DOCSLIB.ORG

Susan Blackmore Source URL

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Susan Blackmore Source URL Can a Person be a Soul?: Susan Blackmore Source URL: https://www.closertotruth.com/interviews/1847 Transcript - Long Robert Lawrence Kuhn: Sue, the postulate of an immortal soul is very significant for those people who believe in God. Now that's part of what we call the mind/body problem. I'm an old neurophysiologist and so I'm very familiar with how the brain works. But help us understand the issue of that question, is there an immortal soul in terms of the mind/body problem? Susan Blackmore: I think we have to start from how it feels. It feels like there's an immortal soul. It feels as though what's important about me is that I'm conscious. There's things I'm conscious of and there's me. And that me is something that feels as though it lives in the body and has free will and can, you know, make my arms move, that sort of thing. It just seems to feel that way. There are lots of reasons in the evolutionary theory why it should feel that way. But, you then go and look in the brain and what do you find? I mean, you know what you'll see in there, don't you? Robert Lawrence Kuhn: Right. Susan Blackmore: Actually, I've never looked in my own brain, but you will see a great kind of porridgey mass in there of billions of neurons connected up in billions of ways. How can a soul be that? The more we understand about the brain the further neurophysiology and neuroscience progresses, the less room there is for a soul. Or even room for self. Because all of the jobs that were previously given to the soul, being conscious, causing actions, thinking, having insight, thinking up new ideas, being creative, all of those things. We, we are beginning to see how the brain does them. Also, there's no middle. The concept of the soul is very much related to the idea that stuff comes into me and I'm conscious of it and then I decide what to do. As though, there's a sort of middle or a top where I am. But the brain isn't organized that way. It's massive parallel, lots and lots of different things all going on at once with no middle. So, this huge clash between neuroscience and how it feels. Robert Lawrence Kuhn: And so that's the genesis of the problem. Susan Blackmore: That's the genesis, the genesis of the problem goes way, way back. Long before people knew anything about neurophysiology and how the brain works. They still could see there was a mind/body problem in the sense that, you know, there's all these physical things and hands and arms that move a bit like machinery. And there's also experience. So, the origin is long before neurophysiology. But interestingly, neurophysiology seems to make the problem worse, not better. It's as though it's kind of pushing us and pushing us and pushing us to realize that we've got a completely wrong view. We need a massive paradigm shift. You know, the old-fashioned view is absolutely I'm a spirit or a soul and I'm important and I'm, you know, I might even live forever. That's the kind of starting point for all human cultures. And science is forcing us, forcing us, and forcing us, and forcing us, as it forced us to see that the earth is not the center of the universe and, you know, we're not the only reason for life on this planet. It's forcing us, I think, to come to that truth. We're not, we're not a spirit, we're not a soul, we're not even a little self-inhabiting our brains. Robert Lawrence Kuhn: The more sophisticated arguments today start by saying that I look at your beautiful coat, that I'm, I'm perceiving the colors and the reds. And yet if you look at my brain at that same time and had billions of electrodes and to billions of neurons, you would see a lot of spikes and a lot of activity that would directly relate to it. Susan Blackmore: Yeah. Robert Lawrence Kuhn: But spikes and, and evoke potentials and electrical responses in that description is not in any way the same kind of description of what I'm seeing. The two have, are totally different. They may be 100% coral, there may be cause and effect. But there is absolutely no similarity in the descriptor of each. That's where the argument starts today. Susan Blackmore: That's how it seems, and that's a wonderful explanation of why it's a mystery. So how do we get out of that? It's an extraordinary position that we're forced into, isn't it? Robert Lawrence Kuhn: Right, right. Susan Blackmore: How can neuron firings be your experience of this red? And yours might be different from mine. Robert Lawrence Kuhn: Right, right. \[page\] Susan Blackmore: How do we get out of those traps? I think we get, we got into them by thinking about ourselves in completely the wrong way. And we've got to get out of that somehow. So, is it possible to give up the idea that there's a little self in here or that there's free will? The things that tie us endlessly round in that trap. And I think it is. I think there are two ways we have to do this. One is the science. The more neurophysiology