Intelligent Design Mind Naturalism Neuroscience

At Peaceful Science: An anti-creationist psychiatrist misunderstands evidence for an immaterial mind, says Michael Egnor

Spread the love

In neurosurgeon Michael Egnor’s view, “Here is one way of seeing it” If someone took a sledgehammer to your computer and pulverized it, yet it still worked fairly well, you would conclude that there was something rather strange about the computer that you had not previously considered:

I am not arguing that fMRI imaging of patients in PVS measures abstract thought. I am saying that the presence of fMRI activity that correlates with complex thought is a serious problem with the materialist theory of the mind.

After all, these PVS patients have massive permanent brain damage and have been medically diagnosed as having no mind at all. Yet many of them do have minds and are capable of thinking quite complex thoughts (understanding language, imagining complex activities such as walking across a room or playing tennis).

Michael Egnor, “Atheist psychiatrist misunderstands evidence for immaterial mind” at Mind Matters News

See also: Do epileptic seizures cause abstract thoughts? Michael Egnor: A psychiatrist argues that “intellectual seizures” can occur. But Egnor says, Seizures never evoke abstract thought. That is, if a seizure causes you to think about a triangle, it always causes you to imagine a particular triangle, not to define triangles abstractly.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

28 Replies to “At Peaceful Science: An anti-creationist psychiatrist misunderstands evidence for an immaterial mind, says Michael Egnor

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    To add further weight to Dr. Egnor’s argument that,,,

    “The fMRI activation is not direct evidence of immateriality of abstract thought, but it is direct evidence of the inadequacy of materialism in helping us understand the mind.”

    To add further weight to that argument from Dr. Egnor, it is found that “people who are better at doing the tests, who can solve them faster and more efficiently, were showing less activity in the intelligence part of the brain.”

    A Neuroscientist Tells You What’s Wrong With Your Brain – AUGUST 2, 2016
    Excerpt: Research seems to show that more intelligent people use less brain power. Why?
    [Researchers were] putting people into fMRI machines and giving them intelligence tests—deductions and puzzles. It turns out the people who are better at doing the tests, who can solve them faster and more efficiently, were showing less activity in the intelligence part of the brain. Which is obviously puzzling—if that’s the intelligence part of the brain, why are people who are more intelligent not using it? The main theory now is that it means this area is more efficient. It doesn’t need to work as hard to do the same effort as one who is less intelligent because it’s better connected, it’s more integrated.
    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/neuroscientist-wants-tell-you-whats-wrong-your-brain-1-180959985/

    Apparently, the material brain somehow gets in the way of the spiritual/immaterial mind to a certain extent. And, according to the preceding study, people who use more of their mind and less of their brain to solve a problem will ‘naturally’ do so more intelligently.

    Moreover, if the mind of a person were merely the brain, as materialists hold, then if half of the brain were removed from a person then that ‘person’ should only be ‘half of the person’, or at least somewhat less of a ‘person’, as they were before. But that is not the case, the ‘whole person’ stays intact even though the brain suffers severe impairment:

    Removing Half of Brain Improves Young Epileptics’ Lives: – 1997
    Excerpt: “We are awed by the apparent retention of memory and by the retention of the child’s personality and sense of humor,” Dr. Eileen P. G. Vining,,
    Dr. John Freeman, the director of the Johns Hopkins Pediatric Epilepsy Center, said he was dumbfounded at the ability of children to regain speech after losing the half of the brain that is supposedly central to language processing.
    ”It’s fascinating,” Dr. Freeman said. ”The classic lore is that you can’t change language after the age of 2 or 3.”
    But Dr. Freeman’s group has now removed diseased left hemispheres in more than 20 patients, including three 13-year-olds whose ability to speak transferred to the right side of the brain in much the way that Alex’s did.,,,
    http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08.....lives.html

    In further comment from the neuro-surgeons in the John Hopkins study:

    “Despite removal of one hemisphere, the intellect of all but one of the children seems either unchanged or improved. Intellect was only affected in the one child who had remained in a coma, vigil-like state, attributable to peri-operative complications.”

    Strange but True: When Half a Brain Is Better than a Whole One – May 2007
    Excerpt: Most Hopkins hemispherectomy patients are five to 10 years old. Neurosurgeons have performed the operation on children as young as three months old. Astonishingly, memory and personality develop normally. ,,,
    Another study found that children that underwent hemispherectomies often improved academically once their seizures stopped. “One was champion bowler of her class, one was chess champion of his state, and others are in college doing very nicely,” Freeman says.
    Of course, the operation has its downside: “You can walk, run—some dance or skip—but you lose use of the hand opposite of the hemisphere that was removed. You have little function in that arm and vision on that side is lost,” Freeman says. Remarkably, few other impacts are seen. ,,,
    http://www.scientificamerican......than-whole

    How Removing Half of Someone’s Brain Can Improve Their Life – Oct. 2015
    Excerpt: Next spring, del Peral (who has only half a brain) will graduate from Curry College, where she has made the dean’s list every semester since freshman year.
    http://www.mentalfloss.com/art.....their-life

    The following study goes even further and documents several cases where the patient, despite having “virtually no brain”, functioned normally and even above normally.

