@A3A3adamsan I really is a wonder that a professor of philosophy can come up with this sort of tripe. We have the same in the UK with a chap called Richard Swinburne who is a Christian professor at Oxford. The whole argument seems to be "assume a non material God & all the difficulties go away". Adding more unsubstantiated beliefs to other unsubstantiated beliefs does not constitute an argument.
God can do it, therefore this objection poses no problem ... Except for begging the question of God existing, the exact position materialists are arguing against.
What Jesus said on the cross is a matter of controversy regarding whether he meant that the thief would this day be with him in paradise. Plantinga's quotation is very selective. The reference to today in Luke 23:43 is ambiguous between Christ emphasizing his speaking at that very moment and his meeting the thief on that day in heaven. It's geeky stuff but Plantinga can't get this one for free. He needs to justify his translation.
These are pretty simple and basic concepts, but Dr. Plantinga's brilliance manifests in his ability to explain them in a way that's easy to understand, and also irrefutable. You gotta love this guy!
@leviksu If naturalism is true, then all of cognition is part of the natural world (including the processes of decision making, theory selection, and providing reasons). Consequently, any justification one could provide as a basis for accepting naturalism would itself also be naturalistic. I see no contradiction in this view.
What Dr. Bahnsen seems to be asking for is a supernatural "reason" beyond the various naturalistic reasons for accepting naturalism, which is (obviously) not possible.
@leviksu I'm not assuming anything, nor have I even affirmed a position.
Dr. Bahnsen claims that providing reasons for belief in a naturalistic ontology is impossible. I think this is mistaken, and suspect that it stems from a misunderstanding of what naturalism entails concerning "reasons."
Simply put, one can provide reasons for both supernaturalism and naturalism. I see no inherent contradiction in providing reasons for either position.
@LennyBound Do you refer to valid reasons, or just naked "reasons," without reference to the validity or invalidity of those reasons? A child may have a "reason" to run into traffic, but whether that reason is a valid one in the context of the importance of protecting life and limb is questionable.
Aren't naturalism and supernaturalism mutually exclusive?
This is a lecture describing the perspective a christian should embrace on the mind-body problem. What he is saying is entirely coherent and defendable when you accept the Christian worldview for the sake of argument. If Christianity is true, substance dualism is a coherent view. If he were to be giving an argument for substance dualism, he would be saying very different things.
once you eliminate the theistic element from his opponent, then he has nothing to propose to a non-theistic (an atheistic) believer of materialism. In fact he does the opposite in relying on scripture to back his points up.
In genreal, I would again like to remind everyone that Plantinga is giving a lecture to a Christain audience. He is defending dualism within a Christian framework. Throughout church history there have been some that have taken a purely materialistic position on the nature of human beings and that is what Plantinga is arguing against. His goal here is not to convince the non-christian of dualism. It is an in-house discussion.
"In genreal, I would again like to remind everyone that Plantinga is giving a lecture to a Christain audience."
So that makes spouting BS ok?
Defending dualism within a dualistic framework is a waste of time. You are literally preaching to the choir, and in essence using the bible to prove the bible true, which is logically indefensible.
You can't be a theist if you're not also a dualist. If plantinga wants to defend dualism, let him do it to skeptics.
You've missunderstood me. He is speaking to a group of Christians who already accept the truth of God's existence and His incarnation in the person of Jesus. He's trying to articulate the necessity of dualism within Christian belief. Plantinga has defended dualism at the highest level since the 60's
"He's trying to articulate the necessity of dualism within Christian belief."
Are there Christians who DON'T believe in a dualistic world?
I guess I can see why that might happen - if you read the bible carefully, you see that there are no "spirits" - people are supposedly going to be physically resurrected. No mention of "spirit" - so I guess I can see your point.
I've enjoyed your discussion, but trying to continue this in Youtube comments is a little rediculous. If you genuinely want to discuss the validity of Chistian belief you are free to message my channel. There we can actually do justice to it.
I'd recommend listening to the Greg Bahnsen Gordon Stein debate on youtube. I have it favorited on my channel.
You seem to be seriously confused. One can be a materialist in the philosophy of mind and still not accept a fully materialist ontology. One might, for example, think that consciousness is a purely physical phenomenon and think that mathematical entities are real. Or one could accept physicalism about the mind and an immaterial creator. Plantinga's very distinguished Christian colleague, Peter van Inwagen, is a notable example of the latter.
This is a wonderful argument for a Christian. Unfortunately, it does nothing to convince open-minded skeptics and agnostics. We are the ones trying to believe! Present some real evidence worth believing!
Hey, just read your comment and I thought I'd respond. As a christian myself and a person who strives to be driven by reason, I want you to know I have spent years examining my faith for rational validity and found it very fullfiling. It seems you believe that the only people who hold to Christian faith are the ones who have never questioned it. Yes, many are this way but there are numerous true Christians who have tested it with untold scrutiny also. Plantinga is one..
I think you misunderstood my statement. When I said fulfillment I did not mean it only in some superficial "emotional" sense. I mean it in the sense that I have found the Christian faith to be fulfilling in all the realms of human experience, intellectual and emotional. I'll state it this way: I understand the Christian conception of God to be the only true ontological foundation for consistent rationality. Any other assumed foundation undermines the objectivity of reason.
And why would you say that the Christian God is the foundation for consistent rationality?
I ask because to me it looks like the exact opposite - and any question I ask of a Christian always ends up as "Well, our tiny human minds can't comprehend God" which is just another way of saying that god is nonsensical (if God was sense, then we would understand it).
So please enlighten me with how you derive rationality from christianity.
You might find it surprising, but I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that "our minds can't comprehend God." There are many realities in life we are completely rational to accept but don't have an exhaustive understanding of. (quantum) My mind can't fully grasp an infinite being. Yet, I believe that a contingent, materialist reality cannot give us absolute standards of rationality and any epistemology that begins this way leaves human reason based solely on convention.
@OccamKant "WHY do you believe that reality isn't sufficient support for rationality?"
What do you mean when you use the term "reality"? Is reality an objective fact, transcendent over human belief or is it what the majority of the population agree upon at the time?
"A square peg always fits a square hole."
Have you tested every instance of trying to fit a square peg into a non-square hole? Is this not an assumption?
Do you assume I am a liar or a charlatan because believe in God?
"Have you tested every instance of trying to fit a square peg into a non-square hole? Is this not an assumption?"
It's unnecessary due to the nature of holes and pegs.
"Do you assume I am a liar or a charlatan because believe in God?"
No - it's your God that's the charlatan, not you. Your religion doesn't want anyone testing god, because they know God doesn't exist and the tests would fail, thus exposing the charlatan.
"What do you mean when you use the term "reality"?"
That's a silly question. Reality is the universe in which we live. It's perceivable, measurable, and if you go to Africa for example and try to argue epistemology with a lion it will eat your face.
I 'm not sure how I came off as that, but I assure you, I am totally aware that many people of numerous faiths are also rationally-driven "true-believers." My comment was in the context of this video- which presupposes entirely Christian beliefs. It only addresses the issue from a purely theological perspective.
Sorry if I took your satements the wrong way. Yes, this is the point I've tried to make clear on this video. Alvin Plantinga is addressing a Christian audience here about the necessity of dualism within a Christian framework. He's not debating the naturalist position here. That's the problem when someone uploads a video stripped from the context in which it was given.
I agree, the context is vital. It was far-removed from what I assumed the title meant to represent.
Incidentally, as a truly open-minded skeptic, I just have to vent my most sincere frustrations with the majorities on both sides of the naturalist-super-naturalist debate. Nearly everyone is primarily motivated by emotion with ridicule as their main tactic. Good to see another respectful voice in this discourse.
