Hi Ian, thanks for the submission, but I think the argument for a Cartesian soul has to be better made than just saying 'for all we know, it's possible'. Why should someone believe such a thing, eg why should someone overturn their materialism? 'Because we don't know how consciousness works' does not seem strong enough, as that leaves various other options open too. In any case, we're just finishing putting together an issue on mind and self, so we wouldn't really want to cover this again in the foreseeable future. But thanks for thinking of us.
Regards
Grant Bartley
Editor
As a preliminary, I should note that the time between the time I sent my essay via email, and this response scarcely gave him enough time to read it; at best he skim read it. This suspicion is reinforced by the fact his comments reveal he simply hasn't assimilated what I have said at all.
In my responses I'll largely simply be repeating what I said in my essay. Let's dissect his remarks one by one. He said:
I think the argument for a Cartesian soul has to be better made than just saying 'for all we know, it's possible'.
I actually argue that the certainly amongst the scholarly community and educated people that we cease to exist when we die cannot be justified. And that is all I argue -- certainly I do not argue for a Cartesian soul. Indeed, I'm not even arguing for any type of afterlife, just that it's not so unlikely as people tend to maintain.
He also said:
Why should someone believe such a thing, eg why should someone overturn their materialism?
He means why should anyone believe in an afterlife, why not continue to believe in something like materialism? But my whole essay addresses this very issue, which he has simply completely ignored. To repeat: my argument wasn't for an afterlife, my argument was that the mind-body correlations do not suffice to give near certainty that there is no afterlife. This is contrary to what most educated people believe.
As for materialism, this is a position that people are forced to subscribe to if they both believe that the brain must create consciousness, yet also realise that consciousness (as conceived by commonsense) cannot in principle be derived from any material processes. Materialism essentially denies the very existence of consciousness as we tend to think it -- that is it denies we have qualitative subjective experiences such as the experience of colour and so on; at best such experiences are illusionary. But, in order to believe this extraordinary unlikely hypothesis, they need to be convinced that the brain must create consciousness. However, the main part of my essay argues that this is precisely what they shouldn't be convinced of.
He also said:
""'Because we don't know how consciousness works' does not seem strong enough, as that leaves various other options open too.""
Of course I am not saying that at all. I argued that it seems we cannot in principle explain consciousness. Saying we "don't know how consciousness works" suggests that in principle consciousness can be derived from physical processes, we just don't know how yet. This, though, is a direct denial of my argument, but without explaining how my argument errs.
And if consciousness cannot be derived from physical processes, how do we know it is parasitic on such physical processes? Of course, there are other options compatible with no afterlife, but so what? He is expressing the very common view that in order to show that a near certainty in the existence of x is not justified, one must provide strong arguments that x doesn't exist. This is, of course, ludicrous. I need do no such thing. I do not have to demonstrate the reality of an afterlife in order to dismiss the idea that the mind-body correlations provide overwhelming evidence that there is no afterlife.
I did point out to Grant Bartley that his comments were already comprehensively addressed in my essay, and that given he also took just 5 minutes to respond, I can only conclude he took the barest of glimpses of my essay before responding. He denies this, and he also said that if he doesn't understand my essay, then there's precious little chance that the readers of Philosophy Now will understand it. Well, I've also published my essay in a couple of facebook groups. I've had virtually no responses, but one person, a certain Alan Hugenot, in one group commented:
Unfortunately, Your thesis ignores the facts. I am a scientist who is also a medium. Check out this video and then re think your BELIEF that consciousness is a by-product of the brain. Maybe the brain is just a filter for consciousness existing outside the physical.
He also provided a youtube link which, I believe, features him (I haven't looked at it)
Another person, a certain Heather Barden Koellein, in another facebook group said:
Read books by Dr Brian Weiss,a prominent psychiatrist very educated in the best schools,was totally skeptical until one of his clients proved that it exists. It took work with many patients using regression to convince him.
So, Grant Bartley the editor (or one of the editors) of Philosophy Now, misunderstands my essay. He thinks I'm arguing that the Cartesian soul exists, and that if materialism is incorrect, there must be an afterlife. These other 2 people also misunderstand my essay, but in a completely differing way. They think I'm actually arguing against an afterlife!
I do not believe it is plausible that my writing is so wretchedly unclear that if people had actually carefully read my essay, that they could possibly believe I am saying what they currently think I'm saying. This is especially so since they are coming to such diverse conclusions as to my actual position (all of which are incorrect). No, it is abundantly clear to me that these people have only given the briefest perusal of my essay, then leapt to conclusions about my message. This is especially reprehensible in the case of Grant Bartley since he is the editor of Philosophy Now.
