consciousness?

[Neo-Scholastic]

…To Chad: I don't see why you object to seeing the biology of the brain as the ground of the mind's activity. If it turns out to be true that no functioning mental world exists apart from living brains, what difference does that make?...what difference does it make if our mental life arises biologically? I'm trying to understand what you see as being at stake if it turns out that mental phenomena exist wholly in minds as a particular aspect of our biology. What do we have to give up under that view?

What is at stake are the very things I believe make life worth living: purpose, personal freedom, and moral values, for a start. Because these are so important to human existence, I do not give them up lightly.

And this is the crux of your problem. The only way to conclude that only these three choices exist is to apriori assume that there are two distinct, two separate, real and distinct realities - one pertaining to the material and the other to the mental. Implicit within this is the idea that these two can exist independently. Further evidence of your straw-manning is given by the your assumption that all atheists are materialists who'd refuse to even consider the third option.

Acually, I am not making the assumption of two distinct entities. All three could support a physical theory of mind. However, of the three given, only the last allows the possibilities of two real and distinct things (having different categories of being?) or demonstrating two distinct aspects of reality.

…I do not recognize the physical and the mental as two separate realities but as aspects of a single one - this reality. The fact that we can consider them separately (as in your example of reflecting upon our inner world) does not mean that they can or do exist independently. However, I do consider the so called mental aspect to be ultimately dependent upon and originating from the physical.

And why can’t they be mutually dependant and co-existent in a meaningful way?

…again, consider the computer analogy.

People used to compare the brain to a steam engine too. But I am familiar with the hardware/software analogy. Not to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be taking a functionalist position.

Functions are not contingent on the system in the way. Any given function can conceivably be performed on multiple physical systems – cogs and gears, brain tissue, electronic circuits, pneumatic tubes, telephonic networks, etc. This undermines mind-brain dependence and in many ways makes a material/immaterial relationship more plausible.

Secondly, functions are not inherent, they are assigned. All other known physical systems besides the human brain proceed without any awareness of function. It takes an already conscious being to recognize a function. A rectangular piece of fired clay has no function until someone comes along and says, “hey, there’s a brick I can use.”

Thirdly (and this mainly to shows that the analogy is weak, not the overall arguement), a computer does just generate software; it must be uploaded. If you buy a computer without software installed, turning it on will not generate Microsoft Word or i-Tunes. You open the door to the unfair question of who installed the software? Presumably, evolution allowed the hardware and software to develop simultaneously. That may be, but it's highly speculative.