Anaesthesia and the soul

http://www.anesthesiaweb.org/anesthesia-...e-soul.php


I was reading a thread from about a month ago here about anesthesia and consciousness, and in a search for some dualist interpretations of the idea (I'm more of an idealist), I came across this article. Took me a second to realize from the plug for to see the book Illusory Souls that skeptic Gerald Woerlee is the mind behind this article. 

Is it me or is he attacking only a very specific version of dualism here? He seems to think that because drugs can interrupt certain mental processes, that it means it must absolutely be a sign of brain produced consciousness. More recent models of dualism seem to be perfectly untouched by this notion. "Interaction" dualism or whatever it's called.

Caricature of dualism

If we compare its contents with those of Mortal Minds, Woerlee hardly reaches any new insights in his new book. He continues to be the same zealous proponent of what one may call "humanistic materialism." And he still shows the same major misconceptions about what would characterize (substantialist) mind-body dualism for its defenders. To mention an example of this: he claims that mind-body dualism would imply that the soul cannot in any way be influenced or affected by processes in the brain. This view is only characteristic of so-called 'parallellistic' dualists, who believe that brain processes and mental processes run parallel to each other without any type of interaction. All interactionistic dualists do in fact start from an interaction between brain and psyche. In other words, Woerlee offers his readers a real caricature, or what is usually called 'straw man', of dualism.
Thus, Woerlee claims that dualists would believe that any function they ascribe to the soul, such as perception and memory, could never be disturbed by physiological processes in the brain and that this could be demonstrated scientifically. Therefore, if it turns out that a particular function can indeed be influenced by what is happening in the brain, for Woerlee, this would prove that this function cannot be located in the soul, but exclusively in the brain. Among other things, this leads to the remarkable statement that it has been empirically demonstrated that the soul cannot possess its own memory bank nor memories of a spiritual realm or previous lives.

Seems Titus Rivas already pointed something similar to this out

http://www.anesthesiaweb.org/anesthesia-...e-soul.php


I was reading a thread from about a month ago here about anesthesia and consciousness, and in a search for some dualist interpretations of the idea (I'm more of an idealist), I came across this article. Took me a second to realize from the plug for to see the book Illusory Souls that skeptic Gerald Woerlee is the mind behind this article. 

Is it me or is he attacking only a very specific version of dualism here? He seems to think that because drugs can interrupt certain mental processes, that it means it must absolutely be a sign of brain produced consciousness. More recent models of dualism seem to be perfectly untouched by this notion. "Interaction" dualism or whatever it's called.

Woerlee started going on about this several years ago, I think it was around 2012/13 when some uncomfortable facts he didn't like, appeared. His "proof" basically amounts to this. If the soul exists and it's not physical, how can it be turned off by general anaesthesia ?

Firstly, no one (not even Gerry) knows how anaesthesia actually works, only that it does. And there are numerous cases of patients under the very deepest anaesthesia where their brain waves are essentially flat, who have reported being conscious and out of their bodies at the same time.

It's just that Gerry denies that these cases actually happened like that and insists (without any justification or evidence) they must have had anaesthesia awareness. How can you argue with tactics like that.

Lots of physical events affect our consciousness don’t they from concussion to brain tumours, urinary tract infections, drugs etc.

I can’t see why anaesthesia is any different from any of those factors? Do they suggest brain=mind? Well yes, I think they do and that might be ‘case closed’ if they were the only evidence - but they’re not. 

The simple brain=mind argument may be simple indeed however it does not account for all the evidence, and cannot therefore be correct as far as I can see. 

It occurs to me that this explains the powerful need by materialists to support brain=mind. Even admitting the possibility that it isn’t a true representation and that there may be some other model, cannot be countenanced and that means automatically rejecting NDEs, OOBEs and ADCs by any means, no matter how poorly they explain explain the reported facts.

Lots of physical events affect our consciousness don’t they from concussion to brain tumours, urinary tract infections, drugs etc.

I can’t see why anaesthesia is any different from any of those factors? Do they suggest brain=mind? Well yes, I think they do and that might be ‘case closed’ if they were the only evidence - but they’re not. 

The simple brain=mind argument may be simple indeed however it does not account for all the evidence, and cannot therefore be correct as far as I can see. 

It occurs to me that this explains the powerful need by materialists to support brain=mind. Even admitting the possibility that it isn’t a true representation and that there may be some other model, cannot be countenanced and that means automatically rejecting NDEs, OOBEs and ADCs by any means, no matter how poorly they explain explain the reported facts.

My question is this though. I've heard more than one person say that all of this still (the effects of drugs, etc) works inside an idealist and even a dualist interpretation. Does anyone agree with that?

My question is this though. I've heard more than one person say that all of this still (the effects of drugs, etc) works inside an idealist and even a dualist interpretation. Does anyone agree with that?

What’s the difference?

What’s the difference?

One model says that brain not only contributes to the mind, but produces the mind and without the brain nothing exists. The other two say that the brain has an effect on the mind, but the mind doesn't rely on the brain to exist and can work beyond it. I guess the allowance for non local effects is the difference

One model says that brain not only contributes to the mind, but produces the mind and without the brain nothing exists. The other two say that the brain has an effect on the mind, but the mind doesn't rely on the brain to exist and can work beyond it. I guess the allowance for non local effects is the difference

Ok thanks. I’m not sure how what I’ve written doesn’t answer your question.

Ok thanks. I’m not sure how what I’ve written doesn’t answer your question.

On a second reading of your first reply, I see your point. My bad!