The Great Culture Debate: Christopher Hitchens vs. David Allen White

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Could set the stage for a good discussion but neither of them is informed enough about cognitive science to make any useful comments on the only interesting part they touched on.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the point was that the cognitive sciences don't have useful comments in regard to understanding sapience. If there is something that will unravel it, please point out the source.

Semiotics was brought up which points to a third party acting between mind and matter, or God.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't agree with this. Some of advances in cognitive science have given fascinating insights into the mind and the process of higher thought. See, for example, How Brains Think by William Calvin. The very fact that we can already describe much of the architecture of the mind and its manifestations in higher thought is a big plus for those who claim science will figure it out. Compare this to 100 years ago for example - the knowledge we have now would stun them.

I agree that it's an open question as to whether it will happen. But enough of the basic physics -> cells -> cell superstructures -> human consciousness and personality continuum has been mapped that it seems likely we'll be able to explain most of it.

At the very least, brain damage and brain experiments have proved that human behavior and conscience requires the functions of the brain to operate or be filtered through from one's soul. And personality changes following brain damage, which can include the loss of conscience along with higher facilities, indicate that what we see manifested is in large part a person's physical brain. So whether or not God is cavorting in people brains, a self organizing structure of sufficient magnitude still needs to exist. Exactly the thing you'd require if there was no God at all...

[Peter666]

I completely agree that the biological understanding of brain function has been tremendous, but it has added nothing relevant to our understanding of the epistemological process which has been in place for over 700 years. The same goes for the study of Logic.

That the human body and brain is necessary for cognitive function is understood. The soul could not develop without a body. However, the body without a soul is dead, whereas a brain damaged body is still not dead and could be conceivably fixed if we had the technology. Essentially, life is still a mystery.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
hat the human body and brain is necessary for cognitive function is understood. The soul could not develop without a body. However, the body without a soul is dead, whereas a brain damaged body is still not dead and could be conceivably fixed if we had the technology. Essentially, life is still a mystery.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cognitive scientists are sneaky alright. They do all that throwing up of the hands and groaning "darn, we need a soul to account for that." when we aren't watching.

luckyme

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
I completely agree that the biological understanding of brain function has been tremendous, but it has added nothing relevant to our understanding of the epistemological process which has been in place for over 700 years. The same goes for the study of Logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

These statements do nothing other than show you have no idea what you are talking about. Cognitive science has made leaps and bounds in the last 700 years and I don't care to write a book here to catch you up. The problem is rather that if you and I were at some point in the future and were looking inside a human brain with infinite resolution and I pointed to a particular system - no matter how profoundly complex and beautiful its operation is - you would unambiguously disagree that it could represent consciousness. This is because you on a fundamental and philosophical level believe that consciousness is a noncorporeal trait that manifests itself metaphysically.

But if you want to vest your soul and humanity in metaphysics, I can't stop you.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I completely agree that the biological understanding of brain function has been tremendous, but it has added nothing relevant to our understanding of the epistemological process which has been in place for over 700 years. The same goes for the study of Logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

These statements do nothing other than show you have no idea what you are talking about. Cognitive science has made leaps and bounds in the last 700 years and I don't care to write a book here to catch you up. The problem is rather that if you and I were at some point in the future and were looking inside a human brain with infinite resolution and I pointed to a particular system - no matter how profoundly complex and beautiful its operation is - you would unambiguously disagree that it could represent consciousness. This is because you on a fundamental and philosophical level believe that consciousness is a noncorporeal trait that manifests itself metaphysically.

But if you want to vest your soul and humanity in metaphysics, I can't stop you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I long for the day when you can empirically show me the abstract thought. You are no doubt another man of faith in scientism praying for that day to come too.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I long for the day when you can empirically show me the abstract thought. You are no doubt another man of faith in scientism praying for that day to come too.


[/ QUOTE ]

Heck, he can't even show you the sound of two hands clapping...so obviously elves make us think we hear sound.

luckyme

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I long for the day when you can empirically show me the abstract thought. You are no doubt another man of faith in scientism praying for that day to come too.


[/ QUOTE ]

Heck, he can't even show you the sound of two hands clapping...so obviously elves make us think we hear sound.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I can hear the sound, I can't see your elves, nor touch taste or smell them.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Essentially, life is still a mystery.

[/ QUOTE ]
But less of a mystery than it was. A betting man could find lines now in certain arenas.

I think you make a very valid point about our epistemological processes. Even if every function of the brain could be mapped out perfectly, the experience of something and the feelings that go with it are fundamentally mysterious. That's because the description of the process is not the same as the process itself, no matter how grand the description. It's essentially the self-awareness paradox cloaked in a different garb. I also agree (although you didn't say it), that many atheists fall into this simplistic rut. It's one of my pet peeves.

I don't however agree that this implies either a soul or afterlife or God. And especially not the specific Catholic/Muslim/Boodibaadyboodo religion that some like to follow.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Touches upon all the questions we bring up here.


[/ QUOTE ]

Good discussion, Hitchens was a slimeball only twice, probably a record for him in any two hour period.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hitchens seemed to have broken down when White confronted him on his faith that science will understand conscience. Hitchens had to explain his assertion by stating that it is certain due to an exponential projection of accumulated scientific work...in other words, "I don't know, but I'm really really hoping." That makes him very religious! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I think saying, "I don't know, but I'm really hoping" is actually very unreligious. Take me for example, I'm an atheist, but at the same time I still hope that somehow I'll live on after this life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that qualifies you as a pantheist or some sort of immanent idealist rather than an atheist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that qualifies you as a ... nevermind. This is obviously wrong.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Essentially, life is still a mystery.

[/ QUOTE ]
But less of a mystery than it was. A betting man could find lines now in certain arenas.

I think you make a very valid point about our epistemological processes. Even if every function of the brain could be mapped out perfectly, the experience of something and the feelings that go with it are fundamentally mysterious. That's because the description of the process is not the same as the process itself, no matter how grand the description. It's essentially the self-awareness paradox cloaked in a different garb. I also agree (although you didn't say it), that many atheists fall into this simplistic rut. It's one of my pet peeves.

I don't however agree that this implies either a soul or afterlife or God. And especially not the specific Catholic/Muslim/Boodibaadyboodo religion that some like to follow.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe these mysteries do imply a soul, God, and possibility of afterlife, however, we would have to strictly define our terms as our notions on these things may be different, obfuscated by the mish mash of all the competing religions and philosophies.

You are most certainly correct that the specific tenets of a religion could not be implied by these mysteries, and it would be foolish to think so on a natural basis without direct evidence.