In this post, the second part of a serie, I'll continue with my fictional dialogue between a materialist/skeptic and a survivalist/dualist. I've decided to call the latter as "survivalist", because some people sympathetic to an afterlife or survival don't consider themselves as "dualists". So, I'll use the label "survivalist" without implying a specific position (of all the existing which are compatible with the afterlife like substance dualism or pansychism).
Materialist: I've been reflecting on our last discussion, and I believe I've developed an arsenal of powerful objections against your survivalist position.
Survivalist: It's fine. I hope we can examine them together. But before that, I'd like to review some of my conclusions from our last conversation.
I think I demostrated that, regardless of whether survival exist or not, your position is question begging: You assume that the strong dependence of mental states on brain states support the production hypothesis (and I agree!) and seriously undermine the survival hypothesis (I disagree!). In other words, the second part of your argument tacitly assume the truth of the production hypothesis, because your interpret the mind-brain dependence only from a materialistic point of view; without considering non-materialistic alternatives. And assuming materialism alone, you try to use such assumption to refute the non-materialist alternatives that are logically compatible with the observed mind-body dependence.
In summary: your position is question begging because it depends on a materialistic interpretation of observed dependence (concomitant conjunction) of the mind on the brain (and this is why you said that the strong and close dependece of mind on the brain undermine the survivalist position).
But pure observation only tell us that between the mind and the brain exist a connection, a close dependence in the sense that mental states change with brain states, that is, a strong correlation. But the specific nature of that correlation (that is, if this correlation is of a materialistic or non-materialistic kind) is the issue at stake.
Thus, you implicitly and subtly (and cleverly, I admit) beg the question against the survivalist when you invoke "a strong mind-body dependence" assuming a purely materialistic interpretation of that dependence.
Materialist: Well, I don't agree with your "summary" and "conclusions". In any case, in our previous discussion, you said something that left me intrigued.
Survivalist: What?
Materialist: You said that, in support of your position, there is controverial evidence, but also not so controversial evidence. Can you tell me something about these supposed "non controversial evidence" supporting dualism, non-materialism or the afterlife?
Survivalist: Yes. Actually, the evidence supports an implication of dualism (specifically, the implication that if the soul or consciousness exist as a primary entity, then it's causally eficacious on the brain and body). It doesn't support survival per se, but it supports dualism and, by implication, the possibility of an afterlife.
Materialist: What evidence is that?
Survivalist: Placebo effect.
Materialist: Are you kidding me? Lol!!!!!!!! The placebo effect is a well known medical phenomenon and this is absolutetly consistent with materialism.
Survivalist: I don't think so. I'd like to know your materialistic explanation of the placebo effect.
Materialist: The placebo effect is simply the action of the nervous system on the body. The brain is connected with different parts of the body, and the changes in the nervous system (which is material) produces physiological changes on the body (which are material too). You don't have to postulate a "soul" or any "immaterial thing" (A ghost in the machine) to explain that phenomenon.
Survivalist: But you have not explained the placebo effect, only the physical consequences or manifestations of it.
Your basic fallacy consists in an arbitrary redefinition of the actual concept of placebo effect, to exclude the role played by the belief and subvjetivity of the patient, and so making it consistent with your materialistic position.
Let's to examine the definition of the placebo effect. According to wikipedia: "A placebo is a sham medical intervention. In one common placebo procedure, a patient is given an inert sugar pill, told that it may improve his/her condition, but not told that it is in fact inert. Such an intervention may cause the patient to believe the treatment will change his/her condition; and this belief does indeed sometimes have a therapeutic effect, causing the patient's condition to improve. This phenomenon is known as the placebo effect." (emphasis in blue added)
Essential to the definition of the placebo effect is the belief of the patient. And beliefs are subjetive, not objective.
Your fallacy consists in omitting the subjective aspect of the actual definition of the placebo effect (because it's incompatible with your materialistic position) and redefining the concept in terms consistent with your position. (A clever way of begging the question, self-delusion and rationalization due to cognitive dissonance)
Materialist: It's you who are begging the question. You're assuimg that the patient's belief (and not the nervous system) is the cause of the placebo effect.