Yes, Plantinga is "preaching to the choir here" in a way. He's talking to a group of believers trying to discredit the idea of human beings being nothing but material objects that God created. Throughout the history of the church there have been those within the church who have proposed a purely material position on human nature. (ie Thomas Hobbes) He is not trying to directly attack the idea of materialism as a philosophical idea, just one in reference to a theistic worldview.
I believe that God will remember everyone's DNA, and will renew our bodies, that have been lost, and scattered, over the ages of time, for His last day of judgement, and will reunite our spirits somehow, with our new bodies. He could re-make our bodies from our DNA. It says in the Bible, that God knows even how many hairs on our heads we have, so He would also know the patterns and structures of our DNA of course also, because He made us, and is God. Mat. 10:30 Lu 12:7
So let me get this straight: Looking at it from the Christian perspective, the mind-body problem is solved by dualism, because Christianity suggests that dualism is true.
What a surprise! What's next, the discovery that water is wet?
Now let's get cracking on those empirical proofs that Christianity is true....
Well, Plantinga is a Christian philosopher specializing in apologetics. Even if you disagree with him, you still have to admire him for trying to rationally argue for the Christian beliefs. It's quite a feat.
Appeals to the existence of god to justify dualism are vacuous - the atheist can simple respond: I believe god does not exist. therefore, materialism is true and dualism false. These are matters of faith, there are no facts about the world which Platinga can use here to ground the arguments either for or against dualism or materialism. Platinga is confused.
Plantinga is confused? i'm confused by your comment.
No, the materialist cannot simply respond, "I believe god does not exist. therefore, materialism is true and dualism false." The materialist has the burden of proof for logic, minds, beliefs, necessity, etc (all non-material things) and good luck on proving that.
"No, the materialist cannot simply respond, "I believe god does not exist. therefore, materialism is true and dualism false.""
Well, that's not what any skeptic says. Are you straw manning on purpose?
Why do you say "therefore"? Skeptics don't EVER say "I believe X therefore Y is true". That's just stupid.
A materialist responds "The material world is clearly here - and can eat your face if you don't pay attention. Show us that a non-material world exists."
I am a skeptic - I believe in the real world, and I don't believe in what cannot be demonstrated.
Is a belief material? That's a slippery question. If you hold belief X, then your brain will contain a configuration of neurons that represent your thoughts on it, so in that sense it is material.
But that's true for ANY thought that you have, even illogical nonsense thoughts.
But WHAT you believe in may or may not be real - your belief doesn't make the thing you believe in real.
I would submit that his statement at 3 minutes, namely:
"If you're a theist, then you already know of one immaterial object that can certainly have effects in the... physical world...", should be amended to this:
"If you're a theist, then you already *claim to know*, etc."
Seems to me that materialism is the neutral or negative position; in the continued absence of any effective dualist argument, materialism should hold sway.
Saying that Alvin Plantinga is not a serious philosopher just reveals how ignorant you are. Plantinga has done influential work in epistemology and philosophy of religion.
@julebakst You have to take Plantinga's argument within its proper context. Is he responding to materialists in general or Christian materialists, such as Peter Van Inwagen? As a philosopher, Plantinga is well respected within the fiields of Metaphysics and Epistemology by Christians and non-Christians alike. For his serious work, see Warranted Christian Belief, The Nature of Necessity, God and Other Minds, and God, Freedom and Evil.
the computer functionalist theory of mind you're assuming isn't just obviously true, surely you know this. And yes, this guy IS a philosopher. all philosophers use philosophy to reason from their beliefs. The idea is to see what follows from those beliefs, to see what further beliefs one ought to adopt. Plantinga has christian beliefs, and is exploring what follows from them about the nature of the mind.
Isn't just obviously true? Why not? We've simulated human thinking to various degrees with different artificial intelligence techniques. The Neural Net closely mirrors the brain's physiological structure, and it allows for simple thinking and learning.
So we have evidence that it is exactly as I say - what evidence do you have that it is not?
Proper reasoning should start from reality and build out from there. If your best efforts all start at false premises, you're a fake.
Go read the Chinese box thought experiment to learn no matter how well a computer simulates a person's mind it cannot be concluded a person's mind is the same.
I just read the chinese room thought experiment, and it is flawed.
The human isn't playing the part of the entire computer, it's playing the part of they physical CPU. No-one would say that the CPU, the actual silicon chip, understands anything any more than they would say that a tiny piece of your brain understands anything.
It's the SOFTWARE - the instructions that the human is following plus the database of knowledge that leads to understanding - ie you TAUGHT the human the rules.
A computer is more than a CPU - the physical computer is the cpu, memory, harddrive, etc. But when you turn it on and it begins processing - accessing data, following instructions, NOW you're dealing with the whole computer. This is what is processing the chinese characters.
For a human to simulate that would be to feed all those instructions and data into the human - and then the human WOULD understand chinese, wouldn't he? That's what understanding IS.
listen, if you understand the argument, attack it directly, don't give me your version of it because I don't see your understanding of it in your response.
Which argument are you talking about - the chinese box? I DID attack it directly.
it's a flawed argument because the human in the example is NOT doing what a computer does. The human in the example is only doing what the CPU does, not the whole computer.
The computer is the processing PLUS the instructions & data, all in the same place.
If all the human is substituting is the processing of instructions without actually keeping them in memory, he's not duplicating what the computer is doing.
YOU apparently don't understand the argument if you don't understand my objection to it.
The chinese box story is that if you had a computer in a room that had all the instructions to understand chinese characters, and you wrote those instructions down on paper and had a human execute the instructions, the human wouldn't actually understand chinese - he would just be following instructions.
Ok - well, the analogy is wrong because the human following the instructions has his own mind. But all the computer has is the instructions - the comprehension is built into those instructions.
With a human in the room - there are two "minds" - one as an inherent part of the instructions, and one in his head.
Since the instructions he's following are not in his head, he does not feel comprehension himself.
For the human to truly emulate what the computer does, he would have to memorize...
Discussing what logically follows isn't interesting unless you're starting from reality.
I could discuss what would logically follow if we decided that Harry Potter and Ron Weasley had a secret homosexual relationship going -- but it's not very interesting, because they are fictional characters.
If you want to discuss reality, make sure you START from something real before building out your argument. Plantinga is making an unwarranted assumption and building all upon that, which is wrong.
I guess, Lenny, that you've proven that Alvin Plantinga is a complete idiot.....bereft of all the glories of your own exalted genius.
I wonder....who was this lecture delivered to? Was it to a group of Christians? Was it spoken to a group of laymen or undergraduate students, by chance?
Note to self: If I can't win a debate on logical grounds, then resort to propagandist strategies....use non-contextualized, highly selective audio samples coupled with misleading pictorials, for max effect.
The audio is taken from a discussion where Plantinga is discussing whether or not materialism is consistent with Christianity. He believes that it is not, and that all Christians should be substance dualists in order to remain consistent in their beliefs.
However, the issue of whether or not substance dualism is defensible is not defended in the least. Plantinga merely argues that since God can somehow magically bridge the mind-body gap, then obviously Homo sapiens can somehow do it as well. This "answer" provides no future clarification on how an immaterial substance can interact causally with material substances, and merely punts the problem into the supernatural.
I also don't see how the pictorials are misleading.
Also, for my own education, what is "heat" referring to in the above example? I don't have a good sense of what concept identified by heat is being identified with molecular motion. I can only think of warmth--in the subjective sense--but that can't be what they are saying.
P.S. - Thanks for compiling such an awesome video collection!
This view seems to gives up on explaining why/how brains produce consciousness. Does it provide any explanatory power for other questions in return? In other words, if one accepts the identity asserted above as a brute fact, are there any properties of higher or lower causal systems in the world that accepting this fact illuminates or clarifies? Or does it just sit there as a brute identity relation unconnected to other problems? If so, why choose that as the place to resort to brutishness?
Both must identify a point in the otherwise cold, dark history of the universe where the light of sentience--however dim--was first turned on. That moment is the essence of the "hard problem." It is hard because there is nothing in the language of physics to which subjective experience can be reduced. This forces each view to accept certain facts as basic or brute. Personally, I think once the hard problem is appreciated, the brute facts of physicalism fare worse on your well-stated metric.
"If we believe that heat is correlated with but not identical to molecular kinetic energy, we should regard as legitimate the question of why the correlation exists and what its mechanism is. But once we realize that heat is molecular kinetic energy, questions like this will be seen as wrongheaded... The role of identities is to disallow some questions and allow others."
Simply put, claiming that there exists an additional question of "why" consciousness exists at all (i.e. the "hard problem") over-and-above mere physical descriptions of phenomena, is to misunderstand the explanatory role that identities play in theoretical analysis.
The materialist wants to claim that the fact that a certain neurological state is associated with a certain mental state is a brute fact of the structure of the world. Asking the further question of "why" such an association exists is like asking "why" heat is identical to mean molecular kinetic energy. It just is.
At least that's how I see it.
P.S. - I uploaded a video of David Chalmers singing the "Zombie Blues" a while back. Feel free to look it up if you want a good laugh. :-)
I totally agree with your formulation of the relevant question. Very well put. And I totally agree with your identification of the physical evolutionary continuum as a foundational part of the analysis. I would add, however, that it is the foundational problem for both views. Whichever view is correct, both must contend with the strange fact that a physical continuum links conscious agents to earthworms, bacteria, viruses, to swirls of RNA and (pehaps) replicating flakes of clay crystals.
My more fundamental response: The language of "break[ing] down" implies that the law is relevant in the first place for human skulls. But that presumes that human skulls are isolated physical systems. If they are not isolated physical systems, then the law never applied in the first place. And if dualism is true, then human skulls are not isolated systems. That is the circularity.
I agree with you that both perspectives (i.e. dualism and materialism) are self-referential to some extent. However, that doesn't mean that both are equally valid. The relevant question we should ask ourselves is whether or not either one forces us to make unnecessary assumptions that conflict with the totality of the rest of our understanding of the world.
If it is the case that Homo sapiens are composed of both a material part and an immaterial part, then we need to explain at what point along our evolutionary history (which most concede was an entirely physical process) this peculiar immaterial substance became attached to our material bodies. Furthermore, we need to answer the more complicated causal question of how it could be that an immaterial substance to be "connected" to anything in the first place.
My superficial response: Not necessarily. Some theories of interactionism, like Eccles's "dendrons," claim to rely on quantum mechanics and probability fields in ways that don't require additions of energy. I'm not familiar enough with the argument or the physics to comment.
In other words, again the limits of dialogue are reached. Label "souls" or "selfs" as part of the "physical" pantheon of entities, along with protons, electrons, quarks, strings, etc., and you're left with one large Universe of entities with interesting properties, among them gravity, electromagnetism, and free will. It all comes down to how you deal with the irreducibility of consciousness.
I think the criticisms here are missing the point. This is a talk aimed at Christian theists concerning the arguments for or against materialism and dualism from within the Christian theist framework. Obviously, that kind of talk is not useful as a general defense of dualism.
As for the general circularity of Plantinga's dualism, or dualism in general, the present state of human knowledge makes discussion of the mind/body problem inherently circular for both materialists and dualists.
The fact is that subjective, conscious experience is linguistically and conceptually irreducible. Dualists take the existence of two "substances" as a brute and use that to explain the irreducibility. Materialists take the conceptual irreducibility as the brute fact. Each side then makes circular arguments to each other, or, at least, arguments that can go nowhere.
To wit: Materialists say all the time that interactive dualism would violate the law of conservation of matter and energy. That is laughably circular. That "law" is simply the summing up of observations of wholly material systems; how is it an argument against the position that some systems (bodies + selfs) can output more energy than they take in?
Similarly, materialists call the claimed ability of souls to effect brains as "magic" or "unscientific." But they have no problem believing that mass can move objects through gravity or that protons can move electrons through electromagnetism. Why is some entity-to-entity causation dismissed out of hand, while other entity-to-entity causation is the bedrock of the modern world view? Because electrons and mass, we are told, are "physical."
Jewish Apocalyptic thinking at the time of Jesus postulated a bodily resurrection of the just in the end days. Jesus, if he existed and had the conversation with the thief on th ecross, could well have been referring to a bodily resurrection.
lol ok sorry...When I first heard of Plantinga's argument that atheism/materialism/humanism is self refuting I was interested...but after hearing him talk in circles about running from tigers and a bunch of other circular arguments I thought gosh is that all they have?? lol how stupid
Plantinga never explains how his native could ever form a belief that running from tigers is the best way to get eaten. Our mundane beliefs come from our experience of reality.
Vanity follows from Self-Awareness (The Original Sin), the sensation that we are separate autonomous entities with a degree of freedom. One views themselves differently than they view others, when the reality is we are all products of causation, hence the Golden Rule.
One cannot be "connected" while simultaneously being "autonomous" or "individual". For something to be connected it must share a co-dependency (Causation).
Thus Self-Awareness breeds Sin and "separation from God".
Why do people get caught up on their own projections? If I say "A stone tumbled down a hill" it does not mean the stone had the forethought or intention to do so. I could poetically say the rock intended to tumble, but its a rock. So why do people think of "God" as being like them with forethought and intentions. This is a duality constructed by the belief that reality is unintelligent and somehow we are different... possessing forethought, intention and free-will.
Then placing God somewhere outside of Reality. Notice the two words God and Reality. They have their origins in exactly the same definition: "That which is manifest".
People construct a vision of Reality as inherently Evil in the absence of God's light. "Reality" is only mentioned once in the entire Bible "...the reality is found in Christ" (Col 2:17) and Christ is used as a character representative of Truth
Truth is valued as God, as Jesus, they are somewhat synonymous in the text.....
Of course Truth is what we call a mental representation of Reality. Find the Truth and find Reality. Find Jesus and find God. *bells ring*
"Therefor speak I to them in parables... seeing they will not see... hearing they will not hear... in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esais..."
Right, people will cling to the human characters rather than the philosophical or moral teachings, they will worship them as idols, puffed up by their own vanity reflected on what they call "God".
Paul's Dualism is "Spirit/Flesh" but these are euphamisms for "Reason/Emotion".
All of the bible is allegory and makes sense as allegory, it is utterly senseless as a literal story.
I think Paul was saying that you must crucify your ego to see that you aren't a separate entity from "God" (All of Reality). All of reality flows by causation (God) and not human wills.
"Therefor it is not of him that willeth or him that runneth but God that sheweth mercy" - Romans 9:16
Wow! Materialism is incoherent because there IS A GOD. Interesting. I don't reckon there is any need to concern one's self about whether such a thing as "God" exists. One should merely assume there is a God. And then one can supposedly "prove" materialism isn't true. Say, can we assume that God has made the virus in his image and likeness? Can we assume that all life was made to benefit the only organism truly loved by God, i.e., the virus? Should we now capitalize the word Virus, God's Chosen?
Interesting lecture, but the fact that materialism (monist physicalism) is unsatisfactory does not necessarily lead us to Christian dualism; what of monist idealism, neutral monism, etc? And Plantinga's handling of criticisms of dualism (at least in this lecture) seems highly superficial.
So far as he knows, there aren't any good arguments for materialism? What a moron, the only argument for materialism necessary is that there's no evidence for the spiritual. We actually know that material reality exists, we can't say the same for whatever magic realm he seems to think exists.
Hmm, is not the "argument" for materialism simply that it is abundantly evident that the material exists? This is not really an argument, it is more that the material is demonstrably apparent. Are you confining "materialism" to the material substrate of conscious experience here, icon?
