Sharon Dirckx: Atheists can't explain away consciousness using brain science
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 вер 2024
- Neuroscientist Sharon Dirckx calls for vigilance in recognising when non-scientific claims are being made about the mind-brain connection. Watch the full episode here: www.thebigconv... 🧠
• More shows, free eBook & newsletter: premierunbelie...
• For live events: www.unbelievabl...
• For online learning: www.premierunb...
• Support us in the USA: www.premierinsi...
• Support us in the rest of the world: www.premierunb...
Her reply here doesnt post any problem for thoughtful atheists. If she is responding to people like Dennet or the Churchlands et al then she will know that their views purport to be philosophical views which they maintain are better philosophical positions to adopt than whatever theist positions there are. In short she hasn't really addressed why their *philosophical* position is less virtuous than whatever hers is.
She never claimed their philosophical position is less virtuous, she simply stated they can't claim this due to scientific methodology. As a theist I can't keep track of the times that people have made claims like "science proves this or that" without realizing science has nothing to say about it other than the result of it. Consciousness and the origins of life for instance. I'm at peace as a theist saying that a transcendent imposing power and mind (God) seems far more logical and consistent to ME than any other theory that I've heard. I respect the atheist so much more when they can humble themselves to the unknown, even if it's "well, I'm not sure where that thought comes from, I think maybe we'll know someday but I don't believe it's God" so much more than "science tells us everything and because of this there is no need for God.
I can understand opposing views and respect them as long as they are drawn from logical conclusions and not conflated to strengthen a world view. I have the same issue with some apologists who make far too strong a claim to promote their worldview as well. Be honest, give honest answers and let people use logic and reason to draw conclusions, we should never have to muddy the water to trick people into believing what we want them to.
To attribute psychological verbs to the workings of the brain is what Bennett & Hacker (2003, 2nd ed. 2022) describe as committing the mereological fallacy that confuses parts with wholes. It is embodied and socioculturally embedded human beings that think, act, believe, etc. not their brains.
And.....?
Christians think they got us lol
@@neonboom6121 Hey bro, Christians are not your enemy ! I know it's easy to get caught up in an us vs them mentality, but perhaps we can all learn from each other ;)
Thoughts are produced by brains though?
I think a major problem with these types of things, thoughts, free will, and so on, is that were experiencing it FIRST HAND, which heavily biases our view and understanding of what's actually taking place.
We tend to want to feel more special important than we are, not realizing that notions of "special" or "important" are matters of subjectivity rather than ontology.
Theists love making their truth claims yet never provide evidence for it....this fallacy is fundamental to their illogical faith world view
Very easy........Take away a persons brain and ask the person what they are thinking.
You have to exist to experience. You have to be a real, conscious, thinking person. The fact that you have experiences shows that you exist as a concrete thing, not a process or composite.
Dude do you actually know that everything you will experience in your life until your death is experienced first hand? You can't escape your mind. Your personal experience is the most real thing that exists in (your) world.
@@neonboom6121 Since you seem to disagree with the video, what's your position? Do you think that our mind is our brain?
Why do atheists need to explain anything or required to?
An atheist is simply someone who lacks any god belief. That’s it.
If a religious person claims “god did it” when faced with a complicated question about nature, then that’s just a baseless assertion without evidence. You don’t get to solve a mystery by appealing to an even bigger mystery.
@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros No genius. You’re using the false equivocation fallacy of “rocks are atheists”.
This is nothing more than an ignorant sidestep than actually presenting credible evidence to an atheist.
Why does this video have the word " Atheist " in the title ?
This is a Christian channel lol...why are u surprised
@@neonboom6121 I wouldn't have a problem if the title was " science " can't explain.
The title picture even has the word " science " on it.
@@holdontoyourwig cos some Christians love taking a dig at atheists
@@holdontoyourwig Science is about the same as atheism, cause atheists believe only in science and not in the Creator who can prevent one from going to hell but only before you die. or something like that.
Because creation lunatics equate the scientific method with atheism.
You never see people who think that minds can exist independently of brains trying to blow their own brains out...so there's that
What has that got to do with people who think the mind can exist outside the brain but won't do the experiment ? Perhaps they don't believe it after all
This life is not an accident, but a gift we should not throw away... your free will alone shows you are more than a bunch of chemicals :)
Paradoxical Lucidity in Alzheimer's patients, blind people having visual NDE, change of brain chemistry by thoughts (used in OCD therapy), split-brain patients with 1 consciousness in everyday life - these phenomena are hardly compatable with physicalism either.