we do, the starker the problem comes. And we just keep doing it and keep doing it until we really know exactly what's happening when you're looking at the red thing. The other thing I think we do is work with our own experience. So, I've been meditating for nearly 25 years now. I do a lot of meditation as a way of training the mind to look. Well, what is it like to look at red? It's easy enough to just go, oh I know what it's like to see red. But actually, odd things start to happen. Take interesting drugs, try all kinds of mind altering techniques. Do all sorts of things to try and actually say, well, what is it like to see red, or to experience this amazing museum? How can we bring those two things together? Now I think when you let go of the idea that there's a little self in here and let go of the idea that there's free will and that I am a free thing in here that's doing stuff, and actually just behave as though it's all just the universe doing its stuff, the problem begins to ease a little. Somehow that's the way we need to go. Robert Lawrence Kuhn: Well, what does that mean, the universe doing its stuff? Susan Blackmore: There's not separate souls and spirits. Okay, if there aren't, that's what the science seems to be telling us. Let's try and live that way. So right now, I'm not thinking, in here is not thinking, oh I am now doing a TV interview. Rather it's all happening. This TV interview is happening. There's all just stuff pointlessly going on. Robert Lawrence Kuhn: You don't have to be unkind about TV. That's not that pointless. It has a little bit of a point. Susan Blackmore: What I mean is, what I mean is, gosh, this is taking us a long way in the sense from the mind/body problem, but it's all tied up with it. I think from the science that I know and all those years of studying this stuff, that this is a pointless universe. We are here for no reason at all. We evolved the way we did because of the, the happenstance of the way this planet is, and it is all just stuff happening. Everything happens because of what happened before, and it's that kind of a universe. Robert Lawrence Kuhn: And you're completely convinced that we can explain everything about out self-consciousness, our mental life, by what resides exclusively in our heads. Susan Blackmore: Well I think we will but not as a materialist. I mean, that's the trouble. People so often, when they say that, I think they mean, oh well we'll get rid of consciousness. We'll explain it away and it'll all be matter. But that won't work. Somehow, we have to see through the duality. I don't know how we're going to do it, but I know certain things won't work. You know, inventing spirits and souls that can't be found, for goodness sake, I spent 25 years as a parapsychologist looking for those things. Robert Lawrence Kuhn: And we loved you for it. Susan Blackmore: Thank you. But I was hit again and again and again with the facts. I mean, it's not like that. You know, I couldn't find any telepathy, I couldn't find any clairvoyance, I couldn't find any evidence of life after death. All the evidence, again and again, just disappeared the deeper I looked into it. So, I think, you know, we are forced to try to understand it without recourse to all those kinds of things.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Soul-Hypothesis
    Thomas Metzinger The pre-scientific concept of a “soul”: A neurophenomenological hypothesis about its origin 1 In this contribution I will argue that our traditional, folk-phenomenological concept of a “soul” may have its origins in accurate and truthful first-person reports about the experiential content of a specific neurophenomenological state-class. This class of phenomenal states is called the “Out-of-body experience” (OBE hereafter), and I will offer a detailed description in section 3 of this paper. The relevant type of conscious experience seems to possess a culturally invariant cluster of functional and phenomenal core properties: it is a specific kind of conscious experience, which can in principle be undergone by every human being. I propose that it probably is one of the most central semantic roots of our everyday, folk-phenomenological idea of what a soul actually is. Interestingly, from a historical perspective, present day philosophical and scientific discussions of mind have developed from a proto-concept of “mind” that bears great similarity to the folk-phenomenological notion of a “soul” just mentioned. This proto- concept of mind is a mythical, traditionalistic, animistic and quasi-sensory theory about what it means to have a mind. Just like the folk-phenomenological notion of a “soul” it can be found in many different cultures. It has a semantic core, which corresponds to the 1 I want to thank Sue Blackmore and Peter Brugger for critical comments on earlier versions of this paper; and Ernst Waelti for the permission to use his figures and many stimulating discussions. 2 functional and phenomenological profile of the naïve notion of a “soul”.
    [Show full text]
  • The Meme Machine
    spring books dimensions — the four dimensions of rela- zero) has always provoked the question of properties of replication, variation and tivistic space–time and six others of which whether spin is a property of particles or of competition is a “selfish replicator” that can we are unaware. Thus there is room for space. The materialization of particles from spread through populations by an analogue ample orthogonality to generate selection apparently empty space is similarly provok- of natural selection. Memes qualify as repli- rules that prevent bizarre happenings ing. String theory neatly answers them all. cators because bits of culture can be copied between particles. So what lies ahead? Not even Greene is by imitation and compete with other units The most persuasive part of Greene’s sure. String theory may not turn out to be for human attention. Thus, despite the dif- excellent book is that in which he persuades the cat’s whiskers he hopes. There are alter- ferences between memes and genes (genes, the reader that the problem of the six hidden natives, such as Roger Penrose’s twistor the- for example, are almost never passed to dimensions is not a problem but a matter of ory (which Greene reckons may say the same unrelated individuals), those memes most perspective. A garden hose seen from a great as strings). The most imaginative suggestion easily replicated and mimicked could prolif- distance looks like a one-dimensional object, in this imaginative book is that the time has erate, causing swift and important cultural but close up it is plainly a two-dimensional come to solve problems of quantum gravity change.
    [Show full text]
  • Dennett's Theory of the Folk Theory of Consciousness
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Philsci-Archive Dennett’s Theory of the Folk Theory of Consciousness1 Justin Sytsma Abstract: It is not uncommon to find assumptions being made about folk psychology in the discussions of phenomenal consciousness in philosophy of mind. In this article I consider one example, focusing on what Dan Dennett says about the “folk theory of consciousness.” I show that he holds that the folk believe that qualities like colors that we are acquainted with in ordinary perception are phenomenal qualities. Nonetheless, the shape of the folk theory is an empirical matter and in the absence of empirical investigation there is ample room for doubt. Fortunately, experimental evidence on the topic is now being produced by experimental philosophers and psychologists. This article contributes to this growing literature, presenting the results of six new studies on the folk view of colors and pains. I argue that the results indicate against Dennett’s theory of the folk theory of consciousness. The existence of phenomenal consciousness is often taken for granted in the philosophical and scientific literature on the topic. Sometimes, this attitude is supported by claims that phenomenal consciousness is in some way evident in our ordinary experience itself.2 The prevalence of this attitude can also be seen in the way that some skeptics about phenomenal consciousness discuss the supposed phenomenon. For example, the qualia eliminativist Dan Dennett seems to accept that belief in qualia is part of our “folk theory of consciousness” (2005, 31). In contrast, I have argued that phenomenal consciousness is not evident in ordinary experience alone—that it is not phenomenologically obvious—and that this can be drawn out by 1 To appear in the Journal of Consciousness Studies.
    [Show full text]
  • PHIL 306: Philosophy of Mind Introduction: Course Requirements: Materials
    PHIL 306: Philosophy of Mind Fall 2016, MWF, 8:35—9:25, Currie 408/9 (Note: Conferences will replace the Friday lecture starting the week of Sep 12-16) Instructor: Robert Stephens Email: [email protected] Office: LEA916 Office hrs: Fridays 13:00-15:00, or by appointment Teaching assistants: Karina Vold Andre Martin [email protected] [email protected] Introduction: In this course, we will examine some of the major questions concerning the nature and functioning of the mind, as discussed in contemporary philosophy and cognitive science. What exactly is a mind? Where is it located? What is it composed of? How is it organized? How does it work? What are its limitations? We will look at a number of theories that attempt to answer various aspects of these questions, and we will zero in on a number of current philosophical debates that have grown out of and intertwined with these discussions. Some of the specific issues we will encounter include: o Is the mind something physical or not? Is my mind simply my brain? Or is it a product of my brain? Or is it something more than my physical brain? o Where does the mind fit into our scientific understanding of ourselves and our world? o What is the relationship between mind and behavior? How does mental causation work? o Do minds require brains? Or could there be many different sorts of minds? Artificial minds? o What is required for thinking? Language? Perception? Memory? Sensation? o Is the mind like a sort of computer? Or is that a misleading metaphor? o What are the different sorts of mental states? What characterizes and/or constitutes them? o What are concepts? How are they formed? How are they stored? How are they accessed? o How do we explain consciousness? Is consciousness necessarily subjective? o What role does the body play in the composition of mind? What about the environment? o What can delusions and other pathological mental states teach us about the nature of mind? Course Requirements: The reading load in this course is fairly demanding.