    Discrepancy Between Cerebral Structure and Cognitive Functioning: A Review – 2017
    Excerpt: The aforementioned student of mathematics had a global IQ of 130 and a verbal IQ of 140 at the age of 25 (Lorber, 1983), but had “virtually no brain” (Lewin 1980, p. 1232).,,,
    This student belonged to the group of patients that Lorber classified as having “extreme
    hydrocephalus,” meaning that more than 90% of their cranium appeared to be filled with cerebrospinal fluid (Lorber, 1983).,,,
    Apart from the above-mentioned student of mathematics, he described a woman with an extreme degree of hydrocephalus showing “virtually no cerebral mantle” who had an IQ of 118, a girl aged 5 who had an IQ of 123 despite extreme hydrocephalus, a 7-year-old boy with gross hydrocephalus and an IQ of 128, another young adult with gross hydrocephalus and a verbal IQ of 144, and a nurse and an English teacher who both led normal lives despite gross hydrocephalus.,,,
    Another interesting case is that of a 44-year-old woman with very gross hydrocephalus described by Masdeu (2008) and Masdeu et al. (2009). She had a global IQ of 98, worked as an administrator for a government agency, and spoke seven languages.,,,
    ,,, , people who grew up with only one hemisphere developed all the neuronal foundations
    needed for ordinary cognitive and most motor skills. Even so, it seems additionally surprising that one hemisphere can accomplish this after the other has been removed or was isolated anatomically and functionally from the rest of the brain, as it is the case of surgical hemispherectomy.,,,
    It is astonishing that many patients can lead an ordinary life after this drastic procedure, having only minor motor disabilities that result from mild hemiplegia.,,,
    McFie (1961) was astonished that “not only does it (one hemishere) perform motor and sensory functions for both sides of the body, it performs the associative and intellectual functions normally allocated to two hemispheres” (p. 248).,,,
    ,,, most patients, even adults, do not seem to lose their long-term memory such as episodic
    (autobiographic) memories.,,,
    https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2017/12/Discrepancy-between-cerebral-structure-and-cognitive-functioning-JNMD.pdf

    In fact, the concept of ‘personhood’ itself turns out to be an abstract, i.e. immaterial, concept that is not reducible to materialistic explanations. (As well all of mathematics itself also turns out to be abstract and immaterial.)

    What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? – M. Anthony Mills – April 16, 2018
    Excerpt: Barr rightly observes that scientific atheists often unwittingly assume not just metaphysical naturalism but an even more controversial philosophical position: reductive materialism, which says all that exists is or is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories.
    As Barr points out, this implies not only that God does not exist — because God is not material — but that you do not exist. For you are not a material constituent postulated by any of our most fundamental physical theories; at best, you are an aggregate of those constituents, arranged in a particular way. Not just you, but tables, chairs, countries, countrymen, symphonies, jokes, legal contracts, moral judgments, and acts of courage or cowardice — all of these must be fully explicable in terms of those more fundamental, material constituents.
    In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities.
    https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html

    It simply is impossible for us, as immaterial ‘persons’, to contemplate all these immaterial abstract objects, that were listed in the preceding article, if our minds were composed of purely material constituents.

    Moreover, advances in quantum biology have now proven that there is an immaterial transcendent component in the molecules of our brains, as well as in the rest of the molecules of our bodies, (i.e. ‘non-local’ conserved quantum information), that is not reducible to any materialistic explanation.

    New Study Favors Quantum Mind – Quantum coherence in brain protein resembles plant photosynthesis – 18-Sep-2014
    Excerpt: Photosynthesis, the ubiquitous and essential mechanism by which plants produce food from sunlight, has been shown since 2006 to routinely utilize quantum coherence (quantum coherent superposition) at warm temperatures.,,,
    Back in the brain, microtubules are components of the cytoskeleton inside neurons, cylindrical lattice polymers of the protein ‘tubulin’.,,, now it appears quantum mechanisms eerily similar to those in photosynthesis may operate in tubulins within microtubules.
    In an article published September 17,, a team of scientists,, used computer simulation and theoretical quantum biophysics to analyze quantum coherence among tryptophan pi resonance rings in tubulin, the component protein in microtubules.,,,
    (They) mapped locations of the tryptophan pi electron resonance clouds in tubulin, and found them analogous to (the quantum coherent superposition of) chromophores in photosynthesis proteins.,,,
    Along with recent evidence for coherent megahertz vibrations in microtubules, and that anesthetics act to erase consciousness via microtubules, quantum brain biology will become increasingly important.,,
    http://www.newswise.com/articl.....sone_share

    Consciousness Depends on Tubulin Vibrations Inside Neurons, Anesthesia Study Suggests – 5-Sep-2017
    Excerpt: The results provide a marked improvement to the Meyer-Overton correlation by discriminating anesthetics from non-anesthetics, and suggest that anesthetics block consciousness by altering terahertz oscillations in tubulin.,,,
    Senior co-author Jack Tuszynski said:
    “Scientific luminaries from Erwin Schrödinger to Sir Roger Penrose have proposed that consciousness requires quantum coherent processes, but skeptics have asserted such processes would suffer ‘decoherence’ in the ‘warm, wet and noisy’ biological milieu. Our study supports growing evidence that non-polar, pi resonance regions in microtubules and other biomolecules maintain these coherent states, and that a ‘quantum underground’ pervades the brain’s neurons.”
    https://www.newswise.com/articles/consciousness-depends-on-tubulin-vibrations-inside-neurons-anesthesia-study-suggests

    Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    And in the following more recent 2015 paper entitled, “Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules” it was found that “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” and the researchers further commented that “finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,

    Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules – Mar. 6, 2015
    Excerpt: “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” they say.
    That’s a discovery that is as important as it is unexpected. “These findings suggest an entirely new and universal mechanism of conductance in biology very different from the one used in electrical circuits.”
    The permutations of possible energy levels of biomolecules is huge so the possibility of finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,
    “what exactly is the advantage that criticality confers?”
    https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quant

    The implication of finding ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’, quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every important biomolecule in our bodies, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious.
    That pleasant implication, of course, being the fact that we now have very strong empirical evidence suggesting that we do indeed have an eternal soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies. As Stuart Hameroff states in the following video, the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”

    Leading Scientists Say Consciousness Cannot Die It Goes Back To The Universe – Oct. 19, 2017 – Spiritual
    Excerpt: “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.disclose.tv/leading-scientists-say-consciousness-cannot-die-it-goes-back-to-the-universe-315604

    Besides the recent empirical evidence from quantum biology that strongly supports the reality of an immaterial soul, and to further back that claim up that the immaterial mind does not directly correlate to the material brain, this following article reports on vastly improved mental functions during Near Death Experiences (NDEs)

    Near-Death Experiences: 30 Years of Research – 2014
    Excerpt: Improved Mental Functions With an Impaired Brain
    Bruce Greyson, M.D. and director of the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia, said NDEs are reliable because the accounts by near-death experiencers (NDErs) of these events remain unchanged over time. He compared a group of NDErs’ accounts about their NDEs made 20 years apart and found that they remained closely identical over time.
    Greyson believes that NDEs are an indication that the mind is independent of the brain because impaired brain functions would be expected during the clinical situation that the NDErs underwent, but his research found no corresponding impairment of mental functions in NDErs.
    “In most cases, people’s mental functioning is better in the NDE than [it] is during our normal waking life,” Greyson said during an interview with The Epoch Times.
    “Their thinking is faster, is clearer, is more logical, they have more control over their chain of thought, their senses are more acute, their memories are more vivid.
    “If you ask somebody about their near-death experience that happened 15 years ago, they tell it as if it happened yesterday. If you ask them [about] other experiences from their life at the same time, they are very fuzzy memories, if they have any at all.
    “[…] When you think that these experiences, which are characterized by enhanced thought processes [that] takes place when the brain is not functioning well or sometimes not functioning at all since it is in cardiac arrest or deep anesthesia—times when brain science would tell us that you shouldn’t be able to think or perceive or form memories—it becomes quite clear that we can’t explain this thing on the basis of brain physiology.”
    Eben Alexander, M.D., a neurosurgeon who also spoke at the conference, had an NDE that’s a case in point. He contracted acute bacterial meningitis, which damages the neocortex, in 2008 and went into a coma, spending six days on a ventilator.
    The glucose level of his cerebrospinal fluid was 1 mg/dl (milligram per one-tenth of a liter), while normal levels are between 60 and 80 mg/dl. When the level drops to 20 mg/dl, the meningitis infection is considered severe. For days after the coma, Alexander struggled to speak and recall memories before the coma. No one with this kind of severe brain damage is expected to fully recover.
    However, during his NDE, Alexander had such vivid experiences involving multiple senses, such as vision, hearing, and smell, that he said he couldn’t describe how amazing it was.
    “My brain right now—I think it recovered pretty well—could not do anything close to what my brain was doing,” Alexander said. “How does a dying brain end up getting far, far more powerful and able to handle these tremendous loads of information instantaneously and put it altogether?”
    http://www.educatinghumanity.c.....e-nde.html

    Along that same line of evidence, it is also interesting to note that people who were blind from birth can see for the first time during their NDEs

    Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper (1997) conducted a study of 31 blind people, many of who reported vision during their Near Death Experiences (NDEs). 21 of these people had had an NDE while the remaining 10 had had an out-of-body experience (OBE), but no NDE. It was found that in the NDE sample, about half had been blind from birth. (of note: This ‘anomaly’ is also found for deaf people who can hear sound during their Near Death Experiences(NDEs).)
    http://www.newdualism.org/nde-.....-147-1.pdf

    Blind Woman Can See During Near Death Experience (NDE) – Pim von Lommel – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKyQJDZuMHE

    Thus, contrary to whatever the “impartial” Faizal Ali, who describes himself as a “Militant atheist” and an “Anti-Creationist Psychiatrist,”” may desperately want to believe to the contrary in his dispute with Dr. Egnor, the Christian Theist has multiple lines of scientific evidence all converging on the same fact that our minds must be immaterial in their primary make up.

    The atheistic materialist is, once again, found to be falsified in his primary reductive materialistic beliefs by the empirical evidence itself.

    Verse:

    1 Corinthians 2:9
    However, as it is written: “What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived” — the things God has prepared for those who love him–

  3. 3
  4. 4
    Seversky says:

    I am not arguing that fMRI imaging of patients in PVS measures abstract thought. I am saying that the presence of fMRI activity that correlates with complex thought is a serious problem with the materialist theory of the mind.

