dhw: I agree that there is a design mechanism, and I suggest that the design mechanism is what has enabled life to diversify into all its many forms, as all the different organisms use their (perhaps God-given) intelligence in order to cope with or exploit their environments rather than to serve the single purpose of producing the human brain. And yes, maybe life did start more than once. Darwin, in theist mode, says so himself: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.” (My bold)

DAVID: Simon Conway Morris has championed convergence as a key issue in understanding evolution, and has written a book called Life's Solution; Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe, which underlies my point about our big brain as the final point.

I don’t have any problem at all with convergence: as I said before, it makes perfect sense that intelligent organisms should come up with similar solutions to similar problems. How that can mean your God started life with the sole purpose of producing the human brain I really don’t know, and although of course I acknowledge the uniqueness of our capabilities, how anyone can assume he knows the final point of evolution is beyond me. Sadly, none of us will be around to prove otherwise.

DAVID’s comment: Convergence is a strong indicator there is a design mechanism in the evolutionary process. There may have been one or more initial starts to life but the concept of common descent needs to recognize, the chain of relationship is not so common.

dhw: I agree that there is a design mechanism, and I suggest that the design mechanism is what has enabled life to diversify into all its many forms, as all the different organisms use their (perhaps God-given) intelligence in order to cope with or exploit their environments rather than to serve the single purpose of producing the human brain. And yes, maybe life did start more than once. Darwin, in theist mode, says so himself: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.” (My bold)

Simon Conway Morris has championed convergence as a key issue in understanding evolution, and has written a book called Life's Solution; Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe, which underlies my point about our big brain as the final point.

And your God no doubt needed to design all of them in order to fulfil his one purpose of producing the human brain.

QUOTE: "Simon Conway Morris, a palaeontologist at the University of Cambridge, has stressed the importance of evolutionary convergence: that evolution tends to arrive at the same solutions over and over again, even in distant branches of the animal tree, and even when the proteins or genes used to build a similar structure are not themselves related.”

All so that your God could produce the human brain?

QUOTE: "Because the ctenophore invented brains and muscles using a set of proteins and genes so different from any other animal that has ever been studied, it provides a unique opportunity to explore some enormous questions: how divergent can nervous systems be? Do we truly understand how life senses its surroundings and behaves?"

I would suggest we don’t. But it seems likely to me that all these life forms work out their own means of coping with the environment, and there is no reason at all why intelligent beings should not come up with similar solutions to similar problems.

DAVID’s comment: Convergence is a strong indicator there is a design mechanism in the evolutionary process. There may have been one or more initial starts to life but the concept of common descent needs to recognize, the chain of relationship is not so common.

I agree that there is a design mechanism, and I suggest that the design mechanism is what has enabled life to diversify into all its many forms, as all the different organisms use their (perhaps God-given) intelligence in order to cope with or exploit their environments rather than to serve the single purpose of producing the human brain. And yes, maybe life did start more than once. Darwin, in theist mode, says so himself: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.” (My bold)

https://aeon.co/essays/what-the-ctenophore-says-about-the-evolution-of-intelligence?utm...

"This type of animal, called a ctenophore (pronounced ‘ten-o-for’ or ‘teen-o-for’), was long considered just another kind of jellyfish. But that summer at Friday Harbor, Moroz made a startling discovery: beneath this animal’s humdrum exterior was a monumental case of mistaken identity. From his very first experiments, he could see that these animals were unrelated to jellyfish. In fact, they were profoundly different from any other animal on Earth.

"Moroz reached this conclusion by testing the nerve cells of ctenophores for the neurotransmitters serotonin, dopamine and nitric oxide, chemical messengers considered the universal neural language of all animals. But try as he might, he could not find these molecules. The implications were profound.

"The ctenophore was already known for having a relatively advanced nervous system; but these first experiments by Moroz showed that its nerves were constructed from a different set of molecular building blocks – different from any other animal – using ‘a different chemical language’, says Moroz: these animals are ‘aliens of the sea’.

"If Moroz is right, then the ctenophore represents an evolutionary experiment of stunning proportions, one that has been running for more than half a billion years. This separate pathway of evolution – a sort of Evolution 2.0 – has invented neurons, muscles and other specialised tissues, independently from the rest of the animal kingdom, using different starting materials.

***

"Once you repeat the experiments, says Moroz: ‘You start to realise it’s a really different animal.’ He surmised that the ctenophore was not just different from its supposed sister group, the jellyfish. It was also vastly different from any other nervous system on Earth.

