A mind-controlled wheelchair is a case for the reality of the human mind. Discuss.

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 15, 2023

Intelligent Design, Mind}

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

Three people with limited to no mobility in their limbs were able to navigate a specially designed wheelchair just by thinking about where they wanted to go, a study published today (November 18) in iScience reports. Unlike some previous designs which used embedded electrodes or asked users to focus on points of light on a screen, which can cause eye strain, the wheelchair uses a noninvasive brain-machine interface involving an electrode-studded cap to interpret brain activity. After training, the users were able to steer their way through a cluttered obstacle course.

“Our research highlights a potential pathway for improved clinical translation of non-invasive brain-machine interface technology,” study coauthor and University of Texas at Austin computer engineering and neurology researcher José del R. Millán says in a press release from the journal. – Christie Wilcox, November 28, 2022

Wonder how the materialists will talk their way out of this one.

The paper is open access.

Comments

Nopekairosfocus_{February 20, 2023
February
02
Feb
20
20
2023
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PST}

Mental Reality Theory Vs External Reality Theory: Checkmate https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/mental-reality-theory-vs-external-reality-theory-checkmate/ The Immense Negative Impact Of External Physical World Theory https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-immense-negative-impact-of-external-reality-theory/William J Murray_{February 20, 2023
February
02
Feb
20
20
2023
03:01 AM
3
03
01
AM
PST}

CD at 43: "Your logic and my logic are obviously two very different things…" Apparently so.,,,, Earlier in the thread,
"Imagine a world if you will where allegedly intelligent people have to be convinced (or worse yet, won’t be convinced) that they have minds. Yeah, apparently we live in that world. I guess realizing brain chemistry dances to the tune of the laws of physics and minds to the laws of logic isn’t enough for some people." - T. Peeler https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-mind-controlled-wheelchair-is-a-case-for-the-reality-of-the-human-mind-discuss/#comment-775957
A few more notes to drive that point home.
(1) The Objective Laws of Logic Exist We cannot deny the Laws of Logic exist. In fact, any reasonable or logical argument against the existence of these laws requires their existence in the first place. The Objective Laws of Logic Are Conceptual Laws These laws are not physical; they are conceptual. They cannot be seen under a microscope or weighed on a scale. They are abstract laws guiding logical, immaterial thought processes. The Objective Laws of Logic Are Transcendent The laws transcend location, culture and time. If we go forward or backward a million years, the laws of logic would still exist and apply, regardless of culture or geographic location. The Objective Laws of Logic Pre-Existed Mankind The transcendent and timeless nature of logical laws indicates they precede our existence or ability to recognize them. Even before humans were able to understand the law of non-contradiction, “A” could not have been “Non-A”. The Laws of Logic were discovered by humans, not created by humans. https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/is-god-real-evidence-from-the-laws-of-logic/ Naturalism and Self-Refutation – Michael Egnor – January 31, 2018 Excerpt: Furthermore, the very framework of Clark’s argument — logic — is neither material nor natural. Logic, after all, doesn’t exist “in the space-time continuum” and isn’t described by physics. What is the location of modus ponens? How much does Gödel’s incompleteness theorem weigh? What is the physics of non-contradiction? How many millimeters long is Clark’s argument for naturalism? Ironically the very logic that Clark employs to argue for naturalism is outside of any naturalistic frame. The strength of Clark’s defense of naturalism is that it is an attempt to present naturalism’s tenets clearly and logically. That is its weakness as well, because it exposes naturalism to scrutiny, and naturalism cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny. Even to define naturalism is to refute it. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/naturalism-and-self-refutation/
Verse and quotes:
John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” ‘the Word’ in John 1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos is also the root word from which we derive our modern word logic http://etymonline.com/?term=logic What is the Logos? Logos is a Greek word literally translated as “word, speech, or utterance.” However, in Greek philosophy, Logos refers to divine reason or the power that puts sense into the world making order instead of chaos.,,, In the Gospel of John, John writes “In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). John appealed to his readers by saying in essence, “You’ve been thinking, talking, and writing about the Word (divine reason) for centuries and now I will tell you who He is.” https://www.compellingtruth.org/what-is-the-Logos.html
bornagain77_{February 17, 2023
February
02
Feb
17
17
2023
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PST}