Survivalist: No, I'm not "assuming" that. I'm ACCEPTING the actual definition of the placebo effect (not forcing a redefinition of it to make it consistent with my position). Read again the definition in wikipedia "this belief does indeed sometimes have a therapeutic effect, causing the patient's condition to improve"
Nobody denies that the nervous system is part of that process. But that process BEGINS when the patient BELIEVE that he's taking a medicine or having some medical intervention. And the consequences of that BELIEF causes changes on the nervous system and on the body.
Let's to use a simple diagram to explain the main essential parts of the placebo effect definition.
Patient's belief (1) -------> Changes on the nervous system (2) ------> Changes on the body (therapeutical effect) (3)
Essential to the definition is step 1. If you disregard step 1, then you're not explaining the WHOLE process of placebo effect according to the actual definition of it, but only its physical/physiological consequences (steps 2 and 3). You're (intentionally?) omitting an essential aspect of the definition (step 1), just because that aspect destroys your position.
As you're a materialist, you believe that beliefs and subjetivity are non-efficacious (and, maybe, non-existent at all), and this is why you're forced to redefine the concept of the placebo effect in terms consistent with your position (that is, admitting only steps 2 and 3). So, you're actually begging the question in your favor, self-deluding yourself, disregarding contrary evidence and the search for the truth and failing to explain the real phenomenon as actually defined.
Materialist: I don't think so. If your argument is right, then mosts scientists would be dualists, not materialists. And they're materialists because they realize that the placebo effect is simply a process that begins in the nervous systems, not in etherical souls or ghosts.
Survivalist: You're seriously misinformed. Consistent materialists fully know that, if materialism is true, then the mind/soul/consciousness cannot be efficacious. But the placebo effect provides prima facie evidence for the causality of consciousness (implying the falsehood of materialism).
This is why consistent materialists HAVE to consider the placebo effect as non-existent (or fradulent); or as a mysterious phenomenon, or (like in your case) to force a redefinition of it that disregard step 1 (patient's beliefs). They have to force (or disregard) the evidence or the definition to accommodate it to their beliefs and worldview.
The placebo effect doesn't make any sense in a materialistic worldview. If materialism is true, we wouldn't expect a phenomenon like that. Consistent materialists concede this.
In 2005, the magazine NewScientist, published an article entitled "13 things that do not make sense", and the placebo effect was the number one on the list. According to the author of the article: "We have a lot to learn about what is happening here, Benedetti says, but one thing is clear: the mind can affect the body's biochemistry. "The relationship between expectation and therapeutic outcome is a wonderful model to understand mind-body interaction," he says. Researchers now need to identify when and where placebo works. There may be diseases in which it has no effect. There may be a common mechanism in different illnesses. As yet, we just don't know"
That "the mind can affect the body's biochemistry" is what we'd expected IF dualism is true (but we won't expect that IF materialism is true).
As has written science journalist Alun Anderson "Trust and belief are often seen as negative in science and the placebo effect is dismissed as a kind of fraud because it relies on the belief of the patient."
Anderson's comments confirm that essential to the definition of the placebo effect is the belief of patients and its causal power. And, as this is inconsistent with materialism, materialists have been forced to "dismissed (it) as a kind of fraud"
If the placebo effect is "simply" an action of the nervous system (and not of the patient's beliefs), tell me why it has been "dismissed as a kind of fraud"? Tell me why it was considered by the NewScientist journal as one of the things that "don't make sense"?
Materialist: I don't know. But it doesn't prove that dualism is true.
Survivalist: But it's inconsistent with materialism and consistent with dualism (and some versions panpsychism). Therefore, it's evidence in favor of them and against of materialism.
Materialist: I disagree. Your argument is a version of the "God of the gaps" argument. Basically, you're saying that, as materialism cannot explain the placebo effect, then dualism (and immaterial souls) is true.
Survalist: Read again my above arguments. My argument is NOT that materialism cannot explain it and, by this reason, dualism is true. It's a simplistic and silly argument that not serious person would hold.
My argument is that IF materialism is true, THEN consciousness (and beliefs) are non-efficacious. Therefore, evidence for the efficacy of consciousness is evidence against materialism. And, additionally, as dualism predicts the causal efficacious of consciousness, THEN evidence for such causality is evidence for dualism.
If you cannot understand the logical construction of the above arguments, then I see no sense in continuating this dialogue.
Materalist: I understand your arguments, but I disagree with them.
Survivalist: Fine. But don't misrepresent my arguments, please.
I'd like to know some of your "arsenal" of objections against my position.
