Emergent Dualism

[AgnosticBoy]

I've read, listened to, and watched many debates on consciousness between Christians and atheist philosophers and so far I'm left with more questions than answers. Then I read a book by Dr. David Chalmers called The Conscious Mind and realized that his position accounts for a lot of the evidence and objections that seem to plague the materialist and non-materialist sides.

In short, emergent dualism is the position that consciousness/mind is an emergent nonphysical property of the brain. Under this view, the brain is primary in that the mind depends on the brain, but what starts out as a physical process gives rise to a nonphysical nonphysical effect (i.e. the mind and its attributes). Another add-on to this position is that the mind has causal powers which it exerts on the brain - commonly referred to as 'downward' or 'top-down' causation. This turns the deterministic worldview (which also includes materialism) on its head.

After reviewing the arguments for emergent dualism, I'm left to conclude that materialism is incomplete when it comes to explaining consciousness. Substance dualism simply goes too far.

Debate requests: Leave materialism or explain why anyone should remain a materialists after learning about consciousness.

Have you considered emergent dualism? What are your objections?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 138 by Danmark]

Might there also be subatomic components involved that have yet to be observed?

I don't know enough about the detailed mechanics to offer any useful comment on that specific issue, but my fundamental disagreement with AgnosticBoy is the idea that a mental image is somehow not ultimately describable by a mechanism involving the physical components of the brain interacting in such a way as to create the perception of an image.

AB seems to be proposing that something nonphysical or supernatural is in play, and it isn't clear what that "something" is or how it could work. Even if we can't yet write down a specific mechanism for mental image creation at the molecular level (or below), it doesn't follow that something outside of the purely physical realm is involved, as AB seems to be suggesting in earlier comments in this thread.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 138 by Danmark]

Might there also be subatomic components involved that have yet to be observed?

I don't know enough about the detailed mechanics to offer any useful comment on that specific issue, but my fundamental disagreement with AgnosticBoy is the idea that a mental image is somehow not ultimately describable by a mechanism involving the physical components of the brain interacting in such a way as to create the perception of an image.

AB seems to be proposing that something nonphysical or supernatural is in play, and it isn't clear what that "something" is or how it could work. Even if we can't yet write down a specific mechanism for mental image creation at the molecular level (or below), it doesn't follow that something outside of the purely physical realm is involved, as AB seems to be suggesting in earlier comments in this thread.

Your position coincides exactly with my own. AB's conjecture is indistinguishable from the traditional 'God of the Gaps' scenario where we accept science and the material world up to our current point of discovery, then attribute what we can't explain to 'God' or some other supernatural process.

I don't have the expertise in this area either. Don't know who does. But I'm postulating that in addition to a synapse being either 'off' or 'on,' there may be 'half charge' states, or even quantum mechanical states in addition. If such phenomena exists, they would exponentially increase the 100 trillion figure regarding the complexity of the human brain.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 141 by Danmark]

If such phenomena exists, they would exponentially increase the 100 trillion figure regarding the complexity of the human brain.

I've followed the Human Brain Project off and on both before and after their "reboot" not long ago:

https://www.humanbrainproject.eu/en/

They initially attempted a simulation of the brain, but realized that was far more complex and demanding than they envisioned and have switched to a more "informatics" approach. But it is clear we have a long way to go to understand the details of brain activity at the molecular level, and not nearly enough computing power to simulate more than very small neuronal networks and all of their interconnects. The above link claims that the average human brain contains 86 billion brain cells, each with about 1,750 synapses, or 150 trillion connections:

https://www.humanbrainproject.eu/en/brain-simulation/

If each of these could have multiple functions in some way as you comment, then even exascale computers might not be sufficient to create valid simulations. Interesting stuff though, and within this complexity I expect that one day an explanation for mental images, and consciousness in general, will turn out to be a materialistic one.