I find it fascinating that implanting the "God" concept in the young must affect their cognitive schema (genetic epistemology). Descartes, Platinga, etc, "run home" to simplistic, magical, mechanisms.
In his defense, this snippet was taken from the conclusion of his talk.
Earlier in the lecture he argued that the existence of propositional attitudes (i.e. beliefs, fears, hopes, desires, etc.) is a good reason for rejecting materialism and embracing substance dualism.
Ah, well in that sense I think I agree with him. Dualism is more coherent than materialism for the simple reason that the intentionality of consciousness cannot be reduced in any readily apparent way to matter. Of course, dualism has its own shortcomings, like explaining how mind and matter interact.
I agree. Should dualism be likened to the God of the Neuronal Gap (aka God of the Synaptic Cleft)?
The complexity of addressing how 10-100 billion neurons, each with an average of 100-1000 interconnections orchestrate consciousness is not a good argument for dualism.
Hope for immortality ought not to dictate our interpretation of reality.
I'm not arguing for any dualism of the neuronal gap. I find dualism more coherent than materialism only because it at least recognizes the impossibility of ever deriving the properties of consciousness from those normally attributed to matter (regardless of how complex it may be structured, it remains insentient stuff). My position is to recognize the inherent experiential aspect of all matter, which complexifies into consciousness through evolution (panexperientialism).
I don't find dualism acceptable, even though I understand its attractions (it's simplistic, it permits afterlife hopes).
To me, retreating into the simplistic in face of technical difficulties in constructing complete explication for "holographic" experience - consciousness - is too much akin to godidit.
All the evidence points to material causes for macro-scale experiences such as consciousness. It's simply how we experience neural action.
I only agree with Plantinga's dismissal of materialism, not with his dualism.
Consciousness is nonetheless ontologically irreducible to matter, as matter is only known via consciousness. This is not the whole story, of course; but it is important to consider there are more options here than materialism or dualism.
If you dismiss materialism, 0T, what is left? The universe is material. The supernatural is a convenient weasel category that was invented to explain away the inexplicable and the lack of evidence for deities. Dualism is a little more honest than the supernatural. As you say, it frames our lack of ability to *fully* explain the experiential. I do not see why the fact that we use neural matter to comprehend neural products should render consciousness "ontologically irreducible"....??
*Dualism is more coherent than materialism for the simple reason that the intentionality of consciousness cannot be reduced in any readily apparent way to matter.*
Why not; and why do you place so much explanatory importance upon what is readily apparent?
Several thousand years ago, a small tribe of ignorant savages wrote a collection of myths, wild tales, lies, and gibberish. Over the centuries, these stories were embellished, garbled, mutilated, and repeatedly shuffled. Finally, this material was badly translated into several languages successively.
Alvin Plantinga thinks this collection is our best source for understanding neuroscience.
This was a big excercise in begging the question.
He presupposes, that christianity is true, and then argues, that mind and body are separate.
Give me a break!
He quotes from the Bible, and calls it "data", he calls belief in God knowledge! *facepalm*
Is this shallow thinking really the best modern theology can offer?
A3A3adamsan 2 months ago
@A3A3adamsan I really is a wonder that a professor of philosophy can come up with this sort of tripe. We have the same in the UK with a chap called Richard Swinburne who is a Christian professor at Oxford. The whole argument seems to be "assume a non material God & all the difficulties go away". Adding more unsubstantiated beliefs to other unsubstantiated beliefs does not constitute an argument.
gextvedde 2 months ago
God can do it, therefore this objection poses no problem ... Except for begging the question of God existing, the exact position materialists are arguing against.
RomansPwnedJesus 1 year ago
What Jesus said on the cross is a matter of controversy regarding whether he meant that the thief would this day be with him in paradise. Plantinga's quotation is very selective. The reference to today in Luke 23:43 is ambiguous between Christ emphasizing his speaking at that very moment and his meeting the thief on that day in heaven. It's geeky stuff but Plantinga can't get this one for free. He needs to justify his translation.
pablo4115 1 year ago
ummmmmm, i don't, huhhh..... what???
defgill 1 year ago
These are pretty simple and basic concepts, but Dr. Plantinga's brilliance manifests in his ability to explain them in a way that's easy to understand, and also irrefutable. You gotta love this guy!
Purushadasa 1 year ago
@Purushadasa Excellent analysis. God bless you, Brother!
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago in playlist Dualism
I love this guy... he's just likable for some reason.
v01741r31 1 year ago
Lenny:
/watch?v=niNFHNw1aQU
leviksu 1 year ago
@leviksu If naturalism is true, then all of cognition is part of the natural world (including the processes of decision making, theory selection, and providing reasons). Consequently, any justification one could provide as a basis for accepting naturalism would itself also be naturalistic. I see no contradiction in this view.
What Dr. Bahnsen seems to be asking for is a supernatural "reason" beyond the various naturalistic reasons for accepting naturalism, which is (obviously) not possible.
LennyBound 1 year ago 2
@LennyBound you're simply assuming your own conclusion.
leviksu 1 year ago
@leviksu I'm not assuming anything, nor have I even affirmed a position.
Dr. Bahnsen claims that providing reasons for belief in a naturalistic ontology is impossible. I think this is mistaken, and suspect that it stems from a misunderstanding of what naturalism entails concerning "reasons."
Simply put, one can provide reasons for both supernaturalism and naturalism. I see no inherent contradiction in providing reasons for either position.
LennyBound 1 year ago
@LennyBound Do you refer to valid reasons, or just naked "reasons," without reference to the validity or invalidity of those reasons? A child may have a "reason" to run into traffic, but whether that reason is a valid one in the context of the importance of protecting life and limb is questionable.
Aren't naturalism and supernaturalism mutually exclusive?
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago in playlist Dualism
@LennyBound: You're begging the question in this case.
Drakbane 1 month ago
This is a lecture describing the perspective a christian should embrace on the mind-body problem. What he is saying is entirely coherent and defendable when you accept the Christian worldview for the sake of argument. If Christianity is true, substance dualism is a coherent view. If he were to be giving an argument for substance dualism, he would be saying very different things.
ubi2002 1 year ago
once you eliminate the theistic element from his opponent, then he has nothing to propose to a non-theistic (an atheistic) believer of materialism. In fact he does the opposite in relying on scripture to back his points up.
mortuus8 1 year ago
wow plantinga does not even present ONE philosophical argument for dualism...
in fact, all he does is appeal biblical passages & to theist believers...
also he hints at a false dichotomy between materialism and dualism. the rejection of one does not necessarily imply the other...
soultorment27 1 year ago
In genreal, I would again like to remind everyone that Plantinga is giving a lecture to a Christain audience. He is defending dualism within a Christian framework. Throughout church history there have been some that have taken a purely materialistic position on the nature of human beings and that is what Plantinga is arguing against. His goal here is not to convince the non-christian of dualism. It is an in-house discussion.
dfelcman 2 years ago
"In genreal, I would again like to remind everyone that Plantinga is giving a lecture to a Christain audience."
So that makes spouting BS ok?
Defending dualism within a dualistic framework is a waste of time. You are literally preaching to the choir, and in essence using the bible to prove the bible true, which is logically indefensible.
You can't be a theist if you're not also a dualist. If plantinga wants to defend dualism, let him do it to skeptics.
OccamKant 2 years ago
@OccamKant
All I was saying is that people who are listening should understand the context of this lecture. He's not debating naturalism here.
"Defending dualism within...logically indefensible."
You've missunderstood me. He is speaking to a group of Christians who already accept the truth of God's existence and His incarnation in the person of Jesus. He's trying to articulate the necessity of dualism within Christian belief. Plantinga has defended dualism at the highest level since the 60's
dfelcman 2 years ago
"He's trying to articulate the necessity of dualism within Christian belief."
Are there Christians who DON'T believe in a dualistic world?
