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

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Michael Egnor Shows You're Not A Meat Robot (Science Uprising EP2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQo6SWjwQIkbornagain77_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT}

@6 AaronS1978
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?
In my opinion, no :)Truthfreedom_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

Seversky claims that assuming materialism in science has made many discoveries:
Just how many discoveries and achievements does materialistic science have to make before Sheldrake and his kind acknowledge it may be on to something? Name one other discipline that has come even close to achieving what it has done so far.
There simply is no other way to put it, Seversky is deluded! Materialism, particularly Darwinian materialism, has contributed nothing to science:
"In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005 "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.” Adam S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to "Evolutionary Processes" - (2000). Science owes nothing to Darwinism – Jonathan Wells - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfWb8BaXoRc
Even Jerry Coyne himself admitted as much, i,e, “Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits."
“Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.” (Jerry Coyne, “Selling Darwin: Does it matter whether evolution has any commercial applications?,” reviewing The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life by David P. Mindell, in Nature, 442:983-984 (August 31, 2006).)
In fact, forcing Darwinian language into biological research clouds the research. Whereas removing the 'Darwinian narrative' from the research papers makes the research papers "healthier and more useful."
No Harm, No Foul — What If Darwinism Were Excised from Biology? - December 4, 2019 If Darwinism is as essential to biology as Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne argues, then removing evolutionary words and concepts, (“Darwin-ectomy”), should make research incomprehensible. If, on the other hand, Darwinism is more of a “narrative gloss” applied to the conclusions after the scientific work is done, as the late Philip Skell observed, then biology would survive the operation just fine. It might even be healthier, slimmed down after disposing of unnecessary philosophical baggage.,,, So, here are three papers in America’s premier science journal that appear at first glance to need Darwinism, use Darwinism, support Darwinism, and thereby impart useful scientific knowledge. After subjecting them to Darwin-ectomies, though, the science not only survived, but proved healthier and more useful. https://evolutionnews.org/2019/12/no-harm-no-foul-what-if-darwinism-were-excised-from-biology/
If fact, directly contrary to Seversky trying to artificially impose his atheistic materialism onto science, the fact of the matter is that all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism. From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place. Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism. Moreover, forcing methodological naturalism and/or atheistic materialism onto science leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science,
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must hold beauty itself to be illusory. Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, Darwinian Materialism and/or Methodological Naturalism vs. Reality – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaksmYceRXM
i.e. Although the Darwinist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science, (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that Darwinists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to: It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
bornagain77_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT}

There hasn't been any discoveries made in the name of materialism. There isn't any "materialistic science". And there still isn't a scientific alternative to ID. seversky is deluded.ET_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT}

@7 Seversky
Name one other discipline that has come even close to achieving what it has done so far.
The scientific method does not demand materialism. The naturalist’s philosophical bias does. One need not assume materialism to be the sole reality principle. Naturalism's Epistemological NightmareTruthfreedom_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
01:28 AM
1
01
28
AM
PDT}

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.
Just how many discoveries and achievements does materialistic science have to make before Sheldrake and his kind acknowledge it may be on to something? Name one other discipline that has come even close to achieving what it has done so far.Seversky_{February 20, 2020
February
02
Feb
20
20
2020
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT}

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?AaronS1978_{February 20, 2020
February
02
Feb
20
20
2020
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

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
Truthfreedom_{February 20, 2020
February
02
Feb
20
20
2020
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

The evidence of NDEs does indicate that the compositie spirit - mind - soul does have an exisence independent from the brain and heart (and kidney ?) ; possibly stays in the vicinity of a person technically dead, returning in some cases, to reanimate the mortal person. However, some most compelling NDE, as well as reporting the familiar sense of having arrived at their true home, seemed to have a vague but real recollection of a previous existence prior to their incarnation. I remember one, possibly two, in TV programmes many years apart, mentioning that they had been permitted to choose the kind of trials they would be subjected to. However, I think we each have different thresholds of suffering - and tend to think at one time or another that we have personally plumbed the very depths of suffering (!) particularly as adolescents and youngsters ! But maybe we'll be glad God wasn't softer on us, when we see Him.Axel_{February 20, 2020
February
02
Feb
20
20
2020
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

Wrong again, seversky. The mere existence of a brain is evidence for ID. And it's still very telling that no one has any evidence to counter Dr Egnor's claims.ET_{February 20, 2020
February
02
Feb
20
20
2020
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT}

This still reduces to, 'I cannot conceive of a way consciousness could emerge from the physical brain(true). Therefore design (not necessarily true)' Now, if Egnor has an example of emotion manifested without a physical brain then bring it on. I'm not holding my breath, though.Seversky_{February 20, 2020
February
02
Feb
20
20
2020
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

Do thoughts exist in the abstract ? Or is there really no difference between the first and second cases cited ? Are you not also talking about a psychological state in the first case ? Indeed, in my own experience, I can tell you that psychic thoughts can be projected voluntarily or involuntarily - in the latter case, a nightmare for someone such as I, who suffer from OCD, in which dreadfully intrusive thoughts, such that most victims would not be tempted to act upon under any circumstances, can be imposed on the suffererer. Actually, It is a form of demonic persecution. The term, 'demonic obsession', inverts the subject and object, giving the wrong impression, i.e. it is the demons who do or impose the 'obsessing'. More significantly, for the purposes of this thread, one can feel the projection of the thought as quasi physical. Stress can bring it on, as can prayer. But for all that, I think consideration of such a quasi physical mode of thought would be a 'red herring' for the purposes of empirical science, according to the conventional limits imputed to the latter.Axel_{February 20, 2020
February
02
Feb
20
20
2020
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply