Intelligent Design Mind Neuroscience

Michael Egnor: A materialist neuroscientist continues the argument with himself

Spread the love

Dr. Egnor got into an online discussion with Dr. Faizal Ali, an “anti-creationist” psychiatrist and, he says, “a materialist who believes that abstract (intellectual) thought is simply the product of material brain processes”:

Let’s recap: on June 28th, Dr. Ali wrote confidently that intellectual seizures do exist: “… Egnor is simply wrong. Intellectual seizures do occur.”

On July 20th, Dr. Ali wrote confidently that intellectual seizures do not exist: “[W]hy do ‘intellectual seizures’ not exist? Neural connectivity theory provides an answer:… Such stimulation is too crude and localized to produce a more complex response such as an abstract thought.”

Michael Egnor, “A Materialist Neuroscientist Continues the Argument with Himself” at Mind Matters News

We hope it doesn’t come to blows (self-inflicted injuries).

Also by Michael Egnor in discussion with psychiatrist Dr. Faizal Ali

What is abstract thought?, Part I: Now Dr. Ali argues with Dr. Ali

Can Buzzwords About “Neural Networks” Save Materialist Neuroscience? No. Experiments that support an immaterial consciousness often involve split or massively damaged neural networks.

Do “forced thinking” seizures show that abstract thought is a material thing? Epilepsy suppresses abstract thought, it does not evoke it.

Do Epileptic Seizures Cause Abstract Thoughts? A psychiatrist argues that “intellectual seizures” can occur.

and

Atheist Psychiatrist Misunderstands Evidence for an Immaterial Mind Patients with massive brain damage were shown to have a mental life.

52 Replies to “Michael Egnor: A materialist neuroscientist continues the argument with himself

  1. 1
    doubter says:

    Unfortunately Dr. Egnor doesn’t address Dr. Ali’s grudgingly offered materialist neurological explanation for why there are in fact no intellectual (abstract thought) siezures: “Neural connectivity theory provides an answer:… Such stimulation is too crude and localized to produce a more complex response such as an abstract thought.”

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Doubter at 1

    Unfortunately Dr. Egnor doesn’t address Dr. Ali’s grudgingly offered materialist neurological explanation for why there are in fact no intellectual (abstract thought) siezures: “Neural connectivity theory provides an answer:… Such stimulation is too crude and localized to produce a more complex response such as an abstract thought.”

    Dr. Egnor addressed that claim in a previous article,,,

    CAN BUZZWORDS ABOUT “NEURAL NETWORKS” SAVE MATERIALIST NEUROSCIENCE?
    No. Experiments that support an immaterial consciousness often involve split or massively damaged neural networks
    MICHAEL EGNOR JUNE 27, 2019
    Excerpt: So let me reiterate my “take-home points”:
    Roger Sperry studied patients whose brains had literally been cut in half, which meant massive damage to their neural networks. The networks had been surgically disconnected in order to get seizures under control. Yet the disconnect did not affect the patient’s personality or capacity for abstract thought.
    Benjamin Libet found that “free won’t”—the ability to veto temptations—had no material correlate in brain activity. That, obviously, cannot be explained with recourse to neural networks. These networks entail quite a bit of neural electrical activity but Libet found none. The simplest and most scientifically cogent interpretation is that free will isn’t a material act of the brain.
    Finally, Adrian Owen found that patients with massive brain damage in a persistent vegetative state surprisingly retained the ability to think abstractly. That hardly supports the materialist inference that neural networks can account for abstract thought.
    Many of the cases studied involved massive stimulation or destruction of neural networks, and they never specifically evoke or ablate abstract thought.
    In conclusion, abstract thought cannot be accounted for on a materialist basis. The attribution of abstract thought to the material brain is philosophical and logical nonsense and has been repeatedly discredited by the best neuroscience over the past century.
    So, friends and colleagues who insist that neural networks can explain away the neuroscience experiments that clearly show the immaterial aspects of the mind, I suggest that you look elsewhere to salvage your ideology.
    Neural networks cannot save materialism from the dustbin of science.
    https://mindmatters.ai/2019/06/can-buzzwords-about-neural-networks-save-materialist-neuroscience/

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Besides split brain studies in which “the disconnect did not affect the patient’s personality or capacity for abstract thought”, hemispherectomies, (removal of half the brain), are also very interesting to look at.