***

"We all use neurotransmitters,’ he says. ‘From jellyfish to worms, to molluscs, to humans, to sea urchins, you will see a very consistent set of signalling molecules.’ But, somehow, the ctenophore had evolved a nervous system in which these roles were filled by a different, as-yet unknown set of molecules.

***

" It was a classic case of convergence: the lineage of ctenophores had evolved a nervous system using whatever genetic starting materials were available. In a sense, it was an alien nervous system – evolved separately from the rest of the animal kingdom.

***

"All of this pointed to a stunning conclusion: despite being more complex than sponges and placozoans – which lacked nerve cells and muscles and virtually every other specialised cell type – ctenophores were actually the earliest, oldest branch on the animal tree of life. Somehow over the subsequent 550 to 750 million years, the ctenophore had managed to evolve a nervous system and muscles similar in complexity to those of jellyfish, anemones, sea stars and many types of worms and shellfish, cobbled together from an alternative set of genes.

***

"Moroz now counts nine to 12 independent evolutionary origins of the nervous system – including at least one in cnidaria (the group that includes jellyfish and anemones), three in echinoderms (the group that includes sea stars, sea lilies, urchins and sand dollars), one in arthropods (the group that includes insects, spiders and crustaceans), one in molluscs (the group that includes clams, snails, squid and octopuses), one in vertebrates – and now, at least one in ctenophores.

***

"Simon Conway Morris, a palaeontologist at the University of Cambridge, has stressed the importance of evolutionary convergence: that evolution tends to arrive at the same solutions over and over again, even in distant branches of the animal tree, and even when the proteins or genes used to build a similar structure are not themselves related.

***

"The phylum of ctenophores isn’t quite that exotic. It is based on the same basic chemistry that we share, but it still represents a shadow biology for animals. Ctenophores are a long-lost cousin that we didn’t even know we had.

"Because the ctenophore invented brains and muscles using a set of proteins and genes so different from any other animal that has ever been studied, it provides a unique opportunity to explore some enormous questions: how divergent can nervous systems be? Do we truly understand how life senses its surroundings and behaves?"

Comment: Convergence is a strong indicator there is a design mechanism in the evolutionary process. There may have been one or more initial starts to life but the concept of common descent needs to recognize, the chain of relationship is not so common.

https://cosmosmagazine.com/palaeontology/ancient-reptile-ancestor-of-birds-and-crocs-ga...

'A 245-million-year-old pregnant reptile has overturned long-held theories about why birds lay eggs.

"A fossil discovered in China, of a long-necked marine species known as Dinocephalosaurus, clearly contains an embryo, which, equally clearly, was destined for live birth.

"This is highly significant because Dinocephalosaurus was an archosauromorph – a large clade that includes dinosaurs, crocodiles and birds. Until now, all species within this group were thought to be egg layers.

"Among lizards and snakes in other lineage groups, live birth has evolved independently at least 115 times. The fact that it has never been seen among archosauromorphs led evolutionary biologists to assume it was constrained by an unknown mechanism.

"But Dinocephalosaurus, described in Nature Communications by a team led by Jun Liu at Hefei University of Technology in China, upends that theory.

“'Our discovery pushes back evidence of reproductive biology in the clade by roughly 50 million years, and shows that there is no fundamental reason that archosauromorphs could not achieve live birth,” the researchers report."

Comment: I can tell you that live birth is much more of a strain on females than egg laying. Just look at chicken production of eggs. The duck-billed platypus may have struck on a better way, but the big-brained human required sticking to live birth. Nothing coming from an egg has a large brain. But the big brained human newborn required tremendous pelvic canal changes compared to apes. Which raises the old issue: chance evolution cannot provide simultaneous enlarging infant head size an pelvic accommodations. Only saltation can by a designer, God.

dhw: If your dualism is correct, it is consciousness that has enlarged the brain, which responds to its needs. But if retroviruses were the cause (a big IF), i.e. these GAVE RISE to our enhanced awareness through complexification of the brain, we are back on the road to materialism.

