Out-Of-Scope Claims & Falsifiability: My Response To A Ghost In The Machine, III
Posted in AGITM, Blogosphere, Consciousness, Daylight Atheism, Parapsychology, Religion, Responses, Science on | 6 minutes | 17 Comments →
In Part I & Part II I alleged that significant biblical oversights compromise the integrity of the arguments contained in A Ghost In The Machine (AGITM), unfortunately rendering the piece little more than an extremely well-written and well-researched strawman / either-or fallacy.
Now I’d like to address a few more of the author’s statements, aiming to show that even when facts themselves are completely authoritative, interpretations are surely not always so. Although I don’t expect to convince any skeptics of the ‘soul’ or ‘spirit,’ if any skeptic will concede that my tripartite interpretation is at least internally consistent, or at least that the following paragraph contains genuine difficulties, I would consider such a success.
The author begins the second section of AGITM with:
“The evidence shows that (aspects of consciousness) are completely determined by the physical configuration of the brain, and that a change to this configuration can alter or eliminate any of them. In short, I will show that, as the materialist position predicts, every part of the mind is entirely dependent on and controlled by the brain.” (paren. and ital. mine)
Sorry, but I’m claiming fallacies, notably every-and-all, and exaggeration to boot. I’m skeptical of the out-of-scope quantifiers such as completely, every or entirely, especially when making the unfalsifiable claim that aspects of consciousness are completely determined by the physical configuration of the brain, and that every part of the mind is entirely dependent on and controlled by the brain. It is entirely reasonable that the human apparatus might in fact resemble something like an interface for a variety of intermingling energies or realities. Furthermore, logically cogent, real-world counterexamples are readily available.
Continuing with the analogy of a lightbulb, I’ll again reason that light (soul) is a product of a physical scaffolding (body) and electricity (spirit). Now, let’s continue with Ebonmuse’s analogy. Is every aspect of light entirely dependent on and completely determined by the bulb? Of course not; however, if you break the bulb, indeed the light will cease to shine. Couldn’t we also extinguish the light by turning off the switch? That light can be put out by breaking the bulb does not entail that light is entirely dependent upon and completely controlled by the bulb. This argument is tantamount to, “Because the light stops when I break the bulb, the light must be caused by the bulb.”
Admittedly, an apparent weakness in the lightbulb analogy is that we don’t plug ourselves into the wall to exist. A critic could reasonably posit a counterstatement that human beings are self-contained energy processing units, and within such units we find both the impetus and the scaffolding, so when the brain is destroyed, we essentially destroy everything. But are there any givens in this counterstatement? I believe there are. Aside from being a circular argument, the claim that human beings are self-contained energy processing units is unfalsifiable. How could we state empirically, for example, that our bodies don’t engage in some process not unlike being plugged into an energy source?
That a phenomenon ceases to exist by destroying the material through which it manifests does not entail that the phenomenon is entirely dependent upon and completely controlled by the material through which it manifests. Overwhelming evidence that you need a brain to function is not overwhelming evidence that you only need a brain to function. A more accurate statement would have been,
“The evidence shows that (aspects of consciousness) are predictably affected by the physical configuration of the brain, and that a change to this configuration can alter or eliminate any of them…” (paren. & ital. mine)
This modified statement, which is accurate, poses zero threat to faith of any kind, and is actually implied by the author later:
“The evidence is undeniable that our identity, our personality, and our behavior are unified with the brain, and can be dramatically influenced by causes beyond our control which affect the brain.”
This is a different claim entirely, with which I more or less agree verbatim, and nothing in this statement is even remotely construable as evidence against the tripartite interpretation of body, spirit, and soul. Also, I don’t particularly care for some of the author’s premature conclusions that are better described as subjective opinions.
Example #1:
“…a disappointing result for theists has emerged. Some mental functions are localized, while others are more diffuse, but there is no aspect of the mind that does not correspond to any area of the brain.” (emph. mine)
This result is not disappointing to theists or theism. It is only disappointing to theists when their position on spirit and soul has been misunderstood. Of course some mental functions are localized! Of course aspects of the mind correspond to areas of the brain! Nothing in a reasonable exegesis of the Bible or any other scripture I’m aware of implies otherwise. As altering the lightbulb alters the light, surely the brain’s disorganization will similarly alter the flow of energy and data causing all sorts of abnormalities. Theism has never argued that our mental faculties don’t correspond to our physical brains, and if this is not a strawman, we’re certainly in the cornfield.
