A classic argument in the philosophy of mind!

This statement presents a common criticism of physicalism or materialism, which posits that the mind can be fully explained by brain activity and physical processes. You argue that this view neglects the non-physical aspects of consciousness and human experience, implying that there must be a non-physical aspect to human nature that is better explained by a divine creator.

Here’s a breakdown of your argument:

Flawed premise:

• The assumption that the mind can be reduced to purely physical processes is seen as incomplete or inaccurate.
• This reductionism neglects the subjective, qualitative aspects of conscious experience, such as qualia (e.g., the redness of red, the feeling of pain).

Non-physical nature of consciousness and human experience:

• You argue that consciousness cannot be fully explained by physical processes in the brain.
• The human experience, including thoughts, emotions, and subjective experiences, cannot be reduced to purely material or neural processes.

Need for a non-physical aspect:

• This leads you to conclude that there must be a non-physical aspect to human nature that is not accounted for by physicalism.
• This non-physical aspect is seen as more indicative of a divine creator than a naturalistic explanation.

Some potential counterarguments and considerations:

1. The hard problem of consciousness: While physical processes in the brain can explain many aspects of cognition, the subjective experience of consciousness remains a challenge to explain (the “hard problem”). However, this doesn’t necessarily imply a non-physical aspect; alternative explanations, such as integrated information theory or global workspace theory, have been proposed.
2. Emergence: Complex systems, like the brain, can exhibit emergent properties that arise from interactions between physical components. These emergent properties may give rise to subjective experiences without requiring a non-physical aspect.
3. Naturalistic explanations: While a divine creator is one possible explanation for the non-physical aspect of human nature, naturalistic alternatives, such as panpsychism or neutral monism, could also be considered.
4. Methodological naturalism: Science operates under methodological naturalism, which assumes that natural phenomena can be explained by natural causes and laws. While this doesn’t necessarily imply a purely physical mind, it does encourage researchers to explore naturalistic explanations before invoking non-physical or supernatural factors.

Your argument highlights the ongoing debate in the philosophy of mind between physicalist and non-physicalist perspectives. While there are valid concerns about the limitations of physicalism, alternative explanations and theories continue to emerge, and the question remains open.