Jerry at 48, Chuck is in his 70's? Good for him.relatd_{February 17, 2023
February
02
Feb
17
17
2023
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PST}

CD @37
Learning is not encoded “in genes.” Learning is encoded in the brain.
If not the genes, what is doing the encoding? And how did it, whatever it was, encode the brain to form .... "... short-time direct directed transfer function (SdDTF) connectivity features"? Note, that these “significant neuroplasticity changes” are in accord with some electrode-studded cap and the steering of a wheelchair. So, again, what has encoded the brain to do that? Not the genes, you say. And since there is no evolutionary history featuring electrode-studded caps and wheelchairs, how do you explain what's going on here?Origenes_{February 17, 2023
February
02
Feb
17
17
2023
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PST}

you’ve explained anything
ChuckDarwin is not here to explain anything. He’s here to nitpick and if possible find some minor thing wrong with what’s being said. He has never contributed anything. He mainly disparages others. Have some compassion for Chuck. Here’s a man in his 70’s who has a goal of trying to make others look bad with trivial comments. He’s incapable of defending anything he says he believes. Be thankful it’s not something you are or would do.jerry_{February 17, 2023
February
02
Feb
17
17
2023
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PST}

PyrrhoManiac1 @1,
Now, if the wheelchair were being controlled by the mind without the brain being involved, that would be quite a different story for the materialist!
Indeed. As you know from quantum mechanics, the CHOICE of what to measure fundamentally alters reality (as experimentally verified with entanglement and collapse of the wavefunction). CHOICE applies information to a system and observation/measurement somehow limits the quantity of information that can be extracted from a system (as experimentally verified with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). So, how is the human brain associated with CHOICE? Several questions can be asked: 1. Is the human brain more like (a) an isolated electronic programmable calculator, or is it more like (b) a cell-phone with a calculator and other apps connected to the internet (the internet representing an external source of free will, inspiration, and creativity)? 2. How can we test (a) versus (b)? Can we create an experiment where human CHOICE is substituted with some kind of AI running on a computer. A big obstacle is the possibility of a Von Neumann Chain—a domino effect of inserting human observation/measurement anywhere with a causal chain.* Also related is the Quantum Zeno Effect, where continuous observation/measurement apparently prevents spontaneous radioactive decay of an unstable nucleus, and other quantum effects such as quantum tunneling: https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/10/zeno-effect-verified-atoms-wont-move-while-you-watch 3. What is it in the conscious brain that interacts with observed phenomena to produce the well-known mysterious quantum effects? * Here’s a summary of von Neumann’s quantum theory from a paper with a perspective on the subject:
. . . von Neumann’s quantum theory is a formulation in which the entire physical universe, including the bodies and brains of the conscious human participant/observers, is represented by the basic quantum state. The dynamics involves three processes. Process 1 is the choice on the part of the experimenter about how he will act. This choice is sometimes called the "Heisenberg choice", because Heisenberg emphasized strongly its crucial role in quantum dynamics. At the pragmatic level it is a "free choice", because it is controlled, at least at the practical level, by the conscious intentions of the experimenter/participant: neither the Copenhagen nor von Neumann formulations specify the causal origins of this choice, apart from the conscious intentions of the human agent. Process 2 is the quantum analog of the equations of motion of classical physics, and like its classical counterpart is local (i.e., via contact between neighbors) and deterministic. This process is constructed from the classical one by a certain quantization procedure, and is reduced back to the classical process by taking the classical approximation. It normally has the effect of expanding the microscopic uncertainties demanded by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle into the macroscopic domain: the centers of large objects are smeared out over large regions of space. This conflict with conscious experience is resolved by invoking Processes 1 and 3. Process 3 is sometimes called the "Dirac choice". Dirac called it a "choice on the part of Nature". It can be regarded as Nature’s answer to a question effectively posed by the Process 1 choice made by the experimenter. This posed question is: will the intended consequences of the action that the agent chooses to perform actually be experienced? (e.g., will the Geiger counter be observed to be placed in the intended place? And, if so, will the specified action of that device be observed to occur?) Processes 1 and 3 act on the variables that specify the body/brain of the agent. According Stapp, the "Yes" answer actualizes the neural correlates of the intended action or associated feedback. https://philarchive.org/archive/CAPQMO
-QQuerius_{February 17, 2023
February
02
Feb
17
17
2023
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PST}

