Michael Egnor: Why the mind cannot just emerge from the brain

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 20, 2020

Evolution, Intelligent Design, Mind, Naturalism

2}_{Categories
Evolution
Intelligent Design
Mind
Naturalism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The mind cannot emerge from the brain if the two have no qualities in common:

In his continuing discussion with Robert J. Marks, Michael Egnor argues that emergence of the mind from the brain is not possible because no properties of the mind have any overlap with the properties of brain. Thought and matter are not similar in any way. Matter has extension in space and mass; thoughts have no extension in space and no mass.
Michael Egnor: The thing is, with the philosophy of mind, if the mind is an emergent property of the brain, it is ontologically completely different. That is, there are no properties of the mind that have any overlap with the properties of brain. Thought and matter are not similar in any way. Matter has extension in space and mass; thoughts have no extension in space and no mass. Thoughts have emotional states; matter doesn’t have emotional states, just matter. So it’s not clear that you can get an emergent property when there is no connection whatsoever between that property and the thing it supposedly emerges from.
The other problem with emergence is even more fundamental: When you think about the wetness of water as an emergent property of water, you are really talking about a psychological state. That is, you are saying, psychologically you didn’t expect water to feel wet but by golly, it does. So that’s emergent. But you can’t explain the psychological state [of perceiving wetness] itself as emergent. – Mind Matters News

See also: Why eliminative materialism cannot be a good theory of the mind. Thinking that the mind is simply the brain, no more and no less, involves a hopeless contradiction. How can you have a proposition that the mind doesn’t exist? That means propositions don’t exist and that means, in turn, that you don’t have a proposition.

Comments

Vividbleau, 100: Why, wouldn’t it be? Why do you think that? Why? Why is that.? Okay, okay. I still think that's a technique and not a stance as it can be used for different philosophies.JVL_{February 25, 2020
February
02
Feb
25
25
2020
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PDT}

VB
“Is a method the same as a philosophical position? “ Why wouldn’t it be?
Wouldn’t the method be the process you use to develop a philosophical position?Ed George_{February 25, 2020
February
02
Feb
25
25
2020
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

JVL “Is a method the same as a philosophical position? “ Why wouldn’t it be? “I have always thought of a method as a way to deal with a situation not necessarily the same as a stance on the situation.” Why do you think that? “Anyway, I do like honest and straight dialogue. “ Why? “Studying math with do that to you.“ Why is that.? Vividvividbleau_{February 25, 2020
February
02
Feb
25
25
2020
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

Vividbleau, 98: Everyone holds to certain philosophical positions, they cant be avoided. I see you have adopted the Socratic method. I'll believe you. Is a method the same as a philosophical position? I have always thought of a method as a way to deal with a situation not necessarily the same as a stance on the situation. Anyway, I do like honest and straight dialogue. Studying math with do that to you.JVL_{February 25, 2020
February
02
Feb
25
25
2020
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

JVL “Philosophy . . . there’s another thing I can’t say I can seriously contribute to. I’ll leave that to others!” Everyone holds to certain philosophical positions, they cant be avoided. I see you have adopted the Socratic method. Vividvividbleau_{February 25, 2020
February
02
Feb
25
25
2020
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

Truthfreedom, 96: Never! Doubting and asking constitute the path to knowledge. That's what I think but sometimes my spouse and child wish I would just shut up! And it's important to question in a respectful way and to be open to responses that don't necessarily match the kind you would like. I forget sometimes but I'm working on it. I do believe in dialogue but it must be done in a collegial manner. Philosophy . . . there's another thing I can't say I can seriously contribute to. I'll leave that to others!JVL_{February 25, 2020
February
02
Feb
25
25
2020
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

@94 JVL
I’d love a clear, straight-forward explanation.
Wouldn't we all? Maybe 2500+ years of philosophy are trying to tell us something? :)
I’m happy to stop asking.
Never! Doubting and asking constitute the path to knowledge.Truthfreedom_{February 25, 2020
February
02
Feb
25
25
2020
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

ET, 93: They are as one. I think I'm just going to have to accept that I'm not going to 'get' it. Oh well. It’s a gift. You have to be enlightened. And I clearly am NOT that! And yes, I would say the soul and mind are the same thing. Thanks! The question just popped up in my 'mind'. Anyway, thanks for trying. I'm happy to let it lie now.JVL_{February 25, 2020
February
02
Feb
25
25
2020
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

Truthfreedom, 92: If you are a “bunch” of neurons “experiencing themselves”: – How is that those neurons go wrong and “see” a person? (Your neurons do not reflect themselves in a mirror, they see themselves as a “human being”, not axons and dendrites and neurotransmitters and action potentials). I don't know how neurones do what they are proposed to do. I'm trying to keep an open mind.! Pun intended. But I'd love a clear, straight-forward explanation. I THINK (just my opinion) this is tied up with the consciousness question which is terribly complicated and I can only follow the more technical discussions so far before I get lost in the details. And free will . . . not going there. I can't possibly contribute anything of worth to the discussion. I'm just asking ET for more details in the hope he (?) can provide them. If not, that's okay with me. I'm happy to stop asking.JVL_{February 25, 2020
February
02
Feb
25
25
2020
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

JVL:
Well, how does it work then?
They are as one.
How can they do that?
It's a gift. You have to be enlightened. And yes, I would say the soul and mind are the same thing.ET_{February 25, 2020
February
02
Feb
25
25
2020
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

@ JVL If you are a "bunch" of neurons "experiencing themselves": - How is that those neurons go wrong and "see" a person? (Your neurons do not reflect themselves in a mirror, they see themselves as a "human being", not axons and dendrites and neurotransmitters and action potentials). How so? Are neurons "mistaken"?Truthfreedom_{February 25, 2020
February
02
Feb
25
25
2020
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

ET, 90: That you are looking for a physical structure capable of receiving proves that you just don’t get it and never will. Well, how does it work then? That's what I'm not getting. They are as one. I still don't know what that means in this particular case. I'll just wait until someone can spell it out or at least offer a guess that kind of makes sense. How do you think clairvoyance works? People tapping into other people’s minds. How can they do that? How does it work? Are the minds meeting up in some cosmic coffee shop and trading notes? Can two clumps of energy swap information? If two minds can communicate then how come we aren't inundated with other minds begging for attention? 'Cause if one mind can ask another one for attention then how come we aren't all being asked many times on a daily basis? The mind is already with the baby at birth. What about a naturally aborted pregnancy? Something like a quarter to a third of human pregnancies spontaneously abort in the first trimester. Did they have minds already? Oh, I almost forgot . . . are souls the same thing as minds?JVL_{February 25, 2020
February
02
Feb
25
25
2020
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

Observational studies? Those are missing when it comes to unguided evolution. They are missing when it comes to the brain producing thoughts. That you are looking for a physical structure capable of receiving proves that you just don't get it and never will.
Here’s one thing (among many) that puzzles me: if the mind exists before the brain how does the growing brain attune itself to that particular mind?
They are as one. How do you think clairvoyance works? People tapping into other people's minds. The mind is already with the baby at birth.ET_{February 25, 2020
February
02
Feb
25
25
2020
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

ET, 88: No one will ever be able to explain anything to your satisfaction. Maybe not. But I'd like at least a bit more that what's available now. Some kind of observational studies? Some attempt to explain how the brain and mind influence each other. Some kind of physical structure in the brain that seems to be capable of receiving input from an energy source (if the mind is energy). Just something that gives an idea of how the brain and mind "are as one". Here's one thing (among many) that puzzles me: if the mind exists before the brain how does the growing brain attune itself to that particular mind? "Cause there would be lots and lots of minds. All 'broadcasting' at the same frequency? Probably not, that would be confusing. Seven billion humans does that mean seven billion different frequencies? What about babies who die at birth? Was there a mind all set to match up but then has to get back in the queue and wait for another birth?JVL_{February 25, 2020
February
02
Feb
25
25
2020
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

No one will ever be able to explain anything to your satisfaction.ET_{February 25, 2020
February
02
Feb
25
25
2020
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

ET, 88: I think I'll just wait until someone can clarify what you mean when you say the brain and mind "are as one". None of the analogies seem to clear things up much and they are just analogies, not models, and cannot be expected to parallel the brain/mind configuration closely.JVL_{February 25, 2020
February
02
Feb
25
25
2020
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

JVL:
Again, some plausible ideas have been proposed so it’s incorrect to say it ‘defies’ human manufacture.
Except that you have no idea if they are plausible.
Are you sure matter wouldn’t exist without energy?
Please explain how it could.
Can a lump of matter exist out in space without energy?
I don't see how. Even atoms require energy to exist.
When a human dies the brain still exists but it’s matter so if it can’t exist without energy where is that energy?
Atoms require energy in order to exist. The weak and strong nuclear forces
Information doesn’t just exist floating about in the ether.
Sure it does.ET_{February 25, 2020
February
02
Feb
25
25
2020
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

ET, 82: LoL! No, they do NOT sound reasonable at all. Just quarrying the stones would be a problem. And there wasn’t any plans left behind. No lab. No tools. Nothing. Not even a reason for building it. Are you sure about 'no tools'? Again, some plausible ideas have been proposed so it's incorrect to say it 'defies' human manufacture. There were designers about at the time who probably had the ability. And similar kinds of constructions were accomplish in other cultures at various times so there's no reason to suppose there was any kind of extra-human contribution. 83: Matter and energy. Matter wouldn’t exist without energy but they are definitely separate. Are you sure matter wouldn't exist without energy? Just because Einstein figured out a conversion does that mean they depend on each other. Can a lump of matter exist out in space without energy? When a human dies the brain still exists but it's matter so if it can't exist without energy where is that energy? 84: And let’s not forget about information, which is neither matter nor energy. It is separate from whatever media it is on, but they are together as one. Information doesn't just exist floating about in the ether. It's recorded somewhere. And if the place its recorded is destroyed where is it? Is it still 'functional'? Does it still have influence? When a human dies the brain still exists so any information it contains should still exist? If not then where did it go? Anyway, as you said, no one really knows how the mind/brain interaction works, how they "are as one". Clearly it's not exactly like the examples you've come up with. Sounds like a good area for research. Is anyone working on that?JVL_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT}

