I'm a firm believer that consciousness is not simply a chimera resulting from complex chemical reactions in our brains, but this article is weak. Rather, Moreland is falling into the mind/body fallacy, which is easy to do. Particularly when sitting at a computer typing, we seem to experience life as a mind, riding a body. In fact, though, as becomes obvious at other times, we are fully mind and fully body, one integrated whole. It seems, then, equally obvious that "thinking" is the product of physical activity; consider the effect of fatigue or caffeine on judgment, or the effect of various drugs on perception. And yet, there is that kernal of consciousness that cannot be explained as a physical phenomenon, that is unpredictable, that is never lost, that makes us human.

It's a weak article all right.

Materialists don't argue that consciousness doesn't exist. They just deny dualism - that there is some non-physical 'substance' somehow interacting with our physical bodies.

If you haven't already done so, have a look at Oliver Sacks' "The man who mistook his wife for a hat".

The bizarre case studies therein show how strokes and phyiscal brain damage can affect the very fundamentals of what we think it means to be 'human.'

Brit:

Would you not agree that while the Sacks story points towards the integration that David spoke of (above your post), that there are an equal number of stories (e.g., anything about Helen Keller, numerous para- and quadreplegics, etc.) where the body proved to be a just a hindrance to what the mind ultimately accomplished? Your point cuts both ways.

Jim:

There's no doubt that people can overcome tremendous physical disabilities (including damage to parts of the brain) with 'mind power' or whatever you wish to call it.

But for materialists, that 'mind power' is still a function of a physical brain, like all other consciousness.

The particular Sacks cases that I was thinking of were the unfortunate fellow with extreme short-term amnesia (for whom the world starts all over again every few minutes) and the stroke-victim who is unable to retain a single personality, but goes through a constant, uncontrollable whirlwind of inventing new characters and personae for himself.

In these cases it seems to me that the (physical) brain damage affects that very 'kernel', or essence, of the person to which David refers in his post. With these victims, other things remain (the ability to communicate, sense-impressions etc) but that essence - the thing that makes me 'me' - is gone.

David:

Do the comatose not have minds?

I third the motion, raised by David & seconded by Brit that the article is weak. The motion carries.

Obviously noone understands how consciousness can arise from the interactions of matter, it is a mystery. But does anyone really understand the other properties that we ascribe to matter? How does gravity work? How do particles "pull" toward one another? What do they pull on, what do they pull with? However, we all accept that gravity is a property of matter, because it is a matter of our direct experience.

But so is consciousness. If matter can have the unexplainable property that every atom in the universe "knows" where every other atom in the universe is and can "pull" toward that atom with a force inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, why is it such a leap that matter can produce consciousness?

Robert:

You have that backwards. If the Universe is obviously conscious, then why shouldn't Man be?

Of course naturalism is a faith, by defintion beynd absolute proof. Attachment to the faith through the exclusive worship of reason has a track record which members of the sect tend to selectively ignore. The first attempt at organizing society along the tenets of naturalism was the French Revolution, arguably the prototype for contemporary totalitarianism. The outright deification of nature and reason made it unique. The model, with some modification, has been attempted time and again with tragic results. Acknowleging those results, reasonably, one could almost assume that the essence of human nature might not be so easily categorized as a question of pure matter.

Tom:

Materialism is not so much a faith as an application of our favourite Razor. If observable material phenomena are sufficient to explain something, you do not need to add further explanations until they are shown to be necessary.

That widespread materialism might have 'tragic consequences' I doubt...but is that an argument that materialism is wrong, or just that a general acceptance of it would be dangerous?

It's a kind of purblind apllication, since observable material phenomena aren't sufficient to explain the existence of the material world. So you either posit something created the material world or you beg off.

OJ:

Not at all.

Something non-material might have created the material world.

That's a quite separate question to the one we're addressing here.

Very well, so this "Materialism is not so much a faith as an application of our favourite Razor. If observable material phenomena are sufficient to explain something, you do not need to add further explanations until they are shown to be necessary." we are agreed is nonsense.

At the risk of piling on, "Given that mental states (states of mind) are immaterial and not physical ..." is a clear indication of just how weak this article is.

Taking as true that which is far from provable, then basing the rest of the article on that assertion, is an excellent way to start with nonsense and go no further.

Jeff:

As opposed to saying they're material? all we have is a clash of faiths. We believe in human dignity and love. You believe in cells and electrical impulses.

So what you are saying OJ is that human dignity and love are immaterial.

From Merriam-Webster online:

Main Entry: im�ma�te�ri�al
Pronunciation: "i-m&-'tir-E-&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English immateriel, from Middle French, from Late Latin immaterialis, from Latin in- + Late Latin materialis material
1 : not consisting of matter : INCORPOREAL
2 : of no substantial consequence : UNIMPORTANT

So you think that human dignity and love are unimportant?

