Page 1293 - 1970S

Materialism's Objections

oscilloscope has enabled neurophysi–

ologists to record electrical charges

of one millionth of a volt. And there

are absolutely no fundamental differ–

ences between human brain and ani–

mal brain.

Argument Four:

An objection to

our use of

linear

representations -

in light of the

1zon-linear

relation–

ships expected from complex systems.

Cotmterm·gmnent: All

linear rep–

resentations were only íntended to

qualitatively present

the case - not

to

qttantitatively prove

it. The poínt,

however, was oot the exact relation·

ship between the various mammals

- but rather the relative position of

man. Only man breaks the curve -

only man deviates from the trajec–

tories set by the mammals when men–

tal activity is compared wíth brain.

Argument Fíve:

An

analogy to

the critica] mass needed for atomic

fission in whicb a precise amount

and ratio of

U235

transforms a few

seemingly inert pounds of uranium

into an atomic explosion. In the

aoalogy, the materialist presumes that

only in roan is the amount and ratio

of intrinsic cerebral cortex suffi.ciently

large to reach "critica! mass" - and

therefore only in man does the re–

sultant

psychological

explosion of

self-consciousness and creative intel–

lect occur.

Argument Six:

The "little-differ–

ence-can-go-a-long-way theory" - or,

in a shorter forro, the "threshold

theory." (Arguments Five and Six,

together as a tag-team, forro material–

ism's most popular objection to a

non-physical mind component.

Cotmterargttment:

Having been

conceived by circular reasoning, Ar–

gwnents F.ive and Six cannot be

rigorously refuted. (This ís hardly

surprising, since they were designed

for this very purpose.) But we

can

demonstrate enormous differences in

brain sizes (and therefore amounts

PLAIN

TRUTH

June

1972

of cerebral cortices) - the human

brain can vary from 32 to 65 ounces,

the ape cranial capacity from 4 to 39

cubic inches, the cetacean ( dolphin–

whale) brain, from under

1

to over

19 pounds - a/l

without any remltant

differences in thinking and behavior.

Then there are the tragically de–

formed microcephalic bumans -

with brains as small as

lO

ounces -

who still manifest clear signs of

being humans, signs absent from the

much Jarger ape or cetacean brains.

But the thrust of our counterargu–

ment must simply be to point out

the motivation and methodology by

which materialism's arguments were

devised. Observe

circttlat· reasoning

in act ion: First, the materialist ex–

amines the human braio in order to

catalogue its distinguishing charac–

teristics. Next, he assumes that these

(very minor) differences would,

by

themselves,

cause the totality of hu·

man thought - "if" found in any

animaL He then "discovers" that only

the human brain has these very minor

differences. Completing his circle,

the beleaguered materialist therefore

concludes that "it is to be expected

that only human beings sbould show

the highest mental activities." Circu–

lar reasoning in the raw! What the

materialist has not at all proved is

that very minor physiological differ–

ences can account for the great gap

between the output of animal brain

and the human mind.

Argument Seven:

A specific ap–

plication of the theory of Emergent

Evolution.

Cotmterargztment :

Emergent Evolu–

tion relies on "physical mysticism"

to replace a non-physical mind com–

ponent. (Why haven't the brains of

whale and ape "emerged"?)

A rgument Eight:

An objection to

our use of the scientific method to

reach a condusion which goes be–

yond science.

Counterargttment:

The scientific

method is simply a system of logi–

cally analyzing the proper data. And

the existence of non-physical reality

does not go beyond science - it is

rather the conclusion toward which

science is pointing.

A1·gument Nine:

An objection to

our solving the problems which arise

from a purely physical explanation

of the human rnind by introducing