Morpheus: I imagine that right now, you're feeling a bit like Alice. Hmm? Tumbling down the rabbit hole?
Neo: You could say that.
Morpheus: I see it in your eyes. You have the look of a man who accepts what he sees because he is expecting to wake up. Ironically, that's not far from the truth. Do you believe in fate, Neo?
Neo: No.
Morpheus: Why not?
Neo: Because I don't like the idea that I'm not in control of my life.
Morpheus: I know *exactly* what you mean. Let me tell you why you're here. You're here because you know something. What you know you can't explain, but you feel it. You've felt it your entire life, that there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me. Do you know what I'm talking about?
Neo: The Matrix.
Morpheus: Do you want to know what it is?
Neo: Yes.
Morpheus: The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work... when you go to church... when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.
Neo: What truth?
Morpheus: That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Into a prison that you cannot taste or see or touch. A prison for your mind.
What is real?
Are we slaves? Are we in bondage to our genetic software? Are we electrochemical machines driven by eons of evolutionary programming? Is consciousness an illusion foisted on us by our own brain tissue?
Morpheus asks Neo: "Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world .... If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain"
Reality may be that we are sentient, conscious beings who live in a real external world and are capable of making free choices.
... or ...
Reality may be that we only think we have consciousness and only think we are capable of making free choices ... when in fact, we are machines. And, if you go all the way with the Gnostic metaphysics of The Matrix, then maybe even the real world isn't really there.
I think we can safely dispense with the Gnostic metaphysics for the time being. Let's assume the world is real and move on. For the purposes of this post, I am more concerned with the basic nature of man.
Most cognitive neuroscientists, if Pinker is to be believed, assume that man is a machine. They assume that the soul is an outdated concept. They assume that the mind is ultimately reducible and explain-able in terms of the laws of chemistry and physics plus boundary conditions. For example, the position of a bullet can be calculated given Newton's laws plus the initial position and the velocity of the bullet. Likewise, they reason, consciousness could (in theory) be calculated and reducible to physical algorithms. They don't claim it would be easy ... or doable in our lifetime ... but just that is ultimately doable.
But does this philosophy pass the sniff test?
The answer is no. That dog simply won't hunt.
There are two reasons. First, it fails the most basic test of truth -- it contradicts itself. Second, it fails the most basic existential test of truth -- it does not explain human experience, it denies it.
I'll dedicate two more posts to unpack each of these points.
Here's another failure of their analogy: Machines are created things, and thus have a creator.
Posted by: Matt | January 26, 2007 at 10:11
This should be interesting.
Btw I come from a different side of the discussion. I don't see any incompatibility between Christianity and a view of brain function that is essentially biological; neither do I think that a biological view of brain function amounts to denying our humanity in the way that is often supposed.
Take care & God bless
Anne / WF
Posted by: Anne | January 27, 2007 at 09:24
Mr. D,
Nice post, and nice blog. Now that I've finally found my way over here, I look forward to reading your posts (I've been meaning to for a while on a recommendation). Hope you don't mind if I add a link to you on my blog.
".... If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."
As a realist, I would say that what is real is what actually exists, independent of sense perception, or even absent the perceiver.
Regards,
Aaron
Posted by: Aaron Snell | January 27, 2007 at 15:15
Anne,
In my view, the icompatibility comes when Christianity as classically conceived teaches that there is more to our selves, or minds, than our material bodies or brain states, and that part survives the death of our body (we can have conscious existence apart from our brian); whereas neuroscience as practiced by naturalists says that our minds are reducible to material brain states. Further, the problem does not lie with a biological view of brain function. Substance dualists (those who believe that there are two substances to a human nature, one material, one immaterial) have no problem agreeing to that. Of course brain function is biological - the brain is a physical thing. Rather, the question for me is, are brain states the same thing as mental states? Can my consciousness be reduced to, as our host put it, "the laws of chemistry and physics plus boundary conditions" acting on matter? While the mind and the brain seem to be related, I am not at all convinced that they are the same thing - much as smoke and fire are related, but not the same thing. If you are interested, I would suggest reading J.P. Moreland on this subject - he addresses this subject in great detail in Body and Soul and in lesser detail in several of his other books. Or try some of the articles at the top of this page at the Stand to Reason website:
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5317
Cheers.
