On a more pragmatic point, I think we need to keep future podcasts more focused. Don’t you agree?
Most definitely. There was a noticeable tension between your desire to keep things moving and JP’s goal to explain the issues thoroughly. Not sure that can be resolved very easily.
2 Likes
Yes, and no bonus off topic questions either 
Hmm… So a near perfect but artificially generated copy of a human brain could be a golem?
To be honest, the “AI can’t have a mind” position often seems unassailable to any possible disconfirmation. The reverse is probably true as well but is at least less likely to err on the assignment of things like rights and moral systems.
1 Like
Fun conversation.
I’m glad you brought up Christian materialists, giving Nancey Murphy as an example. I was disappointed that he didn’t really address this point, especially since he kept adding the unhelpful and unnecessary ‘atheistic’ in front of materialism. It’s hard to blame him, since hylomorphism was brought up in the same question.
JP’s a thoughtful philosopher. He must do more than just ignore these people. I wonder what he’d say (or what he has said) about Christian materialism? If the more philosophically informed here know some references, please share.
My preference for future podcasts with philosophers: I think it would be better to keep philosophical discussions focused on a single topic, give more time for the philosopher to answer and qualify, and move very slowly, stopping on every term that is unclear. Just like with any interdisciplinary discussion, the first few conversations with a philosopher will have a ‘Philosophy 101’ feel to them.
Often in philosophy what seems like a single topic will end up as two or three, in which case, I suggest you ask the philosopher which one they would like to focus on, and then stay there until some understanding is reached before moving on to the next topic.
1 Like
My response to the video:
4 Likes
Thanks for sharing a thoughtful analysis of the interview. I would agree with most of what you had to say.
You brought up Christian Materialism. if you’re interested in one particular form of Christian materialism, there’s a series of short videos of an interview with Lynne Rudder Baker. These interviews took place as author interviews for contributors to a book on substance dualism that JP Moreland edited. There she discusses her particular version of Christian materialism. One interesting similarity to the Moreland interview, Baker’s interview also ends with a brief moral and political discussion.
1 Like
Their is also Nancy Murphy…
1 Like
Murphy
Tim O’ Connor
Joel B. Green
Kevin Corcoran
Peter Van Inwagen
Lots more. It has defenders and definitely deserves attention:
https://www.academia.edu/37754128/Christian_Physicalism_is_Not_Crazy_A_Survey_of_Contemporary_Scholarship
1 Like
Is there is a difference between Christian physicalist and Christian materialists?
1 Like
They are used interchangeably. Though physicalism seems to be more prevalent now.
2 Likes
I know that Glenn Peoples argues on his blog (rightreason.org) that Christian physicalism make better sense of the biblical data than Cartesian dualism (though I think some form of hylemorphism could answer those arguments just as well).
3 Likes
The more I learn about this, and I hate to admit this @dga471, the more hylemorphism seems to have some real legitimacy.
2 Likes
Actual link to that post?
For me I’m not clear the difference between the soul and an embodied mind.
There’s more than one where he discusses it. His site has a search function… “Physicalism”, “dualism”, “soul” and terms like that should get you the relevant posts.
2 Likes
That looks like a great blog. Thanks for the pointer!
2 Likes
I’d be really curious @Faizal_Ali’s response to christian physicalists. Their point of view seems consistent with much of his understanding of the mind and soul, but is also consistent with historical Christianity.
1 Like
So am I! But I have to learn what it is first. 
3 Likes