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

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 20, 2020

Evolution, Intelligent Design, Mind, Naturalism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; 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

___ More problems for materialism:
"The standard materialist theory of abstract thought is that it arises from the intricacy and complexity of neural networks in the cerebral cortex. [...] But this materialist argument is really just hand-waving amounting to magic (“lots of neurons fire together… and suddenly abstract thought appears!”) Materialists never explain how the firing of lots of neurons (magically) evokes abstract thought. You just have to trust them on that". https://evolutionnews.org/2019/07/explaining-abstract-thought-in-materialist-terms-the-horns-of-a-dilemma/
Truthfreedom_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

JVL:
You say: we don’t know how unguided processes were able to create some of the complicated life structures and forms we see today therefore we should question it.
That is because that scenario is supposed to be all about the how. How many times do I have to tell you that?
Does that mean, since no one knows how the brain and mind “are as one” we should question that conclusion?
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?
Do you mean NDEs (near death experiences)?
Out of-body-experiences, such as astral projection.ET_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT}

ET, 68: No one knows. People who do know only know that they are as one. You say: we don't know how unguided processes were able to create some of the complicated life structures and forms we see today therefore we should question it. Does that mean, since no one knows how the brain and mind "are as one" we should question that conclusion? There are claims in which the two have been separated and then brought back together. Well, that does sound interesting. Do you mean NDEs (near death experiences)? Are you thinking of Eben Alexander (the third apparently, according to Wikipedia) who wrote Proof of Heaven? I heard several interviews with him on The Discovery Institute's podcast ID: the Future.JVL_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
01:46 AM
1
01
46
AM
PDT}

JVL- There are claims in which the two have been separated and then brought back together.ET_{February 23, 2020
February
02
Feb
23
23
2020
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT}

No one knows. People who do know only know that they are as one.ET_{February 23, 2020
February
02
Feb
23
23
2020
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

ET, 66: Go ask that Amazon tribe how to program a computer and how the software interacts with the hardware. Sounds like you're not sure how the mind and brain "are as one" either. That's fine, I'll wait until someone can be more explicit.JVL_{February 23, 2020
February
02
Feb
23
23
2020
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

Go ask that Amazon tribe how to program a computer and how the software interacts with the hardware.ET_{February 23, 2020
February
02
Feb
23
23
2020
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

ET, 62: Quite the opposite. Yeah, I said the opposite of what I meant. Sigh. I hadn't had enough tea at that point I think. That sounds like a personal problem. Good luck with that. I don't think it's a personal problem; I don't think the link has been made clear at all. But you don't seem inclined to elucidate any further so I'll drop it.JVL_{February 23, 2020
February
02
Feb
23
23
2020
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

BR
Are people as replaceable as animals?
Yes.
Does everyone who goes into a given profession perform at the same level?
No. And neither do animals. Horse racing would not exist if they did.
If you’re going to be honest, you must admit that individuals perform differently regardless of training.
Agreed. And so do animals.
Humans are unique in nature and each person has their own uniqueness that makes them special.
This may be true but the comparisons to animals you are using are not making your case.Ed George_{February 23, 2020
February
02
Feb
23
23
2020
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT}

"Ed George" knows conditioned responses, and salivating when a bell rings.ET_{February 23, 2020
February
02
Feb
23
23
2020
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

BR@57, Pavlov’s dogs were just demonstrating conditioned responses. Conditioned responses also work with humans.Ed George_{February 23, 2020
February
02
Feb
23
23
2020
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

JVL:
You seem to be saying that we may be too technically advanced to detect and discern what the mind and brain are doing.
Quite the opposite.
But we can detect a vast array of electromagnetic waves and we have examined many areas of the brain and haven’t found the sort of thing you’re hinting at.
How do you know?
I still do not understand how the mind and brain “are as one”.
That sounds like a personal problem. Good luck with that.ET_{February 23, 2020
February
02
Feb
23
23
2020
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

@55 MatSpirit
Truthfreedom: The Credit Crunch for Materialism “Materialists are sustained by the faith that science will redeem their promises, turning their beliefs into facts. Meanwhile, they live on credit. The philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper described this faith as “promissory materialism” because it depends on promissory notes for discoveries not yet made.” “Despite all the achievements of science and technology, it is facing an unprecedented credit crunch”. https://www.edge.org/response-detail/11002
MatSpirit replied:
You forgot to mention that Rupert Sheldrake wrote this.
And you forgot to mention that you have no argument. :)Truthfreedom_{February 23, 2020
February
02
Feb
23
23
2020
02:02 AM
2
02
02
AM
PDT}

ET, 52: But what if “you” are an Amazon tribe who has never seen such technology? My previous reply seems to have disappeared. Sigh. You seem to be saying that we may be too technically advanced to detect and discern what the mind and brain are doing. Which is a possibility I suppose. But we can detect a vast array of electromagnetic waves and we have examined many areas of the brain and haven't found the sort of thing you're hinting at. And there is the other thing: without hardware software is useless. It doesn't really have a life of its own. It doesn't functionally exist when the hardware ceases to function. IF the mind is a separate 'thing' from the brain then what happens to it when the brain ceases to function? Where does it go? If it continues to function then it must be stored or held someplace. I still do not understand how the mind and brain "are as one". There's still lots of unanswered questions.JVL_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
11:43 PM
11
11
43
PM
PDT}

Seversky, Ed George, and any others who might be viewing this. In your professions, do you, as individuals, add anything by doing what you're doing? Dogs can be trained to replace dogs, as well as other animals, and you get the same results. Are people as replaceable as animals? Does everyone who goes into a given profession perform at the same level? If you're going to be honest, you must admit that individuals perform differently regardless of training. Not all are meant to be engineers, regardless of the school they attend. Humans are unique in nature and each person has their own uniqueness that makes them special.BobRyan_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT}

If there is no free will, then any study done on animals should have the same result as a study on humans. Pavlov's dogs and Pavlov's children showed animals and humans to be quite different from one another. The children were proven to use free will 100% of the time. Every word we write has meaning, because of free will. No animal can ever write a paragraph, let alone a book. Only humans can do this, since only humans have the capacity to go beyond the brain and touch something truly extraordinary. The mind exists and every work of fiction ever written proves this to be true.BobRyan_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
10:41 PM
10
10
41
PM
PDT}

@ 53 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180312115359.htm The above link was a study that studied a lot of those anti-Freewill studies like the one mentioned in this post, I bring it up because that experiment using an iPad and an overly complicated explanation trying to prove that Freewill didn’t exist, was poorly done and biased, when all it was is that people make mistakes when under pressure I would read John Dylan Haynes “point of no return“ it is a far better experiment that came out at about the same time that shoddy iPad choose a red dot experiment. John Dylan Haynes is also a willusionist to a degree Anyways in his experiment he hooked participants to a computer while riding a bike The computer would read their brain activity, Specifically reading RP as it appeared The computer was hooked to a stoplight As long as the light was green participants continue to pedal on their bikes And of course when it was red they had to stop Now the brilliance of his experiment was that the moment RP started to the computer would turn the stop light red That brain activity that you’re not aware of that apparently determines your decision Anyways he found that participants were capable of stopping during the onset of RP They could react to that subconscious brain activity that they were having, that the weren’t aware of In fact he even found what is known as now as the point of no return The point is at 150ms before execution of the action, this corresponds with point of will I find this experiment to be far more thorough and more decisive then selecting a dot amongst five options and trying to remember if you selected it right, and hoping that the iPad didn’t miss read which is also a very real errorAaronS1978_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PDT}

Truthfreedom: The Credit Crunch for Materialism “Materialists are sustained by the faith that science will redeem their promises, turning their beliefs into facts. Meanwhile, they live on credit. The philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper described this faith as “promissory materialism” because it depends on promissory notes for discoveries not yet made.” “Despite all the achievements of science and technology, it is facing an unprecedented credit crunch”. https://www.edge.org/response-detail/11002 You forgot to mention that Rupert Sheldrake wrote this.MatSpirit_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT}

to refute seversky (and Novella) on split brains:
The Case for the Soul: Refuting Physicalist Objections - video Computers vs. Qualia, Libet and 'Free won't', Split Brain (unified attention of brain despite split hemispheres, as well, visual and motion information is shared between the two hemispheres despite the hemispheres being split), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GB5TNrtu9Pk YES, SPLIT BRAINS ARE WEIRD, BUT NOT THE WAY YOU THINK Scientists who dismiss consciousness and free will ignore the fact that the higher faculties of the mind cannot be split even by splitting the brain in half MICHAEL EGNOR JANUARY 17, 2020 https://mindmatters.ai/2020/01/yes-split-brains-are-weird-but-not-the-way-you-think/
Of further note:
How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f0hL3Nrdas
bornagain77_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

Referring back to a blog piece by Steven Novella, he writes this:
There is evidence that, at least to some extent, some of the decisions we make are made subconsciously, before we are even aware that we made a decision. There is at least preliminary evidence showing that some decisions are made in the brain (indicated by lighting up on fMRI) before the person is aware of the choice. And yet, when asked people will almost always indicate a conscious reason for the choice. They invent a justification for a choice they never consciously made, and they believe that was the true reason for their non-decision. This is most dramatically demonstrated in the split-brain experiments. Briefly, if the major connection between the two hemispheres is severed, they cannot fully communicate. If you then show the right half of the brain an image and then ask the subject to choose an item with their left hand (the hand controlled by the right hemisphere) they will choose the image they just saw. If you then ask the left hemisphere why they did that (the left hemisphere doesn’t know) it will invent a justification – “I chose the bottle of water because I was thirsty,” when in fact their other hemisphere had just seen a picture of a bottle of water. There is another neuroscientific phenomenon going on here as well, the extrapolation of reality briefly into the future. Imagine catching a baseball thrown quickly at you. There is an unavoidable delay in the time it takes for neurons to conduct signals, a few hundred milliseconds. In that time the baseball would whack you in the head. So how do you catch it? Well, neuroscientists have found that our brains extrapolate into the future to compensate for the delay in processing time. We see and feel things slightly before they actually happen in order to compensate for the processing delay. This creates the illusion that we are perceiving now as it happens in real time, but we do not. As is often the case, this system works fine most of the time, but can be stressed to create perceptual illusions. Recently neuroscientists asked how this phenomenon, projecting into the future, might influence the illusion of choice. Perhaps we not only project our perceptions into the future, but our decision-making as well. They conducted an experiment in which subjects were shown five what dots on a computer screen. After a warning a random dot would turn red. The subjects had to decide which of the dots was going to turn red, and then indicate if they guessed correctly. On some trials the time between the warning and the dot turning red was too short for the subject to make a decision, and they were told to indicate that they did not have enough time to choose. When the subjects were given enough time to choose, they reported choosing the correct dot 20% of the time, which is in line with chance and demonstrates that they are honestly reporting their choices. However, when the interval between the warning and the dot turning red was decreased, sometimes they did not have enough time to choose. During those trials, subjects reported an overall 30% accuracy. What the researchers think is going on is that for some trials (when the delay was in the sweet spot) the subjects perceived the dot turning red then chose that dot but had the illusion that they had made the decision beforehand. The researchers call this a postdictive illusion of choice.
Seversky_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT}

JVL:
If I look at a computer, I can find where the software is stored and “read” it.
But what if "you" are an Amazon tribe who has never seen such technology?ET_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

AaronS1978 at 41. Thank you. Were these following studies included in your analysis? If not, what is your opinion of them?
Quantum Consciousness – Time Flies Backwards? – Stuart Hameroff MD Excerpt: Dean Radin and Dick Bierman have performed a number of experiments of emotional response in human subjects. The subjects view a computer screen on which appear (at randomly varying intervals) a series of images, some of which are emotionally neutral, and some of which are highly emotional (violent, sexual….). In Radin and Bierman’s early studies, skin conductance of a finger was used to measure physiological response. They found that subjects responded strongly to emotional images compared to neutral images, and that the emotional response occurred between a fraction of a second to several seconds BEFORE the image appeared! Recently Professor Bierman (University of Amsterdam) repeated these experiments with subjects in an fMRI brain imager and found emotional responses in brain activity up to 4 seconds before the stimuli. Moreover he looked at raw data from other laboratories and found similar emotional responses before stimuli appeared. http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/views/TimeFlies.html Can Your Body Sense Future Events Without Any External Clue? (meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010) - (Oct. 22, 2012) Excerpt: "But our analysis suggests that if you were tuned into your body, you might be able to detect these anticipatory changes between two and 10 seconds beforehand,,, This phenomenon is sometimes called "presentiment," as in "sensing the future," but Mossbridge said she and other researchers are not sure whether people are really sensing the future. "I like to call the phenomenon 'anomalous anticipatory activity,'" she said. "The phenomenon is anomalous, some scientists argue, because we can't explain it using present-day understanding about how biology works; though explanations related to recent quantum biological findings could potentially make sense. It's anticipatory because it seems to predict future physiological changes in response to an important event without any known clues, and it's an activity because it consists of changes in the cardiopulmonary, skin and nervous systems." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121022145342.htm
bornagain77_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

