I wouls add though that, I find the empirical evidence, derived from respected researchers, of near Death Experiences, seems to be evidence in favor of something, perhaps an immortal soul, that works in conjunction with the brain.

I’m less convinced, but I’m glad people are studying it. If there’s something there, it should be demonstrable.

Perhaps we have a plot getting rather thick, here!

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/a-real-science-of-mind/

I still maintain that if we are fully deterministic, nothing matters. We will do what we do and we can’t change it.

I think that McGinn allows for the possibility that we may someday discover how brains cause consciousness, it’s just at least right now, he believes that the notion that our brains are cognitively limited, and therefore cannot know fully how consciousness arises out of itself, is persuasive.

Since we don’t know how consciousness works yet, we certainly can’t disprove this idea. However, I have practical problems with the concept of the ‘unknowable’, of ‘things forever removed from human ken’.

Let’s say we come across something we don’t understand. How do we tell if it’s something unknowable or not?

The only way I can see to deal with it is to try to understand it. If we succeed, then we know it’s knowable. But if we fail, we can’t conclude that it’s unknowable. Maybe someone else will figure it out later (like Watson and Crick and Franklin figured out DNA after Haldane gave up).

We can never be sure something’s unknowable. All we can ever say is, “No one’s figured that out yet.” So far as I can see, “the unknowable” is a concept with exactly zero practical utility.

Now, this in no way implies, even though atheists may disagree, that an immortal soul does not exist.

True. But I’d say we shouldn’t posit them until we’ve got good evidence for them. And based on the above, I’d resist any claims that souls, should they exist, are unknowable. :)

So when I stated “this may be our limit”, I was concluding that, what Restak said, could be used in favor of McGinn’s point; not that Resatk was making this point.

How do we know consciousness cannot be explained as a result of brain processess?

It seems as if Raymond Tallis may have a view similar to the philosopher Colin McGinn. The latter argues that, due to the cognitive limitations, inherent in our brains, our brains are unable to explain themselves. I don’t think McGinn denies that the brain is the explanation of all mental phenomena, he just believes that, our brains did not evolve to be equipped to handle the question of how, precisely, brains cause consciousness.

I think that McGinn allows for the possibility that we may someday discover how brains cause consciousness, it’s just at least right now, he believes that the notion that our brains are cognitively limited, and therefore cannot know fully how consciousness arises out of itself, is persuasive. He’s a brilliant philosopher, so one should never dismiss his claims without giving them fair consideration.

And the neurologist Richard Restak has pointed out that we must use the brain, to figure out the brain, this may be our limit.

But as Ray has pointed out, there’s a historical case of a great thinker being wrong, by in an a priori manner, dismissing the possibility of mechanistic explanations for biological phenomena.

Now, this in no way implies, even though atheists may disagree, that an immortal soul does not exist.

Tallis convincingly argues that neuroscience cannot–not just has not yet, but cannot–explain consciousness itself.

Just like J. S. Haldane argued convincingly that a “mechanistic theory” simply could not account for things like “recovery from disease and injuries” and “reproduction” and “inheritance”.

Then the structure of DNA was elucidated…