Swinburne and O'Connor on Neuroscience and the Soul (Full Interview)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 ธ.ค. 2012
- CCT Associate Director Steve Porter interviews Richard Swinburne (Emeritus Nolloth Professor of the Christian Religion, Oxford University) and Tim O'Connor (Professor of Philosophy, Indiana University) on neuroscience and the soul.
This video is provided by Biola University's Center for Christian Thought. Learn more at cct.biola.edu.
![[TH] Esports World Cup : Point Rush Stage](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eLU-jnYp3Zs/mqdefault.jpg)
Swinburne’s lucid reasoning is rare among today’s academics.
I love these conversations between brethren; watching in 2017!
Tim rocking the Jerusalem bc 11’s
And if that weren't enough, Swinburne knew victory was assured when the other guy showed up in sandals :(
Exactly!
@@jorgen-55 Research has shown that closed-toe beats open-toe in any debate. Trust the Science.
Idealism is the answer. Bernardo Kastrup lays it out nicely. Very compatible with the truth of Christianity.
I always think these kinds of discussions should just lead with answering the question on what source of knowledge holds greatest epistemic authority.
It's clear that Tim is guided by a heavier reliance upon the scientific enterprise. I chuckled how Tim dances so articulately around his explanation that we are only physical organisms. I'm watching this screaming in my mind, "Just be straightforward and say that you think we're just physical organisms and nothing more!"
I´m just watching this again after two years, and see that I´ve come a long way in some ways. Just 20 minutes in this second time around, I see that relevant additional information is necessary, since Swinburne is relying mostly on his perception of logical coherence, while Oconnor is within his.
Your point about "epistemic authority" pretty much requires actual scoping out of what I see as the multidisciplinary field, the full range of available information. Testimonies of life-after-death events when kids die, one with pennies appearing, and a signature in a wake book, on It´s a Miracle, for example. Spiritists argue for some kind of "transmigrating soul", and reincarnation studies at UVA lend credence to that.
However, that´s about an interacting process. Simply acknowledging the philosophical and the metaphysical and spiritual-religious transcendental WITH scientific knowledge is the basic objective. God needs us as part of His Created Universe, as much as we are an evolved part of His Creation and in need of His orientation.
Chinese Christian philosopher Watchman Nee clearly described humans as being tripartite, reflecting the trinitarian nature of God and paralleling the 3 states of matter ( solid liquid gas) etc.
He described us as having a Body, Soul and Spirit and each of these having tripartite subdivisions. . The body is self explanatory. The Spirit relates to our communication with God, Conscience, Communion etc and the Soul (Will, emotions, Mind) is our person and the meeting place of body and spirit. 40 years since I looked at this but it's very much worth looking at, insightful and withstands scrutiny.
I agree..
I only scrolled down to see the comments made concerning the fellow with sandals.
Richard Swinburne is beast
Do you mean "... is a beast" or "is the best of the two"?
he also wins because of his voice.
Like he’s got Frankenstein in his basement
Oconnors view is seriously vulnerable to a key challenge: What support does he present for his claim that this"emergent" property of mental states cannot be reduced to physical states, if they do not exist as a soul or a separate autonomous entity? It seems he wants to have his cake and eat it too...
Wetness of water is an emergent property, among a number. Biology is an emergent system from chemistry, which is from physics. "Separate" meaning DISTINCT might said of them as phenomena and the knowledge we develop. "Autonomous" only in a limited sense. The "soul" needs to be evaluated at least as "mind," since that IS studied as a separate and distinct phenomena and knowledge-system. NDE´s give us spiritual-religious phenomena of out-of-body and afterlife contexts, with verifiable information empirical. Emergence IS a phenomena of non-reducibility, but not necessarily absolute discontinuity. The human mind involves personality and cognitive-heavy production of artifacts like Plato´s documents or Stephen King´s books, along with the soulful NDE´s. Those products are discontinuous, ie separate and autonomous contexts in representations as documents, and as an immaterial living personality entity in NDE´s. The soul.
"Separate, autonomous" embodiment is NOT merely an assumption, therefore. Ian Stevenson´s legacy at UVA, now with B Greyson, J Turner and so on have studied NDEs, etc. THAT´s empirical evidence with appropriate knowledge domain insight, and establishes a "non-biological-immaterially-alive" context that clarifies referents for brain, mind, and soul. (edited....)
@@robinhoodstfrancison an unrelated note, a sizable amount of people unfortunately fail to realize that wetness is an emergent property of water.
@@lbfather I guess you changed your tag. Well, it´s a lighter note, and what I´d say heading towards quality comedy, especially since it´s not so unrelated. It´s a pretty important point, actually. I love to intellectualize, but that includes my having engaged extensively in living, although I have not lost my love of University-based culture.