    If a person were merely the brain, as materialists hold, then if half of a brain were removed then a ‘person’ should only be ‘half 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.”

    Further notes:

    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 man with the missing brain – 17 Aug 2014
    A medical recovery that is baffling science – and giving hope to head injury patients
    Excerpt: Doctors deemed his cognitive function so low it was untestable – that is, an IQ below 50. It was likely, they said, that he would have to rely on others for even the most menial of tasks for the rest of his life.,,,
    When he was sent to her, in October 1995, his IQ had climbed significantly to 89, just a point below the lower edge of “normal” (between 90 and 110) on the Revised Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. But when she was finished with him in February 1997 – after three sessions a week, with gaps for the occasional surgery – Lewis had an IQ of more than 151, close to so-called “genius” levels,,,
    Lewis is missing a third of his right hemisphere,,,”
    – per the telegraph

    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

    The interesting thing about a ‘whole person’ staying intact even though the brain suffers severe impairment during a hemispherectomy is that, it turns out, the entire concept of ‘personhood’ itself is an abstract, immaterial, concept that cannot be reduced to materialistic explanations:

    What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict?
    By 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

    Dr. Dennis Bonnette, at 37:51 minute mark of following video, in detailed examination of the philosophy of reductive materialism, shows that, according to Richard Dawkin’s own philosophy, Richard Dawkins does not really exist as a real person: (the unity of Aristotelian Form is also discussed). Thus, in a sweet twist of poetic justice, in the reductive materialist denying that God really exists as a real person, the Darwinian atheist also ends up denying that he himself really exist as a real person.

    Atheistic Materialism – Does Richard Dawkins Exist? – video 37:51 minute mark
    Quote: “It turns out that if every part of you, down to sub-atomic parts, are still what they were when they weren’t in you, in other words every ion,,, every single atom that was in the universe,, that has now become part of your living body, is still what is was originally. It hasn’t undergone what metaphysicians call a ‘substantial change’. So you aren’t Richard Dawkins. You are just carbon and neon and sulfur and oxygen and all these individual atoms still.
    You can spout a philosophy that says scientific materialism, but there aren’t any scientific materialists to pronounce it.,,, That’s why I think they find it kind of embarrassing to talk that way. Nobody wants to stand up there and say, “You know, I’m not really here”.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCnzq2yTCg&t=37m51s

    You don’t have to take Dr. Dennis Bonnette’s word for it, here a many supposedly leading ‘rational’ atheists who openly admit, for all the world to hear, that they are illusions and that they do not exist as real persons:

    “You are robots made out of meat. Which is what I am going to try to convince you of today”
    Jerry Coyne – No, You’re Not a Robot Made Out of Meat (Science Uprising 02) – video
    https://youtu.be/rQo6SWjwQIk?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1OmYcqv_yQSpje4p7rAE7-&t=20

    The Brain: The Mystery of Consciousness
    By STEVEN PINKER – Monday, Jan. 29, 2007
    Part II THE ILLUSION OF CONTROL
    Another startling conclusion from the science of consciousness is that the intuitive feeling we have that there’s an executive “I” that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion.
    http://www.academia.edu/279485.....sciousness

    “(Daniel) Dennett concludes, ‘nobody is conscious … we are all zombies’.”
    J.W. SCHOOLER & C.A. SCHREIBER – Experience, Meta-consciousness, and the Paradox of Introspection – 2004

    “There is no self in, around, or as part of anyone’s body. There can’t be. So there really isn’t any enduring self that ever could wake up morning after morning worrying about why it should bother getting out of bed. The self is just another illusion, like the illusion that thought is about stuff or that we carry around plans and purposes that give meaning to what our body does. Every morning’s introspectively fantasized self is a new one, remarkably similar to the one that consciousness ceased fantasizing when we fell sleep sometime the night before. Whatever purpose yesterday’s self thought it contrived to set the alarm last night, today’s newly fictionalized self is not identical to yesterday’s. It’s on its own, having to deal with the whole problem of why to bother getting out of bed all over again.”
    – A.Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, ch.10

