Egnor is responding to a reader’s question about whether neuroscience has disproven free will.
In his view, “ “Consciousness ” is a meaningless term that too often misleads us, and it shouldn’t be used in medicine, neuroscience, or philosophy: “Consciousness” is a very vague term and, ultimately, I don’t think it has any useful meaning at all, apart from other categories such as sensation, perception, imagination, reason etc. Aristotle Read More…
Brain electrochemistry data does not describe actual thoughts; it certainly can’t trace thoughts to origins outside of the brain itself
Apparently, claims of that sort are not working out. Could these people try common sense before they go over a cliff?
Stevens: Illusion theory has no rule of reproducibility. Yet, if you set up the infinity mirror experiment at another time, you will see the same effect.
Illusion theory has no rule about how other observers perceive their illusions.
Why was the racists’ idea about brain size considered at all? Materialism does that to people and King was right to see it and call it out.
Consciousness: Why do you know you exist? A rock doesn’t know. Yet you both exist. What’s the difference?
In humans, the abdominal brain is thought to play a role in emotion, though not in reason or moral choice. It would be interesting to know if the abdominal brain dates back to the Cambrian.
Mark Solms clearly assumes, in his Psychology Today column, that the mind is just what the brain does. But that’s precisely the claim that the very existence of consciousness clouds.
At ScienceDaily: The Purdue researchers originally began questioning the dataset when they could not obtain similar outcomes from their own tests.
From UC Berkeley: “Researchers at UC Berkeley and Google used machine-learning technology known as a “deep neural network” to analyze facial expressions in some 6 million video clips uploaded to YouTube from people in 144 countries spanning North, Central and South America, Africa, Europe, the Middle East and Asia.”
New Scientist seems to be back to their usual schtick. Their 13 reasons for questioning Darwinism were probably some kind of aberration.
We need a new expression for things that are surprising, apart from the complexity of life forms, which simply cannot have arisen from Darwinism acting on randomness. But around here it is okay to scoff at that stuff anyhow.
Egnor: I agree that design in nature is an effective challenge to materialism. But I also believe that the mind refutes materialism in a rather straightforward way—and in much the same way that evidence of intelligent design in biology refutes materialism…
Researchers: The ‘continuity of the self’—the capacity for self-awareness and self-recognition— remains stable whereas other components such as physical aspects, physiological processes and even attitudes, beliefs and values are more liable to change.