Neurophysiology and Naturalism

[Journey-man]

In modern philosophical and theological circles much of the present debate centers around the nature of the human mind.

Is it reducible to the physics of your brain?
Is there a "self" observing and experiencing phenomena and cognitions that is continuous from moment to moment?
Is there a soul? And is there life after the cessation of functioning in the brain?

In this post, I will argue that the very structure and function of our brains strongly imply philosophical naturalism.

These points can be summarized here as:

1) The structure of the brain tells our evolutionary history.
2) These structures explain the emergent phenomena of cultural and religious expression.

Argument #1 | Your Evolved Brain

If you've taken a basic anatomy class, you probably understand that the brain is not some kind of homogenous whole. It is instead an assembly of various structures that perform specific functions which have been of evolutionary utility.

Before this conception of the brain became predominant, philosophers and theologians hypothesized in the Early Enlightenment a "Rational Man." This has its origins in Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, but it has been believed by many that what makes human beings distinct is our reason. Our ability to compute complex equations and our ability for rational discourse and the resourcefulness of our capacity to utilize various tools. This juxtaposition of reason with emotion it turns out if quite contrary to how our brains are actually wired.

The Limbic System is a set of structures, most of which are common to all mammalian life. These are responsible for the increased complexity in emotional capacity for the purposes of social utility and improving survival in the face of threats. If you were a human living in the Paleolithic Period, the function of the amygdala to activate when you see a rustle in the bushes could be a rather good thing. The unconscious belief that there is something out to get you from behind the bushes likely correlated more to reality at that time, then it does in a modern context.

The Limbic System it turns out is deeply interconnected and indeed incorporates part of the more recent evolutionary history, the Prefrontal Cortex. Our ability for complex moral reasoning, planning, abstract reasoning, lying, and many more higher functions are mediated from these systems. The interconnection though seems to indicate that our rationality and irrationality is far more complex than that and is more tailored to social utility than some conceived "man of knowledge."

The presence of various structures in the brain which correlate to all Vertebrates, Reptiles, Mammals and other apes is indicative of our nature as a fellow organism.

Argument #2 | Culture and the Brain

The question of where culture and religion comes from is a very contentious debate for obvious reasons. Identifications tied to metaphysics or to "blood and soul," seem to be betrayed by the truths revealed by Naturalism, but I will argue that it doesn't make them irrelevant.

First, let's begin with the conclusion we arrived at with the last argument, which is that our brains are primed for social utility. This in a communal aspect demonstrates the innate Tribalism which we are all wired for. This thinking of the those outside our group as the "other" is a result of ancient human organizations.

For hundreds of thousands of years, mankind organized itself into Bands, small collections of nomadic hunter gatherers without a formal hierarchy and with a relatively undeveloped cultural framework. However, as the population increased, communities needed and indeed created frameworks for communal legitimation in the form of cultural and religious expression. This allowed for that Tribal framework to then also expand in turn, and small tribes could then become more homogeneous over a larger geographical area in order to be able to sustain the first civilizations such as the Egyptian Kingdoms.

Human beings are hard wired to seek out meaning and purpose, and we anthropomorphize phenomena and circumstances as if our misfortune is the result of some other causal agent involved. Culture and religion have served as the means by which we seek out these pursuits, but this has always been done with the community in mind.

When one looks at the totality of the evidence for the evolution of emergent properties like culture and religion, it becomes clear that innovations like monotheism are not resultant from revelation, but are constructed out of previous conceptions about the divine. It simply becomes unnecessary and very awkward to assert the supremacy of Yahweh when other gods were for many millennia worshipped before him, and to notice that his values and character are reflective of the ancient time in which the Canonical texts were conceived.

Want to become a better person and have a framework for understanding others and reality? Adopt a Naturalistic perspective to the brain, and seek to understand how it functions and how well-being can be cultivated with brain-based strategies. Religion is fine if that's your thing, but realize that there are more effective ways to understanding reality, yourself, and how to live a fulfilling life.

Much more can be said, but what are your responses?