The self that is looking through your marvellous eyes cannot be reduced to physics + chemistry. "This conclusion … strongly reinforces our belief in the human soul and in its miraculous origin in a divine creation." John Eccles, neuroscientist + Nobel laureate
Those who say they believe something like Eccles does (i.e. about soul) but are reluctant to stand by their conviction and do the experiment ...are cowards. Their handwaving away their proof of burden by clever sophistry doesn't fool anyone, it only reinforces their cowardice
And what are we to make of people who are too frightened to state their own position clearly, in case they are the subject of ridicule....and resort to quoting people like Eccles...like a convenient wall to hide behind
she is very poor in her explanation, what she needs to say is that brain science, and science in general says nothing about meaning because it is all about causation and mechanism. The 'why' of the whole affair, and the meaning of the sum of the parts added up to the whole human experience escapes science entirely, because it is not what science does. It takes a whole human being to do that.
"We don't know, therefore god"
*watches at the sky.
-yup, i ve heard that before, and *every single time*, it has not been the correct answer.
We don't know, therfore millions of years...
@@danielmorris4765 cringe
Watch inspiring philosophy's video neuroscientific evidence: irreducible mind (part 1) on UA-cam. All the evidences are there in the video and it's in the description of the video.
@@Isaac-hr8ug the claim God exists is a unfalsafiable one
Also the "evidence" for God is trash as you say
What is the distinction between animals and humans?? Self aware consciousness
@@growtocycle6992 Many animals are also self aware like other primates, ravens, elephants, pigs and octopuses.
What are you talking about?
We can't fully explain consiouness yet, but as this person recognizes, now we can map neural networks which correspond more and more precisely with particular mental states. We don't fully understand how the brain produces the mind, but we know for certain that the brain activity produces the mind. I think we will understad if we promote science and technology.
it doesn't just give you a connection- it gives you causation. In the same way that moving a magnet results in a magnetic field, neurons firing result in conscious thought. It is using the exact same definition of causation that all science uses.
No, you see... magnets are just tools. You need magnetic spirits to come in and use them to create the fields, like... a guitar. Or a radio. /s
Causation used in that sense can refer to how something works, but when we talk about the cause of actions there is will involved. The motives of our actions are not just the product of biology.
@@jaidenmuschett5667 can u go into a bit more detail about the last statement
Science can tell you fire causes smoke, but it won't tell you that fire is smoke
@@jaidenmuschett5667 feel free to support that statement with a scientific paper.
Religious people like to use this. SCIENCE CAN'T EXPLAIN THE PLAGUE! ONLY GOD CAN!
Then science explained it.
Religion looks to the sky and asks, "What do you want me to do?"
Science looks to the sky and asks, "What makes you work? How?"
One answers no questions, the other asks and seeks to find answers. So I say that science can not explain it...yet.
That’s just a cop out though. You’re having faith that science will eventually explain/figure this question out, when NO ONE truly knows *IF* science actually will ever be able to explain it. You, whether you realize or not, are operating on faith in science.
@@lakerfan0243 I don't think you know what faith is
Watch inspiring philosophy's video neuroscientific evidence: irreducible mind (part 1) on UA-cam. All the evidences are there in the video and it's in the description of the video.
@@neonboom6121 Faith is literally believing or hoping in something you haven’t seen or experienced yet. This person, along with everyone else alive today, has NOT experienced or seen scientific evidence for where consciousness comes from. That means that, ding ding ding, you guessed it, everyone who still HOPES and believes that science will EVENTUALLY be able to explain it is currently having FAITH in science, because science hasn’t shown an explanation for it yet. It’s not a hard concept to grasp
@@lakerfan0243 NO, faith is blind. What I have is history. Science has proven that it can solve just about anything, given enough time. I can't find even one single solitary case of somebody having any proof of god doing literally anything at all, in any way/shape/and/or form. Not one time ever in all of human history has the bible explained how anything works. And no fucking shit it might not ever figure it out, but that is more of a shortcoming of humanity than of just science. Stop making nonsensical statements just for the purpose of trying to argue semantics over something that did not need saying......
As someone who suffered a severe mTBI, consciousness isn’t what we think. Unless you experience your own consciousness ripped apart for yourself, you cannot understand it. When my brain tried to heal, it became obvious that unified consciousness is an illusion. Consciousness works like an orchestra such that each section has to work in harmony to give the illusion that it’s one piece of music. I could see and feel the pieces of consciousness fire out of sync for months, effecting my personality to physical well-being until I healed. Thoughts come from the neurons firing to convey an illusion of unification.
What could see and feel the pieces of your consciousness, exactly?
Ok @marincusMan terrible, just delete. Second marincusMan you are asking that he describe the MOST IMPORTANT aspect of his sense of well being ,his conscious, being ripped apart to prove what ? The truth is that the days of playing psychoanalysis with tbi patients needs to be behind us. Parts of the brain create and “house” the conscious. We know enough to see that the approach to care needs to be reconsidered. I appreciate your comment, Catherine Malabou has a book The New Wounded and I see others as well on the subject. I appreciate your comment xalian17
@@maxsterling8203 uh, I’m simply asking what is experiencing his consciousness firing out of sync..
@@maxsterling8203 he said unification of consciousness is an illusion right after referring to himself as “I,” which is the unification of consciousness.
@@marincusman9303 ok ☝🏻where do you or I come from ? As in unification of consciousness ‘you’ and “ I “ ? I’ll tell you to move this in the direction “l” want it to go. My father’s sperm enters my mothers egg. We watch the process unfold in the womb all sorts of things happen that can’t be attributed to consciousness “scientifically”. So ‘you’ are housing your illusion of consciousness with your mind in your brain.
if you copy that professor in neuroscience into 10 duplicates each copy would experience itself as the original professor having independent selves. there is no soul in the sense of century old beliefs as each duplicate experience consicousness from the programming of the dna. its like you take a sofitware in computer science and just copy the software into copies. each copy of the same program experience itself as a totally independent being. each copy would claim they have a soul even its all programming that is talking in each copy.
I agree with her.
Why wouldn't you? Everyone loves magic.
I don't advocate scientism and nor am I going to throw the baby out with the bath water to say the least.
@@manavkhatarkar9983 scientism is a theist buzzword, it means nothing
@@neonboom6121 bruh I'm an agnostic atheist 😂... go do some philosophy instead.
@@manavkhatarkar9983 same
My point still stands, scientism is a buzzword
Take ya own advice
Mmmmm delicious! I love god of the gaps arguments, they're so tasty.
What does that even mean?
@@michaelmcdonald8452
It means when we don't know something [like fully understanding what consciousness is] we fill in the gap in our knowledge with 'God did it' A claim without evidence.
@@johnhammond6423 but don't you think that saying that science will eventually explain everything away is the same God but in much greater gaps?
@@olgakarpushina492 I know haha it’s the same argument on both sides
@@olgakarpushina492
I never said that science will eventually explain everything away.
The difference between science and religion is science gives us good verifiable evidence, religion gives us no good evidence but just relies on faith.
Why are believers or non believers required to "explain away"
(whatever that even means)
consciousness?
If believers say that "conciusness" is something related to the spirit, non believers will try and explain that spirit, thing that can not be proven, as it's defined to be something "else" appart from understandment and logic.
While non believers try and explain the conciusness to be something as a thought, but they cant express how does that create, because over that it's only physical, or is it?
To be clear: Non of them are, they are just trying to understand. but neither can define the human mistery of "awareness" or better known as "consciousness"
Until you, Theists can demonstrate that consciousness is NOT a function of the brain AND that your MAGIC MAN is involved, YOU HAVE AN EMPTY SACK.
ANOTHER VICTORY FOR ATHEISM.....
wow😃
Maybe this conversation plays out such that the moderator actually pushes back instead of just swallowing these claims, but in case they don't, Sharon's making the presumption that there's a distinction between mind and the brain in the first place.
You cannot take a brain image that shows a mathematical or logical proposition. Brains do not equal minds.
Well, there is evidence of disembodied consciousness in documented cases of NDE for instance.
The mind brain conundrum has been debated for a long time. So yeah.
@@emmanuelmasih2296
There has never been any NDEs that have been scientifically verified to be anymore than having natural causes, none!
@@johnhammond6423 more nonsense. There are decades long university medical studies which have showed otherwise.
This is like when creationists say 'were you there?' To people who believe in evolution. Until we have every answer to every question they will never think its enough to draw a reasonable conclusion based on substantial evidence.
Even if every mental state is proven being in corrispondence with a brain state (which I highly doubt but I'll give you that for the sake of continuing my point) you still can't say they're the same thing.
Watch inspiring philosophy's video neuroscientific evidence: irreducible mind (part 1) on UA-cam. All the evidences are there in the video and it's in the description of the video.
A little sense, not"science", is all you need to know that your mind and body are connected.
Watch inspiring philosophy's video neuroscientific evidence: irreducible mind (part 1) on UA-cam. All the evidences are there in the video and it's in the description of the video.
The naturealist matierialist wants to explain how the brain matter produces consiousnes because if mind and brain are separate that might heaven forbid indicate a soul.
Ur really reaching
The naturalist materialist doesn't want to explain how the brain matter produces consciousness, its just that there is good reason reason to believe otherwise.
@@neonboom6121 Watch inspiring philosophy's video neuroscientific evidence: irreducible mind (part 1) on UA-cam. All the evidences are there in the video and it's in the description of the video.
@@neonboom6121 Allways something to say isnt there
Theists have even less evidence for a soul, though.
Nah they have their 2000 year old book written by neolithic sheep herders.....duh!!!