    “I’m not arguing that consciousness is a reality beyond science or beyond the brain or that it floats free of the brain at death. I’m not making any spooky claims about its metaphysics. What I am saying, however, is that the self is an illusion. The sense of being an ego, an I, a thinker of thoughts in addition to the thoughts. An experiencer in addition to the experience. The sense that we all have of riding around inside our heads as a kind of a passenger in the vehicle of the body. That’s where most people start when they think about any of these questions. Most people don’t feel identical to their bodies. They feel like they have bodies. They feel like they’re inside the body. And most people feel like they’re inside their heads. Now that sense of being a subject, a locus of consciousness inside the head is an illusion. It makes no neuro-anatomical sense.”
    – Sam Harris: The Self is an Illusion (YouTube video)

    etc.. etc.. etc..

    I guess atheists simply never stop to consider the fact that any words that an imaginary illusion may say to you are absolutely worthless!

    The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – Ross Douthat – January 6, 2014
    Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession (by Coyne) that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary.
    http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.c.....oyne/?_r=0

    Verse:

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

  4. 4
    Brother Brian says:

    BS77

    Besides split brain studies in which “the disconnect did not affect the patient’s personality…

    I guess you missed the study where split brain women had an increased incidence of suicide ideation. And that only took a 10 second google search.

  5. 5
    Brother Brian says:

    And several hundred fewer words.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    BB,,

    Hmm, talk about missing the forest for the trees,,, but anyways, speaking about suicide rates,

    Atheism and suicide
    “Concerning suicide rates, this is the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations.”
    https://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_suicide

    “In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life; higher self-esteem; better adaptation to bereavement; greater social support and less loneliness; lower rates of depression and faster recovery from depression; lower rates of suicide and fewer positive attitudes towards suicide; less anxiety; less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies; lower rates of alcohol and drug use and abuse; less delinquency and criminal activity; greater marital stability and satisfaction… We concluded that for the vast majority of people the apparent benefits of devout belief and practice probably outweigh the risks.”
    – Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists – Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health – page 100
    https://books.google.com/books?id=PREdCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA100#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Mortality is also significantly different

    In fact, in the following study it was found that, “those middle-aged adults who go to church, synagogues, mosques or other houses of worship reduce their mortality risk by 55%.”

    Can attending church really help you live longer? This study says yes – June 1, 2017
    Excerpt: Specifically, the study says those middle-aged adults who go to church, synagogues, mosques or other houses of worship reduce their mortality risk by 55%. The Plos One journal published the “Church Attendance, Allostatic Load and Mortality in Middle Aged Adults” study May 16.
    “For those who did not attend church at all, they were twice as likely to die prematurely than those who did who attended church at some point over the last year,” Bruce said.
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/06/02/can-attending-church-really-help-you-live-longer-study-says-yes/364375001/

    Study: Religiously affiliated people lived “9.45 and 5.64 years longer…”
    July 1, 2018
    Excerpt: Self-reported religious service attendance has been linked with longevity. However, previous work has largely relied on self-report data and volunteer samples. Here, mention of a religious affiliation in obituaries was analyzed as an alternative measure of religiosity. In two samples (N = 505 from Des Moines, IA, and N = 1,096 from 42 U.S. cities), the religiously affiliated lived 9.45 and 5.64 years longer, respectively, than the nonreligiously affiliated. Additionally, social integration and volunteerism partially mediated the religion–longevity relation.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/study-religiously-affiliated-people-lived-religiously-affiliated-lived-9-45-and-5-64-years-longer/

    Can Religion Extend Your Life? – By Chuck Dinerstein — June 16, 2018
    Excerpt: The researcher’s regression analysis suggested that the effect of volunteering and participation accounted for 20% or 1 year of the impact, while religious affiliation accounted for the remaining four years or 80%.
    https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/06/16/can-religion-extend-your-life-13092

    Thus BB, besides the fact that your atheistic materialism is scientifically indefensible, you now also have the very practical reason of your very own mortality as motivation to seriously consider becoming a Christian.