CD, Just you can put technical-sounding descriptions on ideas, doesn't mean you've explained anything. Andrewasauber_{February 17, 2023
February
02
Feb
17
17
2023
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PST}

CD at 43, I disagree since "logic" is not involved in your case.relatd_{February 17, 2023
February
02
Feb
17
17
2023
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PST}

CD at 42, Learn how? Tell me - How is it done? How did evolution pick a goal? Your answer explains nothing. Another example: I took Spanish in high school. Later, I studied another language on my own.relatd_{February 17, 2023
February
02
Feb
17
17
2023
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PST}

BA77 Your logic and my logic are obviously two very different things......chuckdarwin_{February 17, 2023
February
02
Feb
17
17
2023
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PST}

Relatd No, Relatd, Ethiopian kids learn language just like the rest of us.......chuckdarwin_{February 17, 2023
February
02
Feb
17
17
2023
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PST}

PM1 Hopefully you understand I'm being hyperbolic. I thought it was Descartes that once said that to laugh at philosophy is itself a philosophy. I have never been able to track down the origin of the quote, but it is true, regardless of who said it........chuckdarwin_{February 17, 2023
February
02
Feb
17
17
2023
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PST}

CD at 37, "Learning is encoded in the brain." By what? What "encoded" the concept of learning? "... the evolution of the brain and CNS is very well understood." By who? Let's see the step by step process. "Third, natural selection selects the optimal structures (neuroanatomy) and functions (neurophysiology) of the brain and CNS necessary for learning. That is what evolution provides–nothing more, nothing less." So, evolution has intelligence? It can pick the brain as a goal? It can build toward that because it can see future outcomes? So kids brought up in Ethiopia just pick up the language with no prior schooling? Their first words are structured - not random. My first words were not English. I spoke a non-English language until I was 4. You've got nothing.relatd_{February 17, 2023
February
02
Feb
17
17
2023
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PST}

@37
What is really both telling and frustrating is that philosophers (and to some extent theologians), especially “philosophers of mind” completely ignore or are simply ignorant of this literature.
Depends on the philosopher of mind! Some of us don't think that the empirical research is relevant to what we do -- and others of us (such as myself) take psychology and biology seriously. That's why I sometimes call myself a philosopher of cognitive science instead of a philosopher of mind (though I do both, and neither of them especially well). Even so, I'm not against the armchair stuff: some of it is really quite intriguing, and in a few cases, has actually inspired new directions in empirical science.PyrrhoManiac1_{February 17, 2023
February
02
Feb
17
17
2023
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PST}

You do realize there is a rather large disconnect in your logic do you not ChuckyD? You claim, without any empirical evidence whatsoever, that every facet of biology, and the brain in particular, is the result of Darwinian trial and error processes of 'learning', and yet you also claim that brain learning is somehow wholly different. Yet, exactly why is the supposedly haphazardly created brain so much better at 'learning' than its supposed blind 'creator' of Darwinian evolution ChuckyD? That disconnect should trouble you greatly, but it won't.bornagain77_{February 17, 2023
February
02
Feb
17
17
2023
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PST}