@ Ed George No worries I wasn’t targeting anybody specific I just saw that ET it written about that study and I just wanted to point out some of my problems with it, not even so much with the study but with how it was reported. In fact several conclusions that were reported weren’t even mentioned in the conclusion of the actual studyAaronS1978_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

ET, 47: Urgency can SOMETIMES absolutely be based on a value judgement: if you're talking to your boss and you get a text from your spouse you make a decisions of which thing is more urgent. And you might take a few seconds, or even longer, coming to a decision. Sometimes it's purely physical like when you touch something hot or someone throws a baseball at your face. They you react without making a value judgement. I'm going to guess that you'd say the boss vs spouse scenario is not as urgent so the reaction does not need to come as quickly, yes? I didn't say anything about 11 seconds. I was just asking you how urgency would make a difference in the way decisions were implemented.JVL_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

ET: 46 Okay, are you saying the brain is like hardware and the mind is like software? So the software creates or observes memories and stores them in the hardware, in memory? And a computer does have a designated area that interprets the software commands. If I look at a computer, I can find where the software is stored and "read" it. I can figure out what it's doing and predict what it will do given certain inputs and stimuli. The software may be written down somewhere outside the computer and it may be running on more computers. But it doesn't do anything without the hardware to run it. In other words, it would stop functioning when the hardware stopped functioning. The software is NOT the hardware and the hardware is NOT the software. They are not "as one", they do different things. You could say the computer is A thing that encompasses hardware and software but the software can be overwritten and changed without changing the hardware. And, again, the software is encoded in the hardware; it has to be for it to run. I don't think that's what you mean but if not then I still do not know exactly what you mean by the brain and the mind "are as one". Matter can be converted into energy based on a stated mathematical relationship. It's quantifiable. We know how that works. And yes, processing or transferring information takes energy so someplace where that was happening would be warmer than the same place without the information being transferred all other things being exactly equal. And I do mean exactly equal. But the difference might be very, very small. That being said Bobby Fischer used to lose weight during big chess matches so, in his case, the energy consumption had very measurable effects.JVL_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

JVL:
How would the urgency affect the speed of implementation?
Really? Let me sleep on it and get back to you.
Urgency is sometimes a value judgement,
Is it? Ever play competitive sports? Ever been in a war zone?
sometimes a physical reaction
11 seconds after you though it? Really?
how would those situations manifest differently?
It all depends.ET_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

OK, Mr. Physics- is it warmer in a library due to all the information transfers? What about at a book club? Or an internet café must be boiling over. The brain is a physical thing. It consumes energy. You can google it if you don't believe me. How can the software and hardware be as one and yet be two separate thigs? How can matter and energy be as one and yet be two separate things. Your strawman was There must be an area of the brain that’s just dedicated to communicating with the mind . You pulled that from an area dedicated to such nonsense.ET_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

ET, 40: Now you are just making crap up- a strawman. THEY. ARE. AS. ONE. I'm no making up things or creating a strawman. I do not understand what "they are as one" means. And I'm asking questions based on what physics tells us about communications and energy. IF the mind and brain "are as one" then are they really different things? How can they be "as one" and still be separate things? How does that work? How can you quantify the relationship? ET, 44: I would think the time elapsed between brain activity for a certain activity and carrying out said activity, would all depend on the urgency of that activity. How would the urgency affect the speed of implementation? Urgency is sometimes a value judgement, sometimes a physical reaction; how would those situations manifest differently?JVL_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

I would think the time elapsed between brain activity for a certain activity and carrying out said activity, would all depend on the urgency of that activity.ET_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT}

AaronS1978, I wasn’t surprised by the predictive ability of this study. I never concluded from this that we could use this type of thing to obtain 100% accuracy in predicting. What struck me was the 11 seconds. 11 seconds from the brain activity to when the subject could vocalize their decision. 11 seconds is a long time. How long does it take between you having a thought and you being able to vocalize it? Much less that 11 seconds I would think.Ed George_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply