Various thoughts (again)

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen
The Carillon, November 12, 2015

Various thoughts (again)

Sometimes I sit on our deck, quietly puffing on my pipe, and I think. What follows are some of my thoughts. They're somewhat disconnected and perhaps disconcerting—read at your own risk.

● The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba is asking the public for feedback on "Physician Assisted Dying." Here's a wee bit of feedback from me. Yes, I'm pretty sure we all want physician assisted dying: please don't abandon us as we die, please provide clean sheets, food, and morphine as death takes its course. Thank you. Oh, wait, sorry, I misunderstood: you're actually wondering if I'd like for you to kill me? Maybe the college should be asking the public for feedback on Physician Assisted SUICIDE. Just saying.

● The Supreme Court of Canada says physician assisted suicide (er, I mean, "dying") will be legal as of February 6, 2016. Doesn't this reflect poorly on all our efforts on suicide prevention? Are only some suicides worth preventing? National Suicide Prevention Week (revised): Monday to Thursday only?

● The survey from Manitoba's College of Physicians and Surgeons tells us that "Physicians must not impose their moral or religious beliefs about physician assisted dying on patients." Hmmm. Isn't the college imposing the moral belief that life is no longer the default position and so the patient must choose to live or die? (Intellectual health warning: Somebody is having their philosophical cake and eating it too.)

● Physician assisted suicide imposes a terrible burden on the vulnerable. If life is no longer society's default position, then the most vulnerable—the elderly, terminally ill, disabled—must justify their continued existence. This is plain nasty—a kick in the teeth.

● "Progressive" is sometimes a euphemism for "slippery" or "slither."

● Glamour Magazine has named Cecile Richards "Woman of the Year." Yes, this is the woman in charge of Planned Parenthood, the organization that's been killing unborn babies and selling baby parts. And, yes, this magazine awarded the same title to the man Bruce/ "Caitlyn" Jenner. Clearly, glamour ain't what it used to be.

● IVF (in vitro fertilization) involves morally dubious practices and risks: (a) destruction of multiple human embryos (human beings) to get one that "sticks" (in the uterus); (b) possible abortion of excess children if more than one embryo sticks; (c) ongoing frozen "leftovers"; (d) egg harvesting at risk of women's health ("eggsploitation"); (e) increased demand for surrogate mothers ("breeders"); (f) severing of ties to one or more biological parents when anonymous donor sperm or eggs are used; (g) turning of children into commodities. IVF? LOL (lots of lament).

● Science and physicalism/ materialism should be distinguished. Why? Because science—a method (methods) of inquiry—and physicalism/ materialism—a metaphysical philosophical view—might not wholly overlap. We should be open to going wherever the evidence takes us. Maybe a non-physical entity or being (e.g., an intelligent agent/ mind) is a better explanation of the data?

● To dismiss historical investigation of Jesus' miraculous physical resurrection because one thinks that nature's regularities make such a special act by God maximally improbable is to assume that nature's regularities express the whole of God's intentions regarding God's actions, or it is to assume that God doesn't exist. But this is question-begging. (Question-begging is a mistake in reasoning: it's to assume as proven that which is at issue; it's to assume the conclusion in the premises; it's to assume the outcome of an investigation before doing the investigation; it's to put the cart before the horse; it's to commit a philosophical sin—an abuse of reason.)

● Enlightenment/ autonomous reason was an abuse of reason. The problem wasn't reason per se; the problem was the faulty, arrogant assumptions. Abuse or misuse is not a good reason for disuse.

● Jesus is the Logos and the Truth. Think carefully, for Christ's sake.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, teaches philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

Mind vs. Matter?

APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen
(The Carillon, May 19, 2011)

Mind vs. Matter?

Physicalism is the philosophical view that the world is completely composed of matter/ energy—i.e., physical stuff. A question arises for physicalism, however: Is the conscious mind identical to the physical brain? Physicalists answer Yes. Mind-brain dualists answer No.

I am inclined to think that a weighing of the pros and cons on the issue makes the physicalist thesis problematic—and makes mind-brain dualism the way to go.

Here are a couple of pro-considerations for the view that the mind is the same thing as the brain.

Pro 1. Science has shown that there is a correlation between brain states and mind states. Clearly, there is much evidence for believing that neurological activity in the brain correlates with, say, thinking or the making of a decision.

Pro 2. Science and common sense also show that there is a dependency relationship between the brain and the mind. If the brain is sleep deprived or damaged, then the mind doesn't work very well. If the brain doesn't receive oxygen, then the activity of the mind seems very much to cease. Clearly, the mind depends on the brain.

These pro-considerations point to mind-body identity, and persuade many.

But besides the pros, there are cons or counter-considerations, too. And it seems to me (and at least a few other thinkers) that these counter-considerations outweigh the pros.

Con 1. Yes, there is a correlation between states of mind and brain states. However, as with any correlation between A and B, there are four explanatory options: (a) A causes B, (b) B causes A, (c) C causes both A and B, or (d) the occurrences of A and B are a mere coincidence.

In other words, evidence of a correlation is necessary but not sufficient grounds to establish that the mind and brain are identical or that brain states always cause mind states. Significantly, the correlation also supports the view that the mind and brain are not identical and that the mind’s activity causes brain states.

Con 2. It should be noted that the dependency of conscious mind states on brain states is not the same thing as an identity of conscious mind states and brain states. For example, in the case of a flashlight, the dependency of the light on the batteries, does not make the light identical to the batteries.

Con 3. There are good reasons for thinking that mind states and brain states are not identical. If A and B have two different properties, then, as a matter of logic, A is not identical to B. (If Albert is 6 feet tall, and if the burglar is 5 feet tall, then Albert is not the burglar.)

It turns out that brain states are third-person investigatable (an objective property), but consciousness is first-person investigatable only (a wholly subjective property), so brain states are not identical to conscious mind. Also, consciousness has the property of intentionality (i.e., “of-ness,” “about-ness”; i.e., we think of X, we think about X), but brain states do not have this property, so brain and mind are not identical.

This suggests that conscious mind is a wholly different metaphysical category than physical brain.

Con 4. There is some evidence for disembodied existence of mind. For example, some near-death experiences—a.k.a. out-of-body experiences—strongly suggest that there is something non-physical to us. In these cases an empirical observation was made by an apparently dead individual, the details of the observation (e.g., a running shoe on the hospital roof, or a conversation in another location) were verified by others, and the best explanation of the observer's knowledge is an out-of-body experience.

Con 5. There is evidence for Jesus' resurrection. On one reasonable interpretation (of 1 Peter 3:19), Jesus went to another realm when His body was dead, and then He returned alive physically in His previously-dead-but-now-resurrected body. For Christians, Jesus is the model human being, so on this interpretation the evidence of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection suggests the non-identity of mind and brain.

In view of the previous pros and cons, it seems to me that mind-brain duality is reasonable to believe.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is assistant professor of philosophy at Providence College, Manitoba, Canada. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)