What Wagner does to your brain - Keith Ward vs Daniel Dennett

High profile atheist philosopher Daniel C Dennett goes head to head with Christian theologian Keith Ward in this extract from their debate on mind, consciousness and free will.

Can the beauty of music be explained by neurons and brain chemistry? Atheist Daniel Dennett debates Christian Keith Ward.

The Big Conversation is a unique video series from Unbelievable? featuring world-class thinkers across the Christian and atheist community. Exploring science, faith, philosophy and what it means to be human.


The Big Conversation series:


The Big Conversation is produced by Premier in partnership with the Templeton Religion Trust

[europeanbourgeois]

I'll never forget hearing Isolde Liebestod.

[wmarkfish]

Wagner means very little to someone who has no ear mechanism; does that mean meaning is in the ear?

[Sfenx_Muenchen]

It never ceases to amaze me when materialistic atheists claim »truth« - this immaterial categorie -  for their metaphysical statements. The atheist Pilate rightly asked: »What is truth« - for a materialistic atheist? Augustine's »eternal truths« come to my mind, which - originally going back to Plato - were taken up by Leibniz as an argument for the existence of God.
Leibniz argues that spaceless and timeless immaterial truths, such as the laws of logic or the theorems of mathematics, apply independently of any real world and can therefore only be grounded in the Logos God. According to Leibniz, there must be something that this non-material reality is based on. Following Leibniz, that something is God »as the ultimate basis of the being or nature of things that are possible - and of necessary or eternal truths: 'If there were no eternal substance, there could be no eternal truths'. God is seen as the root of what is possible, for his spirit is the realm of ideas or truths.« [ Maria Rosa Antognazza, »Leibniz, a very short introduction«].
As a mathematician, I find this line of reasoning interesting. There is a certain irony in the fact that materialistic atheists, for whom brain processes are (as they themselves explain) mere brain reflexes, claim »truth« (an obviously immaterial category) for their supposed knowledge. And if they think that with the help of logic and mathematics, they can establish a naturalistic materialism in which both are ultimately just »reflexes« (...).
Naturalistic reductionism is reminiscent of Munchausen, who pulled himself out of the swamp by his own bootstraps: Because thought is reflexes, it has no metaphysical meaning. Because it has no metaphysical meaning, the idea of God is a pipe dream, a mirage of reflexes.
No one seriously doubts today that human intelligence is a »product« of evolution. But what intelligence has discovered in the course of evolution are the immaterial laws of logic and mathematics. (I agree with Roger Penrose that mathematics is discovered not invented.) Either the laws of logic are mandatory and apply independently of every material, especially brain-anatomical and physiological condition - or not at all. I am convinced that the former is the case. In fact, one can imagine a world without people and even a world without stars is conceivable. But no world is conceivable (either past or future) in which, for example, the Euclidean prime number theorem or the fundamental theorem of algebra (or any logical sentence) does not apply. The timeless LOGOS obviously precedes every material world.

[crazyprayingmantis]

The memories continue to exist but not in the physical brain
So where then?
and how do you know if they exist if you can't access them with your brain?

These people are strange who like to "believe" something exists yet there's no way of discovering it.

[glowmentor]

Nobody has a higher-order epilepsy. Nobody suddenly doing political theory, or calculus as a result of a seizure. Stimulating the brain electronically produces noise, smells, muscle response, etc., but not thought or ideas.

[Shunarjuna]

Honestly, Wagner does nothing for my brain. Totally overrated composer.