The Mystery of Psycho-Physical Harmony

Dr. Brian Cutter and Dr. Dustin Crummett have developed a new argument for the existence of God from something they call "psychophyiscal harmony." Watch the video to find out what this new argument is all about.

edit ->

The argument for God from psychophysical harmony is one of the latest (and strongest) theistic arguments. One of the issues with the argument, however, is that it can be a bit difficult to understand. In this video, I'm joined by Dr. Brian Cutter (one of the paper's authors) to explain this argument in a way that is accessible and easy to understand.

I watched part of each of those videos, and felt more and more confused!

Let me see if I can restate this idea as clearly (to me) as possible.

If dumb materialism is true, then we aren't really aware of anything, we just receive inputs - such as a hot sensation - and we are wired up to respond in the appropriate way - turn down the central heating, or pull away from the stove, as appropriate.

Next we go to slightly less dumb materialism where somehow we have conscious awareness but that has no effect on the physical world (I honestly can't understand anyone believing that, but it has a fancy name - epiphenomenalism - so some people must do). In this case you need a reason why the physical body takes actions appropriate for the mental state, even though you believe that mental state is not causally effective.

Thus you have to believe materialism is false. That may make Christianity or some other religion more plausible, but it also opens up a whole set of other possibilities.

Note that because these people never seem to consider actual evidence for instance for NDEs or reincarnation they never get into the really interesting stuff at all!

David

I watched part of each of those videos, and felt more and more confused!

Let me see if I can restate this idea as clearly (to me) as possible.

If dumb materialism is true, then we aren't really aware of anything, we just receive inputs - such as a hot sensation - and we are wired up to respond in the appropriate way - turn down the central heating, or pull away from the stove, as appropriate.

Next we go to slightly less dumb materialism where somehow we have conscious awareness but that has no effect on the physical world (I honestly can't understand anyone believing that, but it has a fancy name - epiphenomenalism - so some people must do). In this case you need a reason why the physical body takes actions appropriate for the mental state, even though you believe that mental state is not causally effective.

Thus you have to believe materialism is false. That may make Christianity or some other religion more plausible, but it also opens up a whole set of other possibilities.

Note that because these people never seem to consider actual evidence for instance for NDEs or reincarnation they never get into the really interesting stuff at all!

David

I don't think there are many physicalist researchers that are also epiphenomenalists (Evolutionary argument against it being common)
Eliminative materialism is more prominent but still not exactly a majority position.

I don't think there are many physicalist researchers that are also epiphenomenalists (Evolutionary argument against it being common)
Eliminative materialism is more prominent but still not exactly a majority position.

Surely Eliminative materialism was more or less covered by my use of the term "dumb materialism"?

David

Dialogues on Psychophysical Harmony, Part 1

Amos Wollen

=-=-=

Dialogues on Psychophysical Harmony, Part 2

Amos Wollen

I watched part of each of those videos, and felt more and more confused!

Let me see if I can restate this idea as clearly (to me) as possible.

If dumb materialism is true, then we aren't really aware of anything, we just receive inputs - such as a hot sensation - and we are wired up to respond in the appropriate way - turn down the central heating, or pull away from the stove, as appropriate.

Next we go to slightly less dumb materialism where somehow we have conscious awareness but that has no effect on the physical world (I honestly can't understand anyone believing that, but it has a fancy name - epiphenomenalism - so some people must do). In this case you need a reason why the physical body takes actions appropriate for the mental state, even though you believe that mental state is not causally effective.

Thus you have to believe materialism is false. That may make Christianity or some other religion more plausible, but it also opens up a whole set of other possibilities.

Note that because these people never seem to consider actual evidence for instance for NDEs or reincarnation they never get into the really interesting stuff at all!

David

See the links in my post above by Amos Wollen.

It isn't really about materialism specifically, the argument is meant to carry across most metaphysical positions as even in Idealism there could be a gap between your actions and your thoughts as an individual.

I think it's interesting as an argument [even though] it doesn't make me believe in the Omni-God nor am I sure Goff is correct in his belief that this argument is going to "change the world".

The sad part is that I'm pretty sure that after the philosophers finish splitting hairs over this subject, they will mostly stick with materialism. For all their erudite discussions, they seem blind to the obvious truth, and even if they do see the truth, they equate that with Christianity or theism.

Do they ever think beyond and see the rich variety of possibilities that non-materialism offers?

David

The sad part is that I'm pretty sure that after the philosophers finish splitting hairs over this subject, they will mostly stick with materialism. For all their erudite discussions, they seem blind to the obvious truth, and even if they do see the truth, they equate that with Christianity or theism.

Do they ever think beyond and see the rich variety of possibilities that non-materialism offers?

David

The history of philosophy is both long (in terms of time) and wide (in terms of philosophers across the globe).

And philosophers and scientists have shifted away from materialism due to different philosophical arguments.

Now do I think this particular argument will have a big effect? Maybe not, because I think as you point out it's not easy to see what the problem is and, upon seeing it, if the problem is a big deal. But Goff, himself a philosopher who has shifted away from materialism, thinks it is a big deal. World changing in his opinion.

So I guess we'll see what happens...

From Goff's book Why? ->

Of course if something hurts you’re going to avoid it! However, when one very carefully reflects on the matter, in the strange, abstract way that philosophers are trained to do, it becomes apparent that the rationally harmonious alignment between consciousness and behaviour does need explaining. At least it needs explaining if, as a majority of philosophers believe, there’s no logical connection between consciousness and behaviour.34 To explain what I mean by this, let me introduce you to another of my imaginary friends: Inverted Ian. Inverted Ian feels a strong conscious aversion to burgers and a strong conscious desire to be hacked into little pieces. However, Inverted Ian lives in a parallel universe, and the laws of nature in Ian’s universe are different to the laws of nature in our world. In Ian’s world, a conscious aversion to something causes you to seek it out, whilst a conscious attraction to something causes you to try to avoid it. As a result, Inverted Ian ends up behaving just like a person does in our world if they have an immense appetite for burgers and a normal fear of being chopped up.

There is obviously something absurd about Inverted Ian. But what is it...

What’s absurd with Inverted Ian is that he behaves in a way that is rationally inappropriate, given his experience. If you strongly dislike something, it is rational (all things being equal) to avoid it; if you really like something, it is rational (all things being equal) to pursue it. It is such an obvious mundane fact of life that humans and non-human animals respond rationally in at least this basic sense, that we take it entirely for granted; we take it as not needing explanation. But it does need explanation. If there is no logical connection between our experience and the behaviour that results from it, why would it be that conscious experience and behaviour line up in a rationally appropriate way? If we just live in a fundamentally meaningless universe where what stuff does is determined by mathematical laws of nature, why should the behaviour that conscious states produce respect norms of rationality?

Recording of a talk given at the Panpsychism: Problems and Prospects conference, hosted by the Cambridge Centre for the Study of Platonism on Monday 19th June 2023.