What makes people irrational thinkers?

[polymath257]

If we could know all there is about the brain and how it functions, we would also know what the 'mental states' are that it is experiencing, and so would have an 'explanation' of consciousness.

IMO Frank Jackson's thought problem "Mary's room" serves as a sufficient defeater for that position.

I disagree. If Mary knows *everything* about the physical process of seeing colors, she would also know what the internal state would feel like (since it is a physical process). The most she would learn is that she has finally 'seen red'.

The problem is the assumption that Mary knows *everything* there is to know about the physical aspects of 'seeing red'. That is an incredibly tall order, but if achieved would carry along with it an understanding of how *she* would react to seeing red.

---

He repeatedly describes the materialistic view of matter as inert and incapable of doing more than very simple types of activity. Why he believes that or (if he doesn't believe that) why he writes it, I do not know. In any case, his arguments against materialism fail (as far as I can see) on exactly this point.

Suppose that matter is capable of more types of activity than Hart understands.

How does this show that his arguments about God are incorrect?

It shows that there are gaps in his argument. if matter is capable of 'supporting existence', for example, his use of the requirement for such a support does not prove the existence of a God.

If matter can, in fact, support consciousness, it shows that his argument from consciousness has a gap and does not manage to demonstrate his conclusion.

So, while it does not prove his conclusion is wrong, it does show that it isn't proven to be correct.

I'm wondering if you can construct an argument, based on what Hart says, that if matter is more active than he says it is, his arguments for God fail. But you'd have to do this without begging the question -- that is, it wouldn't be sufficient to argue that of course pretty soon physicalist investigations will be able to answer all the questions they have so far been unable to answer, including why there is something rather than nothing.

To form an argument that's convincing to people who don't already assume he's wrong, you'd have to engage with what he says and show (rather than just assert) that his (allegedly) over-simple view of matter is fatal to his argument.

He gets to make assertions without evidence and nobody else does?

He has to prove that his assumptions are true in order for his argument to be sound.

As for whether physicalist investigations can resolve all of the issues, all I can say is that we need to continue to do the investigations. Given the successes over the last 400 years in showing that nothing beyond the physical is required in places where it was previous thought to be necessary, I am willing to wait and see.

One of the requirements for doing science is patience. We have made far more progress in understanding the brain and how it produces our experiences than most people imagine. We can produce, for example, illusions of being 'out of body' or even the illusion of being in another body. These are *illusions* caused by playing with how the brain processes information.

As for his overly simple view being fatal to his argument, if the physical is a sufficient 'support for existence' his whole argument for God falls apart. he never justifies that cannot be the case.