    After all, these PVS patients have massive permanent brain damage and have been medically diagnosed as having no mind at all. Yet many of them do have minds and are capable of thinking quite complex thoughts (understanding language, imagining complex activities such as walking across a room or playing tennis).

    As far as I am aware, “having no mind” is not a clinical diagnosis in psychiatry. What is apparent is that consciousness is not an either/or, black-or-white state. Between complete unconsciousness and full consciousness is a spectrum of partially conscious states. This is consistent with the concept of a mind being an epiphenomenon arising from the complex interplay between many different brain functions and regions.

    As has been noted before, traumatic brain injury can have profound and prolonged effects on the conscious mind associated with that brain. Coupled with the observations that a conscious mind has never been recovered from a corpse nor observed as a disembodied entity, this is strong evidence for the material basis of consciousness.

    In fact, one has to ask in what way the concept of an immaterial consciousness is of any use, other than to bolster the religious beliefs of those who cling to the hope of life after death. It raises more questions than it answers. If a fully-functional conscious mind can exist in a disembodied state, why does it need a physical brain at all? If there is no physical substrate, how is such highly complex information stored? Where is it stored? Why can’t we access it and download it into a computer? Inquiring minds want answers.

  5. 5
    AaronS1978 says:

    I hate that word epiphenomenon, Which it does imply that consciousness has no physical power whatsoever which is completely untrue given the fact that your brain just recorded your own consciousness and the very act of recording your own awareness impacts your brain

    In other words you wouldn’t be able to be aware of being aware

    But that’s another can of worms

    Quantum consciousness is gaining a lot of ground there was another recent study that showed that there is a possibility of the soul and consciousness. Sir Roger Penrose has hypothesized this for quite some time and there is mounting evidence of this being true

    Of course you can write it off and immediately say it’s absolutely false but I can do the exact same thing about the multiverse on the same logic that there has been no evidence of it whatsoever nothing has ever been caught on the multiverse There are no observations of its existence

    But in case of consciousness there is observation of its existence and we have very little understanding of it

    If it is a quantum phenomenon it would persist after death and it still would actually require a brain of some sort to interact with the rest of the world as all quantum phenomenon do require non-quantum entities to interact with each other, it a two way street

    Our universe is very dualistic

    And given some of the bazaar things that surround our consciousness plus our innate almost instinctual feeling that there is something more to this universe and beyond death it is worth looking into.

    There’s no real survival advantage to believe in the afterlife in fact it would have the exact opposite effect,
    and you would really have to jump through hoops to make that seem logical, (IE belief in the the afterlife gives you hope so you survive, ok then why does it do that in the first place? Second, just kill yourself and get there.) furthermore if our universe is truly deterministic, much like the inter-action problem that seversky pointed out, there is an issue with nonexistent things being relevant or popping into a deterministic universe as the only way anything can interact with one another is if it really exists. remember cause and effect, and if it doesn’t exist it doesn’t have a cause nor does it have an effect.

    At first it seems really easy to think that a false perception could pop into existence in a cause-and-effect deterministic universe, however, how does it escape the logic of a blind man being able to know colors and tell the difference between blue and red when he has never experienced the colors in the first place.

    Now The fact that we have caught nothing when it comes to consciousness, speaks more to the fact that our technology just isn’t there yet then it does to the fact that consciousness is nothing more than a gray matter burp in your skull.

    Second of all, whether we have caught something that is a disembodied consciousness is really up for debate much similarly to debating whether or not ufos have been caught on tape, the save goes for ghosts (Disembodied consciousnesses) I am very skeptical of this as well, I’m simply using this to show the hypocritical logic of things because many materialist will believe aliens and ufos but ghosts are right out. Secondly on that note there are many people that believe aliens are demons and we are just trying to explain them away.

    Another point would be with those of the religious persuasion would perceive. The consciousness would not be able to stay around for very long after death, cording to believe such as my own and many many others the consciousness would be picked up immediately God would not allow the sold the float aimlessly around in the world of the living or the material world. If God did that would speak more to God’s imperfection which is not Acceptable, furthermore other entities like Malignant and malevolent ones would be there very quickly snatch up the recently dead, So if this does exist I seriously doubt that these beings on both sides would be slacking, they would leave no trace behind and we would not be able to do anything about it.

    Now when it comes to lack of observable proof the same also can be said about the multi-verse

    But again that’s a whole other can of worms
    And the fact that it is not left any huge amounts of evidence behind, you know, Astronomically large intergalactic bruises in the cosmic back radiation is telling.

    However again That speaks more to the fact that we might not understand what the multiverse if it exist actually is much similarly to we may not exactly understand or know what consciousness really is

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky, as a atheistic materialist, claims that consciousness is an “epiphenomenon” of the material brain.

    Therefore using Seversky’s on term that he chose to use, and due to advances in quantum mechanics, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:

    1. Consciousness either precedes all of material reality or is a “epiphenomenon” of material reality.
    2. If consciousness is a “epiphenomenon” of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
    3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
    4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.

    For example of experimental confirmation of the preceding argument, the following recent experimental realization of Wigner’s friend thought experiment established that, “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.