Materialist: Good. But you'll have to wait... in this moment I have other things to do, but I promise to return to our interesting discussion.
Survivalist: Fine. And, please, think about this conversation.
TO BE CONTINUED...
-Part 1 of this dialogue here.
Materialist: I've been reflecting on our last discussion, and I believe I've developed an arsenal of powerful objections against your survivalist position.
Survivalist: It's fine. I hope we can examine them together. But before that, I'd like to review some of my conclusions from our last conversation.
I think I demostrated that, regardless of whether survival exist or not, your position is question begging: You assume that the strong dependence of mental states on brain states support the production hypothesis (and I agree!) and seriously undermine the survival hypothesis (I disagree!). In other words, the second part of your argument tacitly assume the truth of the production hypothesis, because your interpret the mind-brain dependence only from a materialistic point of view; without considering non-materialistic alternatives. And assuming materialism alone, you try to use such assumption to refute the non-materialist alternatives that are logically compatible with the observed mind-body dependence.
In summary: your position is question begging because it depends on a materialistic interpretation of observed dependence (concomitant conjunction) of the mind on the brain (and this is why you said that the strong and close dependece of mind on the brain undermine the survivalist position).
But pure observation only tell us that between the mind and the brain exist a connection, a close dependence in the sense that mental states change with brain states, that is, a strong correlation. But the specific nature of that correlation (that is, if this correlation is of a materialistic or non-materialistic kind) is the issue at stake.
Thus, you implicitly and subtly (and cleverly, I admit) beg the question against the survivalist when you invoke "a strong mind-body dependence" assuming a purely materialistic interpretation of that dependence.
Materialist: Well, I don't agree with your "summary" and "conclusions". In any case, in our previous discussion, you said something that left me intrigued.
Survivalist: What?
Materialist: You said that, in support of your position, there is controverial evidence, but also not so controversial evidence. Can you tell me something about these supposed "non controversial evidence" supporting dualism, non-materialism or the afterlife?
Survivalist: Yes. Actually, the evidence supports an implication of dualism (specifically, the implication that if the soul or consciousness exist as a primary entity, then it's causally eficacious on the brain and body). It doesn't support survival per se, but it supports dualism and, by implication, the possibility of an afterlife.
Materialist: What evidence is that?
Survivalist: Placebo effect.
Materialist: Are you kidding me? Lol!!!!!!!! The placebo effect is a well known medical phenomenon and this is absolutetly consistent with materialism.
Survivalist: I don't think so. I'd like to know your materialistic explanation of the placebo effect.
Materialist: The placebo effect is simply the action of the nervous system on the body. The brain is connected with different parts of the body, and the changes in the nervous system (which is material) produces physiological changes on the body (which are material too). You don't have to postulate a "soul" or any "immaterial thing" (A ghost in the machine) to explain that phenomenon.
Survivalist: But you have not explained the placebo effect, only the physical consequences or manifestations of it.
Your basic fallacy consists in an arbitrary redefinition of the actual concept of placebo effect, to exclude the role played by the belief and subvjetivity of the patient, and so making it consistent with your materialistic position.
Let's to examine the definition of the placebo effect. According to wikipedia: "A placebo is a sham medical intervention. In one common placebo procedure, a patient is given an inert sugar pill, told that it may improve his/her condition, but not told that it is in fact inert. Such an intervention may cause the patient to believe the treatment will change his/her condition; and this belief does indeed sometimes have a therapeutic effect, causing the patient's condition to improve. This phenomenon is known as the placebo effect." (emphasis in blue added)
Essential to the definition of the placebo effect is the belief of the patient. And beliefs are subjetive, not objective.
Your fallacy consists in omitting the subjective aspect of the actual definition of the placebo effect (because it's incompatible with your materialistic position) and redefining the concept in terms consistent with your position. (A clever way of begging the question, self-delusion and rationalization due to cognitive dissonance)
Materialist: It's you who are begging the question. You're assuimg that the patient's belief (and not the nervous system) is the cause of the placebo effect.
Survivalist: No, I'm not "assuming" that. I'm ACCEPTING the actual definition of the placebo effect (not forcing a redefinition of it to make it consistent with my position). Read again the definition in wikipedia "this belief does indeed sometimes have a therapeutic effect, causing the patient's condition to improve"
Nobody denies that the nervous system is part of that process. But that process BEGINS when the patient BELIEVE that he's taking a medicine or having some medical intervention. And the consequences of that BELIEF causes changes on the nervous system and on the body.
