(January 7, 2016 at 2:31 pm)Vincent Wrote:

(January 7, 2016 at 9:28 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Contrary to the claims of the OP, there is no proof that mechanistic brain functions actually produce quality and/or intentionally, as opposed to to say mediating those phenomena. At best, materialism can only offer a promissory note of future discovery based on intellectual precommitments.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here. There has been no scientific reason to believe that brain functioning is not produced and regulated through material and natural processes . In fact, all scientific evidence points to the contrary. Simply typing out a bunch of pseudo-science using impressive terminology doesn't make it any more credible or realistic.

I happen to agree with Chad in that you overstated the case from science. Many things about our mental world have been explained by our coming to terms with the substance of the brain's operation, but genuine mysteries, such as consciousness, still exist. Claiming that science has explained or evidenced all mental functions is just plain ignorance.

(January 7, 2016 at 2:31 pm)Vincent Wrote: Theists seem to put an awful lot of weight on ballsy claims like this: "We are right. We got all this shit figured out. Just you wait, science will eventually catch up to us and prove all that we're saying." 

You seem to forget, through the ages it has always been religion trying to catch up with science, and not the other way around.

This is a rather weak induction. "Science has explained things in the past so it will do so again." You don't know that, and your putting your eggs in that basket is another example of overstating your case.

(January 7, 2016 at 2:31 pm)Vincent Wrote:

(January 7, 2016 at 9:28 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Contrary to the claims of the OP, there is no proof that mechanistic brain functions actually produce quality and/or intentionally, as opposed to to say mediating those phenomena. At best, materialism can only offer a promissory note of future discovery based on intellectual precommitments.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here. There has been no scientific reason to believe that brain functioning is not produced and regulated through material and natural processes.

People call them neural 'correlates' because, although there is a strong correlation between neural events and mental properties, no actual type-to-type causal relationship has been established, and there are serious challenges to ever doing so. I will give you 'regulated'. Anyone can see that. But I take issue with claiming that mental properties are 'produced' by physical brain functions.

(January 7, 2016 at 1:19 am)Vincent Wrote: I think the most alluring thing about religion for many individuals is the promise of an afterlife. As an atheist, I don't believe that the afterlife exists. I don't think it's possible. And here's why. 

In order for there to be an afterlife, there has to be a soul. For the soul is what is carried on after death, correct? 

But is there even reason to believe that the soul exists? Think about it: The brain can be proven responsible for every aspect of you as a person: your personality, your actions, your beliefs, your desires, your emotions, your willpower, the love you have for other people, virtually everything originates and is carried out by your brain, as can be seen in the subject of psychology. Where does the soul even factor in to the equation? The brain explains everything without need for a soul. The soul, if it exists, serves no purpose, as everything we once attributed to it as primitive humans we have since found to be actions of brain functioning. 

So the problem is, if we know that the brain ceases functioning after we die, then what does the "soul" carry on with it to the afterlife (operating under the assumption that it's real)? What lives on after you die, is it really even you? What of you is left? Simply a life force, though your life force vanished with your last heartbeat? You had consciousness entirely because of your brain.

So with the brain gone, how would you even be aware to experience the tortures of hell or the blissful paradise of Heaven? Without a brain to process those feelings, you cannot actually feel them. Without a brain to remember and communicate with your loved ones, how can you meet them in heaven, how can you recognize them, how can you speak to them? Those are all abilities of a brain you no longer have. 

Theists: how do you make rational sense of these dilemmas? Is there some secret about the soul that I'm missing here?

Here is a simple way to look at it: The Brain is just a receiver/OS that drives the hardware/Your bodily function. The soul is the you 'program' located in 'the cloud.'

It's like a cloud based App/Game. Your brain/body is like your phone. It is the interface to the app/cloud based Game that can be done anywhere.

The "program" needs a piece of machinery to receive and interpret the digital information, does it not?

(January 7, 2016 at 3:27 pm)Drich Wrote: Here is a simple way to look at it: The Brain is just a receiver/OS that drives the hardware/Your bodily function. The soul is the you 'program' located in 'the cloud.'