    [Show full text]
  • Religion & Philosophy
    Religion & Philosophy Books – General The Ego and the Id, Sigmund Freud Conscience: A Very Short Introduction, Paul Strohm On Liberty, J S Mill The Body and Society, Peter Brown Letters and Papers from Prison, Dietrich Bonhoeffer The Autobiography of Saint Teresa, Allison Peers Consciousness: An Introduction, Susan Blackmore The City of God, St Augustine The Concept of Mind, Gilbert Ryle Summa Theologiae, Aquinas The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins Natural Theology, Paley The Major Works, Anselm of Canterbury Books – Religion Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, David Christian Theology, Alister McGrath Hume A Theology: The Basics, Alister McGrath The Cost of Discipleship, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Books - Philosophy Jesus Through the Centuries, Jaroslav Pelikan An Introduction to Plato’s Republic, Julia Annas The Shadow of the Galilean, Gerd Theissen The Republic, Plato Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI Physics, Aristotle Issues in Human Sexuality, Church of England House of Bishops Metaphysics, Aristotle De Concordia, Anselm of Canterbury Principles of Philosophy, Rene Descartes The Coherence of Theism, Richard Swinburne Language, Truth and Logic, A J Ayer Principles of Christian Theology, John Macquarrie Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein Dynamics of Faith, Paul Tillich A Critique of Pure Reason, Kant Catechism of the Catholic Church Varieties of Religious Experience, William James Books – Philosophy of Religion Philosophy of Religion: A Guide and Anthology, Brian Davies God Talk is Evidently Nonsense, A J Ayer Consolation of Philosophy,
    [Show full text]
  • The Science Studio with Daniel Dennett
    The Science Studio With Daniel Dennett ROGER BINGHAM: My guest today in the Science Studio is Dan Dennett, who is the professor of philosophy and co-director for the Center For Cognitive Studies at Tufts University, co-founder and co-director of the Curricula Software Studio at Tufts, and he helped design museum exhibits on computers for the Smithsonian, the Museum of Science in Boston, and the Computer Museum in Boston. But more importantly he’s known as the author of many books, including most recently Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. So, Dan Dennett, let me just take you back to an interview, because this is Beyond Belief Two: Enlightenment 2.0. You were supposed to have been at the first meeting last year. There’s an interview that you did some time ago with our old friend, Susan Blackmore, where she asked you “I assume you don’t believe in God; do you think anything of the person survives physical death?” You got very close to physical death about a year ago. DANIEL DENNETT: I did, yeah. BINGHAM: Would you like to recount that wonderful experience? DENNETT: I had had a triple bypass in ‘99, but I was fine; I was in good shape. But then I had a so-called aortic dissection. My aorta, the main pipe from the heart up to the rest of the body, sort of blew out. It was held together by the scar tissue from the old operation; that’s what saved my life, first. And so I had that all replaced - I now have a Dacron aorta and a carbon fiber aortic valve, and I’m fine, as you can see.
