Is atheism a belief?

[bennyboy]

There is no such (woo) entity that used to labeled "mind".
We ARE our neuro-biology. There is no evidence for anything else.

Here's a well-known PHD psychologist explaining it.





Topics in subjective neurological experience.
http://www.frontiersin.org/research-topi...nomenology

It's all very interesting.  A very entertaining video, and a good pop science introduction to the relationship between brain and mind.  We've talked about a lot of this right here in these forums-- especially in discussions about free will vs. determinism.  In fact, I don't think this video introduced anything that we HAVEN'T discussed, at some point-- for example, we've even talked about Phineas Gage on multiple occasions.  And, in case you think you understand my position, I once argued that given brain determinism and its implication for free will, a punitive legal system represented philosophical hypocrisy. I don't believe you would have expected me to take that position.


You should note two things, though:

1)  I've never argued that the brain, its structure, its functions, our experiences and our behaviors as human beings aren't very much linked.  The philosophical question is at what level of material organization the most essential elements of mind emerge.  You think you know the answer to that, but you cannot demonstrate it to be true, and nobody else has demonstrated it to be true. And I myself never asserted panpsychism to be true-- I said IF it is true, then I'd be well-disposed to those who would call the Universe the mind and body of God. If.

2)  While you are very certain of material monism, there's a problem: literally every "objective" observation made by people, ever, in all history, has been done through subjective agency: looking at a ruler, poking the brain with an electrode, looking at fMRI machines, listening to your professors, watching this Youtube video.  100%.  In other words, if the human species has evolved to be born with the blue pill in its mouth, you'd never know it from your observations.

3)  There's still, after about 100 years of the field of psychology, no good description of how any material system could allow for subjective experience.  There's an increasing body of neural correlates-- "When X brain function is observed, people report Y experience, when XX brain system is damaged, people's behavior changes in YY ways."  What there isn't, however, is any understanding at all of how subjective experience arises rather than not, in ANY physical system including the brain.

4) You've made an explicit appeal to this man's authority, i.e. via his credentials. However, he doesn't claim to be an expert on the philosophy of mind. It's not surprising that a neuroscientist is going to talk about interesting things he knows about the brain-- but if he had explained why there is subjective experience rather than a lack of it in the Universe, you could have added "Nobel prize winner" to his credentials.


Let's give a different question, so I can explain in what way you and I are not on the same page.  Let's say I asked why a plane flies.  You could point to the wings, and show that damage to them causes a plane to fly badly or not at all.  You could show all the wires or electronic systems which control the ailerons are all needed-- you could perhaps give a few formulae for fluid dynamics showing how speed over a curved surface reduces pressure.

In the end, though, the real question of flying isn't ultimately about that-- it comes down to an interaction among forces, ultimately tracing back to the 4 universal forces.  A good physicist could tell you how those forces interact to create the pressure differential that allows a dense object to maintain its elevation in a fluid of lower density.  But a good brain scientist cannot point to any such thing-- all they can do (as the man in this video has done) is wave toward the brain and discuss interesting correlations between structure and behavior. All he can do, in other words, is point to wings and jet engines in a more entertaining way than you or I could.