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

Bravo, AaronS1978.ET_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

@35 This came slightly before the more recent find that debunked the idea that our decision is preceded by brain activity There are a couple things I want to make clear neurological activity proceeds everything we do on a day-to-day basis, if you didn’t have any activity going on in your brain you would be dead However the act of a decision has been debated for quite some time and proceeding brain activity has not proven that our decision is decided ahead of our knowing Aaron Schurger Recently proved this and his previous research all supported the notion that RP is nothing more than background noise that may or may not help tip the scales in your decision The 11 second prediction was a study done in Australia involving the visual cortex What they found was that a previous image of a choice that you made would retain in the visual cortex for some time and could affect the next decision What the tabloids tell you is that neuroscience can predict your decision 11 seconds a head of time, conveniently leaving the accuracy out, which you then are left to assume what it is, most will assume 100% This is probably due to the conditioning that most people have received over their lifetime and education about the perception of science This however is bunk, they were predicting a binary choice, in this case between images and books Now why Is this BUNK, here’s why none of the tabloids tell you the accuracy of the predictions they made using the algorithm, they ranged anywhere between 45% to 72% in accuracy which averaged out to a whopping 62% this is slightly better than the 60% Sung accomplished back in 2008 In other words they haven’t really improved Their accomplishment with a $250,000 piece of equipment is no more impressive than a magician being able to predict the next card you were about to pickAaronS1978_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

JVL:
There must be an area of the brain that’s just dedicated to communicating with the mind but i haven’t heard of anyone pinpointing it.
Now you are just making crap up- a strawman. THEY. ARE. AS. ONE.ET_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

Is it warmer at a library because of all that energy for all the information transfers? Inquiring minds want to know.ET_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

ET, 36: Exactly as it has to. Which means exactly as it was intelligently designed to. And yes, the brain requires quite a bit of energy. Yeah but . . . that's still not saying how it works. I'd sure like to know. There must be an area of the brain that's just dedicated to communicating with the mind but i haven't heard of anyone pinpointing it. And how does the mind generate a signal for the brain to pick up? Lots and lots of questions!!JVL_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

How much energy does it take to transfer the information from the interweb to our brain? Is it HUGE? Can it be detected?ET_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

JVL:
Yeah but . . . how does it work?
Exactly as it has to. Which means exactly as it was intelligently designed to. And yes, the brain requires quite a bit of energy.ET_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

"Ed George":
But it has been shown that brain activity preceded the thought/choice by as much as 11 seconds.
Yes, there is brain activity 11 seconds before there is action. That has nothing to do with the brain activity creating a thought. Neuroscientists can read brain activity to predict decisions 11 seconds before people act There isn't any evidence that electricity, flowing down neurons, can create a thought.ET_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

ET, 33: They are as one, yet separate. Yeah but . . . how does it work? How is the information transmitted? How come no one has detected the transfer? I mean, with billions of people on the planet there would be HUGE amounts of information being transferred. That would take a lot of energy.JVL_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

JVL:
Having followed this topic for years, especially via the Skeptiko podcast, I can never figure out how the mind and brain are supposed to communicate?
They are as one, yet separate.ET_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

By the way, I should have made it clear that I was not intending to state or to imply that I believed that thoughts were produced by our brain, whatever other interaction might take place. As is stated in a YouTube video, it is the mysterious 'I' that prompts us to do something as simple as raising an arm : nothing less than a miracle. I wonder if the good professor learnt that from our old friend, William J Murray. Below, is a fascinating original post of his to this board (one of a few on a similar theme) : https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/experience-rational-debate-science-depend-on-the-supernatural/Axel_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

JVL, I think all we can say is that we don’t know how thoughts originate. But it has been shown that brain activity preceded the thought/choice by as much as 11 seconds. That certainly doesn’t sound like a mind informing the brain, it sounds more like the brain being responsible for the thought.Ed George_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

ET, 29: Yes, the mind creates thoughts and the brain is there to carry them out when required. The brain is also to store memories. There isn’t any science to support thoughts arising from neurons. Having followed this topic for years, especially via the Skeptiko podcast, I can never figure out how the mind and brain are supposed to communicate? I mean, if the brain is like some kind of radio receiver then how does it work? Where is the antenna? The signals from the mind must be some kind of electromagnetc wave (and if not then what?) so the brain would need some kind of detector. And the signals should be detectable yeah?JVL_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