    [Show full text]
  • 2006, in Science & Theology News Online, a Response to A
    Science & Theology News http://www.stnews.org/print.php?article_id=2869 Daniel C. Dennett: Religion’s just a survival meme Daniel C. Dennett, director of Tufts University’s Center for Cognitive Studies, stands up for his book By Daniel C. Dennett (June 16, 2006) In his critique of my recent book, Breaking the Spell, Alister McGrath is pounding on an open door. Yes, of course, scientific ideas are memes and atheism is a meme. That’s not the point. The point is not to criticize anything by calling it a meme. On the contrary, it is to provide an explanatory basis. So, of course, psychologist and memeticist Susan Blackmore was right to say that atheism is a meme. How many of you readers think there are words? How many of you think that words are in your ontology? Do you believe in words, or are you not so sure that words exist? I think words exist, but if you think about them, they are extremely puzzling. What are they made of? They are not sounds. They’re not made of ink. It turns out that the concept of a word is abstract. They are so familiar to us that we don’t tend to realize how strange words are as a category. If you believe in words then you believe in memes because words are memes that can be pronounced. Then there are memes that can’t be pronounced, like fashions and other behaviors. And then there are large complexes of memes. The existence of memes is not in doubt at all.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 2 - Connect with Your University
    Section 2 - Connect with your University Reading List – Philosophy and/or Theology Below is a list of core resources which would be read in the first year of a Philosophy univer- sity course and which would be helpful for you to read in preparation: Nichomachean Ethics - Aristotle Meditations - Rene Descartes Leviathan - Thomas Hobbes Treatise on Human nature- David Hume The Communist Manifesto - Karl Marx On Liberty - John Stuart Mill The Republic - Plato Art of War - Sun Tzu - good reading during a pandemic You can also currently access some audio books on an app called - 'Audible' - which is free as long as School is closed. Plus you can also login for a free extended trial to MASSOLIT video lectures. This is our login for the trial which gives you free access until 31 April: URL: www.massolit.io Username: [email protected] Password: JCSFoundation (*Take care not to include a space before the password.) The trial provides full access to all subject courses on MASSOLIT in Philosophy. Other suggested reading The price of these books is for used, good condition copies including postage from Amazon: General Books on Philosophy Author Cost 1. The Philosophy Files Stephen Law £1.88 2. The God Delusion Richard Dawkins £2.14 3. Teach Yourself Philosophy of Religion Mel Thompson £2.69 4. Philosophy A Graphic Guide Dave Johnson and Judy Groves £2.54 5. 50 Philosophy Ideas Ben Dupre £5.14 Books which extend on your A Level Learning 6. The autobiography of Saint Teresa Saint Teresa £2.81 7. Consciousness; an introduction Susan Blackmore £2.88 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Science and Near-Death Experience by Susan Blackmore
    BOOK REVIEW Kenneth Ring, Ph.D. University of Connecticut Dying to Live: Science and Near-Death Experience, by Susan Blackmore. London, England: Grafton, 1993, 291 pp., 6.99 (Dis tributed in the United States by Prometheus Books, $23.95). Susan Blackmore is an English parapsychologist of skeptical lean ings who, thanks to this book and her frequent media appearances, is quickly becoming the critic near-death experience (NDE) lovers love to hate. And, as she herself has confessed (Blackmore, 1992), she fully expects many people to hate this book because it seeks to give a purely materialistic and reductive explanation for the NDE, and one that deprives it utterly of any implication of life after death. As a result of her provocative and uncompromising views and her interest to make them more widely known, Blackmore has cheerfully thrown herself into the unrewarding role of spoilsport at the NDErs' garden party, the Queen Skeptic on television talk shows and docu mentaries, and, not surprisingly, has lately made something of a ca reer as the combative heroine for such professionally debunking organizations as the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), on whose Executive Council she now sits. With opinions and affiliations like these, it would be un derstandable that persons sympathetic to the NDE and its spiritual import would be motivated either to avoid Blackmore's book in droves or, if they were to read it, to trash it unmercifully. Neither response, however, at least in my judgment, is warranted. This is a book that, like death itself, demands attention, and that offers not only a bracing challenge to persons interested in the NDE, Kenneth Ring, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Con necticut.