It's like a cloud based App/Game. Your brain/body is like your phone. It is the interface to the app/cloud based Game that can be done anywhere.

Has there ever been, in the history of the world, any event that would imply that might be the case?  Instant communication between our brains and our souls over vast distances without interruption?  Signals that are undetectable though right? 

That claim seriously needs some supporting evidence!

(January 7, 2016 at 3:27 pm)Drich Wrote: Here is a simple way to look at it: The Brain is just a receiver/OS that drives the hardware/Your bodily function. The soul is the you 'program' located in 'the cloud.'

It's like a cloud based App/Game. Your brain/body is like your phone. It is the interface to the app/cloud based Game that can be done anywhere.

So do squirrels have souls? How about finches? Or trout? Does the Ghost in the Machine metaphor extend to every other creature with a brain and complex nervous system? If not, why not?

(January 7, 2016 at 2:44 pm)drfuzzy Wrote: I'm aware of many xtians who spend their days looking forward to the time when they will see their Mother, Father, siblings, husband or wife, pets, etc., again, in an eternal place where all needs are met, and everything is beauty.  And they will do anything here on earth to make sure that they get there.

I can still see the allure.  I'm actually a little depressed at the thought that none of these people will ever learn that they were wrong.  I mean, can you imagine being a priest, for example - - one of the few that didn't rape kids, I mean - - and get to the afterlife, only to be told that Yahweh and Jesus never existed.      

I think they know they're wrong, at least at a sub-conscious level. If they were certain, atheism certainly wouldn't make them as angry. People hate having to be reminded of a nagging suspicion that's pushed well to the back of their brain; that dead is dead.

For the most part, people are in no great rush to meet up with their dearly departed in Candyland, are they? They buckle up, knowing that Momma, Grandma, Timmy, and Rover are but a few bad drivers away. Funny.

(January 7, 2016 at 3:27 pm)Drich Wrote: Here is a simple way to look at it: The Brain is just a receiver/OS that drives the hardware/Your bodily function. The soul is the you 'program' located in 'the cloud.'

That's one way of looking at it and a common metaphor. I've used it myself. But it is still a metaphor and, as I'm starting to realize, not the best one. Those who are committed to physical causal closure and metaphysical monism bring up the 'interaction problem'. While this is an argument from ignorance, it remains persuasive to many. It is not an insurmountable objection but doing so inevitably leads to a larger more complicated discussion about nature of causality. If mind is an emergent property, as many physicalists claim, then it is almost by definition an essential one that cannot be reduced. Most physicalists will deny that there are essential properties because that opens the door to consideration of ideas like formal and final causes.

That said, the idea of a ectoplasmic-type soul, distinct from the body isn't an exclusively Christian idea nor is it even a necessary Christian doctrine. If living human beings are hylomorphic unions, then a soul without a body isn't a complete human, hence Christians can say that the dead 'sleep' until they are revived in new glorified bodies.

(January 7, 2016 at 3:34 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: The "program" needs a piece of machinery to receive and interpret the digital information, does it not?

IMHO functionalist proposals cannot be considered truly physical theories of consciousness. When mental properties are assumed to be realizable on multiple platforms, then they must be ontologically distinct from the matter on which they supervene.

(January 7, 2016 at 3:42 pm)Crossless1 Wrote:

(January 7, 2016 at 3:27 pm)Drich Wrote: Here is a simple way to look at it: The Brain is just a receiver/OS that drives the hardware/Your bodily function. The soul is the you 'program' located in 'the cloud.'

It's like a cloud based App/Game. Your brain/body is like your phone. It is the interface to the app/cloud based Game that can be done anywhere.

So do squirrels have souls? How about finches? Or trout? Does the Ghost in the Machine metaphor extend to every other creature with a brain and complex nervous system? If not, why not?

I believe actually even atoms have souls. Even pebbles.  So squirrels definitely have souls.