Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
I do not know. Nobody really does. One idea is that the brain acts more like a radio. Certain brain states tune in to receive non-physical attributes like sensation. A damaged brain would thus not be able to receive or interact effectively with whatever it is that supports mental properties. Dualism is about much more that the 'soul'. It has to do with all mental properties regardless of whether in the form of a soul or something else. Here is a link to a self-avowed materialist who seems to think dualist claims are not totally out of the running.
One interesting problem to me is that so much of the brain is NOT conscious. One thing everyone agrees on is that the brain is extremely chaotic, in that slight changes in one area cascade throughout the entire system. It seems to me that if something non-physical acted upon the brain it would not need a very large footprint. In one theory, Roger Penrose speculates about consciousness coming out of microtubules within neurons. I hate quantum based theories of consciousness, but it seems to be the only game in town, since Newtonian interactions have no insertion point for qualia or intentionality. However, if the 'soul' were able to manipulate chance at the quantum level it's effect could be amplified by the brain's complexity. That could be one means of interaction between the physical and no-physical parts of reality.
To me qualia and intentionality are two aspects of reality that strongly imply some form of dualism. And that is one reason why I favor dualist theories.
+1 cato. Almost every principle outlined in the paper in Chad's link is flawed.
Quote:My position may be rational, broadly speaking, but not because the arguments favor it... My purpose in this paper is to... admit that I do not proportion my belief to the evidence
...so not rational at all, then. if there's no evidence then he's just making stuff up!
Quote:Arguments for materialism are few...
...then someone doesn't know what they're talking about! The number of arguments in favour of a position is not the measure; it's the veracity of the arguments & their evidenciary support which are important.
Quote:To anyone uncontaminated by neuroscience or 4 materialist philosophizing, the mental does not seem physical in any way at all, much less neurophysiological
*translation: "To anyone who has little/no knowledge of the facts or is prepared to ignore a valid set of arguments..."
After these fails, I stopped reading as I can have no confidence/interest in the conclusions of a paper which is so fundamentally flawed.