  7. 7
    ET says:

    Brother Brian:

    I guess you missed the study where split brain women had an increased incidence of suicide ideation.

    There are personality traits correlated with suicidal tendencies but being suicidal is not a personality trait.

    It’s as if Brian is totally disconnected from reality

  8. 8
    Brother Brian says:

    BS77

    Hmm, talk about missing the forest for the trees,,, but anyways, speaking about suicide rates,

    Hmm, talk about changing the subject..,

    What does this have to do with split brain patients?

  9. 9
    Seversky says:

    I think you will find that there are also health benefits to Buddhism, for example. In fact, you can probably find there are health benefits in belonging to any supportive social group whatever it’s religious or political grounds. That doesn’t mean that any of those beliefs are true on that basis alone, just that we are social animals who do better in groups than in isolation.

  10. 10
    ET says:

    BS Brian:

    Hmm, talk about changing the subject..,

    YOU are the BS’er who brought up suicide. Talk about being clueless.

    What does suicide ideation have to do with personality?

  11. 11
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77 @ 3

    Dr. Dennis Bonnette, at 37:51 minute mark of following video, in detailed examination of the philosophy of reductive materialism, shows that, according to Richard Dawkin’s own philosophy, Richard Dawkins does not really exist as a real person: (the unity of Aristotelian Form is also discussed). Thus, in a sweet twist of poetic justice, in the reductive materialist denying that God really exists as a real person, the Darwinian atheist also ends up denying that he himself really exist as a real person.

    I find it ironic how often Christian theologians appeal to the pre-Christian philosophy of Aristotle while implying that nothing of any scientific or religious significance has occurred outside the Christian tradition.

    As for reductive materialism, Bonnette does not deny that we are all made, in Sagan’s words of “star stuff”. If we were to somehow take away all the atoms or sub-atomic particles of which Richard Dawkins or Dennis Bonnette are made there would be nothing detectable, certainly no “real person”, left. That is the way it’s always been. So, yes, we do reduce to matter but that does not encompass all that we are. What makes each of us unique is the particular arrangement of that matter and energy. The interesting questions are how does matter and energy come to form these unique arrangements and how does the behavior of this matter and energy that we recognize as personality come about?

  12. 12
    ET says:

    LoL! No, there isn’t any evidence that we reduce to matter. What seversky posted is in no way evidence for that claim. Take away all of the atoms from a computer and you won’t have a computer. What makes computers unique is the immaterial information that it takes to produce one.

    Matter and energy, without immaterial information, A) would not exist and B) could never form a living organism. Personality is more than just the behavior of the matter and energy that make up our body.

    We will NEVER understand life, consciousness nor personality from a materialistic standpoint.

  13. 13
    ET says:

    RE seversky @ 9- Atheists find some benefit in their blissful ignorance…

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    Severssky states

    I find it ironic how often Christian theologians appeal to the pre-Christian philosophy of Aristotle while implying that nothing of any scientific or religious significance has occurred outside the Christian tradition.

    Too funny, pot meet kettle. i.e. I find it ironic how often Darwinists appeal to the pre-Darwinian philosophy of Leucippus, Democritus, and Epicurus while implying that nothing of any scientific significance has occurred outside the Darwinian tradition.