How about this: If the "housing" of our "kernal" becomes damaged, does that mean that the kernel is gone or never existed? Maybe only the means by which it communicates with our physical self is simply broken? Somewhere "me" is still "me" even though physically we cannot comprehend that and we cannot comprehend it in others with our limited bodies' abilities. If I had to choose to comprehend myself as my mind or my body I would choose my mind. I've always been very curious as to what comatose people remember or not when they "come back" but the details are always conflicting. Faith comes down to believing in more than what one can touch or see which is just as important in science as in religion. Only the very obstinate think they've experienced everything there is to experience. True science and true religion both always strive for more.

Yes, they have neither matter nor substance.

Tammy:

Bingo! Materialist measure all by their selfs.

Brit: What is one to make of the Sacks story of the man whose mind and body "separate" so that he has no real sense of having a body at all, and has to strain to control it? (The truly scary part is that he dreamed it the night before it happened--did his body/brain know something was about to go horribly wrong or did the dream suggest the outcome and therefore produced it?)

Er. The article seem to be arguing dualism, presumably mediated via the pineal gland.

Now, if the argument here is for a non-materialistic non-dualist solution, how are those reconciled?

I have been watching the yard cats interact with the neighbor's hens. They have different 'personalities' ('animalities'?). They are conscious of something, though I cannot say what.

The cats are clearly 'more conscious' than the hens, though. If I shoot a hen with an air pistol to keep her out of the cats' food, she comes back as soon as I turn away.

I haven't shot a cat, but I know what would happpen if I did -- it would come back, but much more circumspectly. (The dog probably would not come back at all.)

Is all this behavior merely physical/chemical, without intervention of the Big Spook? Well, yes, I think so.

It's a continuum, and if you think of consciousness as Turing did, the difficulty of reaching any particular level of consciousness disappears. (Though I'm a skeptic about any buildable as opposed to ideal Turing Machine mimicking human consciousness, while I think a computer dog consciousness would not be so very difficult to construct.)

Harry:

Adding more consciousness to the equation doesn't advance your cause.

Harry:

If you did that to a man you wouldn't be able to predict at all what he would do. How does that fit the continuum?

OJ:

My point was that holding something as yet completely unprovable one way or another as established fact is nonsense.

I don't know that the mind is a completely material thing. Neither he, nor you, knows that it isn't.

On balance, though, the evidence from strokes and other brain injuries suggest that materialism can't be ignored.

"My point was that holding something as yet completely unprovable one way or another as established fact is nonsense.

I don't know that the mind is a completely material thing. Neither he, nor you, knows that it isn't.

On balance, though, the evidence from strokes and other brain injuries suggest that materialism can't be ignored."

Line 3 demonstrating that you don't actually believe line 1--which is fine, you've your faith & the rest of us have ours.

Peter, the point is that degrees of consciousness obviously exist, and are along an unbroken continuum, so if you are going to invoke the Big Spook giving humans souls, then you're going to have to admit He gave somewhat lesser souls to dogs and so on down to tapeworms.

As a matter of fact, though I don't know any Christians today who believe that, I know that in the past some did.

It's a short step from that to Peter Singer.

Consciousness isn't a human soul. Obviously a dog is conscious of its own pain or it wouldn't shy from a slap. That doesn't mean we have to protect their right to own property.

Harry:

Let's park the Big Spook and tapeworms. It was a serious question and, believe it or not, I'd be interested in your take. Harry, at your age, you can't afford to let us theocrats push your buttons so easily.

You suggested a continuum of the reponses of different animals based upon their level of intelligence/consciousness (are they the same?). If it were a man, he might cower and burst into tears. He might jump at your throat. He might use wit, startegy and argument to disarm you, or he might call for help or run away, etc.

So how does that fit into the continuum?

In an interesting coincidence, I was reading the following Nature article this afternoon: http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v428/n6983/full/428606a_fs.html

"The perils of anthropomorphism

CLIVE D. L. WYNNE

Consciousness should be ascribed to animals only with extreme caution.

..."

I'm being serious. And I am not confusing consciousness with intelligence.

We humans have self-consciousness, and it is not clear that any other animals do, though I don't exclude the possibility for some. That seems to be a question beyond meaningful investigation.

However, our consciousness is, by observation, not essentially different from non-human kinds of consciousness. Some of the weird behaviors of people with parkinsonism (like being unable to make the first move in a card game but to play well if someone else does) indicate that our consciousness is on a continuum with animal consciousness.

Therefore, the soul problem for people who believe in souls.

consciousness isn't a soul.

You got that right.

so much for your argument.

If consciousness, or personality, isn't linked to our souls, then there's not much point to having a soul.

Bingo!

Why do dogs have any sort of consciousness?

Because they'd all be dead otherwise. Consciousness is meaningless in metaphysical terms. It's like hair.

Dogs do have souls, as well as all living things. That is what makes us alive. Your soul is very simply the breath of life that God gave every living thing individually. Your soul is more relative to your breathing than your thoughts. (speaking as a Christian. Hey, now you actually KNOW one right here in the current century that believes in animal souls, we really aren't so rare)

Tammy