I wrote:Let me ask you, Dr W.... are you a free moral agent? Do your thoughts come from an independent thinker? Are you free to make moral choices? Free to love who you choose? Free to sacrifice for those you love? Or is all that merely an illusion brought about by the simple cause and effect of the functioning of trillions of selfish-genes?
I was with you until you got to the "trillions of selfish genes" part. On the face of it, this sounds like "woo woo" to me, so I will not bother to comment on the "trillions of genes" question. Instead of providing a discussion of basic biology, perhaps I can re-phrase the question so that it can be answered.
Not sure what you mean by "woo woo"? Perhaps the dichotomy is flawed. Perhaps there are more options. I'm willing to consider more options.
I should also tell you that I am not LDS, nor have I ever been. In fact, I'm a Joseph Smith critic. Nor am I a "religionist" as you say later. I am simply open to the concept of "God" or at least a designer.
From the point of view of a neuroendocrinologist, your question (I think) would go more towards asking what I believe about how consciousness arises.
That is part of the question, yes. But it includes more than just the proposed mechanism of origin. It would also include a satisfactory definition of what exactly it is and, perhaps more importantly, why it is.
More specifically, you might ask whether I believe that human consciousness arises as a result of complex electrical and chemical signals in the neural networks of the brain as it responds to external and internal stimuli. My answer is that, in fact, the data suggest that it is all chemistry (including electrochemistry) - nothing more and nothing less.
Well to my simple way of thinking, if that is correct, then you are really not you. The person you are--or that you think you are--is then nothing more than a complex combination of energized matter. In short, a rather sophisticated computer, no? In other words, the moral choices you think you are capable of freely making and even your ability to reason or to choose to love or to discipline yourself or sacrifice for loved ones, etc. would ultimately be an illusion, correct? If not, why not?
This is the point I was alluding to with Dawkins concept of the selfish gene, because my understanding of that concept--at least for Dawkins--is that ultimately everything comes down to the functioning of those genes and that whatever we do--whatever choices we (think we) make--are really to be attributed to genes and their propensity to thrive and reproduce.
I believe (based on the evidence), that brain function and its associated consciousness arises completely and totally as a consequence of the brain's processing and interaction with the stimuli it receives. And I do not believe that humans are unique as self-conscious, thinking and reasoning organisms. In fact, evidence shows that several mammalian species are self aware, and can reason in that they can plan and execute complex, goal oriented activities much as as humans do. Do these animals have souls? Is there a celestial kingdom for bottle-nose dolphins?
To the first question, it would appear impossible to know, since I don't even know how one would define a soul. To the second question, since I am not LDS I have no problem thinking there is no such thing as a "celestial kingdom" for anyone. Whether there is a "heaven" where a creator resides, I don't know, but that's somewhat irrelevant to the legitimate question of what would constitute a soul and whether animals might have them.
Furthermore I would say that there is no credible evidence whatsoever for the existence of a spirit or soul as separate from the brain.
I'm sure you're correct about that. It is simply a word that encapsulates the mysterious quality that seems to separate us from the animal kingdom. But as you point out, the apparent capabilities of certain mammals seem to draw the whole concept into question.
I know this is rather off-the-wall, but, out of curiosity, do you put any stock whatsoever in the idea of "ghosts"? Or the stories of near-death-experiences where people describe a "light" or allegedly hover over operating tables and can then allegedly tell you what was being said when they were being operated on, or that their soul floated through the roof and observed a tennis shoe on the roof of the hospital, etc. etc.?
Specifically to your false choice question, I do believe that I am an independent thinker and that I have moral agency. This belief is not incompatible with a mechanistic view of brain function and consciousness.
If you could elaborate on why you don't think the two concepts are incompatible, I would be interested in your response. Again, it simply appears either/or to me, but maybe I'm missing something.
When one thinks about how behavior (and even personality) can be altered by administration of drugs, brain injury, aging, psychological manipulations such as operant conditioning and the like, and when one realizes how closely these effects can be mapped on to changes in chemistry and electrical function in various regions of the brain, it is hard to imagine otherwise.
Yes, I think those are good points, but, again, what you seem to be saying is that rearrangement of chemicals can produce someone else from the matter that makes up your body. Hence... the you that you think you are, is an illusion, no?
Some folks believe that there could be unrecognized quantum effects that are contributing to brain function. And some of the more imaginative see this a a way in which the "supernatural" could interact with humans by affecting brain function. Given recent demonstrations of (relatively) long range quantum entanglement effects in large ensembles of molecules in crystals, I would not rule out quantum effects over relatively short distances. The temperature at which the brain functions presents some problems here, but hey, I am willing to consider possible quantum effects until they are shown to not be possible. I know of no data that would absolutely rule this out.
All right, well that seems interesting! It appears then--at least from the layman's perspective--that so long as science leaves the door open, you are, at least open to the notion that something not fully explainable could be "contributing to brain function." Is that a fair statement?
Is such a thing as Joseph Smith's "refined spirit matter" found in the brain, or indeed in the body as a whole? No. Based on very careful and even pro-effect biased measurements and observations, there is no evidence for spirit matter or a "soul" whatsoever.
Well again, I heartily disagree with Joseph Smith on just about everything anyway. But with regard to evidence for a soul, what would we expect to find? Isn't the very concept immaterial? And doesn't science study only the material?
As a religionist, you are welcome to believe in all of the woo woo you wish. As a scientist, I will stick with the evidence. And the evidence does not support your idea of a supernatural component to consciousness, or to self-awareness, or to moral agency.
Again, I'm not a religionist. And I also like sticking with the evidence so far as possible. I just like to think that I ultimately am a free agent who really has the actual capability of making free, moral choices--rather than that just being an illusion. But maybe I'm wrong about that, or maybe there is some other option.
If this is not a satisfactory response, then you will need to re-phrase your question as other than a false choice, and I will try again.
On the contrary, I found your response very thoughtful and well articulated--something I would expect from a bona-fide free thinker. ; )
All the best.