Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Michael Egnor: Did consciousness “evolve”?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

One neuroscientist doesn’t seem to understand the problems the idea raises

Darwinian theory could account for non-physical consciousness if consciousness were caused by the brain—that is, if non-physical consciousness were a property of brain activity and thus inextricably linked to brain activity. In that case, the argument is that the brain evolved and consciousness was dragged along because it is linked to brain activity.

In this view, consciousness is an epiphenomenal property of the brain. Epiphenomenalism was first explicitly proposed by “Darwin’s bulldog” Thomas Henry Huxley (1825–1895). If consciousness were epiphenomenal to physical brain processes—as a sort of by-product, like smoke from a steam engine—what evolves is the brain. Does this satisfactorily explain the evolution of consciousness?

The problem with this epiphenomenal view of consciousness is that it renders the mind powerless. If consciousness is merely a property of the brain, it has no agency—no power to cause anything—in itself. Properties can’t do anything. For example, if you hit a nail with a yellow hammer, you hit it with the hammer, not with the yellow. Epiphenomenalism, which is the only framework by which an immaterial consciousness could evolve, asserts that what actually causes us to do things is brain activity. Consciousness is a useless spin-off.

Michael Egnor, “Did consciousness evolve?” at Mind Matters News

And then what becomes of theories based on consciousness, like Graziano’s?


Here’s the earlier article on Michael Graziano’s approach to consciousness: Neuroscientist Michael Graziano should meet the p-zombie. A p-zombie (a philosopher’s thought experiment) behaves exactly like a human being but has no first-person (subjective) experience. The meat robot violates no physical principles. Yet we KNOW we are not p-zombies. Think what that means.

And here is a selection of Dr. Egnor’s articles on consciousness:

In one sense, consciousness IS an illusion. We have no knowledge of the processes of our consciousness, only of the objects of its attention, whether they are physical, emotional, or abstract

Does Your Brain Construct Your Conscious Reality? Part I A reply to computational neuroscientist Anil Seth’s recent TED talk

and

Does Your Brain Construct Your Conscious Reality? Part II In a word, no. Your brain doesn’t “think”; YOU think, using your brain

Comments
So Ed George is in fact Acartia bogart/ William spearshake/ brother brian and a variety of other anti-science sock puppets. It is a total lie that Ed is OK with ID. And yes, it is a fact that wavelength and frequency are interchangeable, ie equivalent, in certain contexts. For example you can discuss the absorption spectrum of CO2 in terms of the wavelengths or the frequencies and you are talking about the same thing. See also:
The 630 meter (or 600 meter) amateur radio band is a frequency band allocated by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to amateur radio operators, and it ranges from 472 to 479 kHz, or equivalently 625.9 to 635.1 meters wavelength.
Frequency or equivalently wavelength. And it is very telling that Eddie cannot make any case. What hostility, Ed? Is Captain Obvious the same as Captain Hostile?ET
September 30, 2019
September
09
Sep
30
30
2019
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT
Hazel
I am still puzzled by what the issue is, and also by ET’s hostility.
ET
What hostility?... So you are unable to think for yourself. Again, for the learning impaired So the issue is you don’t seem to understand high school science, hazel
Hazel is not the one who claims that Frequency = Wavelength.Ed George
September 30, 2019
September
09
Sep
30
30
2019
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT
I see, and you are right: reacted with, not combined with, is much better.hazel
September 30, 2019
September
09
Sep
30
30
2019
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT
hazel, you said:
True, although not sure why you mentioned this, as this is true of all elements (although of course the inert gases have full electron shells so they don’t combine.) The particular property of oxygen that is involved with bonding is that it only has six electrons, out of a possible eight, in its outer shell.
It looks like you thought oxygen was added to glucose and not that there was a reaction that took place.ET
September 30, 2019
September
09
Sep
30
30
2019
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT
I've been reviewing my chemistry (it's been decades since I studied this). In some places, combination is used strictly for the situation where two atoms or molecules react to form a single substance, as ET has said. This is called a synthesis reaction. Other kinds of reactions which involve more complicated situations, such as the formula I posted, have different names other than synthesis, so "combine" refers to just one kind of chemical reaction. However, other sites use the word "combine" to include all types of reactions, which may be less precise. Therefore, my sentence in 46 should be amended to read, "The property of oxygen is that its electron configuration enables it to react combine with other atoms to form molecules essential to cellular respiration.hazel
September 30, 2019
September
09
Sep
30
30
2019
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
You are wrong, ET. In chemistry, combination refers to two or more atoms or molecules having a reaction that produces one or more different molecules. The formula that I offered in 50 is an example. As for quoting, you offered definitions in 49 without attribution: where did you quote from? Very often, words in science have different and/or more specialized meaning than their everyday usage. Try googling "chemical combination".hazel
September 30, 2019
September
09
Sep
30
30
2019
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
hazel:
The sentence I quoted above from biologydictionary.net used “combined”.
So you are unable to think for yourself. Got it. Their use of the word does not follow the definition.ET
September 30, 2019
September
09
Sep
30
30
2019
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
Hmmm. The sentence I quoted above from biologydictionary.net used "combined". This doesn't seem like an issue to me. By the way, I see the -> for the chemical reaction above printed as a ?, but I assume that didn't cause any confusion.hazel
September 30, 2019
September
09
Sep
30
30
2019
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
hazel- Now the issue is the use of the word "combine" which does not go with the definition of the word.ET
September 30, 2019
September
09
Sep
30
30
2019
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
From biologydictionary.net
Aerobic Respiration Equation The equation for aerobic respiration shows glucose being combined with oxygen and ADP to produce carbon dioxide, water, and ATP: C6H12O6 (glucose)+ 6O2 + 36 ADP (depleted ATP) + 36 Pi (phosphate groups)? 6CO2 + 6H2O + 36 ATP
Enough said, as I still don't know what the disagreement is about, or why you think I don't know what is going on.hazel
September 30, 2019
September
09
Sep
30
30
2019
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT
hazel:
I am still puzzled by what the issue is, and also by ET’s hostility.
What hostility?
“The property of oxygen is that its electron configuration enables it to combine with other atoms to form molecules essential to cellular respiration,” which I am sure is true.
Again, for the learning impaired: The reaction is oxidization- the glucose is being oxidized into CO2 (OIL) and the oxygen is reduced into water (RIG). Clearly you had no idea what was going on, hazel. You just found a quote and went with it. There isn't any "oxygen combining with glucose", hazel. Well unless you want to rewrite the definition of "combine": b : to cause to unite into a chemical compound combining hydrofluoric acid with soda ash to form sodium fluoride c : to unite into a single number or expression Combine fractions and simplify. So the issue is you don't seem to understand high school science, hazelET
September 30, 2019
September
09
Sep
30
30
2019
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT
I am still puzzled by what the issue is, and also by ET's hostility. I supplied a quote, which I understand, to show that, in my own words, "The property of oxygen is that its electron configuration enables it to combine with other atoms to form molecules essential to cellular respiration," which I am sure is true. To reply to ET's points: "1- Glucose is a molecule, not an atom." True. But molecules are formed from atoms bonded together, and in any molecule that contains oxygen, the oxygen atoms are bonded to other atoms that are part of the molecule. "2- Carbon has an electron configuration that enables it to combine with other atoms." True, although not sure why you mentioned this, as this is true of all elements (although of course the inert gases have full electron shells so they don't combine.) The particular property of oxygen that is involved with bonding is that it only has six electrons, out of a possible eight, in its outer shell. "3- ATP synthesis is more than oxygen combining with glucose." Yes, I know that. This is all high school science.hazel
September 30, 2019
September
09
Sep
30
30
2019
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
hazel:
The property of oxygen is that its electron configuration enables it to combine with other atoms to form molecules essential to cellular respiration.
1- Glucose is a molecule, not an atom. 2- Carbon has an electron configuration that enables it to combine with other atoms 3- ATP synthesis is more than oxygen combining with glucose The reaction is oxidization- the glucose is being oxidized into CO2 (OIL) and the oxygen is reduced into water (RIG). Clearly you had no idea what was going on, hazel. You just found a quote and went with it So we are right back to- “Cuz it is an essential element in the respiratory process of most organisms” and: Also pure oxygen is “generally bad and sometimes toxic”. It could cause pulmonary fibrosis in otherwise healthy people. Not to mention that by all naturalistic origin of life scenarios there has to be an anaerobic environment to get the process started. Anaerobic respiration once ruled.ET
September 30, 2019
September
09
Sep
30
30
2019
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
I am surprised this is even a question. A quick Google search finds this:
Cellular respiration is the process cells use to make energy. Cells in our body combine glucose and oxygen to make ATP and carbon dioxide.
The property of oxygen is that its electron configuration enables it to combine with other atoms to form molecules essential to cellular respiration.hazel