And let's not forget about information, which is neither matter nor energy. It is separate from whatever media it is on, but they are together as one.ET_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

Matter and energy. Matter wouldn't exist without energy but they are definitely separate.ET_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

LoL! No, they do NOT sound reasonable at all. Just quarrying the stones would be a problem. And there wasn't any plans left behind. No lab. No tools. Nothing. Not even a reason for building it.ET_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

ET, 78: Nan Madol still defies an explanation via human manufacture. I don't think "defies" is the right word. Like most historical sciences we have to accept that we might not ever know for sure how some structures were constructed; lots of cultures did not leave written records. But it doesn't mean we don't have plausible explanations, building on technology known to have existed at the time. Again, I don't know Nan Madol well but even its 'official; website offers some partial, plausible guesses regarding how it might have been constructed. From: http://www.nan-madol.com
Scientists say the basalt boulders, some as heavy as 50 tons, were transported by rafts to Nan Madol from the other side of the island and levered into place with palm tree trunks. The boulders were dragged inch by inch up log ramps before being piled one atop the other, they said. No mortar was used to hold them together. The rock structures reach as high as 16 meters on Pohnwi islet. Nan Madol Construction by thousands of workers probably took hundreds of years. Again, I don't know the site and I cannot address the plausibility of these guesses. But they sound reasonable, you could always check the archaeological research that has been done at the site. And, not knowing the precise answer, does not mean that the locals weren't capable of the work. In other words, Nan Madol does NOT 'defy' human manufacture. There are possibilities which do not invoke extra-human means and techniques.
JVL_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

ET, 79: The material thing is useless without the energy thing. I'm trying to think of something else that has that same characteristic. Can you think of another system that behaves like that? I'm still trying to get my head around how this would work. It can't be like computer hardware and software 'cause software is not 'an energy thing'. And where is the energy stored or held?JVL_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

The relationship is they are as one, yet separate. One is a material thing and the other is more of an energy thing. The material thing is useless without the energy thing.ET_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

ET, 77: Then buy a dictionary and learn how to use it Gee, didn't see a reference to "mind and brain are as one". I meant the relationship is ill-defined as in unexplained. We “know” just because humans were around. We “know” they were capable from what they left behind. In other words, we don’t know, we just assume. Nan Madol still defies an explanation via human manufacture. I'll look up Nan Madol later since I'm unfamiliar with that particular site and I've got to get to some other things just now. There were many that were spot on and there is no way he could have known. And he isn’t the only one. Astral projection aren’t just two words someone threw together. Out-of-body-experiences isn’t just some phrase. Google them and read. Or not. I was just curious as to your reasoning. You've answered that, thank you.JVL_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

JVL:
If you doubt it then question it.
There isn't anything to question. There isn't a scientific theory and there aren't any testable hypotheses.
I think your mind and brain “are as one” is ill-defined
Then buy a dictionary and learn how to use it
Yup, we do.
We "know" just because humans were around. We "know" they were capable from what they left behind. In other words, we don't know, we just assume. Nan Madol still defies an explanation via human manufacture.
Why do you believe his statements?
There were many that were spot on and there is no way he could have known. And he isn't the only one. Astral projection aren't just two words someone threw together. Out-of-body-experiences isn't just some phrase. Google them and read. Or not.ET_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

ET, 75: So much for unguided evolution. If you doubt it then question it. I think you're incorrect but it's your prerogative. I think your mind and brain "are as one" is ill-defined and unexplained so I will doubt it. Do we? Yup, we do. Edgar Cayce Why do you believe his statements? Just curious.JVL_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

JVL:
I think it does follow: if we don’t know how something works then we should question tentative hypotheses.
So much for unguided evolution.
And, with the ancient structures we might not know how our ancestors constructed them but we have a pretty good idea which were built by men and which are naturally occurring.
Do we?
Do you have a particular example in mind that can be found online?
Edgar CayceET_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

The materialists who show up here at UD are more dogmatic than the most dogmatic religious fundamentalists. As evidenced by their comments above all they are doing is dogmatically doubling down on a logically fallacious argument: No one has ever proved that materialism is false. [Therefore] Materialism is true. However, the above is nothing more than a fallacious appeal to ignorance. It’s a textbook example of an Ad ignorantium argument (an appeal to ignorance).john_a_designer_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

ET, 71: That doesn’t follow. There are many ancient structures that we don’t know how they were built. Do we have to say that nature did it? I think it does follow: if we don't know how something works then we should question tentative hypotheses. And, with the ancient structures we might not know how our ancestors constructed them but we have a pretty good idea which were built by men and which are naturally occurring. Pretty good mean sometimes there is a doubt. Out of-body-experiences, such as astral projection. Do you have a particular example in mind that can be found online?JVL_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply