J.P. Moreland on Dualism

In this video, J.P. Moreland discusses with Robert Lawrence Kuhn (producer and host of the Closer to Truth show on PBS) the movement among intellectuals away from belief in the existence of a soul:

I think a lot of it’s sociological. I think we live in a day where scientism is the default position by a lot of people—that’s the idea that science, and science alone, can give us answers to our questions about reality. And I think it’s a big mistake to advance that view….

I don’t think the issue is scientific. The fundamental questions about the nature of consciousness and whether there is a soul are just not scientific questions. They’re questions like, “What exactly is a thought?” “What is a semantic meaning?”… There hasn’t been a single discovery in neuroscience or any other branch of science that a dualist (that is, one who believes in the soul and consciousness) could not easily accommodate within his or her theory…. [See here for more on that.]

Moreland explains some of the issues behind his belief in dualism—the definition of consciousness, the interaction between the brain and the self, objections to substance dualism, etc.—and then sums up the conversation this way:

The bottom line is this: Consciousness just isn’t the same thing as physical states of the brain because there are things true of one that aren’t the other. And the self is not identical to the brain because the self is a simple substance that isn’t composed of parts. And these questions are not fundamentally scientific questions, they’re philosophical.

 

(HT: Justin Taylor – See his post for another video by Moreland on the “Case for the Existence of the Soul,” and see more Closer to Truth interviews with J.P. Moreland here.)

Comments

[RonH]

Consciousness just isn’t the same thing as physical states of the brain because there are things true of one that aren’t the other.

I have a question about this.

I understand 'one' is 'consciousness'.

But, if this is the 'bottom line', we had better know: Does 'the other' refer to 'the brain' or 'physical states of the brain'?

RonH

[Erkki S.]

I think the basic problem of dualism is that, if this thing called "matter" does not have any impact on whether I am dead, alive, unconcious, sleeping, on my thoughts or on my feelings, then why do we even have material bodies? At which point exactly does the air pressure transferred to me from my ears to my brain turn into this magical "non-brainy" stuff existing in the idealist realm?

[RonH]

Koukl is fond of saying things like this (paraphrasing):

If you crack open my brain, you won't see my thoughts. Therefore, the mind is not identical to the brain. This is a decisive argument for dualism. I don't know why people don't see it. Well, yes I do: They have their heads in the sand.

I have not heard him put any some substance into this argument; as yet, it appears to be a mere boys' philosophy.

[Sage S.]

RonH,

"The brain" versus "physical states of the brain" is a distinction without a difference.

Erkki S.,

You haven't identified a problem. "Why do we even have material bodies?" is a philosophical question that science surely cannot answer for you (unless you're asking about origins, which I don't find in the context of your post). At what point do soundwaves get translated into the awareness of sound? Again, asking doesn't identify a problem for dualism.

You could try stating what you see as the problem. Asking roundabout questions isn't getting you there.