    Darwin’s Straw God Argument – DECEMBER 31, 2008
    Excerpt: The Ancient Philosophical Roots of Darwinism
    Six centuries before the Christian era (B.C.E.), the Greek philosopher Anaximander asserted that the first living things emerged from formless matter and then underwent transmutations to produce a wide variety of forms. In what some commentators regard as a primitive form of evolutionary theory, Anaximander apparently held that humans descended from some other species of animal — probably a fish.48 In the fifth century B.C.E., the Greek philosopher Empedocles taught that the chance interplay of earth, air, fire and water produced disconnected organs and limbs that wandered aimlessly about until they combined spontaneously to make whole creatures. Most of the resulting combinations were monstrosities — with faces and breasts on the back as well as front, or half ox and half human — that were so maladapted that they perished. Among the few that survived were creatures that eventually developed into modern humans.49
    Leucippus and Democritus in the fifth century B.C.E. and Epicurus in the fourth century B.C.E. advocated a materialistic philosophy in which no gods exist — only atoms and the void.50 In the first century B.C.E., the Roman philosopher Lucretius immortalized this view in his long poem “On the Nature of Things.” Book Five begins with an attack on religion and teleology, then it lays out a theory of survival of the fittest that is remarkably similar to Darwin’s. Although Lucretius did not suggest that all living things are descended from a common ancestor, he believed that all things — including living organisms and human beings — are products of aimless interactions among atoms. If they are well adapted to their environment, they survive and leave descendants; if not, they perish.51
    Some modern followers of Charles Darwin regard these ancient thinkers as their intellectual forebears. According to a 1996 statement on a pro-evolution web site maintained by the University of California at Berkeley, “evolutionary theory begins” with Anaximander. Although his ideas “drew on the religious and mythical ideas of his time, he was still one of the first to attempt an explanation of the origin and evolution of the cosmos based on natural laws.” Thus Anaximander’s theory “bears some resemblance to evolutionary theory.” According to the same web site Empedocles proposed a theory that “seems a bit bizarre today” but was nevertheless “a sort of evolutionary theory: Past natural selection is responsible for the forms we see today. Empedocles also ascribed the origin of the life of today to the interplay of impersonal forces, in which chance, not the gods, played the major role.” Thus the Greeks “led the way in developing a general scientific worldview — one in which natural, non-miraculous explanations for the causes of phenomena were sought.”52
    Of course, there were differences between the ideas of the ancient Greeks and modern evolutionary theory, but they were similar in one fundamental respect: They attributed cosmic and biological origins to unguided natural processes rather than divine design. As modern evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr put it, the ancient Greek theories “constitute the first scientific revolution, so to speak, a rejection of supernatural in favor of materialistic explanations.”53
    For Mayr and the author of the Berkeley evolution web site, and for other followers of Charles Darwin, “science” is synonymous with “materialistic explanation.” In this respect, they are following in the footsteps of ancient materialistic philosophers.
    This is why modern controversies over evolution are not really about empirical science. Although many of Darwin’s followers believe that he presented overwhelming evidence for his theory, nothing could be further from the truth. The Origin of Species is just warmed-over materialistic philosophy, decorated with illustrations borrowed from nineteenth-century science.
    https://iconsofevolution.com/darwins-straw-god-argument/

  15. 15
    kairosfocus says:

    BB, if a philosophical claim on any serious matter fits neatly into a nutshell, it belongs there. There is always an issue of substantial exposition, cross-check against material facts, establishing credible coherence and comparative, balanced explanatory power. This is not a business of 140 or 280 character tweets or rhetorically loaded sloganeering. We need substance, and that’s why a serious phil work may take 50 pp to establish a pivotal point. Short summaries and headlines may indeed summarise, promote and link, but they do not generally speaking establish a substantial matter. (And BTW, that’s one of the few things that that notorious tabloid Daily Mail is exemplary on: header, bullet points, exposition.) KF

    PS: In The Laws, Bk X, Plato speaks eloquently to the demand for arbitrary brevity:

    Ath. At Athens there are tales preserved in writing which the virtue of your state, as I am informed, refuses to admit. They speak of the Gods in prose as well as verse, and the oldest of them tell of the origin of the heavens and of the world, and not far from the beginning of their story they proceed to narrate the birth of the Gods, and how after they were born they behaved to one another. Whether these stories have in other ways a good or a bad influence, I should not like to be severe upon them, because they are ancient; but, looking at them with reference to the duties of children to their parents, I cannot praise them, or think that they are useful, or at all true. Of the words of the ancients I have nothing more to say; and I should wish to say of them only what is pleasing to the Gods. But as to our younger generation and their wisdom, I cannot let them off when they do mischief. For do but mark the effect of their words: when you and I argue for the existence of the Gods, and produce the sun, moon, stars, and earth, claiming for them a divine being, if we would listen to the aforesaid philosophers we should say that they are earth and stones only, which can have no care at all of human affairs, and that all religion is a cooking up of words and a make-believe.