Also, and this is tangential, but the out-of-scope quantifier and unfalsifiability alarms are sounding again. On what grounds might this author state empirically that there is no aspect of the mind that does not correspond to any area of the brain? To make such a statement accurately, one would have to possess sufficient knowledge of all aspects of the mind and brain, and I think that’s a pretty lofty appeal for even our best neuroscientists.
Example #2:
“..compassion arises from the brain and can be destroyed by altering the brain.”
You’ll get no argument from me if your claim is that damages to the brain are accompanied by predictable changes in behavior, but I disagree that compassion arises from the brain. This and the claim that compassion can be destroyed are both unfalsifiable claims.
Example #3:
“All the evidence we currently possess suggests that there is nothing inside our skulls that does not obey the ordinary laws of physics.”
This is not technically a premature conclusion or opinion, but another strawman. What exactly about the idea of spirit or soul is proffered to disobey the laws of physics?
Getting to it, one of my main complaints with atheism is surprisingly similar to many atheist complaints directed at believers; that a particular interpretation of a particular phenomenon is the best or only logical interpretation of said phenomenon. Plainly, when the propositions in question are not falsifiable, all evidence is circumstantial, and to return to Sherlock Holmes,
“Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing… It may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your own point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different… There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.”
This explains why a believer and an atheist can look at the exact same set of case studies and walk away with completely different (though not necessarily mutually exclusive) deductions.
Mike
says...You’ve criticized the unfalsifiability in the materialist interpretation by proposing another model which is identical except for the inclusion an unnecessary mysterious aspect (spirit). In response to your last statement:
Would you concede that the materialist explanation is simpler and has Occam’s Razor in its favor?
I’ll gladly concede that you can augment any naturalist model with a supernatural entity in an attempt to lessen the challenge to theism. But if the model has the same explanatory power without the supernatural entity, you’ve not gained anything.
As typically defined, it is non-material essence. If it interacts with the brain (causes observable effects), then it violates (known) physical laws. If it does not interact with the brain, then it is not needed in the model.
Also, you haven’t addressed (maybe you will later) the questions about if there is an eternal soul/spirit, then which personality/memory is the one that is preserved? If I recall, there are many such questions throughout AGITM for several scenarios.
cl
says...Mike,
You said I’ve,
Those are two separate actions. I’ve proposed another model, but I haven’t criticized the unfalsifiability of the materialist interpretation. I’ve criticized the author for presenting subjective and unfalsifiable propositions as absolute truth. Also, note that your opinion about spirit being an ‘unnecessary mysterious aspect’ is subjective.
I don’t know about that. I don’t think we can make a pronouncement either way that doesn’t violate reason.
I would say that such is unnecessarily reductionist thinking.
I disagree. If humans have a spirit which interacts with the brain, such does not preclude cooperation with natural / physical laws.
As far as which memory gets preserved, do you mean like in the hypothetical afterlife? For example, if I have a normal life until 45, then get in an accident whereby I sustain cerebral damage and undergo severe changes and live until 60? Are you asking if I would ‘be’ the person I was from 0-45 or from 46-60?
Mike
says...Hi cl,
In my subjective opinion, this aforementioned previous opinion is not subjective ;)
I described why I thought spirit is unnecessary above — an equally good non-spirit-invoking explanation is available (unless you think the tripartite model gives some objective benefit missing from the naturalistic model). And if spirit were not mysterious, it would be considered natural, not supernatural.
Maybe you disagree that this is the best/only way to compare models? Are there other considerations I’ve neglected?
Well, give me reductionism any day. I think history has borne out the utility of reductionism.
That would be a good place to start, sure.
Mike
says...BTW, http://www.thewarfareismental.info/ has not updated in some time. Only the typepad.com site is updating. This caused some initial confusion for me when I clicked your name on daylight atheism, which links to the .info URL.
cl
says...Mike,
Thanks for the domain tip. I knew something was up, perhaps the .info expired or the forwarding link got fouled up or something.
I didn’t really understand quite what you meant by this:
It seemed relevant and I’m interested if you wish to clarify.
As for spirit being necessary, I’m just saying that’s more of an opinion or a subjective claim as opposed to something we can genuinely reason with, for, or against. What I mean is that the genuine strengths of the reductionist model do not preclude either the nonexistence of spirit, or its necessity if it does in fact exist. I’m okay with people believing the various material hypotheses are the end all of the discussion, but there are also rational and reasonable individuals for whom it falls short. I myself don’t denigrate reductionism at all; of course there is utility in it and I would never argue otherwise. I feel the reductionist model complements a spiritual depiction of man, but that’s a whole different tangent.
IMO, that spirit is currently empirically elusive does not entail it being mysterious or supernatural. There is no reason to assume that if humans possess spirits, or that if disembodied spirits do in fact exist, that that either case is supernatural or mysterious. Perhaps in the same sense that frontier theories are mysterious, but what I mean is that if spirit exists it’s likely we’ll one day understand this, just like all the other things that were once mysterious and now better understood. IMO, whether you’re talking God or not, whatever exists is part of nature or creation, and that a hypothetical spiritual universe or dimension would abide by natural laws is a reasonable inference from the universe we live in now.
I’ve been assuming you’ve read parts 1 and 2. Some of your questions about which memory continues after death get a minimal perfunctory address in Part II, but perhaps I’ll expand on this for Part IV.
If anything is unclear or it seems like I’m rambling, I’m fresh out surgery and a bit doped. I’ve got this post I’m trying to find for you on natural vs. supernatural explanations for things..
mike
says...You had said that my “opinion about spirit being an unnecessary mysterious aspect is subjective.” and this was my cutesy way of disagreeing — I don’t think that my opinion about spirit being unnecessary & mysterious is in fact subjective (and I briefly tried to explain why in my previous comment).
I have read the first two parts, but not re-read them since their original posting. I guess I’m mostly getting hung up on your “spirit” component. It is a hypothetical thing that may or may not be supernatural, and as far as I can tell, may or may not give additional explanatory power to the model. It is basically an invisible pink unicorn.
Good luck with your recovery. I was doped up for a while on Vicodin after surgery earlier this year, and it was not a very pleasant experience. I hope they gave you something more enjoyable!
cl
says...Yeah I feel you about the Vicodin. That stuff really jacks my stomach. I had another surgery in May and I had to have them set me up with Percoset. This time they were just removing hardware (4 inch steel pin was holding clavicle and scapula together) so the pain is not that bad at all and I just decided not to use anything..
As far as,
If you don’t mind, maybe you could summarize your definition of supernatural for me? I posit that spirit is to body / soul what electricity is to bulb / light.
mike
says...I’m not great at philosophical definitions, but hey, it’s good practice for me.
A quick rule of thumb (that I just came up with off the top of my head, so it might be stupid) is that supernatural explanations are no more than definitions. “Spirit is what interacts with the brain to produce a soul.” How does it interact with the brain? How does the soul emerge? What is the mechanism? Does it have any other properties? Does it exist outside of the brain as well? Can I measure it? Is it quantifiable? What would happen if I …?
Supernatural explanations aren’t explanations — they just give a name to an unknown.
cl
says...They aren’t veridically valuable explanations. Note that if a spiritual realm exists, however, such would be arguably natural.
I understand your point that my spiritual hypothesis is currently veridically worthless, and unfortunately I don’t have full or even rudimentary answers for you. The point of responding to this reductionist or line-point argument isn’t to offer any semblance of a detailed counter-explanation. AGITM is talked up with great confidence by the readership at DA as a ‘slam dunk against theism’ and ‘proof the soul does not exist.’ I find such statements laughable indeed, and I see such confidence as false and poorly-thought-out. So I’ve undertook to expose what I feel are AGITM’s weakest links, not to get caught up in offering scientifically acceptable definitions for abstract concepts that have evaded them for milennia.
