; and therefore can not be evidence for either of them.
Comment by Brian Killian — July 2, 2007 @ 2:02 pm
July 2nd, 2007 at 2:24 pm
I'm reminded about a conversation between the Dalai Lama and Carl Sagan. Sagan asked the Dalai Lama what he would do if science proved that reincarnation was false. The Dalai Lama responded that they would immediately send out a message to all Buddhist adherents suggesting they change their beliefs. The Dalai Lama then asked Sagan how science could go about proving that. Sagan was silent.
Comment by Steve Petermann — July 2, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
July 2nd, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Not as if it would matter to Keith.
Obviously, his philosophical ideas constitute "evidence", whereas your philosophical ideas are not. Thus speaketh the materialist.
Comment by Jean — July 2, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
July 2nd, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Yeah you guys are so bright, you could light up an entire country.
No seriously, the above comment betrays your true intent. You're here to "convert", not to discuss.
Comment by Jean — July 2, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
July 2nd, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Lots of schadenfreude over mtraven's tragic departure, but no answers to keiths' very pertinent questions:
Let's hear it. The onus is on the believers.
Comment by Raevmo — July 2, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
July 2nd, 2007 at 3:41 pm
There is no onus on me or anyone else to supply answers that were written thousands of years ago. It matters not to me if you continue to disbelieve them. That's your right. What you or Keith do not have a right to is asserting false empirical claims. As I said to Keiths and am still waiting an answer on, if you have a scientific hypothesis whose testing and results negate the concept of a soul then come forth with it. Since Keiths is making empirical claims my request is very reasonable.
Comment by Bradford — July 2, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
July 2nd, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Hi Raevmo,
I wouldn't claim to be a believer in many of the defintions of the "soul", per se, but the ultimate question is "what constitutes reality". Sure if you take an antidepressant and you feel better then is there any doubt that the "mind" is effected by the chemical? No, in my opinion but that really doesn't answer the deep question. The materialist may claim that what constitutes reality are "little things" with intrinsic properties that interact. This leads to a picture of the universe as a mindless, "soulless" process. The problem with this approach is that it doesn't fit with mainstream physics, at least standard models. What physics is telling us is that the little things don't have intrinsic properties. Instead what we have are relationships and relata. The Buddhists came up with this notion over 2000 years ago in the concept of sunyata and dependent co-arising. If this is true the "mater"ialist doesn't have much to hang her hat on. What does this all have to do with the question of soul? Ideas about the soul or spirit all point to ultimate reality and apparently what science is telling us according to many physicist's is that the universe looks more like a thought than a machine (astronomer Sir James Jeans and others). And many prominent physcists (Schroedinger, Tipler, Bohm, Raisch, Mohrhoff, etc) also see an ultimate unity in the differentiation of the cosmos.
So if the ultimate constitution of the universe is the psychē "life, spirit, consciousness" then it does everything.
Comment by Steve Petermann — July 2, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
July 2nd, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Bradford:
We do have that right, but I think we're not exercising it. What false claims do you mean?
Obviously there's no way to disprove the immaterial soul if the adherents to that notion refuse to specify what its properties are. Isn't it fair to ask that you be more specific?
Comment by Raevmo — July 2, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
July 2nd, 2007 at 3:54 pm
I would not say that there is an "immaterial soul", because that sounds too much like another objective view of subjectivity, but there is a lot of evidence that consciousness is not limited to brains:
1) psi phenomena (precognition, telepathy, and the like)
brain plasticity after injury
2) communications at the time of death to the living (example — seeing one's son who just died in war overseas in a vision)
3) legitimate mediums studied through scientifically
4) OBEs associated with near-death experiences
5) inability of materialism to come up with any plausible explanation for consciousness.
6) inability of neuroscience to find a location where memory is actually "stored" in the brain
7) introspection into the nature of consciousness
Comment by mcromer — July 2, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
July 2nd, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Raevmo:
Read the post.
As for answers, they were there long before I was born and notions about the soul are freely available on the net. When was the last time you tested something immaterial?
Comment by Bradford — July 2, 2007 @ 3:56 pm
July 2nd, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Basically Keiths pretend