Let's to use a simple diagram to explain the main essential parts of the placebo effect definition.
Patient's belief (1) -------> Changes on the nervous system (2) ------> Changes on the body (therapeutical effect) (3)
Essential to the definition is step 1. If you disregard step 1, then you're not explaining the WHOLE process of placebo effect according to the actual definition of it, but only its physical/physiological consequences (steps 2 and 3). You're (intentionally?) omitting an essential aspect of the definition (step 1), just because that aspect destroys your position.
As you're a materialist, you believe that beliefs and subjetivity are non-efficacious (and, maybe, non-existent at all), and this is why you're forced to redefine the concept of the placebo effect in terms consistent with your position (that is, admitting only steps 2 and 3). So, you're actually begging the question in your favor, self-deluding yourself, disregarding contrary evidence and the search for the truth and failing to explain the real phenomenon as actually defined.
Materialist: I don't think so. If your argument is right, then mosts scientists would be dualists, not materialists. And they're materialists because they realize that the placebo effect is simply a process that begins in the nervous systems, not in etherical souls or ghosts.
Survivalist: You're seriously misinformed. Consistent materialists fully know that, if materialism is true, then the mind/soul/consciousness cannot be efficacious. But the placebo effect provides prima facie evidence for the causality of consciousness (implying the falsehood of materialism).
This is why consistent materialists HAVE to consider the placebo effect as non-existent (or fradulent); or as a mysterious phenomenon, or (like in your case) to force a redefinition of it that disregard step 1 (patient's beliefs). They have to force (or disregard) the evidence or the definition to accommodate it to their beliefs and worldview.
The placebo effect doesn't make any sense in a materialistic worldview. If materialism is true, we wouldn't expect a phenomenon like that. Consistent materialists concede this.
In 2005, the magazine NewScientist, published an article entitled "13 things that do not make sense", and the placebo effect was the number one on the list. According to the author of the article: "We have a lot to learn about what is happening here, Benedetti says, but one thing is clear: the mind can affect the body's biochemistry. "The relationship between expectation and therapeutic outcome is a wonderful model to understand mind-body interaction," he says. Researchers now need to identify when and where placebo works. There may be diseases in which it has no effect. There may be a common mechanism in different illnesses. As yet, we just don't know"
That "the mind can affect the body's biochemistry" is what we'd expected IF dualism is true (but we won't expect that IF materialism is true).
As has written science journalist Alun Anderson "Trust and belief are often seen as negative in science and the placebo effect is dismissed as a kind of fraud because it relies on the belief of the patient."
Anderson's comments confirm that essential to the definition of the placebo effect is the belief of patients and its causal power. And, as this is inconsistent with materialism, materialists have been forced to "dismissed (it) as a kind of fraud"
If the placebo effect is "simply" an action of the nervous system (and not of the patient's beliefs), tell me why it has been "dismissed as a kind of fraud"? Tell me why it was considered by the NewScientist journal as one of the things that "don't make sense"?
Materialist: I don't know. But it doesn't prove that dualism is true.
Survivalist: But it's inconsistent with materialism and consistent with dualism (and some versions panpsychism). Therefore, it's evidence in favor of them and against of materialism.
Materialist: I disagree. Your argument is a version of the "God of the gaps" argument. Basically, you're saying that, as materialism cannot explain the placebo effect, then dualism (and immaterial souls) is true.
Survalist: Read again my above arguments. My argument is NOT that materialism cannot explain it and, by this reason, dualism is true. It's a simplistic and silly argument that not serious person would hold.
My argument is that IF materialism is true, THEN consciousness (and beliefs) are non-efficacious. Therefore, evidence for the efficacy of consciousness is evidence against materialism. And, additionally, as dualism predicts the causal efficacious of consciousness, THEN evidence for such causality is evidence for dualism.
If you cannot understand the logical construction of the above arguments, then I see no sense in continuating this dialogue.
Materalist: I understand your arguments, but I disagree with them.
Survivalist: Fine. But don't misrepresent my arguments, please.
I'd like to know some of your "arsenal" of objections against my position.
Materialist: Good. But you'll have to wait... in this moment I have other things to do, but I promise to return to our interesting discussion.
Survivalist: Fine. And, please, think about this conversation.
TO BE CONTINUED...
-Part 1 of this dialogue here.
