Lundahl (2022s) is Terribly Referenced and Improperly Formatted. Mr. Lundahl Also Condemns Literature without Reading It
Kevin R. Henke
October 7, 2022
In Henke (2022au), I cited some of Mr. Lundahl’s and my earlier work, which stated the following about consciousness:
“In Henke (2022b), I quote Lundahl (2022a) and comment on how ineffective his primary source, Lewis (1960), really is:
Lundahl (2022a) also makes the following statement to me about nature and our consciousness:
“Other takeaway in CSL's [C.S. Lewis’] Miracles, you carry around yourself two very clear indications that nature is not all there is - neither reason nor morality can be reduced to matter and energy affected by each other in accordance with laws of physics and chemistry. The ‘hard problem of consciousness’ - to take it from a somewhat different angle - remains hard. We don't just need an intelligent designer who arranged our brains for optimal consciousness, we need (for purposes we take for granted, like refuting or like blaming) something other than just brain arrangements in our consciousness.”
I fully admit that I’m no expert on consciousness. Contrary to what Lundahl (2022a) and Lewis (1960, his chapter 3, etc.) indicate in this quotation, our thoughts are electrical and our brains are matter. Lewis (1960, chapter 3, etc.) questioned the ability of humans to rationally understand our surroundings through naturalism and he argued that we should seriously consider that miracles occur. However, Lewis (1960) had the burden of evidence to demonstrate his claims for miracles and he failed to do so. Now, investigators are still looking for miracles at revival meetings, among psychics, at supposedly haunted houses, and elsewhere, and not finding any evidence for them.
Who we are, including our reason and moral values, arise from interactions between our brains and our surroundings. We observe, test and confirm with the help of others our conclusions about events in nature. Our brains, thoughts and surroundings are all ultimately controlled by the laws of chemistry and physics. That is, we can imagine what it would be like to be able to magically levitate objects only using our thoughts, but the laws of chemistry and physics don’t actually allow us to do it. Nevertheless, there is a danger that when we recognize that our brains are nothing but matter and energy that we might be tempted to trivialize this electrical activity and think that it has no serious consequences. That is, considering how much damage the electrical activity in Putin’s brain is doing to millions of people in the Ukraine, we cannot underestimate the power of a single human brain to manipulate other humans and weapons in his/her environment. This is why millions of people hope that Putin’s brain soon ceases to function and that more rational and empathetic brains will replace him.
Our morals and reasoning abilities arise in response to our surroundings, including how we interact with other humans. By getting confirmation from our fellow humans and doing experimental testing, we can make reliable discoveries about our environment. We can send spacecraft to Moon, understand why severe earthquakes occur in certain areas and not others, and we understand what causes influenza, etc. The supernatural is not needed to explain these discoveries. Because of the power of the human brain and our ability to adequately understand what’s going on in our surroundings, we can have a huge impact on our surroundings. Unfortunately, humans can also do extensive damage to our environment.
No gods, angels, demons or a Bible are also needed to figure out how people should try to function in our environments. We should develop rules (morality) through reason and not Biblical dogma so that we can live peacefully with each other and our environment. No sane person wants to live in poverty, misery and violence. Ukrainian soldiers are the only sane individuals wanting to move to eastern Ukraine.
We should also recognize that not all brains function well. Mental illness and deficiency are real. As rational research shows, chemicals, traumatic experiences and genetics can certainly cause mental illness. Demons aren’t required.” [my emphasis]
Mr. Lundahl in Lundahl (2022s) then replies to my bolded sentence with the following proclamation that doesn’t have a shred of evidence to support it:
“If our brains are certainly living matter, if our thoughts were electrical, and nothing else, we would understand nothing.”
How does Mr. Lundahl know that “…if our thoughts were electrical and nothing else, we would understand nothing”? Is he an expert on consciousness and the human brain? Considering Mr. Lundahl’s selection of “expert” references on consciousness (i.e., C.S. Lewis 1960 and Wikipedia instead of references like Dennett 2006; 2018 and Harris 2010), I don’t think so. Drs. Harris and Dennett are experts on consciousness and they would certainly disagree with Mr. Lundahl’s religious views on this issue (e.g., Dennett 2006; Harris 2010, pp. 158-159).
Lundahl (2022s) continues:
“Unlike what Henke pretends on my relying only on an outdated book - but philosophy is not outdated - I have checked of [sic if] neurology has made any advance in explaining why we experience anything like understanding, and the "hard problem of consciousness is still hard" –…”
The outdated book that Lundahl (2022s) mentions is Lewis (1960) and it’s definitely outdated in terms of its science and understanding of the Bible as I explained in Henke (2022ar). Again, C.S. Lewis was an expert on English literature and not on consciousness. The philosophy in Lewis (1960) is very wrong because it’s not based on the currently best available 21st century science and history. Just as science and history must be logical to be valid, philosophy must be based on good historical or scientific evidence, otherwise it’s worthless - see Henke (2022aj).
In an upcoming essay, Henke (2022hc), I will further respond to the comments on “hard consciousness” in Lundahl (2022s). Again, Mr. Lundahl is no expert on consciousness and his opinions on the topic are obviously misguided. For now, in this essay, as well as Henke (2022gz) and Henke (2022hb), I want to provide additional important examples that reveal how Mr. Lundahl’s use of the literature is totally substandard and how his inability to properly use the literature in this debate negatively impacts our readers’ ability to trust his arguments.
Again, Mr. Lundahl claims that he has “… checked of [sic, if] neurology has made any advance in explaining why we experience anything like understanding, and the "hard problem of consciousness is still hard.” In reality, Mr. Lundahl’s “checking” consisted of selectively cutting and pasting from a Wikipedia webarticle “Hard Problem of Consciousness”, improperly quoting a Time Magazine article by Pinker (2007) and inserting those materials into Lundahl (2022s). As I have repeated many times, the texts in Wikipedia are not reliable sources of information (e.g., Henke 2022s, Henke 2022at, Henke 2022fq, Henke (2022gq). Even Lundahl (2022s) admits that Wikipedia could be “vandalised.” That is, people could deliberately post disinformation in Wikipedia articles for propaganda or other reasons. Vandalism is less likely to happen with peer-reviewed science journals. So, why didn’t Mr. Lundahl use the peer-reviewed references in this Wikipedia webarticle instead, including references from Dennett and other critics of Chalmers? I think the answer is obvious. That would require Mr. Lundahl to actually do some legwork and check the paper and electronic peer-reviewed journals rather than just clicking a few times on a computer mouse and cutting and pasting from the sections of webarticles that he likes.
In Henke (2022ap), I first recommended that Mr. Lundahl consult a more recent and very relevant article by Dennett (2018) entitled: “Facing Up to the Hard Question of Consciousness” that deals directly with Chalmers’ claims of “hard consciousness.” In his haste to read through my response in Henke (2022ap), Lundahl (2022r) so badly overlooked my quotation of Dennett (2018) that I had to remind him about it in Henke (2022gk). Only when he later reviews Henke (2022ax) in Lundahl (2022s) does Mr. Lundahl finally mention Dennett (2018). Instead of actually reading the article, he inappropriately states:
“It is easier to give a reference than to cite actual arguments from it. Because if Henke here actually cited Dennett, this bodes very ill for the qualifity of "Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, v. 373, 20170342." Which I suppose to be as easy to access (not very) as Finkelstein, I. and N.A. Silberman. 2001. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts: if not even less so.”
Mr. Lundahl. I did quote in green font from Dennett (2018) in Henke (2022ap) and you obviously never bothered to read the article and comment on my quotation. How can we have a successful debate if Mr. Lundahl won’t or can’t look at my references? I’ve also seen how Mr. Lundahl inappropriately relies on the summaries in Wikipedia rather than taking the effort to look up and read for himself the peer-reviewed articles in the references of Wikipedia. I have no desire to summarize my recommended references just so he can attack my summaries and then try to convince himself and our readers that he has adequately “refuted” Dennett (2006; 2018), Carrier (2014), Price (2007) and my other references without having to read them.
Mr. Lundahl also has no basis for criticizing Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B just because they printed an article that Mr. Lundahl obviously has never read. Mr. Lundahl needs to stop making comments about Dennett (2018) and Finkelstein and Silberman (2001) until he has actually demonstrated that he has the documents in hand for this debate and has read them. Unlike Mr. Lundahl, I only condemned the quality of Lewis (1960) after I had read it.
Like Lundahl (2022s), Mr. Lundahl in Lundahl (2022r) also complained about not being able to find my recommended references in Paris, France. In response to his invalid complaints in Lundahl (2022r), I further stated in Henke (2022gq):
“If Mr. Lundahl does not have the time or desire to contribute to a debate with high-quality references rather than questionable and possibly erroneous Wikipedia sources, why is he debating me? If he cannot contribute his best efforts to this debate, why is he debating me? If he cannot meet minimal academic standards, such as would be expected for a thesis or journal article, why is he debating me? How is Mr. Lundahl qualified to participate in this debate?”
References:
Carrier, R. 2014. On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, Sheffield Phoenix Press: Sheffield, UK, 696pp.
Dennett, D.C. 2006. Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon: Viking Penguin: London, UK, 448pp.
Dennett, D.C. 2018. “Facing Up to the Hard Question of Consciousness”: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, v. 373, 20170342.
Harris, S. 2010. The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Hunan Values: Free Press: New York, N.Y., USA, 291pp.
Lewis, C.S. 1960. Miracles, 2nd ed., printed 1974: Harper One: HarperCollinsPublishers, 294pp.
Price, R.M. 2007. Jesus is Dead, American Atheist Press: Cranford, NJ, USA, 279pp.