Psychophysical harmony argument by brian cutter and dustin crummett

you have judgments, beliefs, and semantic-reports. These are immaterial. These are different than the physical brain.
Normative (your judgments and beliefs provide the right reasons to act). Semantic (your reports accurately describe your experiences)

Main Question: How is it that your judgments, semantic-reports, and beliefs match with what is happening in the brain?

Hypothesis 1 of the atheist: brute fact
Reply: Arbitrary and possibly question begging

hypothesis 2 of the atheist: evolution
Reply: evolution explains the physical brain but not the judgments, reports, and beliefs matching with the brain.

Hypothesis of the theist: A powerful mind created the normativity, reports, and beliefs to be harmonized with the physical brain states


MY THOUGHTS ON THIS ARGUMENT: I'm not so convinced. The reason is I'm still skeptical as to show that evolution cannot explain the judgments, reports, and beliefs harmonizing with the brain. Why not say that evolution causes the brain states in the beginning stages of an organism, but as the organism gets more complex, the brain develops judgments, reports, and beliefs so that there is now "reason" that the human possesses? This "reason" seems special to the human and makes the human find his justification in acting and reasons for his experiences. But it really is just reducible to evolutionary physicalism. 
Moreover, I think one part of this argument does rest on the more fundamental claim that reason cannot be explained by evolution.

Alternatively, I think there is a way of focusing on the argument a bit more in a part that does maybe would convince me...There are many ways in which the judgments, beliefs, and semantic-reports could have gone--why is it the way that it is. For example, when I touch the hot stove, why is it that I do not get pleasure from that suddenly?
Reply: This is just by definition, what is included in pain--namely, that which is hot. 
Reply: But that is exactly what is at stake, why is there such a connection between pain and hotness? These two things are greatly differently such that it could have been the very opposite, nothing in their a prior examination makes us to belief they must be like so.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dr. Alexander Pruss's Blog called, "Sexual Orientation" against same-sex sexual relationships: Minh's commentary

  Consider the following two claims that some people seem to accept [so, for example, i guess that most secular college students would accept these 2 claims] : Same-sex and opposite-sex sexual relationships are on par [so it’s not like it’s better to be in a same-sex sexual relationship than opposite sex sexual relationship, and vice versa–no…rather, they are on par or equal to each other]. Heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality are on par [so it’s not like it’s better to be heterosexual than homosexual , or it’s not like it’s better to be homosexual than heterosexual, or it’s not like it’s better to be bisexual than homosexual, or it’s not like it’s better to be bisexual than heterosexual–no! Rather these three orientations are simply on par or equal] , and persons of one orientation do not have reason to try to change to another [so, if i’m a homosexual, i do not have reason to try to change to be heterosexual or bisexual, etc. because they are all on par to each other]...
Read more

Q: "Why does Paul mention James before Peter (Galatians 2:7-9) and why is Peters' name used as "Cephas" instead sometimes?"

  Firstly, if the hidden assumption behind the question here is, “Any name mentioned first in a list of names necessarily means that the person holding that name mentioned first is superior to all others in that list” then we should recognize that the assumption is not always true. Now, of course, Peter’s name is mentioned first when it comes to the listing of apostles, and that’s a case to be made for his superiority among the apostles. But, this type of conclusion is made with (1) the additional biblical and historical data that shows Peter was in fact the leader of the apostles, and (2) the fact that Peter is consistently mentioned first not only one time, but many times over and over, making it more likely. Second, I want to recognize that this is a good question, and we can actually see the logical pattern as to how Paul lists the four people (me [Paul], James and Cephas and John), as opposed to being merely random. But before that, it is important for us readers to recognize ...
Read more

Reflections on pridefulness versus humbleness.

 I just noticed recently that I am prideful. The pride that I have is implicit in my mind. This implicitness is why I am prideful. If I realized that I am prideful, I would have tried to stop my prideful actions or thoughts or words immediately. I did not give enough thought into how my actions are prideful. Perhaps they are not prideful actually, but just seem prideful from a third person perspective. People can find me to seemingly be prideful in anything I do so it is impossible to not seem prideful, but there exists a spectrum in which pride falls into. Pride can be seemingly miniscule or it can be absolutely puffed up. I would hope that a person who views me would at least seemingly assume that I am prideful in a miniscule manner as opposed to being absolutely puffed up.  The contrast to pridefulness is humbleness.  Humbleness does not always involve being quiet. For example, when a person asks me if I won my basketball game yesterday, it would not necessarily be hum...
Read more