    More Than One Reality Exists (in Quantum Physics) By Mindy Weisberger – March 20, 2019
    Excerpt: “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.
    https://www.livescience.com/65029-dueling-reality-photons.html

    And as the following delayed choice experiment, (that was done with atoms instead of photons), established, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”

    Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness – May 27, 2015
    Excerpt: The bizarre nature of reality as laid out by quantum theory has survived another test, with scientists performing a famous experiment and proving that reality does not exist until it is measured.
    Physicists at The Australian National University (ANU) have conducted John Wheeler’s delayed-choice thought experiment, which involves a moving object that is given the choice to act like a particle or a wave. Wheeler’s experiment then asks – at which point does the object decide?
    Common sense says the object is either wave-like or particle-like, independent of how we measure it. But quantum physics predicts that whether you observe wave like behavior (interference) or particle behavior (no interference) depends only on how it is actually measured at the end of its journey. This is exactly what the ANU team found.
    “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering.
    Despite the apparent weirdness, the results confirm the validity of quantum theory, which,, has enabled the development of many technologies such as LEDs, lasers and computer chips.
    The ANU team not only succeeded in building the experiment, which seemed nearly impossible when it was proposed in 1978, but reversed Wheeler’s original concept of light beams being bounced by mirrors, and instead used atoms scattered by laser light.
    “Quantum physics’ predictions about interference seem odd enough when applied to light, which seems more like a wave, but to have done the experiment with atoms, which are complicated things that have mass and interact with electric fields and so on, adds to the weirdness,” said Roman Khakimov, PhD student at the Research School of Physics and Engineering.
    http://phys.org/news/2015-05-q.....dness.html

    Likewise, the following violation of Leggett’s inequality stressed “the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.”

    Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007
    Excerpt: They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.”
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640

    The following videos provide several more lines of evidence from quantum mechanics that also strongly support the ‘mind first’ and/or Theistic view of reality:

    How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f0hL3Nrdas

    Five intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Double Slit, Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect)
    Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness: 5 Experiments – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5qphmi8gYE

    The Mind First and/or Theistic implications of quantum experiments such as the preceding experiments are fairly obvious. As Professor Scott Aaronson of MIT once quipped, “Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists,,, But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!”

    “Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!”
    – Scott Aaronson – MIT associate Professor quantum computation – Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables

    And whereas recent advances in quantum mechanics have been, to put it mildly, very kind to the Theist in his belief that Consciousness must precede material reality, the atheistic materialist, as far as empirical science itself is concerned, is in a state of abject poverty with no clue how to solve what is termed to be ‘the hard problem’ of consciousness.

    That is to say, Atheistic Materialists simply do not have any realistic clue how anything material could ever possibly generate the inner subjective consciousness experience of qualia. Here are a few quotes that make that point clear.

    “Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious. Nobody even knows what it would be like to have the slightest idea about how anything material could be conscious. So much for the philosophy of consciousness.”
    – Jerry Fodor – Rutgers University philosopher
    [2] Fodor, J. A., Can there be a science of mind? Times Literary Supplement. July 3, 1992, pp5-7.

    “Every day we recall the past, perceive the present and imagine the future. How do our brains accomplish these feats? It’s safe to say that nobody really knows.”
    Sebastian Seung – Massachusetts Institute of Technology neuroscientist – “Connectome”:

    “Those centermost processes of the brain with which consciousness is presumably associated are simply not understood. They are so far beyond our comprehension at present that no one I know of has been able even to imagine their nature.”
    Roger Wolcott Sperry – Nobel neurophysiologist
    As quoted in Genius Talk : Conversations with Nobel Scientists and Other Luminaries (1995) by Denis Brian

    “We have at present not even the vaguest idea how to connect the physio-chemical processes with the state of mind.”
    – Eugene Wigner – Nobel prize-winner – Quantum Symmetries

    “Science’s biggest mystery is the nature of consciousness. It is not that we possess bad or imperfect theories of human awareness; we simply have no such theories at all. About all we know about consciousness is that it has something to do with the head, rather than the foot.”
    Nick Herbert – Contemporary physicist

    “No experiment has ever demonstrated the genesis of consciousness from matter. One might as well believe that rabbits emerge from magicians’ hats. Yet this vaporous possibility, this neuro-mythology, has enchanted generations of gullible scientists, in spite of the fact that there is not a shred of direct evidence to support it.”
    Larry Dossey – Physician and author

    As Professor of Psychology David Barash states in the following article, a article which happens to be entitled “the hardest problem in science?”, “But the hard problem of consciousness is so hard that I can’t even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it. In fact, I don’t even know what kind of discovery would get us to first base, not to mention a home run.”

    The Hardest Problem in Science? October 28, 2011
    Excerpt: ‘But the hard problem of consciousness is so hard that I can’t even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it. In fact, I don’t even know what kind of discovery would get us to first base, not to mention a home run.’
    – David Barash – Professor of Psychology emeritus at the University of Washington.
    https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/the-hardest-problem-in-science/40845

    Thus, as far as the empirical science from quantum mechanics is concerned, Seversky is falsified in his belief that consciousness is somehow an “epiphenomenon” of material reality. Whereas on the other hand, the Theist is, once again, verified in his belief that the Mind of God and/or Consciousness must precede material reality.