When it comes to consciousness, atheists say “mutations did it”. Which is laughable. Not only can’t such a mechanism to generate consciousness, it also has no causal efficacy to account for how the brain came about in the first place. As it’s often said, Evolution explains the survival, but not the arrival of the fittest. Mutations being our creator, not god, is the view most scientists favor. But this view is contrary to recent evidence of how mutations have no creative power whatsoever.
@@TyrellWellickEcorp the reality is neuroscientists don't know much about conciousness and about mutations....its essential to evolution but I never heard any atheists state that mutations is the mechanism for consciousness lol....but that's just my experience
Atheists have even less evidence for morality lol.
@@neonboom6121 nah you have your atheistic natural law of red in tooth and claw... duh!!
Meaning thoughts only make sense "if God?" 🤷
@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros
phys·i·cal·ism
/ˈfizəkəlˌizəm/
the doctrine that the real world consists simply of the physical world
This is "nonsense" because those two people say so?
That's an empty reply and a lazy one at that.
No, she is stating that science cannot determine if the mind is created from the brain or if the mind is separate from the brain.
She is refuting the claim made by many naturalists/ materialists that the brain is responsible for creating the mind and for creating consciousness.
Of course brain science isn't enough, becuz CONSCIOUSNESS is primal, not matter-filled brains... everything (all objects, including brains, stars, rocks, plants, ourselves, all "matter" and even our feelings and thoughts) appear WITHIN consciousness. Consciousness is literally all there is. So, "God" can be considered to be the pure, unblemished dreamer of all perceived reality. "God" dissociates Itself into becoming the illusion of us. We are actually "God" wearing the masks of various humans, acting out existence. So, one could say there is no "God" outside of consciousness, because, again, "God" is the One consciousness. This is how nondualist thinkers believe, such as Hinduism's Advaita Vedanta (my own philosophy) and some Buddhists camps.
However, Christianity is typically dualistic, which involves there being actual real matter PLUS soul stuff. Therefore, "God" to most Christians is sort of like outside and pokes inside space and time.... mankind is created in God's image, but is not God. Therefore, humans use freewill and make mistakes (and, are therefore imperfect) and in need of redemption to please that perfect, separate entity "God."
In contrast, in Advaita Vedanta, God is the only doer (freewill does not exist on a personal level) and everything is perfectly "God's" will. No need for human redemption.
Omg.... I'm tired n rambling badly, now, at this point.... I apologize.
Yer ur right
Stop rambling incoherently
@@neonboom6121 Hey there.... Thanks for the non-productive, dismissive jab.
Thoughts come from the brain. If it was ethical, then we would prove it using fatal dose anesthesia or a high caliber bullet to the brain, and test for brain function afterwards.
@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros "Can you prove thoughts come from the brain?" Yes. But afterwards, I would probably be charged with murder. LOL
@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros We study actual injuries in people. People can have thoughts without a kidney, without an arm, even relying on an artificial heart. People with damage to certain parts of the brain, not so much. Is this really a pressing scientific question?
@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros We as people. We as modern society (which includes neuroscientists )
Neither can theists lol
Yeah actually according to the Christian worldview we are all made in the image of God. God is a spiritual being therefore he has made us likewise spiritual beings after his own image. If you're asking where the spirit or the soul is located that is something that science can never answer because the spirit is immaterial in nature and science only deals with the material.
@@acts-me8xr theists can make as many truth claims as they want yet they still need to prove said truth claims which they don't so that by default is a fallacy
Yes ur right..science only deals in nature (reality) and not in fairytales
@@neonboom6121 see we were having a nice adult conversation and then he had to throw the fairy tale saying out there lol.
The Christian can prove our truth claims by the impossibility of the contrary. All other worldviews are self-defeating or flawed and internally inconsistent.
As far as science goes because atheists like to tout it as their own god, can you account for me the uniformity in nature as an atheist? Using the scientific method presupposes that the laws in nature are fixed and you can rely on the law of gravity tomorrow the same way that you can today but I'm just curious in a naturalistic worldview how is that possible? How can a universe that has been brought into existence through random unguided processes possessed fixed laws??
@@acts-me8xr how is the faith world view not inconsistent and fallacious? Faith is the belief in religious doctrine using spiritual conviction rather than proof, that is a illogical world view yet u say all other world views are self defeating and flawed? Laughable
Explain to me how the truth claims Christians are objectively true, and how the contrary is impossible
About the universe, not a single scientist knows what came before the big bang and no scientist knows how the natural laws were created and guess what? Neither do theists
The fairytale comment was a tongue and cheek comment, I apologise lol
Science can't (yet) explain it therefore: God, magic, supernatural causes. Take your pick. It hasn't worked before, so what makes anyone think it will work now?
The brain and the mind aren’t the same and the earth is flat
Yes and we live in Mars