Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Category

Mind

Is Jerry Coyne undercutting his own argument against free will?

Michael Egnor: “Except for action of any quantum events”? I challenge Coyne: What in nature isn’t the action of quantum events? Certainly, every event in the brain is quantum in nature—every brain state, every action potential, every secretion of a neurotransmitter, every bit of protein synthesis or ion flow—is the consequence of quantum events. Read More ›

A debate at Scientific American: Can a pill change your mind about basic issues in life?

Readers who remain skeptical that hallucinogens can change our values may wonder how religious and political values— so often rooted in decades of history, family history, and personal experience—could really be overturned by a mere trip. Read More ›

A return of purpose to biology?

He turns out to be looking for a “bottom up” theory of agency—that is, a materialist one. And he admits that there is no such theory but he offers “a sketch of what a solution might look like.” One suspects that materialists will be offering such sketches centuries from now. Read More ›

The philosopher and the biologist offer a “fantasy” of how Darwinism can create minds

The problem isn’t with their believing that cells feature lots of intelligence but with their effort to equate human and cellular intelligence. Human intelligence is something quite different. Read More ›

Why, as a neurosurgeon, Michael Egnor believes in free will

Egnor: "An intellectual seizure would be a seizure that caused abstract thought, such as logic, or reasoning, or mathematics. People never have, for example, mathematics seizures—seizures in which they involuntarily do calculus or arithmetic. This observation, which is as true today as it was in Penfield’s time nearly a century ago, begs for explanation." He offers an argument for the immaterial powers of the mind. Read More ›

Michael Egnor addresses an objection to free will raised here at Uncommon Descent

Egnor: [fMRI isn't decisive.] But fMRI is worthless in the neuroscience of free will. To understand why, note that fMRI has very poor temporal resolution. fMRI measures changes in blood flow in the brain in response to activity of neurons, and these changes lag neuronal activity by at least several seconds. Read More ›

Free will makes more sense of our world than determinism—and science certainly allows for it

Scientists weigh in on both sides but accepting free will allows us to avoid some serious problems around logic and personal freedom. Read More ›

Mike Egnor on why Coyne and Hossenfelder are wrong to deny free will

Egnor: Now let’s get to the neuroscience. Neuroscience has a lot to contribute to the debate over free will and all of it supports the reality of free will. There isn’t a shred of neuroscientific evidence that contradicts the reality of free will. Read More ›

Robert J. Marks: Pigeons can solve the Monty Hall problem. But can you?

The dilemma pits human folk intuition against actual probability theory, with surprising results. But the howler is that pigeons tended to get this right more easily than humans - at least in one study. (Another study found that it depended on the humans’ age.) Read More ›