Rosenberg's Argument Against Beliefs

[Whateverist]

Whereas pieces of papers are not the sort of thing we think of as assigning or conveying meaning, brains are precisely the kind of thing we think does so.

To me that is part of what makes the problem so interesting. Why do you (and I) make an exception for one particular physical system? What makes the brain different from the paper is the presence of operations you associate with mind. We do not suppose that ink and paper, thermostats, and computers have minds?

But we have good reason to think we have brains in our heads. Whether or not we can 'implant' consciousness into a thermostat or some other device, no engineering is required to get consciousness into brains. As it turns out, that is the only place, so far as any one knows, any consciousness has ever been found. Where as creatures with brains frequently claim to have consciousness, no toaster or other device has ever chipped in "me too". At the risk of being seen as a brainist, I do think that is the salient marker for minds/consciousness/souls and the rest.

[The Grand Nudger]

Exactly the point. So what is the logical conclusion of such a belief if not nihilism?

In that scenario, what is "the logical conclusion" in the first place, itself? A very accurate response to any question regarding nihilism is "so what".

[Neo-Scholastic]

But we have good reason to think we have brains in our heads…As it turns out, that is the only place, so far as any one knows, any consciousness has ever been found.

You are correct. To the best of our knowledge only creatures with physical brains have consciousness. That is not at issue. The point is this. The thesis that mental properties (mind) can be reduced to physical brain function is an unwarranted prejudice of atheism. As it relates to the OP, if physical reduction were possible, then all knowledge is irrational.

My conclusion from all this is this. To choose atheism over belief is to make an existential choice that cannot be rationally supported and is at the same time self-contradictory (as per Rosenberg’s argument).

[The Grand Nudger]

It's a thoroughly well established observation. We see A and and B, the one does not seem to be able to be removed from the other. There is no need to invent extraneous entities (and some would argue, myself included, that if we wanted to be specific we could remove one of them - at least in the finer details).

Would you prefer to attempt to explain the unknown by reference to the unknown? Tell me, if you would, how that will work?

Atheism is not a stance on consciousness (or souls) so get off it. The only unavoidable -anything- of atheism is the absence of a belief in a god, either actively or passively. There is no "unwarranted prejudice of atheism" in this area, atheism has nothing to say on the matter.

[Whateverist]

To the best of our knowledge only creatures with physical brains have consciousness. That is not at issue. The point is this. The thesis that mental properties (mind) can be reduced to physical brain function is an unwarranted prejudice of atheism.

My alarm goes off when I see correlation used to justify a "nothing but" conclusion. Just because mind/consciousness has only been reported by creatures with brains is no reason to jump to the conclusion that mind processes are nothing but brain chemistry. Clearly all that brain chemistry is giving rise to all the subjective states we know and love. The mere fact that the brain's chemistry supports them doesn't nullify what we experience any more than knowing a painting is nothing more than chemicals applied with a brush by the mechanical motions of some painters arm nullifies any of the qualities we appreciate in the painting.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...Just because mind/consciousness has only been reported by creatures with brains is no reason to jump to the conclusion that mind processes are nothing but brain chemistry.

That is exactly correct. If not just electro-chemical processes then what is the extra ingredient?

Clearly all that brain chemistry is giving rise to all the subjective states we know and love.

I do not share your clarity. To say "gives rise to" restricts you to bottom-up causation. The naturalist assumption is that the physical universe is causally closed. Thus naturalist explanations only allow bottom-up causation. If there is an extra ingredient for consciousness, then it has no place in any purely physical system.

[The Grand Nudger]

Thus naturalist explanations only allow bottom-up causation.

Bzzzzt, incorrect. Insomuch as any other direction can be claimed naturalism "allows" for it.

[downbeatplumb]

We do not suppose that ink and paper, thermostats, and computers have minds?

Soon computers might.

There is a good possibility that computers will advance to a level where what they do will be impossible to distinguish from a "mind".
At that point you could say that they have a mind.

[The Grand Nudger]

Soon computers might.

They may already, insomuch as anything does.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

The thesis that mental properties (mind) can be reduced to physical brain function is an unwarranted prejudice of atheism.

It is fact that nothing which is not a physical process has been found. That is not a prejudice. That is a fact.

As it relates to the OP, if physical reduction were possible, then all knowledge is irrational.

Which serves as an example of why it is stupid to play around with argumentation instead of physical evidence. Argumentation is worthless per se. Only physical evidence matters. After you have established physical evidence you can argue the physical evidence.