I recall a comment regarding the past instances of a phenomena having been thought to have supernatural origins, but then science eventually explaining it. I don't deny that. Lightning is one example. With consciousness though we are, again, looking at a different train of thought.
And it seems that we should not simply assume metaphysical naturalism as a worldview before the debate has even started, which is precisely what I see too many people doing. Is the proponent of whatever form of dualism simply saying, "Science hasn't explained this yet, therefore dualism is true?"
I have yet to see that argument presented. Rather, what actually is being argued that is that metaphysical naturalism does not have the resources within its worldview to explain mental phenomena. It is being argued that there cannot be a completely physical explanation for consciousness.
We may, through neuroscience, come to a much richer understanding of different phenomena pertaining to consciousness and the thoughts associated with our brain patterns. I expect that we will. But is that going to equate to explaining how a congregate of atoms has a thought when assembled this way? A scientist can look at my brain, put electrodes to it, and monitor certain patterns in order to infer that I am angry. That scientist cannot, however, see the thought I am having concerning my disappointment towards a friend who made a bad choice which is causing that anger. He only sees physical reflections of those thoughts. On dualism, whatever form it takes, we expect correlations with the brain. So naturally neuroscience will help us understand the phenomenon of consciousness. Explaining how consciousness exists though? That is another matter.
I can take water, carbon, lime, ammonia, salt, salt-peter, phosphorus, sulfur, silicon, iron, and all of the trace elements, throw them together, and should I expect consciousness? No, but then again, they have to be arranged a certain way, to give us the structures of the brain, the microtubules, and so on. I, as a person, only know of one person. Is it possible that that person comes from any of that? Is that mind given birth to by the interactions of neurons and microtubules?
Obviously, I'm no neuroscientist. But there are plenty of neuroscientists who share my befuddlement, so much so that they are convinced that the mind and the brain cannot be one and the same. I share that same line of thinking.
And it seems that we should not simply assume metaphysical naturalism as a worldview before the debate has even started, which is precisely what I see too many people doing. Is the proponent of whatever form of dualism simply saying, "Science hasn't explained this yet, therefore dualism is true?"
I have yet to see that argument presented. Rather, what actually is being argued that is that metaphysical naturalism does not have the resources within its worldview to explain mental phenomena. It is being argued that there cannot be a completely physical explanation for consciousness.
We may, through neuroscience, come to a much richer understanding of different phenomena pertaining to consciousness and the thoughts associated with our brain patterns. I expect that we will. But is that going to equate to explaining how a congregate of atoms has a thought when assembled this way? A scientist can look at my brain, put electrodes to it, and monitor certain patterns in order to infer that I am angry. That scientist cannot, however, see the thought I am having concerning my disappointment towards a friend who made a bad choice which is causing that anger. He only sees physical reflections of those thoughts. On dualism, whatever form it takes, we expect correlations with the brain. So naturally neuroscience will help us understand the phenomenon of consciousness. Explaining how consciousness exists though? That is another matter.
I can take water, carbon, lime, ammonia, salt, salt-peter, phosphorus, sulfur, silicon, iron, and all of the trace elements, throw them together, and should I expect consciousness? No, but then again, they have to be arranged a certain way, to give us the structures of the brain, the microtubules, and so on. I, as a person, only know of one person. Is it possible that that person comes from any of that? Is that mind given birth to by the interactions of neurons and microtubules?
Obviously, I'm no neuroscientist. But there are plenty of neuroscientists who share my befuddlement, so much so that they are convinced that the mind and the brain cannot be one and the same. I share that same line of thinking.
Comment