BA77/11
You do realize, on a Darwinian view of things, the way ‘new’ things are ‘learned’, (and/or encoded in genes), is solely by the trial and error process of random mutation and natural selection do you not? Yet the brain, (which Darwinists can’t even explain the existence of a single neuron of), completely without the supposed benefit of that trial and error process of random mutation and natural selection, can, in fairly short order, apparently ‘learn’ how to manipulate a totally new object, i.e. a wheelchair, via its brain activity alone. Darwinists are clueless as to providing a coherent explanation how this is possible.
There is so much wrong with this its hard to know where to begin. The easy stuff first. Learning is not encoded "in genes." Learning is encoded in the brain. Where in the brain encoding occurs depends on what sensory-motor input is involved. That much is really well understood--it's just simple mapping which has been greatly advanced with the use of fMRI and PET scans. I'm guessing that EEGs were used in these trials because the patients/subjects needed to be mobile. Contrary to your claim that "Darwinists can't even explain the existence of a single neuron of (nice dangling preposition), the evolution of the brain and CNS is very well understood. Second, new things are not learned "by the trial-and-error process of random mutation and natural selection." This is a nonsensical claim. Organisms do engage in trial-and-error learning, but again, not at the level of genetic mutations. Third, natural selection selects the optimal structures (neuroanatomy) and functions (neurophysiology) of the brain and CNS necessary for learning. That is what evolution provides--nothing more, nothing less. Finally, there is a hierarchy of learning completely consistent with a "materialist" model. Imprinting, mimicry, conditioned and unconditioned stimulus-response learning (a/k/a classical conditioning), response-reinforcement learning (a/k/a operant conditioning), modelling and associative learning and so on. It is only at higher levels of learning (e.g., formal operational learning, abstract learning, symbol generation and manipulation, etc.) that we need to import "non-materialist" constructs for the time being. Even language is learned primarily through a combination of mimicry, modeling and association. I think I previously pointed out that there is a vast research literature in the areas of cognitive and neuropsychology that explores learning. Add to that child developmental psych. What is really both telling and frustrating is that philosophers (and to some extent theologians), especially "philosophers of mind" completely ignore or are simply ignorant of this literature. I think one reason is that it is easier to sit in the proverbial armchair and gnaw on age-old pseudo-problems (I think, therefore I am--I mean really, that's how you while away your life?) than it is to educate oneself..........chuckdarwin_{February 17, 2023
February
02
Feb
17
17
2023
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PST}

A Mind-Controlled Wheelchair Is A Case For The Reality Of The Human Mind. Discuss.
Unless it was rigged for some other purpose then, yes it is, for the common understanding of "mind" On the other hand, this was not some sort of "Jedi mind trick", some kind of telekinetic effect with no obvious physical intermediary. The participant wore a (physical) skullcap with (physical) electrodes detecting (physical) patterns of electrical activity in a (physical) brain which were interpreted to exercise (physical) control over a (physical) device. I don't see anything there which would cause materialists/physicalists/naturalists any concern. Now, if the same effect could be achieved by prayer without any apparatus involved, that would be interesting.Seversky_{February 17, 2023
February
02
Feb
17
17
2023
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PST}

Imagine a world if you will where allegedly intelligent people have to be convinced (or worse yet, won’t be convinced) that they have minds. Yeah, apparently we live in that world. I guess realizing brain chemistry dances to the tune of the laws of physics and minds to the laws of logic isn’t enough for some people.tgpeeler_{February 17, 2023
February
02
Feb
17
17
2023
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PST}

Let's give PM1 some time to mix up some word salad that looks good in pixels. Andrewasauber_{February 16, 2023
February
02
Feb
16
16
2023
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PST}

Again, neuroplasticity, the ability of the mind to alter the brain through focused attention, is antithetical to materialism.
Jeffrey Schwartz: You Are More than Your Brain - Science Uprising Extra Content https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFIOSQNuXuY&list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1OmYcqv_yQSpje4p7rAE7-&index=9 Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz one of the world’s leading experts in neuroplasticity and the co-founder of the NeuroLeadership field, https://jeffreymschwartz.com Michael Egnor Shows You're Not A Meat Robot (Science Uprising EP2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQo6SWjwQIk&list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1OmYcqv_yQSpje4p7rAE7-&index=10
bornagain77_{February 16, 2023
February
02
Feb
16
16
2023
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PST}