September 30, 2019
September
09
Sep
30
30
2019
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
Ed George:
I wasn’t the one suggesting that the atomic weight of oxygen is greater than 15.99
I never suggested that. Obviously you have reading comprehension issues. That said, YOU are the moron who stated:
Oxygen has properties that facilitate the process of respiration.
And FAILed, miserably, to support that claim. What are the properties of oxygen that facilitate respiration? Still waiting, loser.ET
September 30, 2019
September
09
Sep
30
30
2019
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
ET
You spewed nonsense and got caught, again, as usual.
I wasn’t the one suggesting that the atomic weight of oxygen is greater than 15.99... because oxygen generally found as O2. But if you want to keep insisting on this nonsense, please go ahead.Ed George
September 30, 2019
September
09
Sep
30
30
2019
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT
I own a periodic table, Ed. Did you have a point beyond your ignorance? The atomic weight of ONE oxygen atom is 15.999. Look, it's obvious that you don't know what you are talking about, Ed. You spewed nonsense and got caught, again, as usual. https://sciencenotes.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/PeriodicTableMuted2016.pdfET
September 30, 2019
September
09
Sep
30
30
2019
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT
ET
Is it its atomic weight of 15,9994? Hopefully not as it comes in pairs, ie dioxygen, in our atmosphere.
Buy a periodic table.Ed George
September 30, 2019
September
09
Sep
30
30
2019
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT
LoL! Ed thinks that quoting something makes his case. Again: What are the properties of oxygen that facilitate respiration? "Cuz it is an essential element in the respiratory process of most organisms", is an "answer a child would give. Is it its atomic weight of 15,9994? Hopefully not as it comes in pairs, ie dioxygen, in our atmosphere. Also pure oxygen "generally bad and sometimes toxic". It could cause pulmonary fibrosis in otherwise healthy people. Not to mention that by all naturalistic origin of life scenarios there has to be an anaerobic environment to get the process started. Anaerobic respiration once ruled.ET
September 29, 2019
September
09
Sep
29
29
2019
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT
ET
LoL! What are the properties of oxygen that facilitate respiration? Do tell
“Gaseous chemical element, symbol: O, atomic number: 8 and atomic weight 15,9994. It’s of great interest because it’s the essential element in the respiratory processes of most of the living cells and in combustion processes.”Ed George
September 29, 2019
September
09
Sep
29
29
2019
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT
Getting back to the original quote from Dr. Egnor:
The problem with this epiphenomenal view of consciousness is that it renders the mind powerless. If consciousness is merely a property of the brain, it has no agency—no power to cause anything—in itself. Properties can’t do anything. For example, if you hit a nail with a yellow hammer, you hit it with the hammer, not with the yellow. Epiphenomenalism, which is the only framework by which an immaterial consciousness could evolve, asserts that what actually causes us to do things is brain activity. Consciousness is a useless spin-off.
The issue is really with the relation of mental phenomena or properties to physical properties, which gets down to philosophical argumentation. Dr. Egnor's words accurately reflect the definition of epiphenomenalism in philosophy of mind. From Wiki:
Epiphenomenalism is the view that mental phenomena are epiphenomena in that they can be caused by physical phenomena, but cannot cause physical phenomena. In strong epiphenomenalism, epiphenomena that are mental phenomena can only be caused by physical phenomena, not by other mental phenomena.
This is obviously contradicted by our observed ability to impact the world through mental decisions. We observe that our minds can and do physically change the world. Of course the epiphenomenalists' rejoinder is that this is just an illusion, begging the question of why would our physical brains have bothered to evolve such an illusion mechanism given that they say the consciousness illusion can't affect the physical brain. Since mental phenomena like subjectivity and qualia can't affect the physical brain and body (according to epiphenomenalism), they would not even be subject to evolution. Epiphenomenalism is also simply self-contradictory: if we know about or or have the conception of epiphenomenalism in our thoughts, then our brains know about the existence of the mind. But if epiphenomenalism is correct, then our brains should not have any knowledge about the mind, because epiphenomenalism says the mind and mental phenomena are powerless to affect anything physical. For that matter, knowledge of most kinds is impossible without a mental to physical causal chain, and something similar holds for justification, memory, meaning, and reference. How, for instance, could we say that John knows that there is orange juice in the fridge or that his belief that there is orange juice in the fridge is justified, if his belief were in no way causally connected to the fridge or the orange juice? And the causal relation does not have to be direct; it could be through other persons in the past.doubter
September 29, 2019
September
09
Sep
29
29
2019
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
“A property can take the form of a process”- Pater K, above
Water has the property of being a solvent in the form of the process of dissolution/ dissolving? Or is it just that the water has a property of being a solvent with the process incorporated into the definition of "solvent"? That would then apply to all solvents. So the property describes the process? With the process being the actual way the thing is dissolved? Heck with it. Methinks hazel is right and that Dr. Egnor is referring to the fact that properties are abstract.ET
September 29, 2019
September
09
Sep
29
29
2019
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
Alrighty then. That means Egnor is right.ET
September 29, 2019
September
09
Sep
29
29
2019
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
The water is doing the dissolving. Water is a real thing, and its properties are abstract generalizations that we have made based on observing water. There is a distinction between real things and our knowledge about those things.hazel
September 29, 2019
September
09
Sep
29
29
2019
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT
A better example may be one of water being a solvent. It has that property. And the process of dissolving means it is doing something. The question is- is it the property or the water that is doing the dissolving?ET
September 29, 2019
September
09
Sep
29
29
2019
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
hazel:
Water, which has various properties, flows downhill and interacts with rocks and dirt, which also have properties, causing the process of erosion.
Water has the properties of matter that when it runs over other matter can alter it. So physical objects can alter other physical objects. Pater said that "A property can take the form of a process"- that would mean a property in and of itself, hazel. Try again.ET
September 29, 2019
September
09
Sep
29
29
2019
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
LoL! What are the properties of oxygen that facilitate respiration? Do tellET
September 29, 2019
September
09
Sep
29
29
2019
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
Oxygen has properties that facilitate the process of respiration.Ed George
September 28, 2019
September
09
Sep
28
28
2019
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PDT
Example: Water, which has various properties, flows downhill and interacts with rocks and dirt, which also have properties, causing the process of erosion.hazel
September 28, 2019
September
09
Sep
28
28
2019
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT
hazel:
Properties interacting with other properties can create processes.
Examples?ET
September 28, 2019
September
09
Sep
28
28
2019
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply