Morality or Obedience?

[Starlight]

materialism is unable to, and can't even in theory, account for qualia.

I actually agree with you on this one. I hover between being an "idealist" and a "dualist", and the two views I would consider most likely are:
1. We are in 'the matrix' / playing a computer game (we exist as entities outside this universe, and that accounts for our minds/qualia, and this universe is a set of data being fed into our minds)
2. There are two universes - this material universe and a universe of qualia/consciousness and the two are able to interact at the quantum level. Throughout the evolutionary process, evolution found it useful (or possibly the universe of consciousness found it useful) to construct brains that utilize that connection into the universe of consciousness and connect and utilize those pieces of consciousness. This may have given these organisms survival advantages through increased mental capacities in a similar way that my laptop opening a remote connection to a supercomputer gives my laptop increased computing power. In this situation the brain is acting somewhat like a radio and receiving a signal from elsewhere. Depending on how one characterizes this second universe of consciousness, it could be portrayed like in Buddhism where it is a sea of consciousness and we are like drops taken out of it, or like in Gnosticism where it is the True Spiritual Realm and the material realm is Evil for trapping pieces of the divine in bodies inside it, or that universe of consciousness could be termed 'God' and then we would be pieces of God.

Probabilistically I think #1 is more likely simply because we are highly likely to develop fully-immerse computer games within a few hundred years, and after that the number of in-game lives a person leads (i.e. the number of times they do a full playthrough of a game where they live out a simulated life) is going to be an order of magnitude higher than the number of real lives they lead as each person will likely play dozens or hundreds of computer games in their lives. Hence given we are currently living a life, chances are it's an in-game one.

But I think #2, some form of dualism, is the second most likely option.

I agree with you in not seeing any way of reconciling qualia with physicalism currently.

And no, advances in neuroscience won't ever solve this problem.

I wouldn't go that far. Science has discovered surprising things in the past that people thought were going to be undiscoverable. I anticipate that neuroscience in the future will tell us a great deal about how the brain interacts with qualia.

[JonathanL]

I have no problem with some animals having experiences with qualia-like properties and by extension some sort of lower-level "soul". However, I reject the notion that we'll ever create such complex/advanced AI entities that they'll eventually acquire qualia-like experiences. Mainly because I don't believe having these subjective experiences has anything to do with how complex/advanced your brain is.

The brain is a material entity; the alleged soul is an immaterial

I'm sure you know something I don't. We wouldn't wanna make an argument from ignorance when we just accused the other guy of doing the very same thing, now would we?

[seer]

How on earth do you know that chimps experience qualia - did they tell you?

[JonathanL]

How on earth do you know that chimps experience qualia - did they tell you?

It doesn't matter whether they do or not, it doesn't help his case in any way.

[seer]

It doesn't matter whether they do or not, it doesn't help his case in any way.

Right, but for someone who is always harping about science he makes a lot of unscientific assumptions.

[element771]

And why do you need to understand how the interaction between the soul and the brain works in order to believe in it? I bet you believe in countless things that you're unable to, and never will be able to, explain, so one more item to that list would hardly make a difference.

I didn't mean to imply that I needed to understand something to believe it. I was referring to your previous post about not understanding how the physical brain gave one those traits. In other words, we are both in the same boat as far as not being able to understand something about the way the brain works and if there is a spiritual component.

My problem with physicalism is that it literally makes the resurrection impossible for anyone who dies before Jesus returns.

And why do you need to understand how God will maintain continuity between your earthly body and the resurrected body?

Also, I don't agree with your assessment that our existence would not be continuous. The atoms in our body change all of the time...that doesn't mean I am a different person.

Your problem with mind-body dualism is some sort of imagined problem of your own (as in "you physicalists") making. There's nothing in the Bible that says Jesus destruction had to be complete for the full atonement to take place.

I don't have a problem with mind-body dualism, I just don't think that is what the Bible teaches.

[carpedm9587]

Humility.

Also, the desire to learn through debate instead of assuming one already knows everything. There was no reading or learning in his posts...only arrogance and worse yet, arrogance about his ignorance.

Fortunately, I am one of the most humble people I know!

[element771]

this is an argument from ignorance.

You keep using this phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[element771]

Fortunately, I am one of the most humble people I know!

And that is why I know you don't suffer from the effect.

[JonathanL]

And why do you need to understand how God will maintain continuity between your earthly body and the resurrected body?

I don't, and I never implied I did.

But the answer is pretty simple. The continuity exists because of our immortal souls.

Also, I don't agree with your assessment that our existence would not be continuous. The atoms in our body change all of the time...that doesn't mean I am a different person.

Except that isn't the argument. The argument is that if physicalism is true then the death/destruction of the body implies the inevitable, and irreversible, destruction of the person. If you die, and physicalism is true, there won't be a "you" for God to resurrect anymore. The best He could do would be to create an exact replica of you, but that wouldn't be the same thing as actually resurrecting the very same person that died.

I don't have a problem with mind-body dualism, I just don't think that is what the Bible teaches.

I disagree, but it doesn't really matter. There's no good extra-biblical reasons to believe in physicalism anyway.

[carpedm9587]

I assume a "soul" exists, either as an independent entity (the view I personally hold to) or as an emergent property of the brain, because materialism is unable to, and can't even in theory, account for qualia. And no, advances in neuroscience won't ever solve this problem.

As for your second question: I don't really know. Maybe the brain is that connection. It's not something I've cared too much about.

I love it when someone makes me run for my dictionary! Thanks!

But I am not clear on why you think a material brain cannot account for qualia (assuming I have correctly interpreted the meaning of that word). We do not yet know HOW emergent properties actually emerge, that much is true. But you seem to be asserting that we will NEVER understand this phenomenon, and the material can never give rise to the immaterial. Yet the Christian worldview seems to be that the immaterial CAN give rise to the material.

So, two questions come to mind:

• How do you know we will never find the link between the material and the mind
• Why can causality flow in one direction (immaterial giving rise to material) but not the other (material giving rise to immaterial)?

[seer]

I don't have a problem with mind-body dualism, I just don't think that is what the Bible teaches.

Element, do you believe that the three days that Christ was in the grave that His rational, immaterial "spirit" was dead too?

[element771]

Except that isn't the argument. The argument is that if physicalism is true then the death/destruction of the body implies the inevitable, and irreversible, destruction of the person. If you die, and physicalism is true, there won't be a "you" for God to resurrect anymore. The best He could do would be to create an exact replica of you, but that wouldn't be the same thing as actually resurrecting the very same person that died.

But it the same thing...only in slow motion.

Our bodies are exact replicas of us from earlier time points in our lives, yet we are the same person. So in the same way...if God replaces all of the atoms in my body instantaneously, then I will continue to be the same person.

How fast or slow the process happens doesn't really matter.

[element771]

Element, do you believe that the three days that Christ was in the grave that His rational, immaterial "spirit" was dead too?

I don't think that there is a rational, immaterial "spirit" to be dead. So I guess the answer to the question would be yet.

[carpedm9587]

And that is why I know you don't suffer from the effect.