I guess I can see why that might happen - if you read the bible carefully, you see that there are no "spirits" - people are supposedly going to be physically resurrected. No mention of "spirit" - so I guess I can see your point.
OccamKant 2 years ago
@OccamKant
I've enjoyed your discussion, but trying to continue this in Youtube comments is a little rediculous. If you genuinely want to discuss the validity of Chistian belief you are free to message my channel. There we can actually do justice to it.
I'd recommend listening to the Greg Bahnsen Gordon Stein debate on youtube. I have it favorited on my channel.
Godspeed.
dfelcman 2 years ago
@OccamKant
You seem to be seriously confused. One can be a materialist in the philosophy of mind and still not accept a fully materialist ontology. One might, for example, think that consciousness is a purely physical phenomenon and think that mathematical entities are real. Or one could accept physicalism about the mind and an immaterial creator. Plantinga's very distinguished Christian colleague, Peter van Inwagen, is a notable example of the latter.
AndB123 1 year ago
This is a wonderful argument for a Christian. Unfortunately, it does nothing to convince open-minded skeptics and agnostics. We are the ones trying to believe! Present some real evidence worth believing!
college12003 2 years ago
did you even listen to the argument? The burden of proof lies on the skeptic, the default view is theism.
shilohwillcome 2 years ago
"did you even listen to the argument? The burden of proof lies on the skeptic, the default view is theism. "
LOL - So by your reasoning, people who believe in leprechauns and unicorns are RIGHT until somehow a skeptic manages to PROVE that they don't exist?
OccamKant 2 years ago
You know, you are right! You have totally persuaded me to abandon neutrality.
college12003 2 years ago
Are you kidding??
shilohwillcome 2 years ago
of course I am...
college12003 2 years ago
@college12003
Hey, just read your comment and I thought I'd respond. As a christian myself and a person who strives to be driven by reason, I want you to know I have spent years examining my faith for rational validity and found it very fullfiling. It seems you believe that the only people who hold to Christian faith are the ones who have never questioned it. Yes, many are this way but there are numerous true Christians who have tested it with untold scrutiny also. Plantinga is one..
dfelcman 2 years ago
@dfelcman - "I want you to know I have spent years examining my faith for rational validity and found it very fullfiling."
Your statement is inconsistent, sir. You said you were looking for rational validity and found fulfilment.
That's like saying "I was looking for a reason for why my car stopped working, and this made me happy".
Looking for a rational reason for something is orthogonal to your emotions.
Not that there's anything wrong with being happy, you just didn't find rationality.
OccamKant 2 years ago
@OccamKant
hello,
I think you misunderstood my statement. When I said fulfillment I did not mean it only in some superficial "emotional" sense. I mean it in the sense that I have found the Christian faith to be fulfilling in all the realms of human experience, intellectual and emotional. I'll state it this way: I understand the Christian conception of God to be the only true ontological foundation for consistent rationality. Any other assumed foundation undermines the objectivity of reason.
dfelcman 2 years ago
And why would you say that the Christian God is the foundation for consistent rationality?
I ask because to me it looks like the exact opposite - and any question I ask of a Christian always ends up as "Well, our tiny human minds can't comprehend God" which is just another way of saying that god is nonsensical (if God was sense, then we would understand it).
So please enlighten me with how you derive rationality from christianity.
OccamKant 2 years ago
@OccamKant
You might find it surprising, but I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that "our minds can't comprehend God." There are many realities in life we are completely rational to accept but don't have an exhaustive understanding of. (quantum) My mind can't fully grasp an infinite being. Yet, I believe that a contingent, materialist reality cannot give us absolute standards of rationality and any epistemology that begins this way leaves human reason based solely on convention.
dfelcman 2 years ago
The difference between God and Quantum Mechanics is that we can DEMONSTRATE quantum mechanics.
We can perform the double slit experiment, and see the strangeness for ourselves.
All theists have is stories. Most religions have explicit rules AGAINST "testing God".
The only people who don't want to be tested are liars and charlatans, because testing them will prove them false.
WHY do you believe that reality isn't sufficient support for rationality? A square peg always fits a square hole.
OccamKant 2 years ago
@OccamKant "WHY do you believe that reality isn't sufficient support for rationality?"
What do you mean when you use the term "reality"? Is reality an objective fact, transcendent over human belief or is it what the majority of the population agree upon at the time?
"A square peg always fits a square hole."
Have you tested every instance of trying to fit a square peg into a non-square hole? Is this not an assumption?
Do you assume I am a liar or a charlatan because believe in God?
dfelcman 2 years ago
"Have you tested every instance of trying to fit a square peg into a non-square hole? Is this not an assumption?"
It's unnecessary due to the nature of holes and pegs.
"Do you assume I am a liar or a charlatan because believe in God?"
No - it's your God that's the charlatan, not you. Your religion doesn't want anyone testing god, because they know God doesn't exist and the tests would fail, thus exposing the charlatan.
OccamKant 2 years ago
"What do you mean when you use the term "reality"?"
That's a silly question. Reality is the universe in which we live. It's perceivable, measurable, and if you go to Africa for example and try to argue epistemology with a lion it will eat your face.
That's reality, and you know it.
OccamKant 2 years ago
I 'm not sure how I came off as that, but I assure you, I am totally aware that many people of numerous faiths are also rationally-driven "true-believers." My comment was in the context of this video- which presupposes entirely Christian beliefs. It only addresses the issue from a purely theological perspective.
college12003 2 years ago
@college12003
Sorry if I took your satements the wrong way. Yes, this is the point I've tried to make clear on this video. Alvin Plantinga is addressing a Christian audience here about the necessity of dualism within a Christian framework. He's not debating the naturalist position here. That's the problem when someone uploads a video stripped from the context in which it was given.
dfelcman 2 years ago
I agree, the context is vital. It was far-removed from what I assumed the title meant to represent.
Incidentally, as a truly open-minded skeptic, I just have to vent my most sincere frustrations with the majorities on both sides of the naturalist-super-naturalist debate. Nearly everyone is primarily motivated by emotion with ridicule as their main tactic. Good to see another respectful voice in this discourse.
college12003 2 years ago
Yes, Plantinga is "preaching to the choir here" in a way. He's talking to a group of believers trying to discredit the idea of human beings being nothing but material objects that God created. Throughout the history of the church there have been those within the church who have proposed a purely material position on human nature. (ie Thomas Hobbes) He is not trying to directly attack the idea of materialism as a philosophical idea, just one in reference to a theistic worldview.
dfelcman 2 years ago
In a sense he is attacking materialism because he doesn't take it seriously.
shilohwillcome 2 years ago
Was he preaching to the choir here? Because It seemed like he was doing some serious question begging in his arguments.
MrQuasar22 2 years ago
A book that you guys wrote yourself is evidence?
OxyDemonic 2 years ago
I believe that God will remember everyone's DNA, and will renew our bodies, that have been lost, and scattered, over the ages of time, for His last day of judgement, and will reunite our spirits somehow, with our new bodies. He could re-make our bodies from our DNA. It says in the Bible, that God knows even how many hairs on our heads we have, so He would also know the patterns and structures of our DNA of course also, because He made us, and is God. Mat. 10:30 Lu 12:7
janande1 2 years ago
So let me get this straight: Looking at it from the Christian perspective, the mind-body problem is solved by dualism, because Christianity suggests that dualism is true.
What a surprise! What's next, the discovery that water is wet?
Now let's get cracking on those empirical proofs that Christianity is true....