Of course, if you just wanted to have a loose discussion about it for kicks, that’s different – but to persuade anyone that spirit exists scientifically, answering your questions becomes necessary, and I fully understand that.
Mike
says...I can tell you are someone who cares about precise language. (Don’t worry, I mean that as a compliment) I can understand your reaction against hyped up language like “slam dunk against (all of) theism”, and especially “proof” of a universal negative.
If I were making a conscious attempt to be precise, I’d describe AGITM as a list of very compelling evidence for material explanation of the mind. As a consequence it becomes a very strong argument against traditional dualism, in the sense that it demonstrates that nothing “extra” is required to explain the mind, and that there is no evidence of mind/soul surviving death (not to mention the philosophical problems an afterlife would entail). And in my experience, I think most Christians do espouse a simplistic form of dualism, though it seems you have a more sophisticated outlook. To be honest, in my entire life I had never heard of this “tripartite” model of yours, until reading it on this blog.
Still, I can understand the hyped-up language, also. I think for many readers, the AGITM essay has been the final straw in realizing their own atheism. It certainly cemented and eloquently expressed for me my vague intuitions about why certain parts of the Christian faith made no sense to me.
But I agree with you completely — nothing can be a “slam dunk” against unfalsifiabilities.
cl
says...Well thank you for the precision of language compliment; my wife hates it.
I agree that they do, which is strange, because to me, scripture is pretty clear. Tripartism goes back quite aways. Nee and Brown are two authors I can think of that touch the concept, one Chinese, the other American.
I agree, and that’s exactly my lament. Of course each case is different, but IMO, such reflects wishful thinking more than any justifiable, bona fide, empirical conclusion.
Now, for the sake of argument, let’s grant that AGITM is a solid material explanation of consciousness (I don’t think it is that strong in actuality).
See, this is where I get out of the car. As Sagan notes, inability to disprove a hypothesis does not prove a competing hypothesis. Now think of Sagan’s eminent truth, but in question form, in reverse – When does proving one hypothesis equal disproof of another? In that vein, when or how would a solid material explanation of consciousness disprove dualism or tripartism?
These three intertwined claims are subjective. I don’t think AGITM has demonstrated that nothing extra is required. Indeed, I’m not sure we can prove nothing extra is required. That there is no evidence of an afterlife also varies from person to person. That an afterlife entails philosophical problems is subjective.
AGITM leaves far too many unanswered questions for my liking. There’s much I could offer to this end, but I’ll wait because arguments around this point are forthcoming in Part IV.
jim
says...I have no real problems with much of what you’ve said here, but from what I’ve read of your approach so far, most of your arguments seem to be of the ‘god of the gaps’ variety. I’ll be the first to agree that we don’t know everything about existence, and due to our philosophical and demonstrably physical limitations, I doubt we’ll ever understand Everything. My question is, what is your positive case for the things you’re wedging into the gaps i.e. God, spirit and the like? Do you have anything that flies in the face of naturalism (other than abstruse philosophical propositions like the transcendental argument)? I’m truly open to such things.
Regarding supernaturalism, I’m more than halfway convinced that there are aspects of consciousness which extend beyond the bluntly physical, as most understand the concept; though I’ll admit this is due to subjective experiences I’ve had coinciding with other, anecdotal evidences. In this sense, I would consider supernaturalism to actually be an extension of naturalism into realms we don’t understand yet (perhaps we’ll never understand them). However, I’ll also concede that my interpretations of said events might have prosaic explanations, such as coincidence and misinterpretation. I guess you could call me an agnostic concerning these sorts of things.
cl
says...jim,
great comment (in a good way). I’m about to grab the bus but I’ll take these:
Then I need to further clarify that my preliminary responses to AGITM are more to evaluate its weaknesses than propose a positive truth claim of my own. For now, I’m simply going through AGITM and questioning all the free lunches, dusting off a few fallacies, noting a couple strawmans, etc.
Right now I don’t think successful God-arguments exist. Since I don’t think they exist I usually don’t make them, and most of the time, any god of the gaps similarities in an argument of mine are thus resolved. As opposed to arguing for God, at this stage, I’m thoroughly questioning certain arguments against God, and showing why I think they fall short. So for now I don’t mean to wedge much of anything in. Positive claims and anomalous evidences will only further solidify my arguments against AGITM and who knows how many installments my response will end up having. I don’t find it any sort of ‘proof’ but have you seen this argument at all?
