Quote:
Originally Posted by skidoo  The "god of the gaps" reference was just a euphemism for the " argument from ignorance." Obviously I wasn't referring to God, in particular, but rather to the fact that dualists---like their intellectual brethren the creationists---have no valid arguments except, "But we don't know everything yet, so maybe...." |
The point is that new ideas often start as "arguments from ignorance". Nobody seems to have any sensible idea as to how physical processes can create consciousness - so discussing alternatives seems plain common sense to me!
The point is that the original God hypothesis has been eroded and eroded as science demonstrated how the world works without divine intervention, and also how 'moral' traits could be - at least in part - the result of genetic defects or brain injury.
By contrast, the suggestion of dualism deals directly with the inability of conventional science to come up with real explanations of consciousness. I think the fact that someone can write a book suggesting that the essence of consciousness is embodiment really says it all - people are absolutely stumped.
Of course, maybe someone will really solve this problem in terms of conventional science, but given the amount of head scratching that has gone on already, I am less than convinced.
Skidoo - I do wish you would be a little less arrogant in the way you state your views - as if the rest of us are ignoramuses! You would do well to remember that people such as Brian Josephson (physics Nobel prize) are 'on our side'. Obviously it is absurd to try to resolve intellectual arguments on the basis of who is on which 'side', but equally, it is absurd to try to dismiss ideas that you disagree with simply by adopting an off-hand - even rude - turn of phrase.
I think the TV analogy has much to commend it, but like all analogies, it is not meant to be taken literally - so talk of brains with DVD players is rather tedious unless you make it plain exactly what you are talking about.
David