    [Show full text]
  • The Parallel Mind by Rana Zandi a Thesis Exhibition Presented To
    The Parallel Mind By Rana Zandi A thesis exhibition presented to OCAD University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts In Digital Futures April 2018 © Rana Zandi 2018 AUTHOR’S DECLARATION I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I authorize OCAD University to lend this thesis to other institutions or individuals for the purpose of scholarly research. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. I further authorize OCAD University to reproduce this thesis by photocopying or by other means, in total or in part, at the request of other institutions or individuals for the purpose of scholarly research. ii Rana Zandi, OCAD University, Parallel Mind, Master of Arts, Digital Futures, 2018 ABSTRACT Throughout the last century, Western scholars from various fields have contributed toward finding a general theory of consciousness that can accurately describe how the human brain processes information, and how it reflects and becomes aware of this information. In 2013, Michael Graziano an American scientist focused on the awareness aspect of consciousness and proposed the Attention Schema Theory of Consciousness (AST) to solve why the mind becomes aware in the first place. This thesis takes a stance that life on the screen has allowed us to extend our identities through embodiment of a second self in cyberspace. By using textual analysis, thought experiments, conceptual models, and mind activities, this work formulates parallel mind– as a self-aware digital entity that uses the content of the digital self.
    [Show full text]
  • A Very Short Introduction by Susan Blackmore, Falls Into This Latter Camp
    Journal of Scientifi c Exploration, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 446–453, 2018 0892-3310/18 BOOK REVIEW Consciousness: A Very Short Introduction second edition by Susan Blackmore. Oxford University Press, 2018. 152 pp., $10.46 (paperback). ISBN: 978-0198794738. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31275/2018.1299 What is consciousness? What is this thing with which we are most intimate, yet remains outside of our best scientific understanding? In recent years, consciousness research has expanded its range of investigation, and these include new metaphysical approaches. However, we are still far from any kind of consensus on a theory of consciousness. In addition, scientists and philosophers remain divided on what a satisfactory theory or explanation might look like. Many are confident that consciousness will ultimately be explained through various materialistic processes that we do not yet understand. There are others who champion more radical approaches than more conventional, physicalist ones. Then there are those who insist that when we take the right approach, much of the mystery evaporates. Consciousness: A Very Short Introduction by Susan Blackmore, falls into this latter camp. The book does offer some attractive features. Blackmore uses an extremely bare bones approach to present a considerable range of information within its slender volume. Overall, her style is concise and engaging. She also provides many useful and interesting summaries on current work in neurobiology and cognitive science. That said, however, the book is flawed. As I’ll discuss, the book is far from a neutral and even-handed treatment for various theories of consciousness. Blackmore doesn’t waste much time before she begins to tilt the discussion toward her own view, which she calls delusionism.
    [Show full text]
  • Fake News, a Construction of Reality
    Fake news, a construction of reality »You can only find truth with logic, if you have already found truth without it.« G.K.Chesterton While we generally accept evolutionary mechanisms on the biological level, level of nature (gene interaction and replication), it seems that for human nature/nurture evolution rarely comes into play. Public relations research is especially prone to avoiding cross fertilization of not only natural sciences, but also evolutionary theory and philosophy in the wider sense of the term. It is one of the aims of this paper to point to various fields of knowledge that not only could but should serve as an important mental tool for any PR practitioner, not to mention researchers. Since we are confined to a memetic world, as it is going to be proven later, there are no obstacles for researchers of any field in understanding the findings from other fields from the (necessary) perspective limited by his so far acquired discourse. The main aim of this paper is to challenge the most widely accepted malicious nature and consequences of fake news. This paper does not limit fake news to media news, which were originally branded with that name, but to all instances of communication when some news/information is taken and defined as fake. It is not the purpose of this paper to go deeper into the genealogy of the term, which is interesting because fake is mostly assigned to opinion leaders. When public anonymous would say something that would be defined as fake if uttered by Donald Trump, we call this a lie.
    [Show full text]