 

[viole]

In modern philosophical and theological circles much of the present debate centers around the nature of the human mind.

Is it reducible to the physics of your brain?
Is there a "self" observing and experiencing phenomena and cognitions that is continuous from moment to moment?
Is there a soul? And is there life after the cessation of functioning in the brain?

In this post, I will argue that the very structure and function of our brains strongly imply philosophical naturalism.

These points can be summarized here as:

1) The structure of the brain tells our evolutionary history.
2) These structures explain the emergent phenomena of cultural and religious expression.

Argument #1 | Your Evolved Brain

If you've taken a basic anatomy class, you probably understand that the brain is not some kind of homogenous whole. It is instead an assembly of various structures that perform specific functions which have been of evolutionary utility.

Before this conception of the brain became predominant, philosophers and theologians hypothesized in the Early Enlightenment a "Rational Man." This has its origins in Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, but it has been believed by many that what makes human beings distinct is our reason. Our ability to compute complex equations and our ability for rational discourse and the resourcefulness of our capacity to utilize various tools. This juxtaposition of reason with emotion it turns out if quite contrary to how our brains are actually wired.

The Limbic System is a set of structures, most of which are common to all mammalian life. These are responsible for the increased complexity in emotional capacity for the purposes of social utility and improving survival in the face of threats. If you were a human living in the Paleolithic Period, the function of the amygdala to activate when you see a rustle in the bushes could be a rather good thing. The unconscious belief that there is something out to get you from behind the bushes likely correlated more to reality at that time, then it does in a modern context.

The Limbic System it turns out is deeply interconnected and indeed incorporates part of the more recent evolutionary history, the Prefrontal Cortex. Our ability for complex moral reasoning, planning, abstract reasoning, lying, and many more higher functions are mediated from these systems. The interconnection though seems to indicate that our rationality and irrationality is far more complex than that and is more tailored to social utility than some conceived "man of knowledge."

The presence of various structures in the brain which correlate to all Vertebrates, Reptiles, Mammals and other apes is indicative of our nature as a fellow organism.

Argument #2 | Culture and the Brain

The question of where culture and religion comes from is a very contentious debate for obvious reasons. Identifications tied to metaphysics or to "blood and soul," seem to be betrayed by the truths revealed by Naturalism, but I will argue that it doesn't make them irrelevant.

First, let's begin with the conclusion we arrived at with the last argument, which is that our brains are primed for social utility. This in a communal aspect demonstrates the innate Tribalism which we are all wired for. This thinking of the those outside our group as the "other" is a result of ancient human organizations.

For hundreds of thousands of years, mankind organized itself into Bands, small collections of nomadic hunter gatherers without a formal hierarchy and with a relatively undeveloped cultural framework. However, as the population increased, communities needed and indeed created frameworks for communal legitimation in the form of cultural and religious expression. This allowed for that Tribal framework to then also expand in turn, and small tribes could then become more homogeneous over a larger geographical area in order to be able to sustain the first civilizations such as the Egyptian Kingdoms.

Human beings are hard wired to seek out meaning and purpose, and we anthropomorphize phenomena and circumstances as if our misfortune is the result of some other causal agent involved. Culture and religion have served as the means by which we seek out these pursuits, but this has always been done with the community in mind.

When one looks at the totality of the evidence for the evolution of emergent properties like culture and religion, it becomes clear that innovations like monotheism are not resultant from revelation, but are constructed out of previous conceptions about the divine. It simply becomes unnecessary and very awkward to assert the supremacy of Yahweh when other gods were for many millennia worshipped before him, and to notice that his values and character are reflective of the ancient time in which the Canonical texts were conceived.

Want to become a better person and have a framework for understanding others and reality? Adopt a Naturalistic perspective to the brain, and seek to understand how it functions and how well-being can be cultivated with brain-based strategies. Religion is fine if that's your thing, but realize that there are more effective ways to understanding reality, yourself, and how to live a fulfilling life.

Much more can be said, but what are your responses?

My response is that I agree

Ciao

- viole

 

[George-ananda]

Much more can be said, but what are your responses?