Theophage 2 years ago
Well, Plantinga is a Christian philosopher specializing in apologetics. Even if you disagree with him, you still have to admire him for trying to rationally argue for the Christian beliefs. It's quite a feat.
renumeratedfrog 2 years ago
Alvin Plantinga is good, but I want to know why everyone equates Christianity with trinitarianism as if all christians accept a triune Godhead.
peacewalker7 2 years ago
Because the Christians that don't accept it are not thought of as Christians by the majority of Christians!
awesomewelles90 2 years ago
Appeals to the existence of god to justify dualism are vacuous - the atheist can simple respond: I believe god does not exist. therefore, materialism is true and dualism false. These are matters of faith, there are no facts about the world which Platinga can use here to ground the arguments either for or against dualism or materialism. Platinga is confused.
danzigvssartre 2 years ago
Or maybe this talk was directed at Christians.
awesomewelles90 2 years ago
Plantinga is confused? i'm confused by your comment.
No, the materialist cannot simply respond, "I believe god does not exist. therefore, materialism is true and dualism false." The materialist has the burden of proof for logic, minds, beliefs, necessity, etc (all non-material things) and good luck on proving that.
shilohwillcome 2 years ago
"No, the materialist cannot simply respond, "I believe god does not exist. therefore, materialism is true and dualism false.""
Well, that's not what any skeptic says. Are you straw manning on purpose?
Why do you say "therefore"? Skeptics don't EVER say "I believe X therefore Y is true". That's just stupid.
A materialist responds "The material world is clearly here - and can eat your face if you don't pay attention. Show us that a non-material world exists."
OccamKant 2 years ago
no, any skeptic has a reason for his skepticism,
show us a non-material world exists? I've already said, are you listening?? is a belief material?
shilohwillcome 2 years ago
I am a skeptic - I believe in the real world, and I don't believe in what cannot be demonstrated.
Is a belief material? That's a slippery question. If you hold belief X, then your brain will contain a configuration of neurons that represent your thoughts on it, so in that sense it is material.
But that's true for ANY thought that you have, even illogical nonsense thoughts.
But WHAT you believe in may or may not be real - your belief doesn't make the thing you believe in real.
OccamKant 2 years ago
"no, any skeptic has a reason for his skepticism,"
Are you skeptical about leprechauns? Unicorns?
How about Allah, Yaweh and the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
How about Santa Claus?
What's your thought on these, and why?
OccamKant 2 years ago
I would submit that his statement at 3 minutes, namely:
"If you're a theist, then you already know of one immaterial object that can certainly have effects in the... physical world...", should be amended to this:
"If you're a theist, then you already *claim to know*, etc."
Seems to me that materialism is the neutral or negative position; in the continued absence of any effective dualist argument, materialism should hold sway.
DevoutAtheist42 2 years ago 2
Wtf? This guy is a joke and certainly not a serious philosopher. He talks like the bible is true. LOL
julebakst 2 years ago
Saying that Alvin Plantinga is not a serious philosopher just reveals how ignorant you are. Plantinga has done influential work in epistemology and philosophy of religion.
pygy1234 2 years ago
The emperor has no clothes.
If this is a representative example of the guy's thinking, then he's having one over on you all.
OccamKant 2 years ago
@julebakst You have to take Plantinga's argument within its proper context. Is he responding to materialists in general or Christian materialists, such as Peter Van Inwagen? As a philosopher, Plantinga is well respected within the fiields of Metaphysics and Epistemology by Christians and non-Christians alike. For his serious work, see Warranted Christian Belief, The Nature of Necessity, God and Other Minds, and God, Freedom and Evil.
peej2203 2 years ago
you have no clue what your talking about.
shilohwillcome 2 years ago
I wish he wouldn't keep asserting that the mind can exist without the body.
it really is like saying that a running program can continue to run even when you destroy the computer.
He uses scripture as "evidence". This guy isn't a philosopher, he's a theologian wearing a philosopher's hat and clown shoes.
OccamKant 2 years ago 2
the computer functionalist theory of mind you're assuming isn't just obviously true, surely you know this. And yes, this guy IS a philosopher. all philosophers use philosophy to reason from their beliefs. The idea is to see what follows from those beliefs, to see what further beliefs one ought to adopt. Plantinga has christian beliefs, and is exploring what follows from them about the nature of the mind.
pygy1234 2 years ago 2
Isn't just obviously true? Why not? We've simulated human thinking to various degrees with different artificial intelligence techniques. The Neural Net closely mirrors the brain's physiological structure, and it allows for simple thinking and learning.
So we have evidence that it is exactly as I say - what evidence do you have that it is not?
Proper reasoning should start from reality and build out from there. If your best efforts all start at false premises, you're a fake.
OccamKant 2 years ago
Go read the Chinese box thought experiment to learn no matter how well a computer simulates a person's mind it cannot be concluded a person's mind is the same.
shilohwillcome 2 years ago
I just read the chinese room thought experiment, and it is flawed.
The human isn't playing the part of the entire computer, it's playing the part of they physical CPU. No-one would say that the CPU, the actual silicon chip, understands anything any more than they would say that a tiny piece of your brain understands anything.
It's the SOFTWARE - the instructions that the human is following plus the database of knowledge that leads to understanding - ie you TAUGHT the human the rules.
OccamKant 2 years ago
"the human isn't playing the part of the entire computer"?
what are you talking about, this isn't part of the argument, you sure you read it?
shilohwillcome 2 years ago
I understand the argument completely.
A computer is more than a CPU - the physical computer is the cpu, memory, harddrive, etc. But when you turn it on and it begins processing - accessing data, following instructions, NOW you're dealing with the whole computer. This is what is processing the chinese characters.
For a human to simulate that would be to feed all those instructions and data into the human - and then the human WOULD understand chinese, wouldn't he? That's what understanding IS.
OccamKant 2 years ago
listen, if you understand the argument, attack it directly, don't give me your version of it because I don't see your understanding of it in your response.
shilohwillcome 2 years ago
Which argument are you talking about - the chinese box? I DID attack it directly.
it's a flawed argument because the human in the example is NOT doing what a computer does. The human in the example is only doing what the CPU does, not the whole computer.
The computer is the processing PLUS the instructions & data, all in the same place.
If all the human is substituting is the processing of instructions without actually keeping them in memory, he's not duplicating what the computer is doing.
OccamKant 2 years ago
WHAT COMPUTER WHAT CPU???? The argument speaks of neither.
Stop arguing like such a child and tell me directly at which point of the argument you have a problem with.
Your exhausting my patients.
shilohwillcome 2 years ago
YOU apparently don't understand the argument if you don't understand my objection to it.
The chinese box story is that if you had a computer in a room that had all the instructions to understand chinese characters, and you wrote those instructions down on paper and had a human execute the instructions, the human wouldn't actually understand chinese - he would just be following instructions.
With me so far?
OccamKant 2 years ago
right so far.
shilohwillcome 2 years ago
Ok - well, the analogy is wrong because the human following the instructions has his own mind. But all the computer has is the instructions - the comprehension is built into those instructions.
With a human in the room - there are two "minds" - one as an inherent part of the instructions, and one in his head.
Since the instructions he's following are not in his head, he does not feel comprehension himself.
For the human to truly emulate what the computer does, he would have to memorize...
OccamKant 2 years ago
...the instructions. If the human memorized the instructions the way the computer does, then he WOULD understand the letters.
So for the chinese box experiment to be a true analogy of computer operation, you would have to teach the human how to comprehend chinese.
And of course, as soon as you did that, the human WOULD understand Chinese.
So the chinese box analogy in fact STRENGTHENS the idea that a computer that seemed to understand would, in FACT understand.
OccamKant 2 years ago
Discussing what logically follows isn't interesting unless you're starting from reality.
I could discuss what would logically follow if we decided that Harry Potter and Ron Weasley had a secret homosexual relationship going -- but it's not very interesting, because they are fictional characters.
If you want to discuss reality, make sure you START from something real before building out your argument. Plantinga is making an unwarranted assumption and building all upon that, which is wrong.
OccamKant 2 years ago
Thanks for posting. Great ideas from a great mind.
