Full rebuttal to post titled "Dead as a Doornail: Souls, Brains, and Survival"

I am doing to go through piece by piece of his post only what i think that is important to address. My responses will be below each statement. Here is the link that I took certain points from the post at.


http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/dead-as-doornail-souls-brains-and.html

He mentions first, "Decades of evidence from stroke victims, motorcycle accidents, car wrecks, construction site accidents, fMRI scans, PET scans, brain imaging, and other medical studies have given us a detailed picture of which portions of the brain are active in conjunction with specific cognitive abilities and mental states. What that research has shown is that minds depend upon brains. Damaging a part of the brain destroys a part of our thoughts, eliminates a cognitive ability, or alters some personal or emotional capacity. Restoring the electrical, chemical functions of the brain renews the mental function".


True mind is dependent upon the brain what the issue at stake isn't the tight correlation between mind and brain but if the function as William James stated before is permissive/transmissive or productive. Too to get to the truth of the matter we have to look at both sides of the evidence with an open mind and then decide which model fits better.

"While most of us would acknowledge some connection between mental function and the brain, we may have failed to see just how deep the connection runs. Even the most abstract mental faculties and the most specific features and contents of our private, mental states can be mapped directly onto brain functions".

And no substance dualism denies that their is a strong connection.

"In a remarkable study in 2005, neuroscientists reported the discovery of what they deemed the Halle Berry neuron. In order to isolate the location of the electrical chaos that induced their epilepsy, patients brains were implanted with electrodes. Then the patient was shown a variety of pictures while the activity of the neurons in the vicinity of the probes was recorded. In several instances, single neurons could be singled out whose activity spiked in response to specific images such as Halle Berry, Bill Clinton, or the Eiffel Tower. One neuron fired when the subject looked at a picture of Halle Berry in an evening gown, in a cat woman suit, as a cartoon, and even the words “Halle Berry,” suggesting that the neuron played an integral role in a large web of neurons who were responsible for a variety of abstract and high level representations of Halle Berry rather than some simpler function such as edge discrimination. This neuron did not respond comparably to the hundreds of other images used in the study (Quiroga, et al., 2005). Again, the evidence is against the survival hypothesis; every aspect of a person’s mental function is produced by brain function".

Of course their is an different interpretation to this case and that is it shows very strong correlation but not cause.

"If there was empirical evidence for survival, that is, if consciousness persists without the brain, then we would expect to find some exceptions to the close, direct correlations between the electro-chemical events in the brain and mental states, cognitive capacities, and conscious experience. If there were cases where we could establish that some or all of the mind functions that we attribute to the soul occur in the absence of brain processes altogether, or in the absence of the particular brain processes that have been most closely correlated with those functions in other cases, then we would have some striking evidence for survival and against the first premise in our argument. Suppose that we found cognitive abilities and consciousness to be present or absent with no apparent relation to the state of the human brain. If brain damage of various sorts left cognitive functions unscathed, or if consciousness persisted despite alterations in brain chemistry and structure, then we might have some evidence to doubt the correlation and the causal connection. Likewise, if some mental function lapsed while the brain was completely intact and functioning, we might have an empirical indicator of mind/brain autonomy. But we find no such violations in either direction".

And we do have such violations as he would call them. Those violations are widely discussed in the Irreducible Mind book a Psychology for the 21st century.

So What Would It Take To Falsify The Transmission Theory?

Keith Augustine has asked on the infidel forum what would it take to falsfy the transmission theory? It has been pointed out many times how it could be falsified.

For Example Chris Carter's rebuttal to Keith Augustine's Article ''Does Consciousness Depend On The Brain''.

” The exact type of functional dependence between the brain and consciousness – production or transmission/permission – is the issue at stake.

http://www.parapsychologyandtheskeptics.com/rebuttal_to_keith_augustine.htm

Is there life after death or oblivion

Materialists believe that death is the end of our memories, personality, our inner experiences etc.] are they right? with the strong evidence of close correlations between the mind and brain some people believe it's impossible for the mind to survive the destruction of the brain however it also depends on what theory explains that correlation better production theory or the combination theory both theories hold that the mind is extinguish when the brain dies. Here are the three theories that are put forth to explain the mind and brain connection

(1) The Mechanistic Theory holds that the brain is a kind of complicated recording device, with elaborate switches to combine the recordings in various ways, and to produce appropriate outgoing nerve-currents. Consciousness, according to this theory, is merely incidental, like the light which accompanies the burning of wax in a candle-wick. When the burning is put out, the light instantly ceases.

(2) The Psychosomatic Theory holds that consciousness and brain activities are merely two inseparable sides of one reality. This brain-mind combination is not merely mechanical (like a tape-recorder) nor even merely biological. It is psychological in the fullest sense. But when the brain aspect ceases, the mind aspect (according to this theory) must also cease, because brain and mind are merely two different ways of looking at the same process.

(3) The Transmission Theory holds that the 'I' is a separable, self-existent reality, which uses the brain somewhat as a pianist uses a piano, or somewhat as the TV actor uses the television set.