I would agree if there was not the existence of so-called paranormal phenomena (I have seen and heard too much and know the IMO inadequate attempts at materialistic explanations) and the question of how we experience as one single entity and have subjective experiences.

I have come to accept that consciousness involves dimensions beyond the physical three-dimensional realm that is studied by the physical senses and physical instruments.

 

[Sapiens]

I would agree if there was not the existence of so-called paranormal phenomena (I have seen and heard too much and know the IMO inadequate attempts at materialistic explanations) and the question of how we experience as one single entity and have subjective experiences.

I have come to accept that consciousness involves dimensions beyond the physical three-dimensional realm that is studied by the physical senses and physical instruments.

Easy to claim since it is impossible to demonstrate.

 

[Journey-man]

I would agree if there was not the existence of so-called paranormal phenomena (I have seen and heard too much and know the IMO inadequate attempts at materialistic explanations) and the question of how we experience as one single entity and have subjective experiences.

I have come to accept that consciousness involves dimensions beyond the physical three-dimensional realm that is studied by the physical senses and physical instruments.

I used to be a Christian and believed in a spiritual reality, I would even sense that it did exist. The problem is, after I stopped believing it, any and all signs of such a reality disappeared which to me verified the fact that the delusional ideation of spirituality be it religious or paranormal seems correlated with the belief in its existence. The way we perceive the world is not as though we are a little person in our heads viewing the world as if in a tiny theater of the mind. We are an orchestra without a conductor, the world we perceive is integrated into our conscious experience by unconscious processes and functions which are distinctly interrelated to our beliefs about the world.

That's why different cultures see different paranormal activity which corresponds to their particular belief system.

As it relates to consciousness involving dimensions outside of the physical realm, what evidence do you have to support this? When the neocortical portions of the brain become too damaged, consciousness is utterly lost and the person is effectively dead, which would seem to be a result of the functions which create our experience of consciousness being destroyed. Particularly the Prefrontal Cortex, the Anterior Cingulate Cortex, and other critical structures in the Frontal Lobe. Damage which results over aging also impacts the personhood and individuality of those who suffer from dementia or Alzheimer's which is indicative of atrophying of the Frontal Lobe, rather than there being some kind of immortal and immaterial soul which is the seat of personhood. The loss of personhood with the destruction or damage to the Frontal Cortex is demonstrable evidence that it moderates and performs the functions which create this sense of "self" and indeed are tied to these "spiritual" experiences. Which is why drugs can chemically reproduce many emotional, vision and physical experiences reported by those who are religious or spiritual.

There isn't any need to assert that there is something else there, as there isn't any casual indication of some other unnatural force being present.

 

[Journey-man]

Easy to claim since it is impossible to demonstrate.

It is always "believing is seeing," rather than seeing is believing. No skeptical inquiry has ever achieved verifiable and measurable observation of the paranormal, but there have been many instances where such experiences have been shown to be produced by the mind.

There's a reason why atheists never see ghosts.

 

[1137]

Sorry to copy and paste, but I've into extreme detail on the issues with reductionism before, which have yet to be addressed.

The best place to start is at the foundation, axiomatic facts. An axiom is something that is necessarily true, meaning that it would be impossible for the axiom to be false. It cannot be argued because there are no premises more basic, but it cannot be argued against because even doing so would still rely on the axiom (Importance of Philosophy, n.d.). The Law of Identity is one such axiom, that A is A. It has to be true, for something has to be itself, and if not the universe as we know it could not exist. You cannot argue that A is Non-A because this still relies on the very fact that A is itself to make sense. For the mind-body problem, that the self exists is also such an axiom, as is easily demonstrated. For example, there are no premises more simply than “the self exists”, because all those premises are known to and created by that self in the first place. You cannot argue that “I do not exist”, because you are the one doing the denying, the reasoning, and the claiming. If the claim were to be true, then you do not exist to do the denying, the argument is not made, and we enter a paradox. It also is not possible to be false, as the self is what understands and distinguishes between truth and falsehood. Best of all, if this is not axiomatic, it would be very easy to show. All one would need to do is attempt to claim the self does not exist without relying on the self in the first place. But much like trying to argue A as Non-A, this seems like it simply cannot be done. If the self is axiomatic, it raises a major problem for material monism, because matter is only known through the mind/self. Materialism has to essentially eliminate an axiom in order to be valid, a rather tall order for any position.