"Ed George":
We are talking about whether the mind exists/functions independent of the brain, not about evolution.
Yes, the mind creates thoughts and the brain is there to carry them out when required. The brain is also to store memories. There isn't any science to support thoughts arising from neurons.ET_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

___ Correcting post @27: Those who claim to have “science” on their side (“macroevolutionists”) have homework to do (prove those mentioned 3 steps of the Scientific Method).Truthfreedom_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

@26 Ed George
We are talking about whether the mind exists/functions independent of the brain, not about evolution.
What? It all comes down to how the cognitive apparatus has been created. Possibilities: -Via "Mind"less evolution. - Via Evolution with a mind behind it/ design/ creation. The part that claims to have "science" on their side and that claims("macroevolutionists") has homework to do (those 3 mentioned steps of the Scientific Method).Truthfreedom_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

BR
Considering half the steps of the Scientific Method have never been done in regards to macro evolution, I would say the burden of proof lies solely in the Darwinists court.
We are talking about whether the mind exists/functions independent of the brain, not about evolution. If God designed everything, which can’t be ruled out, why could he not create a mind that only existed because of the brain? The arguments against this are religious, not scientific. If it depended on the physical brain then there is no immortal soul.Ed George_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

ID is the only possibility to account for the brain. There isn't any other scientific alternative.ET_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

BobRyan @ 21
You state, “Therefore design (not necessarily true).” Rather than saying it is not true, you say not necessarily true. This means, that at some level, you must admit the possibility of ID has some validity.
I've never denied it's a possibility.Seversky_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT}

@17 Ed George
Sorry TF, but if you are going to claim that the brain and the mind are separate, the burden of proof is with you to demonstrate this.
Two radically different entities (mind and matter) cannot emerge from purely physical parts.Truthfreedom_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT}

Ed George @ 17 Considering half the steps of the Scientific Method have never been done in regards to macro evolution, I would say the burden of proof lies solely in the Darwinists court.BobRyan_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
12:31 AM
12
12
31
AM
PDT}

Seversky @ 2 You state, "Therefore design (not necessarily true)." Rather than saying it is not true, you say not necessarily true. This means, that at some level, you must admit the possibility of ID has some validity.BobRyan_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
12:29 AM
12
12
29
AM
PDT}

Now we are starting to talk about science and evidence. "Ed George" will not engage in any of that.ET_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT}

