Mega-thread for help with rebuttals against skeptical talking points

What qualifications?

It's difficult to pin down. I think she's qualified in psychology, and is studying neuroscience? Or vice versa? I know she claims to be proficient in at least one field moreso than the other.

It's difficult to pin down. I think she's qualified in psychology, and is studying neuroscience? Or vice versa? I know she claims to be proficient in at least one field moreso than the other.

Her qualifications seem only as good as anyone else who has read a few articles about the brain?

Probably not as good as the varied persons going back to at least Eccles who've posited soul/body theories [involving quantum biology]. Some of which can be found in this old Skeptiko Resources thread.

My guess is all of these academics know about ATP production in the brain.

I understand that, but I wanted to draw attention to that since I'm not understanding what she means.

I understand that, but I wanted to draw attention to that since I'm not understanding what she means.

Well if you don't know what the argument is it is rather hard to give a refutation.

I'd recommend watching at least to the halfway point in the video after she lets the caller speak again.

I'd recommend watching at least to the halfway point in the video after she lets the caller speak again.

I'd recommend you transcribe the relevant part of the argument, thanks.

So the relevant part starts at around 6:47 in the video. 

• She describes how every conscious property has a neural component to it, and that previous sensory experiences are essential to composing 'the self'.
  
• We require our neuro-anatomy to change, with channels in the brain opening and closing (sodium and potassium ions for example) in order for us to have an experience. ATP is needed for that. 
  
• She doesn't see why anything immaterial is needed in these processes for opening the channels to allow ions to travel in the brain and create the 'active potential' needed to 'think'. 
  
• Therefore she argues there can't be an outside influence to get action potentials in some neurons but not others. It's down to the physical arrangement. 
  

I'm slightly paraphrasing there since she delivers this a bit quickly, but like I said this admittedly is neuroscience-based argument. 

The rest is the usual 'brain damage/lobotomy' argument from the other host.

So the relevant part starts at around 6:47 in the video. 

• She describes how every conscious property has a neural component to it, and that previous sensory experiences are essential to composing 'the self'.
  
• We require our neuro-anatomy to change, with channels in the brain opening and closing (sodium and potassium ions for example) in order for us to have an experience. ATP is needed for that. 
  
• She doesn't see why anything immaterial is needed in these processes for opening the channels to allow ions to travel in the brain and create the 'active potential' needed to 'think'. 
  
• Therefore she argues there can't be an outside influence to get action potentials in some neurons but not others. It's down to the physical arrangement. 
  

I'm slightly paraphrasing there since she delivers this a bit quickly, but like I said this admittedly is neuroscience-based argument. 

The rest is the usual 'brain damage/lobotomy' argument from the other host.

What she seems to be saying here is there's nothing immaterial magically making or moving these components around. These channels need to be opened and closed or have specific chemicals interact with them or make ATP (which is like one of the building blocks that's used to make all this other shit in the body) in order for us to think. Which again, is bad for substance dualism, there's no force we can detect propelling the body around and if you destroy these networks your brain gets fucked up. But for the filter argument which says that these interactions need to happen because they're our kind of conduit with the physical world, or property dualism, or emergent dualism, or idealism, or potentially some new types of substance dualism it doesn't mean much. It kind of brings up a question of do these pathways and neurons think, or do WE think and they merely correlate to what's going on?

So the relevant part starts at around 6:47 in the video. 

• She describes how every conscious property has a neural component to it, and that previous sensory experiences are essential to composing 'the self'.
  
• We require our neuro-anatomy to change, with channels in the brain opening and closing (sodium and potassium ions for example) in order for us to have an experience. ATP is needed for that. 
  
• She doesn't see why anything immaterial is needed in these processes for opening the channels to allow ions to travel in the brain and create the 'active potential' needed to 'think'. 
  
• Therefore she argues there can't be an outside influence to get action potentials in some neurons but not others. It's down to the physical arrangement. 
  

I'm slightly paraphrasing there since she delivers this a bit quickly, but like I said this admittedly is neuroscience-based argument. 

The rest is the usual 'brain damage/lobotomy' argument from the other host.

So ATP is providing energy [whatever that is], but how does providing energy prevent a soul from influencing the body?

Of course this assumes the body/soul relationship is functionally dualist.

Also seems like "Shannon Q" just has an undergrad degree in [psychology]? I suspect she made this ATP argument up and then her fellow skeptics praised her for it and thus she deceived herself into believing she'd said something worthwhile.