Next is the issue of property dualism. In philosophy, a property is that which can be attributed to something (Standord, n.d.). Redness to an apple, for example, means that redness is a properties of that apple and of some apples. For two things to be identical, they need to have the same properties, in keeping with the law of identity discussed above. A does not have the properties of letter B, to illustrate. This is the same way that the mind and brain have different properties. For one, physiological activity in the brain is different than the experienced events in a mind. Even if you perfectly knew the workings of someone or somethings brain, this is entirely different from having insight into their actual mind and experience (Nagel, 1974). Even if we are able to project an image of someone’s mental contents onto a screen, this does not come close to the subjective experience of the individual. This lack of direct access and study is another difference in the properties between brain and mind. You can poke at a brain, directly measure the changes, but you cannot do this with the contents of someone’s mind. Another difference in properties is that the physical brain acts in deterministic, predictable ways. This is not the case with the mind, as easily showed by something like lucid dreaming. We can understand and measure how the brain is working during lucid dreaming, but the experience the dreamer is engaged in does not need to match reality in the slightest (LaBerge, 1990). Heck, even sitting around day dreaming the mind is free to wander despite the brain acting in very normal, material ways. In short, there is rather clearly a kind of property dualism between the mind and brain. Even if we assume that mind or brain arises from the other in some way, it is clear that there is now a dualism between the two.


Moving on, there are problems with causality. Any form of monism is going to show one-way causality. If the brain exists and completely creates the mind, then the brain will always cause and effect in the mind, not the other way around. Likewise, if only the immaterial or consciousness exist, then that would always precede physical change (which is obviously not the case). Neither of these are what we see in reality. Yes, obviously things like ingesting drugs or messing with the brain can cause cognitive changes, which gives material monism a slight edge over immaterial monism, but less commonly recognized is that this works both ways. For example, the belief in a placebo working, even when patients are aware it is a placebo, can lead to significant change in pain levels (Kaptcjuk, Friedlander, Kelley, Sanchez, Kokkotou, Singer, Kowalczykowski, Miller, Kirsch, and Lembo, 2010). Placebos, by definition, do not cause any physiological changes in the body. If we take away the belief in the placebo working, it will become ineffective. This study shows that deception is not even required, just the positive belief. This then leads to a change in pain, which corresponds to the physiological properties of pain relief. The entire field of cognitive therapy is based on hundreds of empirically validated studies, yet put absolutely no focus on the physiology of the brain (Beck, 2010). Things like prejudice are close to being explained in almost entirely metal terms, with no reliance on physiology (Duckitt, 2001). Even in children who son’t have advanced reasoning abilities or higher cognitive thought, it has been shown that just negative self-talk can have an overwhelming effect on their mental states (Treadwell & Kendall, 1996).Therapists work with things like visualization, self-talk, meditation, coping mechanisms, recognization of triggers, and so on, no neurotransmitter levels, models of the brain, or things like that. It is addressed entirely from the mental side of things, because psychology inherently recognizes the property dualism behind the mind and body.


So to sum up, monism in general needs to address why the mind and brain have different properties if they are identical, how to reduce different things into one things. It needs to explain why both the material and mental seem to have an impact on each other, rather than just one way or the other, if the two are identical and reducible. Immaterial monism needs to explain why there is such consistent evidence for a world free of the mind and capable of impacting it, and materialism needs to show that self-existence is not axiomatic, which is either super simple to do if correct and impossible to do if incorrect. As for dualism, none of the above it a problem for it. It does not face any of this logical predicaments, and is not impacted by empirical evidence which seems to clearly suggest both the internal and external world exist. What it does fall victim to is what every position falls victim to: that of mechanism. No position, monism or dualistic, seems to have a good answer to what causes either the brain or mind to rise from the other, or both to interact. Over all it is one of the great unanswered questions, but if we are going to try and deduce an answer, it needs to be in line with the logic and evidence, in this case dualism.


