Call it what you want…mind and body dichotomy, flesh and soul, flesh and spirit, consciousness and existence. They are all the same fallacy, and they plague Christianity like…well, like the plague. And what’s more, even science itself assumes that human consciousness can somehow be removed from the existence of the material body. In fact, it is so ingrained in our thinking that even the smartest people in the world seem to miss the massive logical contradiction staring them in the face and daring them to take notice. If they could but for a moment walk forwards even a step, out from their stubborn and all pervasive insanity, they would trip over it and chip a tooth.
Just yesterday I had the displeasure of reading a silly article concerning a silly study entitled: Free Will Could be the Result of ‘Background Noise’ in the Brain, Study Suggests, and you can read it in its entirety here.
The second sentence reads thus:
“It has previously been suggested that our perceived ability to make autonomous choices is an illusion – and now scientists from the Center for Mind and Brain at the University of California, Davis, have found that free will may actually be the result of electrical activity in the brain.”
Now, I have an entire article outlined on this study and ready to be typed up, and all in due time, but suffice to say, for now, that the rational mind…hell, even the mind which occasionally entertains mild common sense needs no more than this sentence to debunk the study in its entirety and obliterate its ridiculous premise. This is nothing more than a “scientific” approach to the mind/body dichotomy, which heretofore will be referred to as the “mind body contradiction”. It is a “scientific” attempt to reconcile mutually exclusive absolutes: the physical body of man, and his “mind”, or “thoughts”, which are assumed to be somehow outside of this physical body but which, of course, cannot be observed absent the physical body, making the concept of the “mind” categorically unknowable apart from the physical body.
Put simply, what I mean is that man has NO frame of reference for a “mind” or “thoughts” or a “consciousness”, or a “spirit” or a “soul”, without the body, because man cannot see past the context of his own consciousness which is observably and objectively a direct function of his physical body. Man can make no claim to any such thing as consciousness containing thoughts and knowledge absent the body because the body, which includes the brain, is the singular (i.e. only) context man has. There is no such thing as YOU apart from the physical you. To claim otherwise obligates you to verify this…which means rationally, and without appealing to contradiction or mysticism (e.g., for Christians, the Bible “says” so”…this is a non-argument; the Bible is not proof of itself, for if it were, then man would be categorically irrelevant…ponder that), yes, it obligates you to verify objectively just how this can be true. And how do you propose to do that apart from your body?
Take your time, I’ll wait.
Ho dee hum….
Okay, I’m impatient, so let me save you the time.
You can’t. Period. Full stop.
For as soon as you make an appeal to a “you” apart from your physical body, you have already destroyed your own argument. For in order for you to declare that there is a mind or a soul or a spirit or a consciousness apart from your body you need to use what? Language. Communication. You need words, or gestures, or pictures, or Morse code, or tongue clicks…hell, even the Vulcan mind meld requires Spock to use of his hands.
Do you see what I mean? Communication requires language, and language requires a conscious agent, and that agent requires an objective distinction between ITSELF and OTHER(S) (i.e. what is not it), and that? Requires an observable, spatial, literal, physical distinction. And that requires a body.
So before you can even make the argument for the separation of body and mind you MUST concede the axiom that “I must be physically distinct from that which is NOT me, (YOU, for instance), in order to validate my assumption that I am not really me, but am me, the physical body, and something ELSE…that is, the “me”, which is my “mind/spirit/consciousness”, which is me, also, but then again, is not me at the same time”; and thus, you have already conceded that your assumption is false. Your mind and your body are not distinct; for one is the other and the other is the one. And this is due to the simple fact that you cannot be both you and NOT you. YOU are metaphysically singular, period, and your epistemology is a direct function (extension) of that metaphyic…and remember, Argo’s Universal Truth Number One: Whatever is a direct function of an absolute IS the absolute. That holds true in this case. You have no other context but your conscious self, which IS, absolutely, and is absolutely and observably and objectively tied to your physical body, by necessity. Absent the physical parameters of absolute SELF, there can be no you at all. And in your attempt to argue that your mind is YOU as distinct from the YOU which is your physical body, you run into the impossible contradiction I just mentioned: you cannot be you and NOT you at the same time. The SELF is a metaphysical singularity. It cannot be parsed. How we choose to label our attributes on a conceptual level is up to us; but pretending those attributes are full-on metaphysical absolutes encompassing the totality of SELF distinct from the root metaphysic is to make a mutually exclusive argument. And this is madness.
Incidentally, this is the very reason why I reject the doctrine of the Trinity. It attempts to make God a rank, self-canceling, contradiction in terms. We may label God’s attributes according to our need and our natural right to organize our environment efficaciously. But may not make God a party to our mystical existential horseshit.
“But, Argo!” you protest. “Aren’t you proving the article’s point? Man doesn’t have a mind of his own? Man cannot think, because he cannot choose?”
Well…no exactly, though I get the question. This article is really trying to play both sides of the epistemological fence, and these scientists are utterly contradicting (and making asses out of) themselves in the process. They want their epistemological cake and to eat it, too. On the one hand they want to argue that man has no free will, which means he has no thoughts of his own (for a man with no free will cannot claim his own thoughts), and cannot make any claim to knowledge of any kind, and that choice is an illusion, and as such, man is merely a product of the laws or processes of nature which determine his every move, physically and cognitively; that man as an individual SELF is a lie, and that no such “you” exists as it were, for what you think is “you” is nothing more than the beeps and bells and whizzes and bangs of neurons which break down into atoms, which break down into all manner of particles, and from there the determinative force of the mathematical proofs of Standard Model is found in the wheelhouse steering the ship of YOU into its determined infinite oblivion.
On the other hand, they want to make this claim: Look what we have discovered! Look what we know! We have learned that we have no free will.
Anyone besides me have a problem with this? They are claiming that they KNOW that man cannot KNOW ANYTHING; because what this article means is that man is not himself. Man has no free will…all choice is an illusion; any thoughts and appeals to individual knowledge of anything is a lie, and this includes the SELF. My point is that there can be no scientist who can discover and thus claim to know that man has no free will. This is a flagrant and embarrassing contradiction in terms. And the fact that they so readily assume that this is a reasonable position, to the point where they would take the time to secure the grant money, requisition the student assistants, run the experiment, and publish the findings shows you just how inept science is at employing anything even approximating consistent thinking…and I might even say common sense. They are blind to the contradiction, and this is because they, fundamentally, are Platonists. They concede a “forms and shadows” reality…a material and spirit dichotomy. A consciousness and existence distinction. A mutually exclusive mind/body separation. They fundamentally and wholly believe it is possible for man to know something while at the same time they declare that man is merely an effect of some external determinative force which entirely subverts man’s existence as anything distinct. Man is not really man, and yet man can somehow know something. Like this: Free will is an illusion; a product of brain activity.
If this isn’t a bleak and depressing sign of where our society is headed intellectually, at the very least it is a frightening one. The screams of the Jewish children burning to death in the ovens of Auschwitz were merely the perfunctory effect of brainwaves as governed by the mathematical equations which determine all the outcomes of the cosmos. Suffering and torment are an illusion.
Think this is hyperbole? I defy you to argue rationally how this is not the logical conclusion of the very premise being made in this dangerous article. I dare you. Explain to me why it is an impossible leap of logic to go from “man has no free will, and no thoughts he can claim as his own; all his choices are merely the determinative outcome of biologic electrical impulses” to “Fuck it, just fry ’em. It’s not like they are aware of it anyway…what is a ‘human being’ after all?”
Human beings, like the fire which consumes them, are but a concept…a cognitive mist, and not even that. For even the mist of cognition is a lie. A process of an un-seeable, indifferent, automatic universe which begins and ends at yet more processes. The universe is endless processes upon processes. Nothing is real.
Finally, we must ask this question: What compels this brain activity, exactly? Why, the “laws of nature which govern”, of course! The mathematical proofs which are the “language of the cosmos”! Forces which deny consciousness and exist beyond the material world, and which are thus unobservable and therefore unknowable and mutually exclusive to it but nevertheless exist, the geniuses would have us all assume.
I have said it once and I’ll say it a million times: do not look to science for truth. Scientists are mystics, philosophically speaking, pure and simple. They are the most obtuse motherfuckers around when it comes to discerning the nature of reality. And articles like this make me despise the arrogance of the mathematical elite even more. For all of Stephen Hawking’s articles, degrees, and awards, he is a staggering dolt when it comes to seeing the universe through rational eyes.
So, for the purposes of this article, let us examine specifically the fallacy of the separation of consciousness and existence, for that is what this kind of thing is all about. The devil’s philosophy has always been about separating man from himself, and this is accomplished with great success in the dichotomies I have illustrated, both in this article specifically and others on my blog. Mind and body, ideas and behavior, spirit and flesh…it all leads to the same place: man is not himself. Therefore, he has no right to claim ownership of himself. The appeal, so easily seen in the “free will” study, is that man is not really man; and yet, knowledge is somehow possible.
How do they get around this, exactly? What is the assumption which lets them get away, at least in their own minds and the minds of their peers, with this rational larceny?
I will answer this with a question: Is knowledge possible by everyone?
Of course not!
Knowledge is purely given to those who are “called” to know. Those who have been given the grace to perceive the truth. The scientist who can claim that HE knows that YOU cannot know is he who is cosmically destined to rule you…to compel you towards your inevitable and sole moral obligation: death in service to the determinative and absolute truth outside of you. For he is the proxy incarnate. He is the Person of the Truth.
It is, after all, a mathematical certainty.
Part two next.