DAVID: I'll go back to the radio receiver concept, from the NDE researchers: A material brain without the consciousness mechanism does not produce any conscious thoughts for the owner of the brain. The bigger/more complex brain is the more extensive/advanced use of the consciousness mechanism. It is an intimate relationship. The material brain is a receiver of stimuli, no consciousness needed. Interpretation and action, consciousness needed. If consciousness can exist in NDE's with no functional brain present, they can be separated and therefore can be viewed separately, and understood as two operative agencies.

dhw: There is no disagreement here. This is an excellent summary of your dualistic beliefs, removing all the previous anomalies we’ve spent so much time discussing. Having agreed on this concept of dualism, we have now moved on. The retrovirus theory suggests that it was viruses, not enhanced consciousness, that caused the complexification of the brain, which in turn suggests that it is the complexified brain that caused enhanced consciousness. If true, that would help the materialist cause. I am not defending or attacking materialism – merely pointing out the implications. But here is an interesting thought: even if it’s true, it need not exclude God: he could have organized the viruses!

Yes God could have invented viruses for His purposes. The radio receiver analogy is really simple. Your radio receives programs. But only you can turn the dial and pick other programs on other stations. You listen, you act, all decisions are yours, as you stay in full control. Somewhat simplistic but to the point.

DAVID: I'll go back to the radio receiver concept, from the NDE researchers: A material brain without the consciousness mechanism does not produce any conscious thoughts for the owner of the brain. The bigger/more complex brain is the more extensive/advanced use of the consciousness mechanism. It is an intimate relationship. The material brain is a receiver of stimuli, no consciousness needed. Interpretation and action, consciousness needed. If consciousness can exist in NDE's with no functional brain present, they can be separated and therefore can be viewed separately, and understood as two operative agencies.

There is no disagreement here. This is an excellent summary of your dualistic beliefs, removing all the previous anomalies we’ve spent so much time discussing. Having agreed on this concept of dualism, we have now moved on. The retrovirus theory suggests that it was viruses, not enhanced consciousness, that caused the complexification of the brain, which in turn suggests that it is the complexified brain that caused enhanced consciousness. If true, that would help the materialist cause. I am not defending or attacking materialism – merely pointing out the implications. But here is an interesting thought: even if it’s true, it need not exclude God: he could have organized the viruses!

DAVID: You've stated what I think differently than I do, since I view consciousness as a received mechanism. I don't think the native brain can do it on its own, based on NDE research.

dhw: You are simply repeating that the brain acts as a receiver of consciousness, which is another way of saying consciousness uses the brain (as opposed to the brain using consciousness). The brain “doing it on its own” is materialism. There is no disagreement between us now on what constitutes your dualism, as summarized above. However, materialism might (very cautious word) receive a boost from the following:

DAVID; (under “big brain from viruses”) Retroviruses incorporated themselves into human and ape DNA's but no other species about 35-45 million years ago. they do affect neurons:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170112110840.htm

QUOTE: "Much of what we know about the overall development of the brain comes from the fruit fly, zebrafish and mouse. However, if endogenous retroviruses affect brain function, and we have our own set of these ERV, the mechanisms they affect may have contributed to the development of the human brain," says Johan Jakobsson."

DAVID’s comment: There has to be some reason why the human brain grew so big compared to the apes. This may be a clue as to the mechanism.

dhw: If your dualism is correct, it is consciousness that has enlarged the brain, which responds to its needs. But if retroviruses were the cause (a big IF), i.e. these GAVE RISE to our enhanced awareness through complexification of the brain, we are back on the road to materialism.

I'll go back to the radio receiver concept, from the NDE researchers: A material brain without the consciousness mechanism does not produce any conscious thoughts for the owner of the brain. The bigger/more complex brain is the more extensive/advanced use of the consciousness mechanism. It is an intimate relationship. The material brain is a receiver of stimuli, no consciousness needed. Interpretation and action, consciousness needed. If consciousness can exist in NDE's with no functional brain present, they can be separated and therefore can be viewed separately, and understood as two operative agencies.

DAVID: You've stated what I think differently than I do, since I view consciousness as a received mechanism. I don't think the native brain can do it on its own, based on NDE research.

You are simply repeating that the brain acts as a receiver of consciousness, which is another way of saying consciousness uses the brain (as opposed to the brain using consciousness). The brain “doing it on its own” is materialism. There is no disagreement between us now on what constitutes your dualism, as summarized above. However, materialism might (very cautious word) receive a boost from the following:

DAVID; (under “big brain from viruses”) Retroviruses incorporated themselves into human and ape DNA's but no other species about 35-45 million years ago. they do affect neurons:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170112110840.htm

QUOTE: "Much of what we know about the overall development of the brain comes from the fruit fly, zebrafish and mouse. However, if endogenous retroviruses affect brain function, and we have our own set of these ERV, the mechanisms they affect may have contributed to the development of the human brain," says Johan Jakobsson."

DAVID’s comment: There has to be some reason why the human brain grew so big compared to the apes. This may be a clue as to the mechanism.

If your dualism is correct, it is consciousness that has enlarged the brain, which responds to its needs. But if retroviruses were the cause (a big IF), i.e. these GAVE RISE to our enhanced awareness through complexification of the brain, we are back on the road to materialism.

DAVID: ...and my brain responds to what I make my consciousness do, by altering its connections, adding new neurons.

dhw: Thank you. It is your “total mentality” that controls your brain, and consciousness is not “a mechanism the brain uses”, but the brain is a mechanism used by consciousness. Enhanced consciousness is not the product of an enlarged brain, but mental totality uses the brain, which grows to meet the requirements of an enhanced consciousness. Now at last you have your dualism.

Whether it’s true or not is another question.

You've stated what I think differently than I do, since I view consciousness as a received mechanism. I don't think the native brain can do it on its own, based on NDE research.

DAVID: I cannot separate 'me' from my consciousness. My consciousness is me from what I experience. I control what my consciousness does….

You don’t need this attempted distinction! If you cannot separate yourself from your consciousness, and if your consciousness is you, and if you control your consciousness, that means you control you, or your consciousness controls your consciousness. Keep them together as what you call your “mental totality” and then you can move on to the real issue:

DAVID: ...and my brain responds to what I make my consciousness do, by altering its connections, adding new neurons.

Thank you. It is your “total mentality” that controls your brain, and consciousness is not “a mechanism the brain uses”, but the brain is a mechanism used by consciousness. Enhanced consciousness is not the product of an enlarged brain, but mental totality uses the brain, which grows to meet the requirements of an enhanced consciousness. Now at last you have your dualism.

Whether it’s true or not is another question.

dhw: If “me” is your personally shaped consciousness, or "mental totality", that is what controls the brain and survives the death of the brain. And yet you say “consciousness does not control the brain” but is “a mechanism the brain uses”, and – the starting point of our discussion – enhanced consciousness, which I regard as the springboard for all the differences between our fellow animals and ourselves, is to be attributed to your God providing our mental totality (us) with an enlarged brain. And so our mental totality (= we) controls the brain, but the brain uses and has given rise to our enhanced consciousness. This would only make sense if you separated your (enhanced) consciousness from your “mental totality”, and that simply doesn’t make sense!

I cannot separate 'me' from my consciousness. My consciousness is me from what I experience. I control what my consciousness does, and my brain responds to what I make my consciousness do, by altering its connections ,adding new neurons. Remember I view consciousness as being received by the brain, the more complex the brain, the more advanced the attributes of consciousness to be used, from Arthropithicus to human forms.

Not quite. Even newborn babies arrive with different characteristics, as the newborn twins demonstrate every day (and night) to their doting parents!

DAVID: My brain has to develop for 20 years or so to have a complete material form.

Of course the baby’s brain develops along with the rest of the body, and the personality/conscious mind develops too as it processes experience – but nobody knows if the development and the manner of processing are dictated by the materialist’s all-embracing brain or by the dualist’s separate conscious mind.

DAVID: My dualism does not have consciousness controlling the brain. As I develop I assume control of the consciousness mechanism through experience in thought and the brain's plasticity to respond to how I use it. I look at the process as having three parts: the brain, consciousness, and me. You keep skipping the part where I become 'me' and I use my consciousness to develop my thoughts and concepts.

I don’t skip it. I keep asking what you mean by “me”, bearing in mind that you think “you” survive the death of your brain. In your previous post you responded by calling it your “mental totality”, and that is what I call the “conscious mind”. But your term is probably better because my “conscious mind” has to incorporate all its influences, which of course would include those that are unconscious. However, now you are saying there is no duality in dualism. It is a trinity: brain, consciousness, me. Except that when we die...

DAVID: My personally shaped consciousness, me, is the entity that survives me the body envelop.

If “me” is your personally shaped consciousness, or "mental totality", that is what controls the brain and survives the death of the brain. And yet you say “consciousness does not control the brain” but is “a mechanism the brain uses”, and – the starting point of our discussion – enhanced consciousness, which I regard as the springboard for all the differences between our fellow animals and ourselves, is to be attributed to your God providing our mental totality (us) with an enlarged brain. And so our mental totality (= we) controls the brain, but the brain uses and has given rise to our enhanced consciousness. This would only make sense if you separated your (enhanced) consciousness from your “mental totality”, and that simply doesn’t make sense!

DAVID: The brain develops as the baby begins to have experiences. I view the arrangement between two entities, a material brain and an immaterial consciousness mechanism, which learn to work together.

dhw: Yes of course they work together. And according to your dualism, it is consciousness that controls the brain, so there is absolutely no logic to your argument that the brain gives rise to consciousness or enhanced consciousness. That is materialism. I flounder because I do not know which theory is true. You flounder because your “strange form of dualism” is totally illogical.

As a baby I am a blank slate. My brain has to develop for 20 years or so to have a complete material form. My dualism does not have consciousness controlling the brain. As I develop I assume control of the consciousness mechanism through experience in thought and the brain's plasticity to respond to how I use it. I look at the process as having three parts: the brain, consciousness, and me. You keep skipping the part where I become 'me' and I use my consciousness to develop my thoughts and concepts.

My personally shaped consciousness, me, is the entity that survives me the body envelop.

I presume you mean that the brain takes its shape according to the use consciousness makes of it. OK, that fits in with your dualism.

DAVID: We use our consciousness as we develop into our particular personality, by which term I imply our mental totality.

Our mental totality is what I have called our conscious mind. According to you, our conscious mind uses our material brain, not the other way round, and our conscious mind is the “we” that survives the death of the brain.

DAVID: I view consciousness as a mechanism the brain uses.

But you keep telling us that immaterial consciousness uses the material mechanism of the brain!

DAVID: Different parts of the brain do different things or use different parts of consciousness for different purposes. As I explained before this is how babies develop into conscious being, the interaction between brain and consciousness takes time and brain growth.

Yes, different parts of the brain do different things, but the whole point of dualism is that it is consciousness that uses those different parts, not the parts that use consciousness! The interaction, according to you, is that the brain does what the conscious mind tells it to do.

Dhw: Your after-death consciousness won't be able to think if it was just the tool of the brain!
DAVID: Example: you die but your car still exists and can be driven. Still my strange form of dualism.

But the car cannot be driven by the dead you! According to your dualistic beliefs, “you” survive, and “you” (= your conscious mind) leave your wretched car (your body, which obeyed the instructions of your conscious mind) behind. Your new form of dualism is not just strange, it is impossible.

Dhw: To clarify this once more in terms of the identity which you believe survives the death of the brain: if identity is the conscious mind, it is the user (consciousness) that survives, and not the instrument (the brain).
Materialists, however, will argue that the conscious mind is the brain and so it cannot survive death. Meanwhile, I myself still “don’t know if the complexification of the brain triggered the enhanced awareness or resulted from it” , and I remain surprised that you as a dualist appear to favour the first option.

DAVID: The brain develops as the baby begins to have experiences. I view the arrangement between two entities, a material brain and an immaterial consciousness mechanism, which learn to work together.

Yes of course they work together. And according to your dualism, it is consciousness that controls the brain, so there is absolutely no logic to your argument that the brain gives rise to consciousness or enhanced consciousness. That is materialism. I flounder because I do not know which theory is true. You flounder because your “strange form of dualism” is totally illogical.

Problems:
1) If the brain is the receiver of consciousness, how could it have triggered (enhanced) consciousness?[/i]

DAVID: Because the brain can manipulate itself to use more and more consciousness, by its plasticity.

dhw: You keep telling us that “you” tell your brain what to do. If your “you” is not your conscious mind, what is it? You have now done a complete U-turn, and instead of consciousness using the brain, you have the brain using consciousness!

Perhaps I've not been clear in the past. A plastic brain molds to use. We use our consciousness as we develop into our particular personality, by which term I imply our mental totality. I view consciousness as a mechanism the brain uses. Different parts of the brain do different things or use different parts of consciousness for different purposes. As I explained before this is how babies develop into conscious being, the interaction between brain and consciousness takes time and brain growth.

dhw:how can a conscious mind think and conceive when the brain is dead?

DAVID: Because the consciousness is used by the brain but separates at death to join the universal consciousness retaining its current body of information.

As above. Your after-death consciousness won't be able to think if it was just the tool of the brain!

Example: you die but your car still exists and can be driven. Still my strange form of dualism.

DAVID: Our more complex brain is built to handle automatically a more enhanced consciousness. Our brain, and its plasticity can work hand in hand with the consciousness instrument it is given.

dhw: “Handle” is ambiguous – I would say “respond automatically to”. Otherwise your first sentence is fine, and your second is also fine, except that crucially according to your dualism it is the brain that is the instrument. Its plasticity enables it to respond to the demands of consciousness. To clarify this once more in terms of the identity which you believe survives the death of the brain: if identity is the conscious mind, it is the user (consciousness) that survives, and not the instrument (the brain).
Materialists, however, will argue that the conscious mind is the brain and so it cannot survive death. Meanwhile, I myself still “don’t know if the complexification of the brain triggered the enhanced awareness or resulted from it” , and I remain surprised that you as a dualist appear to favour the first option.

The brain develops as the baby begins to have experiences. I view the arrangement between two entities, a material brain and an immaterial consciousness mechanism, which learn to work together.

Problems:
1) If the brain is the receiver of consciousness, how could it have triggered (enhanced) consciousness?

DAVID: Because the brain can manipulate itself to use more and more consciousness, by its plasticity.

You keep telling us that “you” tell your brain what to do. If your “you” is not your conscious mind, what is it? You have now done a complete U-turn, and instead of consciousness using the brain, you have the brain using consciousness!

dhw: 2) The use of “I” and “we” masks the question of what it is that uses the brain. I would suggest that it is the conscious mind and all its attributes (regardless of the influences that have shaped it). Materialists must ultimately argue that the brain uses the brain. NDEs suggest that the patient’s conscious mind/identity survives the death of the brain, and must therefore be independent of it (a clear form of dualism). But if “thoughts and concepts” could not have arisen without it (David’s idea of brain preceding thought), how can a conscious mind think and conceive when the brain is dead?
DAVID: Because the consciousness is used by the brain but separates at death to join the universal consciousness retaining its current body of information.

As above. Your after-death consciousness won't be able to think if it was just the tool of the brain!

dhw: 3) The argument that enhanced consciousness gave rise to the complexified brain (just as exercise expands muscles) is dualistic, but the dualist David rejects it in favour of the materialist argument that the more complex brain gave rise to our enhanced consciousness.
DAVID: Our more complex brain is built to handle automatically a more enhanced consciousness. Our brain, and its plasticity can work hand in hand with the consciousness instrument it is given.

“Handle” is ambiguous – I would say “respond automatically to”. Otherwise your first sentence is fine, and your second is also fine, except that crucially according to your dualism it is the brain that is the instrument. Its plasticity enables it to respond to the demands of consciousness. To clarify this once more in terms of the identity which you believe survives the death of the brain: if identity is the conscious mind, it is the user (consciousness) that survives, and not the instrument (the brain).
Materialists, however, will argue that the conscious mind is the brain and so it cannot survive death. Meanwhile, I myself still “don’t know if the complexification of the brain triggered the enhanced awareness or resulted from it” , and I remain surprised that you as a dualist appear to favour the first option.

dhw: I believe the main differences between ourselves and our fellow animals have arisen from our enhanced consciousness, but “I don’t know if the complexification of the brain triggered the enhanced awareness or resulted from it.” David’s response is that God gave us a large brain first, which “we used to develop new thoughts and concepts.” However, David believes NDEs show that our consciousness survives the death of the brain.

Materialists argue that consciousness cannot survive without the brain, which is its source. As a dualist, David argues that the brain is the receiver of consciousness, not the source.

Problems:
1) If the brain is the receiver of consciousness, how could it have triggered (enhanced) consciousness?

Because the brain can manipulate itself to use more and more consciousness, by its plasticity

dhw: 2) The use of “I” and “we” masks the question of what it is that uses the brain. I would suggest that it is the conscious mind and all its attributes (regardless of the influences that have shaped it). Materialists must ultimately argue that the brain uses the brain. NDEs suggest that the patient’s conscious mind/identity survives the death of the brain, and must therefore be independent of it (a clear form of dualism). But if “thoughts and concepts” could not have arisen without it (David’s idea of brain preceding thought), how can a conscious mind think and conceive when the brain is dead?

Because the consciousness is used by the brain but separates at death to join the universal consciousness retaining its current body of information.

dhw: 3) The argument that enhanced consciousness gave rise to the complexified brain (just as exercise expands muscles) is dualistic, but the dualist David rejects it in favour of the materialist argument that the more complex brain gave rise to our enhanced consciousness.

Our more complex brain is built to handle automatically a more enhanced consciousness. Our brain, and its plasticity can work hand in hand with the consciousness instrument it is given.

I believe the main differences between ourselves and our fellow animals have arisen from our enhanced consciousness, but “I don’t know if the complexification of the brain triggered the enhanced awareness or resulted from it.” David’s response is that God gave us a large brain first, which “we used to develop new thoughts and concepts.” However, David believes NDEs show that our consciousness survives the death of the brain.

Materialists argue that consciousness cannot survive without the brain, which is its source. As a dualist, David argues that the brain is the receiver of consciousness, not the source.

Problems:
1) If the brain is the receiver of consciousness, how could it have triggered (enhanced) consciousness?

2) The use of “I” and “we” masks the question of what it is that uses the brain. I would suggest that it is the conscious mind and all its attributes (regardless of the influences that have shaped it). Materialists must ultimately argue that the brain uses the brain. NDEs suggest that the patient’s conscious mind/identity survives the death of the brain, and must therefore be independent of it (a clear form of dualism). But if “thoughts and concepts” could not have arisen without it (David’s idea of brain preceding thought), how can a conscious mind think and conceive when the brain is dead?

3) The argument that enhanced consciousness gave rise to the complexified brain (just as exercise expands muscles) is dualistic, but the dualist David rejects it in favour of the materialist argument that the more complex brain gave rise to our enhanced consciousness.

David:The higher centers in the frontal and pre-frontal cortex slowly develop as the infant experiences the world and gradually becomes the receiver for consciousness. [/i]

dhw: Up until this last sentence, everything is fine. A great factual account of all the automatic physical processes. But suddenly we depart from science, and consciousness magically appears and is “received” by the brain.

Either our brain is complex enough to create an immaterial consciousness or it receives it as an immaterial construct to use. I don't know for sure, but receives is likely

DAVID: It learns to use its consciousness which becomes molded to its personality by the plasticity of the brain manipulating the consciousness.

dhw:This sounds impressive, but what does it mean? How does the plastic (= mouldable) brain shape the plastic (= mouldable) consciousness into a personality? Does the physical brain tell the dualist’s immaterial, conscious mind to be mean and rough and to instruct it to punch Daddy on the nose? Materialists will probably tell you it does.

Why can't the brain and its consciousness work together seamlessly, just the way I feel it does? And yes, I tell my brain to arrange to punch Daddy in the face. My decision to punch is under my control since I control my brain. My brain never acts on its own to tell me what to do.

DAVID: It is an active back and forth activity to develop personality and to learn thought processes. Your thinking in the above paragraph is totally confused as you compartmentalize the brain and consciousness as totally separate. They are in one sense but they are not.

dhw: My paragraph explains the two different approaches (dualist and materialist). Your attempt to make brain and consciousness separate but not separate is what causes the confusion. (See below.) According to NDEs, which you claim to be the scientific evidence for your dualism, the conscious identity does exist separately from the brain. Materialists tell us that this is impossible. But I have not taken sides, because I do not claim to know the source of consciousness.

How do you know materialists are possibly correct? I think they are totally wrong.

DAVID: The brain and its received consciousness work as smoothly together as a well-oiled machine would. I control my consciousness completely, because I am allowed to under this arrangement. Yes, I am a dualist, but the brain and consciousness work as one!

dhw: “Working smoothly together” does not make the dualist’s brain the “developer of new thoughts and concepts”. If dualism is correct, then the brain is a tool of the conscious, immaterial mind. In other words, although it provides information (e.g. through the senses), the brain responds to the requirements of the mind, is not the source of the mind, does not “mold” the mind, and does not come up with thoughts and concepts. They work smoothly together, because so long as we have a physical body, the mind needs the brain. But according to NDEs the conscious, immaterial mind remains itself, independently of the brain, even after death.

Your interpretation of dualism is not mine. Consciousness joins the material brain to become an operative mechanism under the brain's control.

dhw: However, if materialism is correct, the brain IS the mind, and all our thoughts are the result of teamwork within the cells of the brain. The “I” is the product of the brain and whatever has influenced the brain, and it will die with the brain. In both cases, the brain and consciousness work as one, but for the dualist they are separate and for the materialist they ARE one.

True description of materialism and the brain.