CoolestTees 2 years ago
? = brain
Have your brain removed and see if you (your mind/consciousness) are present with your body, the lord or neither.
If your beliefs have any merit you will either still be with your body or with the lord. You have nothing to lose... if you are right.
akaei0 2 years ago
I guess, Lenny, that you've proven that Alvin Plantinga is a complete idiot.....bereft of all the glories of your own exalted genius.
I wonder....who was this lecture delivered to? Was it to a group of Christians? Was it spoken to a group of laymen or undergraduate students, by chance?
Note to self: If I can't win a debate on logical grounds, then resort to propagandist strategies....use non-contextualized, highly selective audio samples coupled with misleading pictorials, for max effect.
cognitivemagic 2 years ago
The audio is taken from a discussion where Plantinga is discussing whether or not materialism is consistent with Christianity. He believes that it is not, and that all Christians should be substance dualists in order to remain consistent in their beliefs.
LennyBound 2 years ago
However, the issue of whether or not substance dualism is defensible is not defended in the least. Plantinga merely argues that since God can somehow magically bridge the mind-body gap, then obviously Homo sapiens can somehow do it as well. This "answer" provides no future clarification on how an immaterial substance can interact causally with material substances, and merely punts the problem into the supernatural.
I also don't see how the pictorials are misleading.
LennyBound 2 years ago
please tell me why Plantinga is a "complete idiot," i'm curious.
shilohwillcome 2 years ago
Also, for my own education, what is "heat" referring to in the above example? I don't have a good sense of what concept identified by heat is being identified with molecular motion. I can only think of warmth--in the subjective sense--but that can't be what they are saying.
P.S. - Thanks for compiling such an awesome video collection!
mattpeed 2 years ago
I'll send you another message.
And glad to hear you like the videos I've uploaded. :-)
LennyBound 2 years ago
This view seems to gives up on explaining why/how brains produce consciousness. Does it provide any explanatory power for other questions in return? In other words, if one accepts the identity asserted above as a brute fact, are there any properties of higher or lower causal systems in the world that accepting this fact illuminates or clarifies? Or does it just sit there as a brute identity relation unconnected to other problems? If so, why choose that as the place to resort to brutishness?
mattpeed 2 years ago
Both must identify a point in the otherwise cold, dark history of the universe where the light of sentience--however dim--was first turned on. That moment is the essence of the "hard problem." It is hard because there is nothing in the language of physics to which subjective experience can be reduced. This forces each view to accept certain facts as basic or brute. Personally, I think once the hard problem is appreciated, the brute facts of physicalism fare worse on your well-stated metric.
mattpeed 2 years ago
Ned Block and Robert Stalnaker write:
"If we believe that heat is correlated with but not identical to molecular kinetic energy, we should regard as legitimate the question of why the correlation exists and what its mechanism is. But once we realize that heat is molecular kinetic energy, questions like this will be seen as wrongheaded... The role of identities is to disallow some questions and allow others."
LennyBound 2 years ago
Simply put, claiming that there exists an additional question of "why" consciousness exists at all (i.e. the "hard problem") over-and-above mere physical descriptions of phenomena, is to misunderstand the explanatory role that identities play in theoretical analysis.
LennyBound 2 years ago
The materialist wants to claim that the fact that a certain neurological state is associated with a certain mental state is a brute fact of the structure of the world. Asking the further question of "why" such an association exists is like asking "why" heat is identical to mean molecular kinetic energy. It just is.
At least that's how I see it.
P.S. - I uploaded a video of David Chalmers singing the "Zombie Blues" a while back. Feel free to look it up if you want a good laugh. :-)
LennyBound 2 years ago
When you say "At least that's how I see it", do you mean "That's how I interpret and paraphrase it" or "That's the view I endorse"?
polymath7 2 years ago
Both. :-)
LennyBound 2 years ago
I totally agree with your formulation of the relevant question. Very well put. And I totally agree with your identification of the physical evolutionary continuum as a foundational part of the analysis. I would add, however, that it is the foundational problem for both views. Whichever view is correct, both must contend with the strange fact that a physical continuum links conscious agents to earthworms, bacteria, viruses, to swirls of RNA and (pehaps) replicating flakes of clay crystals.
mattpeed 2 years ago
My more fundamental response: The language of "break[ing] down" implies that the law is relevant in the first place for human skulls. But that presumes that human skulls are isolated physical systems. If they are not isolated physical systems, then the law never applied in the first place. And if dualism is true, then human skulls are not isolated systems. That is the circularity.
mattpeed 2 years ago
I agree with you that both perspectives (i.e. dualism and materialism) are self-referential to some extent. However, that doesn't mean that both are equally valid. The relevant question we should ask ourselves is whether or not either one forces us to make unnecessary assumptions that conflict with the totality of the rest of our understanding of the world.
LennyBound 2 years ago
If it is the case that Homo sapiens are composed of both a material part and an immaterial part, then we need to explain at what point along our evolutionary history (which most concede was an entirely physical process) this peculiar immaterial substance became attached to our material bodies. Furthermore, we need to answer the more complicated causal question of how it could be that an immaterial substance to be "connected" to anything in the first place.
LennyBound 2 years ago
My superficial response: Not necessarily. Some theories of interactionism, like Eccles's "dendrons," claim to rely on quantum mechanics and probability fields in ways that don't require additions of energy. I'm not familiar enough with the argument or the physics to comment.
mattpeed 2 years ago
In other words, again the limits of dialogue are reached. Label "souls" or "selfs" as part of the "physical" pantheon of entities, along with protons, electrons, quarks, strings, etc., and you're left with one large Universe of entities with interesting properties, among them gravity, electromagnetism, and free will. It all comes down to how you deal with the irreducibility of consciousness.
mattpeed 2 years ago
Do you really believe that the law of conservation of energy breaks down within the skulls of Homo sapiens?
LennyBound 2 years ago
I think the criticisms here are missing the point. This is a talk aimed at Christian theists concerning the arguments for or against materialism and dualism from within the Christian theist framework. Obviously, that kind of talk is not useful as a general defense of dualism.
As for the general circularity of Plantinga's dualism, or dualism in general, the present state of human knowledge makes discussion of the mind/body problem inherently circular for both materialists and dualists.
mattpeed 2 years ago
The fact is that subjective, conscious experience is linguistically and conceptually irreducible. Dualists take the existence of two "substances" as a brute and use that to explain the irreducibility. Materialists take the conceptual irreducibility as the brute fact. Each side then makes circular arguments to each other, or, at least, arguments that can go nowhere.
mattpeed 2 years ago
To wit: Materialists say all the time that interactive dualism would violate the law of conservation of matter and energy. That is laughably circular. That "law" is simply the summing up of observations of wholly material systems; how is it an argument against the position that some systems (bodies + selfs) can output more energy than they take in?
mattpeed 2 years ago
Similarly, materialists call the claimed ability of souls to effect brains as "magic" or "unscientific." But they have no problem believing that mass can move objects through gravity or that protons can move electrons through electromagnetism. Why is some entity-to-entity causation dismissed out of hand, while other entity-to-entity causation is the bedrock of the modern world view? Because electrons and mass, we are told, are "physical."
mattpeed 2 years ago
This is the most inversely persuasive drivel I could possibly imagine, and that is no hyperbole.
Pardon me Lenny, but how is this even remotely interesting?
polymath7 2 years ago
Jewish Apocalyptic thinking at the time of Jesus postulated a bodily resurrection of the just in the end days. Jesus, if he existed and had the conversation with the thief on th ecross, could well have been referring to a bodily resurrection.
pirbird14 2 years ago
He talks alot without saying anything. Is this philosophy? justifying dualism with god! He is no doubt cleverer than me but I feel more intelligent.
winestainalert 2 years ago
Its marvelous how smart someone can be and still be completely oblivious to circular reasoning.