Ed George at 15 correction
There is no evidence that THAT I WILL PERSONALLY ACCEPT the “mind” exists without the brain.
There, all better! :) Despite that oft repeated falsehood by Ed George and other atheists, there is plenty of evidence that mind can exist independently of the material brain. First and foremost there are Near Death Experiences.
Dr. Jeffrey Long: Just how strong is the evidence for a afterlife? - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mptGAc3XWPs The Nine Lines of Evidence Research areas, as presented in the book Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near-Death Experiences, by Jeffrey Long, MD. These nine lines of evidence support the reality of near-death experiences and their consistent message that there is an afterlife. 1. Crystal-Clear Consciousness 2. Realistic Out-of-Body Experiences 3. Heightened Senses 4. Consciousness During Anesthesia 5. Perfect Playback 6. Family Reunions 7. Children’s Experiences 8. Worldwide Consistency 9. Aftereffects https://www.newdualism.org/nde-papers/Long/Long-_2012--1-2.pdf
In fact, to the consternation of atheists, the evidence for the reality of Near Death Experiences is far more robust than the supposed evidence for Darwinian evolution is. As Dr. Egnor noted, "Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species , (or the origin of life, or the origin of a protein/gene, or of a molecular machine), which is never.,,,"
Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist's Evidentiary Standards to the Test - Dr. Michael Egnor - October 15, 2012 Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE's are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception -- such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE's have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,, The most "parsimonious" explanation -- the simplest scientific explanation -- is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species , (or the origin of life, or the origin of a protein/gene, or of a molecular machine), which is never.,,, The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE's show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it's earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it's all a big yawn. Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/near_death_expe_1065301.html
In fact, the main point of debate between ID advocates and Darwinists is over the fact that unguided material processes have never been shown to produce non-trivial amounts of information, yet we know from first hand experience that our minds can produce non-trivial amounts of information. I'm producing far more information right now as I write this post than has ever been observed to be generated by unguided material processes. The thing about information that forever prevents material processes from ever giving an adequate account of it is its immaterial nature. i.e, As Dr. Stephen Meyer explains in this following video, information is immaterial in its fundamental nature and therefore, by nature, irreducible to materialistic explanations.
Intelligent design: Why can’t biological information originate through a materialistic process? – Stephen Meyer – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqiXNxyoof8
Moreover, on top of sequential immaterial information, quantum information is also now found to be ubiquitous within life.
“What happens is this classical information (of DNA) is embedded, sandwiched, into the quantum information (of DNA). And most likely this classical information is never accessed because it is inside all the quantum information. You can only access the quantum information or the electron clouds and the protons. So mathematically you can describe that as a quantum/classical state.” Elisabeth Rieper – Classical and Quantum Information in DNA – video (Longitudinal Quantum Information resides along the entire length of DNA discussed at the 19:30 minute mark; at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper remarks that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it) https://youtu.be/2nqHOnVTxJE?t=1176
The interesting thing about quantum information is that it is non-local and is also conserved,
Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php
The obvious implication of finding ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’, quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every DNA and protein molecule of our material bodies, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious. That pleasant implication, or course, being the fact that we now have very strong physical evidence directly implying that we do indeed have an eternal soul that lives beyond the death of our material bodies. As Stuart Hameroff states ‘it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
“Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.” – Stuart Hameroff – Quantum Entangled Consciousness – Life After Death – video (5:00 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09QM86XBVKM
As to scientifically establishing the physical reality of heaven and hell,.. Whereas, atheists have no compelling evidence for all the various extra dimensions, parallel universe and/or multiverse scenarios that they have put forth to ‘explain away’ fine tuning, quantum wave collapse, etc. etc. (in fact there is much evidence that can be mustered against those claims), Christians, on the other hand, can appeal directly to the higher dimensional mathematics behind Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity and General Relativity to support their belief that God upholds this universe in its continual existence, as well as to support their belief in a heavenly dimension and in a hellish dimension. Here is a video where I lay out and defend that line of evidence:
Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4QDy1Soolo
Thus far from Ed George's claim that we have no evidence that the mind can exist apart from the material brain, the fact of the matter is that our most powerful theories in science, relativity and quantum mechanics respectfully, now provide the Christian Theist with many lines of powerful scientific evidence for his belief in a heavenly dimension above this temporal dimension and also for an eternal soul that is capable of living past the death of our material bodies. In short, Ed George is without excuse:
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
bornagain77_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

If someone is going to claim that minds arose from the mindless via blind and mindless processes, the burden of proof is upon them. If someone is going to claim that brains arose from the mindless via blind and mindless processes, the burden of proof is upon them. It's very telling that "Ed George" never makes the same demands on his position that he does on others. That is being a cowardly hypocriteET_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

Sorry TF, but if you are going to claim that the brain and the mind are separate, the burden of proof is with you to demonstrate this.Ed George_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

@15 Ed George
There is no evidence that the “mind” exists without the brain.
- There is no evidence that the brain and the mind are the same thing (identity). - There is no evidence that a "material" brain can generate an "immaterial" mind (that is called magic). There is evidence that materialism/ physicalism is desperate and dying a steday (and welcomed) death.Truthfreedom_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

We know that we can alter behaviours and levels of consciousness by manipulation the brain. We know that we can alter the brain by applying mental stresses to the “mind”. There is no evidence that the “mind” exists without the brain.Ed George_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

AaronS1977
Hey guys dumb question, kind of on topic, I wanted to get your input do you know if you think that it’s possible to predict our behaviors neurologically 100% of the time?
I assume that if it were possible to measure every chemical reaction going on in the brain, stimulations and electrical potentials, it might be theoretically possible. But I don’t see this being feasible in any foreseeable future.Ed George_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

Truth @11: I agree that it is not possible to truly predict a human's behaviour neurologically all the time. Of course it is impossible today, so I assume your question relates to some future when scientists can observe what is going on in your brain better than today. I will leave aside "behaviours" that are not controlled by the mind, such as nervous ticks, muscle adjustments, random movements during sleep, etc. The neurologist will claim that, by observing the activity of your brain, he can "predict" what decision you will make, or what you will do. That seems unlikely for at least a good percentage of behaviour. When you rattle off a memorized set of words and get one of them wrong, can he predict that? Ultimately, what he may be "predicting" is just the process by which your mind gets your brain to do something. Obviously the neurons in your brain have to do something before the signals are sent to your muscles. Sensing the neurons and calling that "prediction" is like "predicting" that a train is coming when you hear its signal in the distance - not much of a "prediction".Fasteddious_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply