Another notch in my belt

For people many years into their academic careers this might seem like nothing to speak of, but with a relatively short list of publications and being only recently graduated, this is big news for me. 🙂 Another paper of mine, this time my piece on William Hasker’s emergent dualism and life after death (see the article at this page), has been accepted for publication in one of the best journals of philosophy of religion out there, Philosophia Christi.

Similar Posts:

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

12 thoughts on “Another notch in my belt

  1. as far as Hasker’s et al. dilemma on dualism goes, obviously they haven’t seen Ghost, with Patrick Swayze. For an immaterial substance to act on the material it takes alot of practice and concentration and resolve. Also, it helps to have an more mature ghost mentor you in a subway.

  2. I think I may have come up with an analogy that would be appropriate for emergent consciousness and life and death.

    Think about a radio / television transmitter. The transmitter is set up to give rise to signals of a certain type. Even after being shut off, the signals are still present (albeit traveling away from the source, but still existent). The signals are even still useful given that someone on a distant planet will be able to receive these signals and watch some of our television shows.

    Now apply to the brain. Our resurrection bodies may simply be receivers for the consciousness that was first made in our brains. This would allow another body to “record” our conscious onto it so to speak. I realize it is not perfect and I haven’t thought it through but I thought it may be plausible.

    Just a thought.

  3. Hi Mike – interesting analogy!

    I don’t think it quite works, however – and I don’t think that Hasker would accept it either. In emergent dualism, the mind/soul isn’t something that “emerged” and then exists independently of the body, like a wave that was given off. Rather, it is emergent *on* the body, meaning that it is something sustained by the ongoing existence of the body. The body doesn’t give birth to a soul and then let it go, it sustains it. The emergent mind is said to have causal powers all of its own, whereas a radio wave is just an effect of the transmitter/brain. Emergence is a relationship between A and B, where A is the thing upon which B is emergent. A new body is “C,” and now matter what you do to B, it is emergent on A, and not C.

    To use your analogy further, what Hasker is suggesting is that a wave emitted by transmitter T can then later become the very same wave (and not just a reproduction of it) that was in fact transmitted (and not merely relayed) by transmitter Q. At this point, the idea of emergence breaks down altogether and we end up talking about replication.

  4. I remember you specifically mentioning a future podcast regarding the philosophy of the mind, is that subject still on the way? I would be interested in learning your views on consciousness and the mind.

  5. Yes, It’s something I will do at some stage, but I don’t know when. I am actually not 100% committed on the body/mind problem yet. I actually have no real problem with emergent dualism (although I say that it should not be called dualism). I just don’t think it allows for the mind to survive bodily death. Overall, I’m on the monist side of the dualism/monism divide. I came to that position on biblical grounds long before I got interested in philosophy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available