Anyways, those are some of the biggest points, thought axioms, empirical evidence, and philosophy aren’t something I really scoff at. Personally, I believe in a form of Neo-Platonism, that for each thing that exists a perfect and abstract form of it exists. In line with this, if there is a mind/independent consciousness then there is a perfect form of such a mind/consciousness. To me, this would have many if not all the charateristics I would need to classify a god – being eternal, being conscious, perfect self-awareness, perfect understanding of how it relates to other things, immaterial, and so on. A mix between striving to be moral and the flaws that are inherent with questioning, doubt, confusion, etc. But this gets far off of the mind-body problem, and is something to probably be discussed elsewhere at a different time. Either way, thanks for reading. It’s been a long journey, and the more I’ve studied the logic and evidence the more I have had to amend my almost life-long beliefs. It’s been exhausting and frustrating, and I look forward to the pending break if I can stick to it. Xeper.


Axiom. (n.d.). Retrieved October 04, 2013, from Axiom


Beck, J. (2010). Cognitive Therapy. Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology. Retrieved September 05, 2016, from Cognitive Therapy - Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology - Beck - Wiley Online Library


Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 41-113. Retrieved September 07, 2016, from A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice


Kaptchuck, T., Friedlander, E., Kelley, J., Sanchez, N., Kokkotou, E., Singer, J., . . . Lembo, A. (2010, December 22). Placebos without Deception: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Plos One. Retrieved April 15, 2012, from Placebos without Deception: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Irritable Bowel Syndrome


LaBerge, S. (1990). Lucid dreaming: Psychophysiological Studies of Consciousness during REM Sleep. American Psychological Association, 109-126. Retrieved May 07, 2016, from http://www.lucidipedia.com/downloads/lucidityinstitute_researchpapers.pdf#page=163


Nagel, T. (1974, October). What Is It Like To Be A Bat. The Philosophical Review, 83(4), 435-450. Retrieved August 08, 2016, from http://organizations.utep.edu/portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf


Properties. (2016, February 17). Retrieved May 13, 2016, from Properties (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


Treadwell, K., & Kendall, P. (1996, October). Self-talk in youth with anxiety disorders: States of mind, content specificity, and treatment outcome. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(5), 941-950. Retrieved September 07, 2016, from http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/ccp/64/5/941/

 

[Journey-man]

Sorry to copy and paste, but I've into extreme detail on the issues with reductionism before, which have yet to be addressed.

The best place to start is at the foundation, axiomatic facts. An axiom is something that is necessarily true, meaning that it would be impossible for the axiom to be false. It cannot be argued because there are no premises more basic, but it cannot be argued against because even doing so would still rely on the axiom (Importance of Philosophy, n.d.). The Law of Identity is one such axiom, that A is A.

Many problems with this one, and seems to be reliant (as is much of your post) on outdated and refuted assumptions within the field of Philosophy. This assertion has to do with a critical aspect of Epistemology, on the subject of Foundationalism, which is that all knowledge requires a common foundational source. Yours is a rationalist conception to this Foundationalism in the vein of Neo-Platonic assumptions, which asserts that axioms are not just starting points for further argumentation, but irrefutable facts about the world or reality. Your example of such an axiom is the law of identity, which is about the relationship and individuality of "things." When one begins to integrate modern science to this classical axiom, major problems begin to arise for its asserted metaphysical conclusions. For instance, Quantum Field Theory which is at the heart of Quantum Physics (one of the most verified theoretical frameworks in all of modern science) demonstrates that the nature of "things" begins to breakdown into fields of virtual particles or energy. Indeed, it is only when we look at the emergent constructs of these Quantum Fields in more complex organizations of matter, such as at the atomic level that we begin to discern organizations of matter as "things." However, if this "law" breaks down and is not true for all aspects of reality, especially the foundational layer of the hierarchical structures of matter then it cannot be claimed to be a universal truth, but is more so a utility for discourse and mathematics.

