Response to Skeptics' Guide Host, Dr. Steven Novella (Podcast)

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by skidoo

No I'm not.

Well you were IMHO but who cares now, I'm pleased you acknowledge mind correlations in the brain does not necessarily mean consciousness causation in the brain.

Ever seen one of those TVs with a built-in DVD player? All of the evidence supports the hypothesis that the brain has a "built-in DVD player," to extend your blunt analogy. There is zero evidence for supernatural (or paranormal, if you prefer ) transmission.

The evidence for psi in labs cannot be dismissed as 'zero evidence'. Have you looked through the evidence or have you read some skeptic revisionist websites who didn't do research, but are stamping these with other unproven explanations?

The only thing dualists have is one big "god of the gaps" argument.

Materialists currently have a blind luck of the gaps argument. Nor am I arguing creationism or even intelligent design.... I would however defend the possibility of intelligent evolution as an alternative to neo-Darwinism

Nor would I call myself a traditional dualist (or even a duelist ) I was defending the plausibility of interactive dualism. There are various theoretical models, perhaps the best known being the one by physicist Henry Stapp.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

I don't have much use for the God hypothesis either! Dualism requires that there be a non-physical component to consciousness precisely because it is so hard to explain consciousness in a purely physical way. It is certainly not a covert way of converting people to a belief in God!!

David

I think he means "soul of the gaps" i.e materialism has a little difficulty in entirely explaining consciousness, so people introduce a magical soul to explain everything.

[Open Mind]

Ian, I am not trained in philosophy as you are. If I ever use the wrong terminology, please correct me.

For example is 'interactive dualism' not really a monism? Two things perhaps of deeper level of physics? Yet traditionally dualism cannot be a monism Or is that idealism? That doesn't sound correct terminology to me either.

Also in various posts you have stated nobody supports your proof, I think I do. However because I can't think of any solid argument against it, that doesn't mean I am correct, so I say nothing

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

I think he means "soul of the gaps" i.e materialism has a little difficulty in entirely explaining consciousness, so people introduce a magical soul to explain everything.

Well he possibly does, but I do get the feeling that some skeptics think we are all closet bible thumpers. I even avoid the use of the word 'soul' because it is tainted with Christianity, and also rather vague.

David

[skidoo]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Well he possibly does, but I do get the feeling that some skeptics think we are all closet bible thumpers. I even avoid the use of the word 'soul' because it is tainted with Christianity, and also rather vague.

David

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...."

[skidoo]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

The evidence for psi in labs cannot be dismissed as 'zero evidence'. Have you looked through the evidence or have you read some skeptic revisionist websites who didn't do research, but are stamping these with other unproven explanations?

I keep asking you to cite some evidence, but you keep dodging the question by saying, "Oh, you wouldn't like it anyway." Go on and cite whatever you want. Maybe you'll start with Dean Radin's "intentional" chocolate?

[skidoo]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

Could you name some of this evidence?

Please go back a few posts and re-read the thread. Repeating this stuff is getting tiresome.

[David Bailey]

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

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by skidoo

I keep asking you to cite some evidence, but you keep dodging the question by saying, "Oh, you wouldn't like it anyway." Go on and cite whatever you want. Maybe you'll start with Dean Radin's "intentional" chocolate?

Tell you what, go buy Dean Radin's book 'Entangled Minds' then if you want to dispute the evidence .... fire away.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Ian, I am not trained in philosophy as you are. If I ever use the wrong terminology, please correct me.

For example is 'interactive dualism' not really a monism? Two things perhaps of deeper level of physics? Yet traditionally dualism cannot be a monism Or is that idealism? That doesn't sound correct terminology to me either.

Physics only ever deals with that which is measurable. If consciousness is not measurable then it could never come under the purview of physics. Of course reductive materialists claim that consciousness is measurable because it is identical to certain physical processes within the brain i.e a conscious experience is the very same thing as some physical process. Thus since physical processes in the brain are obviously measurable, then therefore necessarily consciousness is too.

So reductive materialism is a materialist monism. Mental monism is roughly the same as idealism the antithesis of materialism-- that is only consciousness and perhaps selves really exist. The "physical world" is just a conscious experience (at least for subjective idealists).

Interactive dualism is where there exists both the physical and the non-physical (consciousness) and they causally influence each other. That needn't entail that the non-physical consciousness isn't a product of the brain.

But it's an extremely complex subject and it seems to me that people continually are using all these terms in a very loose and ambiguous manner.