Arfalarf 2 years ago 4
I believe materialism is superior to dualism because there is no evidence for anything other than the material.
robotaholic 2 years ago 4
Oh ye of little faith.
:-)
LennyBound 2 years ago
lol ok sorry...When I first heard of Plantinga's argument that atheism/materialism/humanism is self refuting I was interested...but after hearing him talk in circles about running from tigers and a bunch of other circular arguments I thought gosh is that all they have?? lol how stupid
robotaholic 2 years ago
I'm with you robotaholic! The EAAN is feeble.
Plantinga never explains how his native could ever form a belief that running from tigers is the best way to get eaten. Our mundane beliefs come from our experience of reality.
But maybe not for Plantinga.
UnBeguiled 2 years ago
Yes, and materialists never talk in circles......
braino2000 2 years ago
No evidence, except for dualism... haha
thowes4 2 years ago
@robotaholic, you should read Godel.
GekkeMalloot 1 year ago
Vanity follows from Self-Awareness (The Original Sin), the sensation that we are separate autonomous entities with a degree of freedom. One views themselves differently than they view others, when the reality is we are all products of causation, hence the Golden Rule.
One cannot be "connected" while simultaneously being "autonomous" or "individual". For something to be connected it must share a co-dependency (Causation).
Thus Self-Awareness breeds Sin and "separation from God".
IMO
Rybot9000 2 years ago
Why do people get caught up on their own projections? If I say "A stone tumbled down a hill" it does not mean the stone had the forethought or intention to do so. I could poetically say the rock intended to tumble, but its a rock. So why do people think of "God" as being like them with forethought and intentions. This is a duality constructed by the belief that reality is unintelligent and somehow we are different... possessing forethought, intention and free-will.
Rybot9000 2 years ago
Then placing God somewhere outside of Reality. Notice the two words God and Reality. They have their origins in exactly the same definition: "That which is manifest".
People construct a vision of Reality as inherently Evil in the absence of God's light. "Reality" is only mentioned once in the entire Bible "...the reality is found in Christ" (Col 2:17) and Christ is used as a character representative of Truth
Truth is valued as God, as Jesus, they are somewhat synonymous in the text.....
Rybot9000 2 years ago
Of course Truth is what we call a mental representation of Reality. Find the Truth and find Reality. Find Jesus and find God. *bells ring*
"Therefor speak I to them in parables... seeing they will not see... hearing they will not hear... in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esais..."
Right, people will cling to the human characters rather than the philosophical or moral teachings, they will worship them as idols, puffed up by their own vanity reflected on what they call "God".
Rybot9000 2 years ago
Paul's Dualism is "Spirit/Flesh" but these are euphamisms for "Reason/Emotion".
All of the bible is allegory and makes sense as allegory, it is utterly senseless as a literal story.
I think Paul was saying that you must crucify your ego to see that you aren't a separate entity from "God" (All of Reality). All of reality flows by causation (God) and not human wills.
"Therefor it is not of him that willeth or him that runneth but God that sheweth mercy" - Romans 9:16
Rybot9000 2 years ago
Wow! Materialism is incoherent because there IS A GOD. Interesting. I don't reckon there is any need to concern one's self about whether such a thing as "God" exists. One should merely assume there is a God. And then one can supposedly "prove" materialism isn't true. Say, can we assume that God has made the virus in his image and likeness? Can we assume that all life was made to benefit the only organism truly loved by God, i.e., the virus? Should we now capitalize the word Virus, God's Chosen?
unseenstrings 2 years ago
Plantinga is a sophist; in this extract he attempts to excuse believers from their obligation to reason :(
leawardseif 2 years ago
Interesting lecture, but the fact that materialism (monist physicalism) is unsatisfactory does not necessarily lead us to Christian dualism; what of monist idealism, neutral monism, etc? And Plantinga's handling of criticisms of dualism (at least in this lecture) seems highly superficial.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
So far as he knows, there aren't any good arguments for materialism? What a moron, the only argument for materialism necessary is that there's no evidence for the spiritual. We actually know that material reality exists, we can't say the same for whatever magic realm he seems to think exists.
iconoclastic23 2 years ago 3
Hmm, is not the "argument" for materialism simply that it is abundantly evident that the material exists? This is not really an argument, it is more that the material is demonstrably apparent. Are you confining "materialism" to the material substrate of conscious experience here, icon?
I find it fascinating that implanting the "God" concept in the young must affect their cognitive schema (genetic epistemology). Descartes, Platinga, etc, "run home" to simplistic, magical, mechanisms.
Archaenum 2 years ago
Hmm, I didn't hear him make any actual arguments for his position...
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago 4
In his defense, this snippet was taken from the conclusion of his talk.
Earlier in the lecture he argued that the existence of propositional attitudes (i.e. beliefs, fears, hopes, desires, etc.) is a good reason for rejecting materialism and embracing substance dualism.
LennyBound 2 years ago
Ah, well in that sense I think I agree with him. Dualism is more coherent than materialism for the simple reason that the intentionality of consciousness cannot be reduced in any readily apparent way to matter. Of course, dualism has its own shortcomings, like explaining how mind and matter interact.
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago 2
"the intentionality of consciousness cannot be reduced in any readily apparent way to matter."
OK maybe not yet. But why then postulate a "dualism of the gaps"?
Plantinga seems to argue that since he knows his version of Christianity is true, then dualism must be true as well.
UnBeguiled 2 years ago
I agree. Should dualism be likened to the God of the Neuronal Gap (aka God of the Synaptic Cleft)?
The complexity of addressing how 10-100 billion neurons, each with an average of 100-1000 interconnections orchestrate consciousness is not a good argument for dualism.
Hope for immortality ought not to dictate our interpretation of reality.
Archaenum 2 years ago
I'm not arguing for any dualism of the neuronal gap. I find dualism more coherent than materialism only because it at least recognizes the impossibility of ever deriving the properties of consciousness from those normally attributed to matter (regardless of how complex it may be structured, it remains insentient stuff). My position is to recognize the inherent experiential aspect of all matter, which complexifies into consciousness through evolution (panexperientialism).
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
I was joking - I should have used a ;^}
I don't find dualism acceptable, even though I understand its attractions (it's simplistic, it permits afterlife hopes).
To me, retreating into the simplistic in face of technical difficulties in constructing complete explication for "holographic" experience - consciousness - is too much akin to godidit.
All the evidence points to material causes for macro-scale experiences such as consciousness. It's simply how we experience neural action.
Archaenum 2 years ago
I only agree with Plantinga's dismissal of materialism, not with his dualism.
Consciousness is nonetheless ontologically irreducible to matter, as matter is only known via consciousness. This is not the whole story, of course; but it is important to consider there are more options here than materialism or dualism.
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
If you dismiss materialism, 0T, what is left? The universe is material. The supernatural is a convenient weasel category that was invented to explain away the inexplicable and the lack of evidence for deities. Dualism is a little more honest than the supernatural. As you say, it frames our lack of ability to *fully* explain the experiential. I do not see why the fact that we use neural matter to comprehend neural products should render consciousness "ontologically irreducible"....??
Archaenum 2 years ago
*Dualism is more coherent than materialism for the simple reason that the intentionality of consciousness cannot be reduced in any readily apparent way to matter.*
Why not; and why do you place so much explanatory importance upon what is readily apparent?
leawardseif 2 years ago
Several thousand years ago, a small tribe of ignorant savages wrote a collection of myths, wild tales, lies, and gibberish. Over the centuries, these stories were embellished, garbled, mutilated, and repeatedly shuffled. Finally, this material was badly translated into several languages successively.
Alvin Plantinga thinks this collection is our best source for understanding neuroscience.
He is mistaken.
UnBeguiled 2 years ago 8
That was absolutely perfectly said, UnBeguiled.
polymath7 2 years ago
Very nice description. I was thinking something similar.
snowtrot 2 years ago