Making brains and consciousness

[arapahoepark]

So upon reading this article, I am wondering, does the brain make the person? Or is this a species of physicalism?
https://creation.com/is-a-brain-a-human-being

 

[RamistThomist]

So upon reading this article, I am wondering, does the brain make the person? Or is this a species of physicalism?
https://creation.com/is-a-brain-a-human-being

It's physicalism. First, he equates the mind with the brain. And while classical theology distinguishes between mind and brain, we do not, pace Descartes, identify the mind as the person.

He might be advocating an epiphenomenal view where consciousness supervenes on the brain. That's not quite as bad as hard physicalism, but it is still unacceptable for Christians. For one thing, it eliminates life after death (since consciousness depends on the brain).

 

[Seeking_Thy_Kingdom]

That's not quite as bad as hard physicalism, but it is still unacceptable for Christians. For one thing, it eliminates life after death (since consciousness depends on the brain).

It would also eliminate humanity before the brain has enough neurological connections to establish consciousness, an argument constantly used by pro-abortionists.

 

[Pergamum]

If a passenger drives a car and the car is destroyed, the passenger often dies. But that does not make the passenger equal to the car.

 

[jwright82]

So upon reading this article, I am wondering, does the brain make the person? Or is this a species of physicalism?
https://creation.com/is-a-brain-a-human-being

I agree with Jacob. But this also points out a major problem in this sort of thinking (although I loved the ethical questions they were raising) if science can only investigate things largely through senses and there things beyond our senses than of course science will rule that there is no reason to believe those. But those things are by definition beyond the senses so whoopty doo what science says.
There are scientist's who recognize a natural limit to their inquiries, but not enough.
What makes a person, well it is at least clear that there is both a physical and a non physical aspect and both aspects together make us human. Or else why would the promise of bodily resurrection mean anything unless the non physical part longed to be complete by reuniting with our body?

 

[ZackF]

We are sometimes better defining what isn’t a person rather than what is.

If I can be bold enough to look at the eschatologically, I think the answer lies in the already and not yet. The mind, body, and soul of this present place and age is trifurcated in a way that our personhood will not be in glory. There is a relationship of the mind to the brain but they’re distinct.

Modern science has a point about the ‘organoids’ though it is wildly inconsistent with what many of them believe about the fetus. A late term abortion is morally permissible yet they are vigilant that a single organoid doesn’t become sentient?

Back to the point. As a thought experiment; what if science gets to the point where a human head can be kept alive and the owner can still talk and roll his eyes at bad jokes? More importantly he can confess sin and profess faith in Christ. Later the brain is removed from the skull and connected to electrodes that run a robot around him including a voice box. I’d still contend that he has a body, mind and soul in this world.