    If Seversky were really as concerned with the integrity of science as he often claims that he is, then he would readily accept these consistent findings from quantum mechanics, honestly admit that his atheistic materialism is false, and even become a Theist, perhaps even become a Christian Theist.

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    Test all things; hold fast what is good.

  7. 7
    ET says:

    That same anti-creationist psychiatrist doesn’t understand science. Well, THAT is par for the course over on PS.

  8. 8
    ET says:

    Seversky:

    This is consistent with the concept of a mind being an epiphenomenon arising from the complex interplay between many different brain functions and regions.

    Just because you can say it doesn’t make it so. There isn’t any evidence that materialistic processes can produce a brain, so you lose.

    As has been noted before, traumatic brain injury can have profound and prolonged effects on the conscious mind associated with that brain.

    And that is to be expected with an interface that has functional issues.
    Coupled with the observations that a conscious mind has never been recovered from a corpse nor observed as a disembodied entity,…
    Ghost hunters would disagree with you. But then again you don’t care about science and evidence.

    In fact, one has to ask in what way the concept of an immaterial consciousness is of any use,…

    In fact, one has to ask in what way the concept of an material consciousness is of any use? There isn’t any way to test the claim that any brain arose via materialistic processes. In fact materialism is nothing but a failed philosophy.

    If a fully-functional conscious mind can exist in a disembodied state, why does it need a physical brain at all?

    Experiences. How can a disembodied mind learn about the body except to be part of it?

  9. 9
    doubter says:

    Seversky @4

    “Coupled with the observations that a conscious mind has never been ….observed as a disembodied entity, this is strong evidence for the material basis of consciousness.”

    As usual with materialists, the great body of empirical evidence for the non-materiality of consciousness is coolly ignored and implicitly dismissed without justification. Areas such as veridical NDEs, verified reincarnation memories in especially in small children, ESP and psi effects in parapsychology. In fact, like it is with most materialists (and many Christian Deists unfortunately), it is “obvious” that there is no need even to study and learn about all the work carried out in these areas. All right-minded people just “know” that it is nonsense, no need to painstakingly detail the obvious. Sure.

  10. 10
    AaronS1978 says:

    And that is to be expected with an interface that has functional issues.
    Coupled with the observations that a conscious mind has never been recovered from a corpse nor observed as a disembodied entity,…
    Ghost hunters would disagree with you. But then again you don’t care about science and evidence.

    I would like to point at that this line of evidence against the immaterial mind is just as equally effective against the material mind. If all was material, then we should be able to simple reconstruct it, and then we have consciousness. This has not happened.

    The next line is to say we just aren’t technologically there yet, and the immaterialist is equally valid to use this exact same line of logic

  11. 11
    PavelU says:

    Can someone ask Dr Egnor to comment on the paper cited @3?

  12. 12
    Seversky says:

    Doubter @ 9

    As usual with materialists, the great body of empirical evidence for the non-materiality of consciousness is coolly ignored and implicitly dismissed without justification. Areas such as veridical NDEs, verified reincarnation memories in especially in small children, ESP and psi effects in parapsychology. In fact, like it is with most materialists (and many Christian Deists unfortunately), it is “obvious” that there is no need even to study and learn about all the work carried out in these areas. All right-minded people just “know” that it is nonsense, no need to painstakingly detail the obvious. Sure.

    Researchers have been studying NDEs, OOBs, reincarnation, ESP and psi phenomena for some time and some continue to do so. Unfortunately, when you look at some of the research there is little if any ‘signal’ to be found amongst all the noise. It’s not dismissed because we all ‘know’ its nonsense, it’s dismissed because there doesn’t seem to be much there. Certainly nothing like the massive amount of observational data on the correlation between consciousness and the physical brain.

  13. 13
    Seversky says:

    AaronS1978 @ 10

    Ghost hunters would disagree with you. But then again you don’t care about science and evidence.

    I’m sure they would. But, so far, they have not produced anything in the way of persuasive evidence for the existence of ghosts and it’s certainly not for the want of trying.

    I would like to point at that this line of evidence against the immaterial mind is just as equally effective against the material mind. If all was material, then we should be able to simple reconstruct it, and then we have consciousness. This has not happened.

    Reconstructing something may well be a relatively simple matter but in order to reconstruct something you first have to ‘deconstruct’ it to find out how it works. That’s the tricky bit – aka “the hard problem of consciousness”.

    The next line is to say we just aren’t technologically there yet, and the immaterialist is equally valid to use this exact same line of logic

    The materialists have a head start on the immaterialists, though. Materialists have a massive amount of observational evidence for the correlation of the conscious mind with the physical brain. Immaterialists don’t have a single observation of a disembodied consciousness.

  14. 14
    AaronS1978 says:

    Severeky I didn’t write that

    That first part that was from ET

    But on his point There is an argument on what is considered evidence and what is considered not evidence
    Even though I do have skepticism for a lot of ghost hunter evidence there are also things that cannot be readily explained so I don’t write them off completely and I also can’t say that it couldn’t happen

    And to address the other things that you said I would have to disagree with you and that is actually a matter of opinion whether they have a Headstart or not they still have not created a consciousness and so we are both currently at an impasse to say that they definitely will is also an active faith given our great lack of understanding for what consciousness really is

    Now what we do have tons of evidence of is a functioning brain that seems to do very bizarre things that we don’t quite understand

    It is the only organ in our body that requires an incredible amount of external input for proper development while no other Organ does that. We have evidence of this Oregon re-wiring it self through thought information and feedback loops again no computer to date can even come close to doing anything like that. Affectively a software program capable of disassembling the hardware and re-wiring itself without external influences such as additional hands, robotic arms, nanotechnology, it’s the actual rewrites itself with its own wires. We do have evidence of extreme damage but we also have evidence of extreme repair, Of course not as dramatic as some of the Trumatic brain injuries that could happen but still there are some amazing and miraculous things that are brain seems to be able to do even after it’s been injured

    When I get the chance I will load up the individual that only had I believe around 13% of his brain functioning the rest of it had been chewed up by a form of the herpes virus he should’ve been clinically brain dead yet he just had a low IQ had a family and a normal job

    Although these things don’t happen often they still happen

  15. 15
    AaronS1978 says:

    Ugh it cut me off I’m trying to dictate this while driving I probably shouldn’t be doing this

    Now that’s not to say there’s no evidence for materialism there is but there are a couple different ways to look at that

    When somebody composes music on the piano and I decide to break that musicians hands and they can’t play the song anymore does that mean that there is no Pianist or music
    No
    What it does mean is that one that person’s fingers have been broken they are no longer capable of interacting with the object that they require to make music.

    The same can be said if I decided to destroy all the threads from the keys to the cords in the piano

    The musician and the piano are intertwined and they are both required to make music one can view the mind and the brain exactly the same way, both can be explained with both materialistic explanations and dualistic explanations
    Both have evidence scientifically. It becomes a matter of which one you value more.

    And you only have to have a little of one to be true for the whole thing to be true

    Materialism is a negative in the sense that nothing could possibly exist outside of material

    However the danger of a negative is as long as there is even the tiniest example that there is something more that would Make materialism incorrect

    The same would go for free well as long as you have a little bit of free will You would have free will even though it was only a tiny amount

    As long as you can find an example that there’s even a tiny amount of something beyond materialism then materialism isn’t all there is

    And without having to go into loads of quantum mechanics quantum entanglement the fact that our brain is tied into that just as much is everything else is in this universe, I would venture that there is definitely something a little bit more

  16. 16
    AaronS1978 says:

    Oh forgot, you suck seversky! Take that!
    Can go with some Derogatory statement!
    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahshshshs

    I’m kidding

  17. 17
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Seversky

    Immaterialists don’t have a single observation of a disembodied consciousness.

    They don’t have a single empirical, physical/material observation of an immaterial entity. I guess not. They keep looking through microscopes to find one, but for some reason it doesn’t show up.

  18. 18
    doubter says:

    Seversky@12

    “Unfortunately, when you look at some of the research there is little if any ‘signal’ to be found amongst all the noise. It’s not dismissed because we all ‘know’ its nonsense, it’s dismissed because there doesn’t seem to be much there.”

    LOL. I wonder what you mean by “some of the research”, presumably that which you have actually looked into. These remarks certainly show a profound ignorance of the great body of evidence that has been accumulated over the last 140 years of parapsychological research, especially in the areas I mentioned. Only profound ignorance could lead one to honestly hold that there is “nothing to it”, for instance when considering something like the body of published reincarnation research carried out by Ian Stevenson and colleagues.

    I would suggest a perusal of Irreducible Mind – Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century, by Kelley and Kelley, Crabtree, Gauld, Grosso & Greyson. I won’t be holding my breath – it’s 800 pages, and it’s just an abbreviated summary.

  19. 19
    AaronS1978 says:

    Sa

    Actually SA that’s not true, and I’m not calling you out like a jerk or anything like that what I’m saying is there is empirical evidence of immateriality

    My first example would be quantum entanglement the phenomenon is quite amazing and the very fact that two particles can be entangled for any which reason is amazing in itself but the fact that we cannot even start to detect a connection between the two yet at the exact same time the connection still exist

    Things can disrupt that connection but it can also be reestablished it is truly an odd odd phenomenon but the fact of the matter is is that there’s no real physical connection that we can detect at all

    But it has a very real impact

    We are finding more and more that our brains are actually completely intwined with quantum mechanics
    But that shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone our universes base foundation is quantum mechanics

    And that’s only one of many examples that that realm of the universe seems to show off

    BA77 Sometimes seems entirely obsessed with it and Consistently quotes it. But the reality of it is what he is posting when it comes to quantum mechanics is very true

    Another thing to look at is the fact that anything outside of our universes realm of physics would be considered supernatural as it would not be naturally found in our universe

    But I think there’s a lot of misunderstanding around what supernatural really is.

  20. 20
    Silver Asiatic says:

    AaronS

    Things can disrupt that connection but it can also be reestablished it is truly an odd odd phenomenon but the fact of the matter is is that there’s no real physical connection that we can detect at all

    If we did not detect a physical connection then we did not make a physical observation of an immaterial entity.

    It is impossible to make a physical (empirical) observation of an immaterial essence. How much does it weigh? Where is it in space? What are the coordinates of its position? What is it composed of? If we could observe physical characteristics of the entity, it would not be immaterial.

    We can observe Effects of immaterial entities. But we cannot observe them through empirical, scientific means.

    Angels exist, but we cannot not know how much they weigh or how tall they are.

    And that’s only one of many examples that that realm of the universe seems to show off

    It’s not a matter of “seems to”. We need to see it and measure it, as itself. Not the effect that it has.

    postscript: “what I’m saying is there is empirical evidence of immateriality” – having evidence that a thing exists is different from a direct, empirical observation of the thing.

    Notice Seversky’s comment:
    “Immaterialists don’t have a single observation of a disembodied consciousness.”

    He’s looking for a direct observation of “a consciousness”.

  21. 21
    AaronS1978 says:

    Lol I was about to come back and comment about effects but u beat me to it. I do see and understand your point, But I would also like to point out the fact that there is a lot in particle physics that cannot be directly observed

    I would like to point those looking for immediate observable direct evidence of somethings existence towards the studies of neutrinos

    We have to jump through hoops to detect their effect, We have never observe them directly but we know they exist because of the very tiny but very important impact that they do have

    Their effect is the only really evidence of their existence, Now that was back in 2015-2016 so unless something crazy happened, we still have not directly observe them

    At that time that was taken as evidence of their existence scientifically

    So I guess it just boils down to what someone qualifies as evidence and values as evidence

  22. 22
    AaronS1978 says:

    Just really quick I was reading over a couple of comments and I don’t want to feel like a hypocrite after the whole situation between me and Mimus

    But could we all refrain from calling other people ignorant and anything else kind of crummy

    I really didn’t think that severe sky said anything derogatory to me or even sounded like he was belittling my last couple of comments

    That’s all, I don’t want to anger anybody,

    And SA you are the most guilty by far, no question about it, absolutely the worst…………….not really you cool

  23. 23
    Silver Asiatic says:

    AaronS

    We have to jump through hoops to detect their effect, We have never observe them directly but we know they exist because of the very tiny but very important impact that they do have …

    Yes, but I don’t think they’re considered immaterial entities though, right?

  24. 24
    ET says:

    Seversky:

    But, so far, they have not produced anything in the way of persuasive evidence for the existence of ghosts and it’s certainly not for the want of trying.

    Yes, they have. Again your willful ignorance is neither an argument nor evidence

    The materialists have a head start on the immaterialists, though.

    LoL! Materialists lost before they started. You don’t even have a mechanism capable of producing life or information.

  25. 25
    AaronS1978 says:

    “Yes, but I don’t think they’re considered immaterial entities though, right?“

    Of course they’re considered material entities, (again never directly observed so who knows) that is the assumption, but that’s not my point. My point is, that despite the fact that we have only ever been able to observe their effect, (the effect being A perturbation within a particle field as they bounce off of it occasionally) that interaction, that effect, is considered direct evidence of their existence. To what you are discussing with me and the standard of evidence that is often required for an immaterialist to prove their point, it is remarkable hypocritical and a double standard for a martialist to see Neutrinos as confirmed science and to disregard the immaterialist suggestion on an immaterial reality or soul in this case

    So to ask for a confirmed evidence of a disembodied mind while maintaining the fact that neutrinos are 100% real verges on being hypocritical because of the double standard for the requirement of evidence

    We’re talking about pretty much the same thing at that point another words I agree with you I’m just pointing out that there’s a bit of a double standard on a lot of different things

    There’s no immaterial reality but there’s a multi-verse
    And there’s a lot of examples like that

  26. 26
    Silver Asiatic says:

    AaronS

    So to ask for a confirmed evidence of a disembodied mind while maintaining the fact that neutrinos are 100% real verges on being hypocritical because of the double standard for the requirement of evidence
    We’re talking about pretty much the same thing at that point another words I agree with you I’m just pointing out that there’s a bit of a double standard on a lot of different things
    There’s no immaterial reality but there’s a multi-verse
    And there’s a lot of examples like that

    Exactly – yes. It’s a double-standard and willful blindness to dismiss other evidence of immaterial consciousness (or the rational soul, in older terminology).

  27. 27
    doubter says:

    AaronS1978@25

    “There’s no immaterial reality but there’s a multi-verse
    And there’s a lot of examples like that”

    Agree on the double standard. The truth is a reverse of the above statement.

    Concerning immaterial realities, about the great body of empirical evidence for immaterial consciousness see my responses to Seversky in this thread, at 9 & 18.

    As for the multiverse:

    From https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/the-multiverse-is-sciences-assisted-suicide/:

    “We have so much more (astronomical and physics) data now. But it provides no evidence for a multiverse.
    ………………..
    The multiverse has only ever existed, so far as we know, in the mind of man. Its most promising research programs, string theory and early rapid cosmic inflation theory, have bounced along on enthusiasm alone, prompting ever more arcane speculations for which there may never be any possibility of evidence.

    But like so many other empty ideas, the multiverse has consequences. If we accept it, we abandon the view that science deals with the observed facts of nature. We adopt the view that it tells us what we want to believe about ourselves. In other words, the multiverse is science’s assisted suicide.”

  28. 28
    AaronS1978 says:

    No no doubter Im firmly against the multiverse I was using that as an example there is no immaterial reality but there’s a multi-verse
    Yeah there’s no observable effect or evidence of the multiverse, And if there was actually an effect we would probably see that effect over and over and over again

Leave a Reply