Posted by: Aaron Snell | January 27, 2007 at 19:32
Hi there
I had a chance to read one of the STR articles; and I should mention I majored in Psychology so I've got some familiarity with the issues from that viewpoint also. I have to say that I have not seen any basis for accepting the dual substance hypothesis, and I have not seen anything I would consider a persuasive argument as to why brain-based consciousness is incompatible with Christianity. I'm not saying dual substance is impossible, I'm just saying I haven't seen any reason either to believe it to be true or to think it would be useful in apologetics if true.
When the STR article states, >
* I think it does no such thing; I don't mean to accuse such worthy people of overreaction, but I might respectfully suggest it. First off it assumes "soul" = "consciousness" which is theologically doubtful. Secondly (and I think more importantly) it makes a series of metaphyiscal assumptions about the nature of matter, how suitable it is to convey / support something divine, what exactly we mean by "spiritual" or "divine", and how we bear the image of God; I'm not sure these series of metaphysical assumptions are completely warranted.
>
* Unless there's a resurrection of the body ...
>
* Unless we *are* a soul ...
In ancient Hebrew thought, they say, we did not "have" souls; we "are" souls.
I'm not going to dog your posts with nitpicky comments. I just wanted to mention that I find that whole line of argument both unconvincing and unnecessary.
And isn't this the issue on which C.S. Lewis got his tail kicked in a debate and gave up apologetics in favor of fiction? Pop over to Ralph the Sacred River on my blogroll if you have a minute for some details on that in a recent post over there.
Take care & God bless
Anne / WF
Posted by: Anne | January 28, 2007 at 17:02
Anne,
Thank you for your response. I appreciate your perspective and am trying to understand it better. If your view could be characterized by your statements here
>>There is no sense to any discussion about the reality of life after death if you die with your body. ...
* Unless there's a resurrection of the body ...
>>Christianity is false, period, end of issue, end of story, if we have no soul.
* Unless we *are* a soul ...
In ancient Hebrew thought, they say, we did not "have" souls; we "are" souls.
then how do you take Jesus' words in Matthew 10:28 ("Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.")?
Posted by: Aaron Snell | January 31, 2007 at 18:55
Hi Aaron
Just saw your comment tonight; sorry about neglecting the thread. Your question's a fair one. Let me go ahead and add another point to ponder: the scene in Revelation where the souls of the martyrs are below the throne awaiting final judgment (Rev. 6:9-10).
So first to clarify what I'm not saying, and then to clarify what I am saying.
I'm not saying that there's no soul/spirit, or that I can rightly divide soul and spirit, or that the mystery of the soul is entirely plain to me.
What I *am* saying is that I haven't seen a need to say that "if our thoughts, perceptions, and consciousness are brain-based and physical, then the Bible is wrong about who we are." The lesser observation for this is that the Bible's "disembodied soul" or "spirit returns to God" passages tend to show that we are incomplete without a body, never intended to be without a body, in need of the resurrection of the body. Beyond that, on the nature of the soul, the different schools of thought lead you different places but where they don't lead us is to full knowledge.
The point I'd make more strongly is that it's fairly plain that our physical brains are remarkable things, and I have no problem supposing that God placed our reasoning faculty and our consciousness into the hardware of our brains. When people argue against our faculties being brain-based, I sometimes wonder exactly what limits they would suppose for what the brain is for. Would they say it's good for times-tables and language and reasoning but not ... but not what? What exactly is it we'd reserve for something besides the brain? Myself, I really expect that all our rational and emotional capacities are physical functions, and further that that's no problem for a belief-system which considers that God is responsible for us having brains.
Take care & God bless
Anne
Posted by: Anne | February 13, 2007 at 23:08
Hi Aaron
I wanted to follow up on another comment you'd made also.
>
Well, is the Mona Lisa just paint? Physically, yes. The non-physical part has more to do with the relationship to the creator and the creator's world ...
Take care & God bless
Posted by: Anne | February 13, 2007 at 23:13