No, to start with, mind-body dualism, which I didn't bring up, has not been disproven, it's merely become unfashionable. The reason it became unfashionable is because atheists wanted to discredit the idea of a soul.
As it is, I haven't been promoting a model of the mind, I've been discrediting the materialist model of the mind.
The old question used by atheists to promote their materialist model is how a non-physical mind could interact with the physical body to compel it to do things, to move it. Their argument was that unless the mind, itself were physical, it wouldn't be able to interact with the body. But that's an extremely naive concept of at least three things physicality, the possibilities of a non-physical mind and the nature of living organisms.
To begin, as I mentioned a month or more ago, there is no reason to suspect that a non-material mind would be limited to the forms of interaction with physical entities that are demonstrable in the interactions of two moving physical objects. As I mentioned if the mind is nonphyical it would not be expected to be limited in the way that physical objects are because those qualities of physical objects are what define them as physical, a nonphysical mind would be expected to have other qualities and capabilities that are not shared by nonliving physical objects. There is nothing more obvious to our everyday experience than that living beings have capabilities not shared by nonliving objects, though atheist-materialist dogma has been trying to convince human beings that that isn't their everyday experience of reality for centuries. There is nothing that is more demonstrative of the emotional motive of atheist-materialism than its refusal to acknowledge even the most obvious of truths about life and human experiences, the catalogue of those denials would be bigger than the Websters Collegiate.
My exercise in asking atheists to explain how, if our minds are ephiphenomena of physical structures in the physical brain that the brain would know it needed to make new structures to, in fact, be new ideas in the brain, what those structures needed to be, how to make the right and not the wrong structure and, whatever it has made being the only form of a possible right form for that idea then present in the brain, it would know it had made the right idea and, perhaps as daunting, make whatever proposed mechanism work in the experienced speed of thought, ... my motive in asking that was merely to disprove the possibility of that model because it makes no sense at all to think that could happen, that the brain could do all of that without the idea being present to instruct it of what had to be done.
I don't see how any possible means of atheist-materialist explanation of that to get around the problem of the idea to be made being there and that, since it would have to precede the formation of a physical structure in the brain that the idea would have to not only be present in a non-physical character but that that non-physical idea would be the motivation that makes the brain, then make any structure to represent it in the physical brain. The problem of how a non-physical entity interacts with the physical body is forced by a full consideration of any materialist conception of the mind because the mind is constantly forming new ideas. It does whenever it so much as notices things in the physical environment that the body reacts to, it is doing that every single second when we are awake. The idea that every one of those ideas is the product of the manufacture of new structures in the brain is certainly not a good match for our most basic experience of reality.
Dualism makes far more sense, though I have not proposed a dualistic model of the mind, I suspect that it is probably quite short of the mark because it can't begin to approach what the mind is. I strongly suspect that the mind, even at its most stripped down consideration as consciousness, won't turn out to be the hard problem, it will turn out to be a continual mystery because we have no adequate tools to address what it is by philosophical contemplation, I'm pretty certain it will never be caught in the causal nets of science because I think the mind is a totally different kind of thing than science is equipped to find.
Why so many people fall for and fall in line with the atheist-materialist dogma of "brain-only" has more to do with peer-pressure in academia and fashion and the demand that everything must be vulnerable to scientific methods in service to a rather naive and frequently stupid atheist ideology than it does anything honest.
Update: If people are going to bring up questions about this, I'm going to answer them. If they insist on posting those in an unacceptable form, I will answer the questions without posting the insults, lies, false attributions, etc. As I said, if people are going to give me material, I'm going to use it.
As to this being repetitious, I don't recall any of their fans criticizing PZ Myers, Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, James Randi or any other atheist for their all-hate, all the time approach to religion, especially Christianity. There is no more repetitious ideological group than the fan-boyz of atheism. I will go over this as many times as it takes or until I stop posting pieces. Probably the day that happens you'll know that I'm dead or finally couldn't pay my electric bill.
Hate Update: "in other words you don't know shit about shit". I sure as hell know it when I read something you wrote.
No comments:
Post a Comment