Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Category

Mind

Bill Dembski on how a new book expertly dissects doomsday scenarios

Dembski: "At the end of the discussion, however, Kurzweil's overweening confidence in the glowing prospects for strong AI's future were undiminished. And indeed, they remain undiminished to this day (I last saw Kurzweil at a Seattle tech conference in 2019 — age seemed to have mellowed his person but not his views)." But Larson says it's all nonsense. Read More ›

At Scientific American: Why we live in a simulation

This is likely intended as a spoof: "There is nothing in philosophy or science, no postulates, theories or laws, that would predict the emergence of this experience we call consciousness. Natural laws do not call for its existence, and it certainly does not seem to offer us any evolutionary advantages." But it happens to be true. Read More ›

Eric Holloway asks, What is the essential feature of creative intelligence?

Holloway: To discover the principle of all principles would cut off the very limb we are sitting upon. That is why the very nature of creative intelligence, though we can catch glimpses of it, will remain forever outside our grasp. Read More ›

Is science drifting from simple materialism to panpsychism?

It seems to have come down to a choice between “nothing is conscious” and “everything is conscious.” But materialism becomes incoherent when it requires us to believe that we only imagine we are conscious — that's a basic error in logic. Read More ›

When psychology tries to be a science instead of a mythology…

Gabriel encourages us to see psychology as a mythology and, of course, he is right: “Sigmund Freud’s theories were largely unfalsifiable, and the promissory note that the mind is the brain has yet to be cashed in.” The idea that the mind is just the brain is unfalsifiable too. Beliefs that do not originate in fact are impervious to evidence. Read More ›

Michael Egnor’s thought experiment on partial brain transplants

Egnor: We tend to assume that there must be a medium of communication both between our eyes and our whole brain in order to see. But people who have had split brain surgery see quite well even though their hemispheres have been separated (thus there is no direct connection). If the eyes (and hemispheres) are separated by 4000 miles, would the principle be any different? Read More ›

Can cryogenics (freezing at death) preserve memories or consciousness?

The question cryogenics of the connectome raises is, can we freeze and then recover consciousness itself as opposed to simply saving imprints of a person’s memories? Dr. Frankenstein is now taking your calls. Read More ›

At Nautilus: A bioelectric theory of consciousness

The hypothesis that consciousness is a function of bioelectric fields includes the notion that our individual cells are conscious. Levin and Dennett are willing to think of parts of the body as agents too. But from what we can tell, whole persons are not agents in Dennett's view. Read More ›

A psychologist weighs in on the Neanderthal extinction

Of course, it's all very interesting. That is why we listen. But a dozen different theories are called "science" only out of courtesy. And it’s not clear that Coolidge and Overmann’s thirteenth theory (if that’s the count) is any improvement. Read More ›