Atheist Talking Points

Monism: Passion of the Machine

The idea that the mind (or soul) is separate from the body to which it is attached is referred to as “dualism”. Philosophers such as Descartes, Locke and Kant were dualists. But with the advent of the Enlightenment and the idea that man was the center of all things of the intellect, the idea of the mind as a separate entity from the brain faded. The unity of the brain and mind became the prevalent concept, and is known as “monism”.

Monism is very important to Atheism, as a denial of transcendence. If the monist brain dies, then the person within, who is defined by the conjunction of the brain-mind, is gone completely and irrevocably. Monism is a form of justification for disbelief in any afterlife. This is monism. And it is vital to Atheism. But is it justified, by force of evidence?

If the mind separates from the brain at death what evidence should be expected? The answer is, of course, no empirical evidence can be expected to show such a transcendent event. So empirically there is no evidence, for or against, nor can there ever be. How then should this question be addressed?

If a proposition is accepted without empirical proof, such acceptance would be called faith. Or it could be called intuitively obvious. Let’s suppose that Monism is not considered an article of Atheist faith, rather it is considered to be a “first principle” due to its intuited obviousness.

But Intuition is a transcendental function. And the acceptance of Monism as a valid proposition involves either faith, or intuition. Both faith and intuition are transcendentals. So if Monism is true, then transcendentals exist. If Monism is false, then transcendentals exist.

Either way Monism fails to prove the exclusive domain of the mind to be only within the brain.

But Marvin Minsky has expressed the monist theory slightly differently. Minsky called the brain a “meat machine”. How does this concept map onto our basic sense of reality? Minsky is pedaling artificial intelligence; that’s why he deprecated the status of the mind. It would be much easier to artificially create a deterministic machine than it would be to artificially create a non-deterministic non-machine, now wouldn’t it? Not to mention justify research grant $.

But there are many glaring errors in this proposition. First off, would a meat machine create an artificial, functional rendering of itself? Creativity is not just not understood, it is a transcendental entity, existing outside the material realm. But even more than that, would a machine endeavor to be deceptive in its quest for acceptance of its creation (not to mention the need for lots of funding)? And still more than that, would a machine find itself passionate in its pursuits? The concept of passion, alone, falsifies the monist premise of a determinist, unity mind-brain.

All machines are Atheist;

Does it follow that all Atheists are machines?

“A monkey is a machine up a tree.”

Richard Dawkins

Multiplicity of minds?

Does this ever happen to you? While driving home, I sometimes become “absorbed in thought”. In other words, absent minded. Einstein was “absent minded”. As for me, I can drive a familiar route complete with turns, appropriate stops and starts, and wind up at my destination having no memory of the trip that got me there. My mind was split, it seems, between two activities, that of driving, and that of abstract thought.

This simultaneous mind activity places abstract thought outside the realm of physical apprehension; while in abstract thought, my abstract thoughts provide their own images, their own reality. My normal sensory inputs and response through physical outputs are performed “closed circuit” shall we say, in a sub-mind that takes care of the voluntary transactions of real life. (A sub-sub-mind takes care of heart beats, respiration, and other involuntary organic functions.)

In my case, the separate reality is in the form of perhaps considering logical proofs, or website visual presentation, or visualization of tasks to be done, etc. These are both abstract, and realizable realities. And if I don’t write them down immediately, many times these abstract thoughts and images are lost forever, having existed only briefly in my mind, as links in a chain of volatile abstract thought.

Inherent Multitasking

The point here is that there is no question, empirically speaking, that there is essentially a multiplicity of minds, multitasking simultaneously. Moreover, there is volatility involved in the chain of thought, both the abstract thought and the sensory input / physical response thought. These functions, call them creative faculties perhaps, are not likely to have been embedded by random mutations followed by speciation through selection for the fittest.

Einstein would likely have walked straight into the mouth of the first predator he encountered, because his “mind was elsewhere”. Perhaps a non-maskable interrupt in his brain from sub-mind to mind would have jarred him back to reality when his sub-mind encountered danger. Still, the capacity for absent mindedness seems unlikely to have provided an advantage to hunter-gatherers.

These postulates are speculative, post hoc, and thus unknowable. However, it is interesting that none of Einstein’s progeny have demonstrated the overwhelming genius of Einstein himself. Perhaps Einstein’s genius was not in the size (his brain was small), or quality of his brain, but was in his persistent use of the abstract thought part of his mind. I have found that once I finally developed the faculty of abstract focus, it became difficult to turn that portion of mind off in favor of more mundane tasks.

It also appears that there is a “background” mental process that is both rational and immanent, and which works on our issues without our enabling it, or even our recognition of its activities. For example, after brain rest (sleep), seemingly intractable issues sometimes are found to have been already resolved when the abstract mind is re-engaged. This would be a fourth mind resident within us.

Will these multiple minds be fully understood by finding loci of residence within the active brain? No more than understanding computer software by finding out its location in the computer’s several memory types.

In pain studies on injured veterans of the Iraq war it has been discovered that nerves do regenerate. In fact, “After injuries, the brain and spinal cord rewire themselves, forming pain pathways that can become overactive years later.”[1] Doctor Buckenmaier has shown that early pain relief can help inhibit the growth of unwanted neural pathways. But the point here is that the neural functions can replace themselves with new structures. Loss of old structures, at least in some cases, is not permanent, nor permanently disabling.

When is Identical not the Same?