From the paper: In the summary there is mention of “significant neuroplasticity changes.” The good news for Darwinists is these connectivity features “evolved”. However, the bad news for them is that they “evolved through training” . Dear onlooker, just so you know: ’through training’ is not the way Darwinians like things to evolve.
Effects of BMI training on brain connectivity We investigated the hypothesis that cortical plasticity underpinning BMI [brain-machine interface] learning manifests with functional connectivity changes, by identifying short-time direct directed transfer function (SdDTF) connectivity features that evolved through training and were consistent with BMI accuracy. (…) Critically, these two participants also exhibited BMI learning with respect to both accuracy and discriminancy of task-dependent SMR (Figure 2). On the contrary, P2 showed an absence of BMI learning and functional connectivity changes. (...) In detail, the SdDTF value for P1 differed significantly between the first and last evaluation sessions (...) These results indicate that distributed functional plasticity (…) , as manifested by SdDTF connectivity progression, accompanies and may be subserving BMI skill acquisition.
Origenes_{February 16, 2023
February
02
Feb
16
16
2023
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PST}

"In any event, I would need to read the paper and see which cortical and subcortical areas were involved before venturing any evolutionary explanation for it." What no 'just-so story' at your beck and call?
“... another common misuse of evolutionary ideas: namely, the idea that some trait must have evolved merely because we can imagine a scenario under which possession of that trait would have been advantageous to fitness... Such forays into evolutionary explanation amount ultimately to storytelling... it is not enough to construct a story about how the trait might have evolved in response to a given selection pressure; rather, one must provide some sort of evidence that it really did so evolve. This is a very tall order.…” — Austin L. Hughes, The Folly of Scientism - The New Atlantis, Fall 2012 “,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’ - Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205. ?*Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA Sociobiology: The Art of Story Telling – Stephen Jay Gould – 1978 – New Scientist Excerpt: Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers “Just So stories”. When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance. https://books.google.com/books?id=tRj7EyRFVqYC&pg=PA530
bornagain77_{February 16, 2023
February
02
Feb
16
16
2023
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PST}

Learning that fire is hot, and adjusting one’s behavior, does not seem to require that a brain evolves the ability to rearrange its patterns according to electrode-studded cap.
I would need to carefully read the published article to answer that question. I started skimming it, and I noticed that one thing that made this study original is the combination of human learning and machine learning. In the BCIs that I know about, the BCI is basically a passive detector. For example, I know of one design in which the patient is asked to stare at one letter in a grid. When the column and row containing that letter are highlighted, the patient's brain emits a specific electrical signal associated with expectations being satisfied. The EEK detects this signal and then selects that letter, then the system moves on to the next letter. But this study has a system in which deep learning is applied to the robot -- the human not only adjusts to the robot but both adjust to each other. In any event, I would need to read the paper and see which cortical and subcortical areas were involved before venturing any evolutionary explanation for it.PyrrhoManiac1_{February 16, 2023
February
02
Feb
16
16
2023
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PST}

Asauber @28 The ability to rearrange brain patterns according to an electrode-studded cap was part of the total package when consciousness first emerged due to the complexity level of the brain. So, consciousness emerged together with a package of abilities. "How?", you might ask. Well, researchers don’t know exactly how, at this point, but it must have happened because this is what we see, right? - - - - I always like that argument. Similarly: "evolution must have happened because, obviously, life exists."Origenes_{February 16, 2023
February
02
Feb
16
16
2023
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PST}

"the ability to rearrange its patterns according to electrode-studded cap" "It EMERGED" in 3...2...1... Andrewasauber_{February 16, 2023
February
02
Feb
16
16
2023
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PST}

PM1
Ori: ... the materialist needs to point to an evolutionary history that shows how there can be a “process of learning”, during which the brain adjusts its patterns to an electrode-studded cap.
PM1: Are you suggesting that the materialist needs to explain how learning is possible?
A general evolutionary explanation for all learning cannot exist. Learning that fire is hot, and adjusting one's behavior, does not seem to require that a brain evolves the ability to rearrange its patterns according to electrode-studded cap. So, where does it get that ability from? So, what needs to be explained is that brain patterns are rearranged to steer a wheelchair, by means of an electrode-studded cap, with 95 / 98 % accuracy. Is there an evolutionary explanation for why a brain can do this or not? You cannot explain it with general terms like "learning" or "adjusting." You cannot say: Oh it is just "learning" we have some evolutionary explanation for that.Origenes_{February 16, 2023
February
02
Feb
16
16
2023
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PST}

PM1, "Are you suggesting that the materialist needs to explain how learning is possible?" Well to make it real easy for you, you can just demonstrate a single neuron evolving de novo.
"The immediate, most important implication is that complexes with more than two different binding sites-ones that require three or more proteins-are beyond the edge of evolution, past what is biologically reasonable to expect Darwinian evolution to have accomplished in all of life in all of the billion-year history of the world. The reasoning is straightforward. The odds of getting two independent things right are the multiple of the odds of getting each right by itself. So, other things being equal, the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC, 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable." - Michael Behe - The Edge of Evolution - page 146 Michael Behe - Observed (1 in 10^20) Edge of Evolution - video - Lecture delivered in April 2015 at Colorado School of Mines 25:56 minute quote - "This is not an argument anymore that Darwinism cannot make complex functional systems; it is an observation that it does not." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9svV8wNUqvA
Then, after you demonstrate that, you can work your way up to demonstrating how it is possible for Darwinian processes to evolve a "beyond belief" brain that is capable of 'learning'.,,, I'll grab my popcorn.
The Half-Truths of Materialist Evolution - Donald DeMarco - 02/06/2015 Excerpt: but I would like to direct attention to the unsupportable notion that the human brain, to focus on a single phenomenon, could possibly have evolved by sheer chance. One of the great stumbling blocks for Darwin and other chance evolutionists is explaining how a multitude of factors simultaneously coalesce to form a unified, functioning system. The human brain could not have evolved as a result of the addition of one factor at a time. Its unity and phantasmagorical complexity defies any explanation that relies on pure chance. It would be an underestimation of the first magnitude to say that today’s neurophysiologists know more about the structure and workings of the brain than did Darwin and his associates. Scientists in the field of brain research now inform us that a single human brain contains more molecular-scale switches than all the computers, routers and Internet connections on the entire planet! According to Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology at the Stanford University School of Medicine, the brain’s complexity is staggering, beyond anything his team of researchers had ever imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief. In the cerebral cortex alone, each neuron has between 1,000 to 10,000 synapses that result, roughly, in a total of 125 trillion synapses, which is about how many stars fill 1,500 Milky Way galaxies! A single synapse may contain 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A synapse, simply stated, is the place where a nerve impulse passes from one nerve cell to another. Phantasmagorical as this level of unified complexity is, it places us merely at the doorway of the brain’s even deeper mind-boggling organization. Glial cells in the brain assist in neuron speed. These cells outnumber neurons 10 times over, with 860 billion cells. All of this activity is monitored by microglia cells that not only clean up damaged cells but also prune dendrites, forming part of the learning process. The cortex alone contains 100,000 miles of myelin-covered, insulated nerve fibers. The process of mapping the brain would indeed be time-consuming. It would entail identifying every synaptic neuron. If it took a mere second to identify each neuron, it would require four billion years to complete the project. https://www.ncregister.com/news/the-half-truths-of-materialist-evolution
bornagain77_{February 16, 2023
February
02
Feb
16
16
2023
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PST}

@24
In order to not make an utterly empty claim, the materialist needs to point to an evolutionary history that shows how there can be a “process of learning”, during which the brain adjusts its patterns to an electrode-studded cap. Absent such a history, the materialist has nothing.
Are you suggesting that the materialist needs to explain how learning is possible?PyrrhoManiac1_{February 16, 2023
February
02
Feb
16
16
2023
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PST}

PM1 @21 This has to be one of PM1's worst posts.
Presumably all that the materialist needs to say is that the process of learning how to use the machine produced the observed change in brain patterns.
Irrelevant. In order to not make an utterly empty claim, the materialist needs to point to an evolutionary history that shows how there can be a "process of learning", during which the brain adjusts its patterns to an electrode-studded cap. Absent such a history, the materialist has nothing.
The capacity to learn a new task does not seem to invite non-biological explanations ....
Absolute barking nonsense. If there are no "biological" (you mean: evolutionary) explanations, then, of course, it screams for a "non-biological" explanation; that is the mind (your bees and sea-slugs notwithstanding).Origenes_{February 16, 2023
February
02
Feb
16
16
2023
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PST}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply