In her book on the brain and consciousness, Sharon Dirckx presents an alternative to the materialistic view regarding the mind. In order to do this she starts by asking three simple questions about testing beliefs that we (or others) hold.
- Is it internally coherent?
Does the matrix of the belief make sense according to its own frames of reference? Oppositely, are there internal inconsistencies? Inconsistencies from within undermine the belief in a self-defeating way.
- Does it have explanatory power?
Is it able to explain the world around us in a way that makes sense? If something is true, then it illumines our understanding of reality as opposed to obscuring our understanding of reality.
- Can it be lived?
Can it be authentically lived out with conviction? Or does life experience bring into question the belief’s truthfulness and validity? (I might add to this, can it be lived well by a society, by many people?)
First let’s apply this framework to the materialistic view of the mind/brain conundrum.
Is a materialistic view of the brain (that is, there is no immaterial mind) internally coherent? Science, the study of the material world, is by definition restricted to the material world. However, to make the leap that there is only a material world because science can only study the material world is a fallacy. It’s working on a presupposition which itself is not backed up by science (since science can neither prove nor disprove this).
Does it have explanatory power? Well, to reduce your conscious experience down to the firing of synapses and neurons and thus leave the experience of consciousness to be an illusion (as Dennet might argue) would in the end raise more questions than answers. So basically all of human experience is an illusion? What makes you sure that’s the valid viewpoint if you are yourself under the illusion?
And finally, can it be lived? The widespread presence of religions in the modern world such as Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, even new-age spiritualism, spiritualism in general, et cetera et cetera, shows you that very few people live as if they are merely the firing of their neural synapses. (See P.26 – 27, 52 – 53) Those who do claim its principles still speak as if there is someone doing the speaking, or thinking, like their thoughts actually matter and are not random firings of synapses.
This is the framework in action looking at a materialist view of the brain and consciousness. But this little framework applies so well to so much. We can use this framework to ask questions of big worldview beliefs or ask questions of particularities. Is Buddhism internally coherent? Does it explain the world? Can it be lived well by me and by many others? Or we could zoom in on some smaller aspects of a belief. Let’s take Karma for instance. Is the principle of karma internally coherent? Does karma best explain the world we live in? And can living according to the principles of karma be done well by me and by many others?
These questions are good to apply to the beliefs that people present us with and they are also good to apply to our own beliefs in a reflective way. For some of us we are more inclined to use these questions as a means of examining the rationality of beliefs held by other people. That’s fine as long as it’s done in good faith and with grace and respect. For others of us this framework will prove most beneficial as we run our own beliefs through it. More often, I would imagine that this framework actually raises more questions as it leads you to consider more and more particular aspects of beliefs.
On some occasions we don’t have to dig far to find issues because they lie close to the surface. Other times it takes a lot of digging and getting involved in the nuances and minutiae of a belief before we find any serious errors, or not even errors, just aspects we don’t understand or are ill-equipped to engage with. Generally speaking I think the harder you have to dig the better the belief is. Although that’s not always the case. Sometimes you have to dig a little but eventually you come across an issue that actually undermines the belief in a catastrophic way.
It may be a helpful practice for you to run your own beliefs through this framework. Or if you’re encountering another set of beliefs, run them through this framework. Doing so may illuminate important areas to deal with or show their relative importance. Otherwise it’s also a great framework to memorise as we encounter all sorts of people with different beliefs, or as they challenge our own beliefs. These three questions are another tool that may help you in being prepared for such an occasion.
Sharon Dirckx. (2019). Am I just my brain? The Good Book Company.
Bigvai and Shiphrah 