Sharon Dirckx: Atheists can't explain away consciousness using brain science

[lesliecunliffe]

To attribute psychological verbs to the workings of the brain is what Bennett & Hacker (2003, 2nd ed. 2022) describe as committing the mereological fallacy that confuses parts with wholes. It is embodied and socioculturally embedded human beings that think, act, believe, etc. not their brains.

[whatwecalllife]

Thoughts are produced by brains though?

I think a major problem with these types of things, thoughts, free will, and so on, is that were experiencing it FIRST HAND, which heavily biases our view and understanding of what's actually taking place.

We tend to want to feel more special important than we are, not realizing that notions of "special" or "important" are matters of subjectivity rather than ontology.

[DigitalGnosis]

Her reply here doesnt post any problem for thoughtful atheists. If she is responding to people like Dennet or the Churchlands et al then she will know that their views purport to be philosophical views which they maintain are better philosophical positions to adopt than whatever theist positions there are. In short she hasn't really addressed why their *philosophical* position is less virtuous than whatever hers is.

[zhengfuukusheng]

You never see people who think that minds can exist independently of brains trying to blow their own brains out...so there's that

[growtocycle]

What is the distinction between animals and humans?? Self aware consciousness

[hexa]

"We don't know, therefore god"
*watches at the sky.
-yup, i ve heard that before, and *every single time*, it has not been the correct answer.

[pablochaverri]

We can't fully explain consiouness yet, but as this person recognizes, now we can map neural networks which correspond more and more precisely with particular mental states. We don't fully understand how the brain produces the mind, but we know for certain that the brain activity produces the mind. I think we will understad if we promote science and technology.

[MyMy-tvfd]

she is very poor in her explanation, what she needs to say is that brain science, and science in general says nothing about meaning because it is all about causation and mechanism. The 'why' of the whole affair, and the meaning of the sum of the parts added up to the whole human experience escapes science entirely, because it is not what science does. It takes a whole human being to do that.

[holdontoyourwig]

Why does this video have the word " Atheist " in the title ?

[lme]

Why do atheists need to explain anything or required to?
An atheist is simply someone who lacks any god belief. That’s it.

If a religious person claims “god did it” when faced with a complicated question about nature, then that’s just a baseless assertion without evidence. You don’t get to solve a mystery by appealing to an even bigger mystery.

[michaelmcdonald]

Why are believers or non believers required to "explain away"

(whatever that even means)

consciousness?

[dohpamne]

it doesn't just give you a connection- it gives you causation. In the same way that moving a magnet results in a magnetic field, neurons firing result in conscious thought. It is using the exact same definition of causation that all science uses.

[skyeangelofdeath]

Mmmmm delicious! I love god of the gaps arguments, they're so tasty.

[xalian]

As someone who suffered a severe mTBI, consciousness isn’t what we think. Unless you experience your own consciousness ripped apart for yourself, you cannot understand it. When my brain tried to heal, it became obvious that unified consciousness is an illusion. Consciousness works like an orchestra such that each section has to work in harmony to give the illusion that it’s one piece of music. I could see and feel the pieces of consciousness fire out of sync for months, effecting my personality to physical well-being until I healed. Thoughts come from the neurons firing to convey an illusion of unification.

[petromax]

A little sense, not"science", is all you need to know that your mind and body are connected.

[progidy]

Maybe this conversation plays out such that the moderator actually pushes back instead of just swallowing these claims, but in case they don't, Sharon's making the presumption that there's a distinction between mind and the brain in the first place.

[POTATOEMPN]

Religious people like to use this. SCIENCE CAN'T EXPLAIN THE PLAGUE! ONLY GOD CAN!
Then science explained it.
Religion looks to the sky and asks, "What do you want me to do?"
Science looks to the sky and asks, "What makes you work? How?"
One answers no questions, the other asks and seeks to find answers. So I say that science can not explain it...yet.

[mrshankerbillletmein]

The naturealist matierialist wants to explain how the brain matter produces consiousnes because if mind and brain are separate that might heaven forbid indicate a soul.

[primodernious]

if you copy that professor in neuroscience into 10 duplicates each copy would experience itself as the original professor having independent selves. there is no soul in the sense of century old beliefs as each duplicate experience consicousness from the programming of the dna. its like you take a sofitware in computer science and just copy the software into copies. each copy of the same program experience itself as a totally independent being. each copy would claim they have a soul even its all programming that is talking in each copy.

[michaelmcdonald]

Meaning thoughts only make sense "if God?" 🤷