For the mind-body problem, that the self exists is also such an axiom, as is easily demonstrated. For example, there are no premises more simply than “the self exists”, because all those premises are known to and created by that self in the first place. You cannot argue that “I do not exist”, because you are the one doing the denying, the reasoning, and the claiming. If the claim were to be true, then you do not exist to do the denying, the argument is not made, and we enter a paradox. It also is not possible to be false, as the self is what understands and distinguishes between truth and falsehood. Best of all, if this is not axiomatic, it would be very easy to show. All one would need to do is attempt to claim the self does not exist without relying on the self in the first place.

Modern neuroscience and psychology also demonstrates these set of assertions to be false. The existence of the self, from a neurophysiological perspective cannot be indicated except from the experience of consciousness. There is no central organizing or executive function of the brain which orchestrates the rest, including in terms of decision making and reason. The "self" is a construct of our narrative cognitions about our moment to moment experience, and in terms of discourse is necessary to indicate the distinctions between individuals.

To try and assert the existence of the self from abstract manipulation of language only shows the necessary utility of distinctions in our pronouns, not necessarily indicative of an underlying metaphysical reality which we culturally attach to that moment to moment experience.

If the self is axiomatic, it raises a major problem for material monism, because matter is only known through the mind/self. Materialism has to essentially eliminate an axiom in order to be valid, a rather tall order for any position.

These are further categories which prove less malleable to explain the complexity of reality, which is not either dualistic, materliast or idealistic, but instead reality is emergent and pluralistic. More complex organizations of matter create new and novel functions, and in the context of human beings, the interrelational realities give way to the emergence of culture, religion, philosophy, economics, and politics.

Next is the issue of property dualism. In philosophy, a property is that which can be attributed to something (Standord, n.d.). Redness to an apple, for example, means that redness is a properties of that apple and of some apples. For two things to be identical, they need to have the same properties, in keeping with the law of identity discussed above. A does not have the properties of letter B, to illustrate. This is the same way that the mind and brain have different properties. For one, physiological activity in the brain is different than the experienced events in a mind. Even if you perfectly knew the workings of someone or somethings brain, this is entirely different from having insight into their actual mind and experience (Nagel, 1974). Even if we are able to project an image of someone’s mental contents onto a screen, this does not come close to the subjective experience of the individual. This lack of direct access and study is another difference in the properties between brain and mind. You can poke at a brain, directly measure the changes, but you cannot do this with the contents of someone’s mind. Another difference in properties is that the physical brain acts in deterministic, predictable ways. This is not the case with the mind, as easily showed by something like lucid dreaming. We can understand and measure how the brain is working during lucid dreaming, but the experience the dreamer is engaged in does not need to match reality in the slightest (LaBerge, 1990). Heck, even sitting around day dreaming the mind is free to wander despite the brain acting in very normal, material ways. In short, there is rather clearly a kind of property dualism between the mind and brain. Even if we assume that mind or brain arises from the other in some way, it is clear that there is now a dualism between the two.

I am not a reductive materialist, the most viable Philosophy of Mind at present is Functionalism, which means that the structures and properties of the SYSTEMS within the mind generate the experiences and sensations that we perceive in our moment to moment conscious experience. Consciousness is emergent from a series of systems and functions which operate solely within the brain, and is sufficient to explain all experiences human beings perceive. Ignoring the functions of structures such as the Medial Prefrontal Cortex, or Orbital Prefrontal Cortex in order to assert some kind of metaphysical soul only serves to harm mental healthcare and produces observations which cannot be asserted without appealing to abstract fallacious reasoning which frankly has been long refuted.

Moving on, there are problems with causality. Any form of monism is going to show one-way causality. If the brain exists and completely creates the mind, then the brain will always cause and effect in the mind, not the other way around. Likewise, if only the immaterial or consciousness exist, then that would always precede physical change (which is obviously not the case). Neither of these are what we see in reality. Yes, obviously things like ingesting drugs or messing with the brain can cause cognitive changes, which gives material monism a slight edge over immaterial monism, but less commonly recognized is that this works both ways.