In a National Geographic Documentary[2] on conjoined identical twins, two females joined at the head were outlined. Laurie and Reba Shappell were born sharing about one third of their frontal lobe. They have, by obvious necessity, shared environments since conception. But one twin was born with spina bifida, ostensibly due to her compressed umbilical cord in the womb. These twins are very different, not just physically, but also in personality, in tastes, and in personal habits. Even their finger prints are different, although they share the same DNA. They do not share thoughts, or memories. Even sharing a third of the frontal lobe, they are completely different individuals.

Mathematician With No Brain

And some few are born with virtually no brain at all. Hydrocephalus is a condition where an infant has developed fluid over pressure in the brain. During development the excess fluid forces the brain to recede, sometimes to the point where it is only marginally present. British neurologist John Lorber has studied many of these cases, including some cases where virtually no brain was left at all: Anencephalus.

A colleague at Sheffield University became aware of a young man with a larger than normal head. He was referred to Lorber even though it had not caused him any difficulty. Although the boy had an IQ of 126 and had a first class honours degree in mathematics, he had "virtually no brain". A noninvasive measurement of radio density known as CAT scan showed the boy's skull was lined with a thin layer of brain cells to a millimeter in thickness. The rest of his skull was filled with cerebrospinal fluid. The young man continues a normal life with the exception of his knowledge that he has no brain.[3]

Most anecephaletics are detected before birth and aborted. But one anecephaletic child, “Andrew”, was born, lived and was adopted by a pediatric nurse…

“…Kaye Vandal, from Wallingford, Connecticut, US, who, when last asked about Andrew's welfare, stated that she remained devoted to "giving him the best quality life for however long he lives." At the same time, Kaye stated that, against doctors' predictions, Andrew was able to laugh, giggle and smile and, has a "glowing, outgoing, bubbly personality." Kaye also stated that her young charge was able to respond to stimulus and was maturing mentally; both of which doctors believed to be impossible, considering his complete absence of brain matter.

Andrew was, however, unable to speak, and was cortically blind; that is, he could see images, but was unable to interpret them. Andrew was also incapable of walking, but did manage to drag himself along on his back.” [4]

Science and OBE’s

Since the recognition of a great number of detailed, but necessarily anecdotal, out of body experiences (OBE’s), some in the medical community have attempted to place these phenomenon within the realm of empiricism. Such verification is done by comparing the details of the OBE with the facts of the situation observed during the experience. In order to preclude hallucinations from being interpreted as OBE’s, only experiences that occurred during official brain death (no electrical signals from the brain) are used for comparison. Medical researchers in the Netherlands under Dr. Pim van Lommel have documented enough evidence to record it in the British medical Journal, Lancet. [5] Of 344 patients observed, 62 had “classical” out of body or near death experiences (NDE’s).

Documentation of OBE’s and NDE’s is becoming commonplace, and the experience is no longer doubted. However, some, such as “skeptic” Michael Shermer, declare outright that it cannot be anything other than the manifestation of electrical activity in the brain.[6] Shermer:

“…it is the job of science to solve those puzzles with natural, rather than supernatural, explanations.” [7]

But van Lommel has corrected the misinformation upon which Shermer based his conclusion.[8]

For example,

“… there is a well documented report of a patient with constant registration of the EEG during cerebral surgery for an gigantic cerebral aneurysm at the base of the brain, operated with a body temperature between 10 and 15 degrees, she was put on the heart-lung machine, with VF, with all blood drained from her head, with a flat line EEG, with clicking devices in both ears, with eyes taped shut, and this patient experienced an NDE with an out-of-body experience, and all details she perceived and heard could later be verified.[9] ” [10]

Shermer, like other “empiricist” skeptics, is a victim of naturalist brain-lock; such victims cannot accept valid evidence of transcendent realities because they have predefined a conclusion around which data is either accepted or denied. Any OBE or NDE is predefined by “naturalists” such as Shermer, as “supernatural”, without any attempt to understand the empirical data supporting the claim. This is the classical definition of rationalization, the opposite of rationality. It is in fact, a Nietzschean style denial, in support of a worldview, not of ontology.

Sovereignty of DNA

The public has been led to believe that DNA is perfectly prescriptive of health, disease, personal characteristics, and IQ. But now, data is showing that many of the diseases are not significantly related to genetics. These include some organic disease such as heart disease (no correlation to DNA[11]) and some emotional disorders such as schizophrenia (increase from 1% to 3%[12]).

“With the spectacular advances in genetics since the discovery of the double helix… we’ve convinced the public that genetics is important and deterministic. Now we have to back off a little and say it’s not that deterministic.” [13]

Science saying that genetics is “not that deterministic”? Someone had better tell this to Richard Dawkins and Marvin Minsky. If the mind is not deterministic, then it must not be hardwired. If it is not hardwired, then it is not identical to the brain. If it is not identical to the brain, then it is transcendent.

Godel’s Theorems suggest that an entity can never fully understand itself. This is applicable to the human mind also. The rational organization of the human brain should at most be conditionally understood by itself, according to these theorems. And finding the locations of processes within the physical structure is not a terribly productive method of finding its function. Because now we know that mental processing can be shared and moved around within the brain, and that abstract thoughts are volatile, not preloaded and permanently resident in brain-ROM’s.

The science of the brain is embryonic, yet many scientists are monistic with no proof, and even denial of what proof there is against it. Even circumstantial and post hoc parsimonious story evidence is not in favor of monism. So monism is a faith, not a scientific principle. And as a faith it is not even a rational faith; it starts with a conclusion and ends there too. Monism is rationalization. It is denial in support of a false worldview.

Monism is false.