Well, there have been works on the subject by neuroscientists — such as this book Amazon.com which I recommend to everyone.
So yes, the jury is still out — but just a few decades ago, the idea of neuroscientists openly speaking out against materialism would have been unthinkable. The fact that this is now happening means something.
It looks like a cool book. To me there does seem to be an “emergent” property of the brain…the “mind/consciousness” which is not fully predictable from the underlying physicality of the system.
What tension? I see no problem between materialism and terminal lucidity. However, it does bring up some serious questions about your views on an immaterial soul.
Why only have lucidity right before you die? Why not continuous lucidity before that if the brain has nothing to do with it? Why would something like beta-amyloid plaques in the brain (the understood cause of Alzheimer’s) cause dementia if consciousness is not a product of the material? I see no reason why terminal lucidity would evidence an immaterial soul in any way.
Also, you said this earlier:
“The willingness to disregard any fact that contradicts a materialist worldview and a materialist undThe willingness to disregard any fact that contradicts a materialist worldview and a materialist understanding of consciousness.”
Terminal lucidity doesn’t appear to be one of those facts.
Why?
You’re absolutely right — and in fact, my criticism was specifically directed at the epistemic posture of strong atheism. And I’ve yet to see a strong atheist who isn’t also somehow dogmatic in his worldview, so that could be why I criticized both dogmatism and strong atheism, because they are closely related imho.
Also I don’t even have a problem with dogmatism in and of itself. I believe in the Trinity, I mean… but I do have lots of problems with dogmatism disguised as science .
Many who have studied it see a problem, so…
How is terminal lucidity compatible with a materialistic framework when we have examples of brains completely devasted and unable to function which somehow don’t stop people from regaining full consciousness and personality before they die? How is this compatible with a strictly materialist model?
Because it shouldn’t be possible if materialism was correct. Plain and simple. When the brain is utterly damaged to the point that the person hasn’t been able to be himself/herself for a long time and his/her memory receptors have been destroyed, there is no explanation in the materialist model for this sudden resurgence of consciousness and memory. It happens, we know it happens, we should be able to explain how, and if we believe that the materialist model is correct this model should be able to address it
So what is the problem?
What was stopping them the months or years before that? How is this compatible with an immaterial soul? Do they only get this soul moments before they die?
WHY???
Why? Because if materialism is correct the brain is the source of consciousness and a devastated brain doesn’t allow consciousness resurgence, it would be like a car going on with a damaged engine.
You haven’t demonstrated any of these things. You haven’t shown that materialism doesn’t allow for a resurgent consciousness. Also, damaged engines can start again and sputter along before dying once again.
I doubt very much that ANYTHING to do with consciousness can be documented
as fully material.
Even the metaphysical concept of CHANNELING consciousness allows for some
materialist inter-mediations.
G.Brooks
I fully admit that we don’t know everything about the brain. However, I’m being told that there are facts which demonstrate the consciousness is partly produced by an immaterial soul and couldn’t be produced by a material brain. From what I can tell, these facts don’t exist, and the rest are empty assertions or illogical arguments (e.g. argument from ignorance, shifting the burden of proof).
It gets a bit frustrating at times to be told I’m ignoring this or refusing to address facts when those claims seem to evaporate when they are pushed on just a little bit. Chalk it up to a long week and a low tank of patience, perhaps. Sometimes the “friendly” part of my moniker gets a bit wobbly.
How is this relevant?
Listen — materialism claims that consciousness is entirely dependent on the brain. If that’s true, then our personality, awareness, memories, and sense of self are all inextricably tied to brain function. And if the brain is damaged beyond a certain point, there should be no possibility for consciousness to re-emerge.
I don’t see how this is controversial. Consciousness is either of material origin or it isn’t. If it is, then a severely damaged brain simply cannot allow for the kind of conscious resurgence we sometimes observe.
I’ve never said this. I just said that there are facts which demonstrate the problems and limitations of the current materialist/reductionist model, that’s all.
What’s even cooler is that it’s been written by a neuroscientist, a neuroscientist examining scientific evidence showing how consciousness is not reducible to the material. If such a book was written by a pastor or an apologist etc it would obviously carry much less weight.
How is it not relevant?
If are claiming lucidity is caused by the immaterial soul despite brain damage, then why weren’t they lucid the months or years prior to their death?
Then how did you determine that people are beyond this point? How would you apply your own criteria of falsifiability?
You haven’t shown this. Other organs and bodily systems do all sorts of weird things, the nervous system especially so. I have a peroneal nerve entrapment near by knee that causes numbness. Some days I am nearly asymptomatic, somedays I have symptoms. Can’t tell you why one thing happens over another.
You are simply asserting, with no evidence, that brain function can’t improve near death. I see no reason why this is true.
I said it’s irrelevant because if the brain were the only source of consciousness, then lucidity at the end of life simply shouldn’t be possible. That’s precisely why it is relevant. I don’t particularly care why the person lacked lucidity in the months or years leading up to death — or rather, I care, but it’s not the point. What matters is that clarity and awareness emerge at a time when, neurologically, they shouldn’t.
If your own receptors necessary for memory formation are destroyed, leading to cognitive decline, then the sudden resurgence of clarity and memory doesn’t make a lick of sense, materialistically speaking. Will they be explained materialistically in the future? Perhaps, or perhaps not. At the moment they seem to contradict the model.
I’m not saying it can’t have a material explanation. I’m saying that if there is one, it should be identifiable. If this resurgence of lucidity truly results from physical processes, then those processes should be observable, measurable, and explainable within a material framework.
I care, and it is my point.
Then you would need to show that they were actually destroyed and not just temporarily unavailable.
That’s what people are doing research on right now.
So it seems we agree that there isn’t positive evidence for an immaterial soul, and terminal lucidity is not contrary to materialism since even you admit that there could be a materialistic explanation.
I have no problem with people believing in an immaterial soul. It’s the bad arguments that draw my attention.
Where did I ever say there was positive evidence? What I said is that the evidence is compatible with the idea of an immaterial soul and in tension with a purely materialist model which is also why it has been swept under the rug for decades despite the knowledge of the existence of this phenomenon). . That’s not the same as claiming proof. I stand by my point, but I’ve never claimed to have proven anything — only that the existing data challenges materialism and leaves open the possibility of something more.
No, I said something slightly different: I said that if terminal lucidity isn’t contrary to materialism there will be a satisfying materialist explanation for that, with proofs and everything. I don’t personally believe it to be compatible with materialism, but if it is I will be proven wrong.
In Alzheimer’s, as neurons are injured and stop working properly throughout the brain, connections among networks of neurons may break down, and many brain regions begin to shrink. By the final stages of Alzheimer’s, this process — called brain atrophy — is widespread, resulting from significant cell death and causing the loss of brain volume.
By the later stages of the disease, damage to the brain becomes so widespread that a person can no longer communicate and is dependent on others for care.
Temporarily unavailable?
You would need to show that the cells responsible for specific memories were atrophied.
Why would this be the case if the immaterial soul can overcome these physical obstacles?
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.