Psychologists use that model not because of some vague metaphysical and illusory influence of "beliefs" on the brain. Instead, Psychologists use Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT) which integrates the causal relationship of cognitions (taking place in the Prefrontal Cortex and interrelated to the Limbic System) and its affect on moods and behavior which are all mediated by various structures and functions within the brain. Placebos have an impact on the brain, because our brains are pliable and able to be manipulated by conscious thought by activating the Prefrontal Cortex in order to check the emotional systems of the Limbic system. For instance, Placebos have been shown in fMRI scans to reduce pain because less activity related to pain can be seen being transmitted through the Spinal cord to the rest of the body. This is also why virtually all religions have neurological benefits as they act as psychological placebos which moderate the functions of meaning, morality, and overall well-being.

None of this is better explained by Neo-Platonism.

Anyways, those are some of the biggest points, thought axioms, empirical evidence, and philosophy aren’t something I really scoff at. Personally, I believe in a form of Neo-Platonism, that for each thing that exists a perfect and abstract form of it exists. In line with this, if there is a mind/independent consciousness then there is a perfect form of such a mind/consciousness. To me, this would have many if not all the charateristics I would need to classify a god – being eternal, being conscious, perfect self-awareness, perfect understanding of how it relates to other things, immaterial, and so on. A mix between striving to be moral and the flaws that are inherent with questioning, doubt, confusion, etc. But this gets far off of the mind-body problem, and is something to probably be discussed elsewhere at a different time. Either way, thanks for reading. It’s been a long journey, and the more I’ve studied the logic and evidence the more I have had to amend my almost life-long beliefs. It’s been exhausting and frustrating, and I look forward to the pending break if I can stick to it. Xeper.

My recommendation for you. Read more on modern psychology, philosophy and physics from the last 30 or so years. You'll find that science more than accounts for these issues which go well beyond problems of monism, and gets into the distinct pluralism of emergent properties in reality. This avoids the philosophical tinkering of trying to manufacture reductionistic arguments for all phenomena, as well as getting stuck in metaphysical conclusions which have to be asserted by the very abstract symbols that the original conclusions depend on. This was the assault on Foundationalism from Postmodernism which addressed the problem of language and its relationship to knowledge, but that problem was basically solved by merging analytic and continental philosophy with a Pragmatist framework to Epistemology. No foundation is necessary.

 

[George-ananda]

As it relates to consciousness involving dimensions outside of the physical realm, what evidence do you have to support this? When the neocortical portions of the brain become too damaged, consciousness is utterly lost and the person is effectively dead, which would seem to be a result of the functions which create our experience of consciousness being destroyed. Particularly the Prefrontal Cortex, the Anterior Cingulate Cortex, and other critical structures in the Frontal Lobe. Damage which results over aging also impacts the personhood and individuality of those who suffer from dementia or Alzheimer's which is indicative of atrophying of the Frontal Lobe, rather than there being some kind of immortal and immaterial soul which is the seat of personhood. The loss of personhood with the destruction or damage to the Frontal Cortex is demonstrable evidence that it moderates and performs the functions which create this sense of "self" and indeed are tied to these "spiritual" experiences. Which is why drugs can chemically reproduce many emotional, vision and physical experiences reported by those who are religious or spiritual.

My difference here is that you are defining life as physical life only; experiencing through the brain. Because there is no signs of physical consciousness we can not conclude there is no consciousness in other dimensions of existence. For example in the Near Death Experience, people experience even more vividly without the clunky consciousness link to the physical brain. Yet, with no higher brain functioning they can report events they could not have learned through 'normal' physical input.

There isn't any need to assert that there is something else there, as there isn't any casual indication of some other unnatural force being present.

One scientist both humorously and seriously said: If we ignore the data that doesn't fit, the data fits nicely.

Well, I am convinced there is established evidence both experimental and anecdotal that things occur that would not be possible in the materialistic worldview (I.e. paranormal events).