I couldn’t agree more and have I’d way too many to type about, but I will get into a few of them in further responses. Probably Part V. Part IV is already under way and deals with anomalous evidences..
jim
says...I’m looking forward to your anomalies, cl. While I tend to disregard most of them, opting for naturalistic explanations for such things as mystical experience, ufos, Bigfoot and the like, I still leave a space open for the real deal. Regarding this kind of information, my skepticism filter operates in two stages. The first stage separates what I deem to be lies, exageration and other modes of misinformation. This covers a surprisingly large percentage of the total- as I’ve aged, I’ve come to realize the capacity for people to lie at the drop of a hat, for various reasons.
The seed of what’s left over I accept at face value, as far as the crux of the actual experience is concerned. But then I try to go deeper, and see how much presuppositional baggage is being frontloaded into the event.
For instance:
“I was in bed last night, when I heard my deceased mother’s voice!”
gets translated to:
“My mother has contacted me from beyond the grave!”
Of course, we have no way to be absolutely certain that the second statement isn’t correct, but barring further evidence, I will always opt for a more naturalistic explanation i.e. dream, auditory hallucination, and the like.
However, I’ve had personal experiences which I can’t write off so nonchalantly. But that’s when it’s more important than ever to hold onto a skeptical mindset, you know? Otherwise, one’s reasoning can get off the leash, and before you know it, it’s run off into the woods! LOLOL!
Take care, cl.
jim
says...I’m looking forward to your anomalies, cl. While I tend to disregard most of them, opting for naturalistic explanations for such things as mystical experience, ufos, Bigfoot and the like, I still leave a space open for the real deal. Regarding this kind of information, my skepticism filter operates in two stages. The first stage separates what I deem to be lies, exageration and other modes of misinformation. This covers a surprisingly large percentage of the total- as I’ve aged, I’ve come to realize the capacity for people to lie at the drop of a hat, for various reasons.
The seed of what’s left over I accept at face value, as far as the crux of the actual experience is concerned. But then I try to go deeper, and see how much presuppositional baggage is being frontloaded into the event.
For instance:
“I was in bed last night, when I heard my deceased mother’s voice!”
gets translated to:
“My mother has contacted me from beyond the grave!”
Of course, we have no way to be absolutely certain that the second statement isn’t correct, but barring further evidence, I will always opt for a more naturalistic explanation i.e. dream, auditory hallucination, and the like.
However, I’ve had personal experiences which I can’t write off so nonchalantly. But that’s when it’s more important than ever to hold onto a skeptical mindset, you know? Otherwise, one’s reasoning can get off the leash, and before you know it, it’s run off into the woods! LOLOL!
Take care, cl.
jim
says...One more thing. Here are a couple of skeptical appraisals of the subject your link discussed-
http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2007/03/does-soul-weigh-21-grams.html
I might mention that these tests occurred 101 years ago. I wonder if anybody has considered trying it again with more modern equipment, and perhaps a larger representative group. T’would be interesting.
John Matthewson
says...For me there are just simple, unexplained truths. For instance, I have more than one thing in my experience (I have space) and the present moment is always gone but I am still here (I have time). I cannot design a computer or other machine to have an experience like this because I do not know how this experience can happen. All this means is that we don’t know everything, in fact we don’t know much at all if we can’t even model how the space and time of experience happens.
The author of the book you are criticising doesn’t take the scientific approach and say “whats my mind actually like?” and then point out how the brain could be such a thing. The reason it doesn’t do this is because the Cartesian Theatre that is our day to day experience is entirely inexplicable in terms of flows of things from place to place. If you introduce the mind then you are either left with a mystery or you have to make the absurd declaration that the whole world is explicable in terms of flows of things and hence simply deny the existence of mind. Which is daft because it was the mind that needed to be explained and you don’t start an explanation by denying that what you are explaining, a thing that everyone possesses, could exist…
See http://ofaman.blogspot.com/2008/12/nature-of-soul.html