Riding with the lighter note for a moment, "Hey, I heard this guy talking about emergent properties, that wetness is an emergent property of water. So, there I was, looking at my hands in the bathroom, and thinking, 'Wow, this water isn´t just H2O anymore.'" lol
Unfortunately, indeed. Which gets at the beauty of the complexity in reality. The Buddha has a great point, that goes something like, the interrelatedness of everything is why emptiness is so radiant and joyful.
And that involves the way ideological forms of materialism, like the perception of "water" as an object in "science," involve overused cognitive thinking. "Wetness" is usually subsumed, with the object, although it is a multidimensional aspect touching on human psychological, philosophical perceptual experience. It´s also got metaphorical associations getting into human symbol use and the experience of the human mind.
So, I´d say you´re on to something.....
Not only is there confusion over how to interpret Aristotle's distinction between the soul and the rational intellect, but more importantly I don't see how this would instantly resolve the problems Swinburne and O'Connor are discussing, as you imply it would. But, then, I never spent much time on hylomorphism. Can you please elaborate on its contribution to this discussion?
Interesting. Hylomorphism is defined by Aristotle as a combination of matter and immaterial form It can be argued that he was referring to "energy". However, the problem of modern methodological naturalism has created an inclination in scientists and their fans for metaphysical naturalism. Metaphysical naturalism is an ideological belief, often expressed indirectly and in oppositional views of anti-theism and "science supremacism." Understanding that Aristotle argued for a First Cause and a concept of an esoteric eternal god, we see what religious scholar Ninian Smart might be touching on with his rejection of atheist assumptions. M Eliade´s recognition of the sacred, as well, might apply. I have been referring to spiritual-religious phenomena, which would involve a perception of the continuity of phenomena experienced by an individual, involving the projection of the "sacred," for example.
I see that formal discussions of Aristotle´s concept get into soul-body distinctions. T Aqunas, and more.
Richard clearly articulated in plain english what he believes.When asked to spell out hat his view is, Tim talked a whole lot of gobbledegook that didn't really seem like a clear view of anything.
That´s an odd view, to me as an empirical theist. Tim is quite clear in his empirical thinking and emergentism. Swind´s position fails to distinguish mind and soul. They´re ultimately compatible.
4:30, 4:35 D:
Swinburne wins because of his hair cut.
I think that while my soul is connected to or assigned to my body, I use my brain to think. I cannot think without it. If my brain is injured, my ability to think will be inhibited. It's the same for any other member of my body. If my eyes are destroyed I can't see. If I become a quadriplegic, I can't use my arms and legs. But, some day I'll die. Jesus said that if I am not born again, my body and my soul will go to hell. There, I would continue to use my brain to think. If I'm born again, I am given a spirit. In that case, I would use my spirit to think. To be honest, I'm just thinking out loud.
I love Swinburne but his constant looking at the ground when he talks is a little disconcerting. He is probably kinesthetic in his neuro processing (according to NLP) but I need some eye contact please!
7:00'minutes in Richard closes his eyes, folds his hand, drops his head, and proceeds to take a nap.
Not really but it looks this way.
That helps him concentrate on his thoughts, I suppose, or he's just a shy person
@@ubergenie6041 Stop whining. Punk.
He's trying hard not to comment on the sandals.
Soul ? Surly it's just consciousness
whose consciousness?
Fax no printer
Sponsored by Dasani
This is southern California, so what's wrong with sandals? Would you rather see him in gum-boots? His hair cut is perfectly fine in my view and so is his voice. Whereas the interviewer seems kind of uninterested, and Richard Swinburne absent-minded. Nothing against Swinburne, really, but I wouldn't have watched this if he'd been alone.
Man, the more I listen to “religious people,” especially the more intelligent they are, the more I’m convinced that delusion and religion can’t be separated no matter how intelligent we are.
Got proof of the alleged soul?
Just define soul the same way you would the mind
Christianity, alike those other 2 Semite religions, pretends that merely one
single human life does exist, and that only thanks to some Jew, (born some
2000 years ago), including his 'sacrifice to save' one's individual SELF-Soul,
one is able to reincarnate ... somewhere. There is a huge difference between
this non-physical (!), timeless and aware wisdom of one's intuitive, only felt
SELF-Soul and one's physical brain's mind-consciousness, this 'Holy spirit'
of matter, always dying. That's why Christianity insists that one has to be
"SELF(-Soul)-less, emphasizing this egocentrism of it's theological elites.
Continuously this word-concept of one's eternal SELF-SOUL and one's short-
lived, conscious human EGO is exchanged, to augment faiths-confusions.
There is no soul