 

[Journey-man]

My difference here is that you are defining life as physical life only; experiencing through the brain. Because there is no signs of physical consciousness we can not conclude there is no consciousness in other dimensions of existence. For example in the Near Death Experience, people experience even more vividly without the clunky consciousness link to the physical brain. Yet, with no higher brain functioning they can report events they could not have learned through 'normal' physical input.

One scientist both humorously and seriously said: If we ignore the data that doesn't fit, the data fits nicely.

Well, I am convinced there is established evidence both experimental and anecdotal that things occur that would not be possible in the materialistic worldview (I.e. paranormal events).

If you're able to objectively demonstrate that these can even be considered "data," then perhaps we can have an debate.

What is your specific evidence.

 

[George-ananda]

What is your specific evidence.

It is not specific but broad and comprehensive. Here is a link with a fairly tidy summary: Evidence

 

[Journey-man]

It is not specific but broad and comprehensive. Here is a link with a fairly tidy summary: Evidence

Present one of the arguments in your own words please, I don't respond to linked content without commitment from the poster.

 

[George-ananda]

Present one of the arguments in your own words please, I don't respond to linked content without commitment from the poster.

I wasn't expecting you to read the whole thing and comment on it as that would be too big a task. I was just giving you an idea of the kind of evidence I found convincing. For me, it is the accumulation of all of these things more than any one case. An accumulation of like case is a more robust type of evidence. Any one of those topics would be a thread of their own. If you are so inclined, you may peruse the information or ignore it. In the end all that matters is our own opinion and it is usually impossible to convince another as they can only convince themselves.

 

[Journey-man]

I wasn't expecting you to read the whole thing and comment on it as that would be too big a task. I was just giving you an idea of the kind of evidence I found convincing. For me, it is the accumulation of all of these things more than any one case. An accumulation of like case is a more robust type of evidence. Any one of those topics would be a thread of their own. If you are so inclined, you may peruse the information or ignore it. In the end all that matters is our own opinion and it is usually impossible to convince another as they can only convince themselves.

I read through a few examples, the introduction and conclusion which summarized his arguments as well as what he saw as the insufficient responses of materialists to account for phenomena. Wasn't compelling, and quite fallacious (straw man, special pleading, begging the question, etc.)

I agree that we should have consideration to the totality of the evidence and arguments available. However, that doesn't mean that individual arguments aren't pertinent in evaluating the sufficiency on an assertion, especially as there are usually core arguments which are necessary for these kinds of beliefs that causes the whole system to fail if they are wrong. Though metaphysics is flexible and in some respects unfalsifiable, which means that irrational beliefs can become more resilient, since they aren't anchored to empirical data.

I'm not under the suspicion that either of us is going to convince each other, but I did present specific arguments in the OP which can be countered and refuted if you're up to the task.

How do you think the metaphysical nature of personhood interacts with the physical brain? What structure of your neurophysiology integrates to the spiritual realm? What functions do the Prefrontal Cortex perform if the experience of cognitions and other key elements to consciousness are part of this "soul?"

 

[George-ananda]

How do you think the metaphysical nature of personhood interacts with the physical brain?

Your view is the one of upward causation, elements; form brains; create consciousness. The view I ascribe to is downward causation. Consciousness/God is something fundamental and the material is a derivative of consciousness/God/Brahman. God/Consciousness descends through finer (non-physical) realms/dimensions and through to physical bodies. Consciousness incarnates bodies as the physical cannot create consciousness. Upon death we continue to exist in our finer/subtle bodies.

What structure of your neurophysiology integrates to the spiritual realm?

The subtle bodies interpenetrate the physical body and information travels from more subtle to more physical dimensions by sympathetic vibrations. The more dense planes cannot directly detect more subtle planes so these subtle planes and vibrations are 'invisible' to the physical senses and instruments.

What functions do the Prefrontal Cortex perform if the experience of cognitions and other key elements to consciousness are part of this "soul?"

The physical brain and body allow the soul to experience on the physical plane. The activity in the Prefrontal Cortex is not actually thought but the physical corollary of thought which actually initiates in a subtler plane of nature.