    Cle. One such teacher, O Stranger, would be bad enough, and you imply that there are many of them, which is worse.

    Ath. Well, then; what shall we say or do?-Shall we assume that some one is accusing us among unholy men, who are trying to escape from the effect of our legislation; and that they say of us-How dreadful that you should legislate on the supposition that there are Gods! Shall we make a defence of ourselves? or shall we leave them and return to our laws, lest the prelude should become longer than the law? For the discourse will certainly extend to great length, if we are to treat the impiously disposed as they desire, partly demonstrating to them at some length the things of which they demand an explanation, partly making them afraid or dissatisfied, and then proceed to the requisite enactments.

    Cle. Yes, Stranger; but then how often have we repeated already that on the present occasion there is no reason why brevity should be preferred to length; who is “at our heels”?-as the saying goes, and it would be paltry and ridiculous to prefer the shorter to the better. It is a matter of no small consequence, in some way or other to prove that there are Gods, and that they are good, and regard justice more than men do. The demonstration of this would be the best and noblest prelude of all our laws. And therefore, without impatience, and without hurry, let us unreservedly consider the whole matter, summoning up all the power of persuasion which we possess.

  16. 16
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev, there are such things as metaphysics and ontology that point to the need for a necessary being world root adequate to cause a world involving rational, morally governed creatures. Where, Aristotle happens to be the pioneer of this discipline, as well as the first in our civ to systematically expound on logic. So, we are all heirs of the old philosopher and sometime tutor to Alex the Great. In that context, good reasoning is good reasoning regardless of whodunit. KF

  17. 17
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky further claims that,,,

    As for reductive materialism, Bonnette does not deny that we are all made, in Sagan’s words of “star stuff”. If we were to somehow take away all the atoms or sub-atomic particles of which Richard Dawkins or Dennis Bonnette are made there would be nothing detectable, certainly no “real person”, left. That is the way it’s always been. So, yes, we do reduce to matter but that does not encompass all that we are. What makes each of us unique is the particular arrangement of that matter and energy. The interesting questions are how does matter and energy come to form these unique arrangements and how does the behavior of this matter and energy that we recognize as personality come about?

    Seversky claims that we are nothing but particles in motion. Yet he reluctantly admits that he does not really know “how does matter and energy come to form these unique arrangements and how does the behavior of this matter and energy that we recognize as personality come about?”

    The answer to Seversky’s reluctant question, ” how does matter and energy come to form these unique arrangements”, is quantum information.

    Welcome to advances in modern science, and to the world of quantum biology, Seversky. Darwinian evolution, with its reductive materialistic framework, is now shown to not even on the correct theoretical foundation in order to properly understand quantum biology in the first place.

    Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – video
    https://youtu.be/LHdD2Am1g5Y

    Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II – video (2019)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg

    And directly contrary to Seversky’s assertion that if you “take away all the atoms or sub-atomic particles,, there would be nothing detectable, certainly no “real person”, left”,,, contrary to that materialistic assertion,,, it is important to realize that quantum information is conserved. As the following article states, In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed.

    Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time – 2011
    Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....tally.html

    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

    Verse:

    Mark 8:37
    Is anything worth more than your soul?

    Of supplemental note, In post #3 I pointed out that, on reductive materialism, the entire concept of ‘person’ is an abstract, immaterial, concept that becomes an ‘illusion’ for the reductive materialist. i.e. On reductive materialism there are no ‘real’ persons, only illusions who falsely believe they are real persons. Per Jerry Coyne, “You are robots made out of meat.”

    “You are robots made out of meat. Which is what I am going to try to convince you of today”
    Jerry Coyne – No, You’re Not a Robot Made Out of Meat (Science Uprising 02) – video
    https://youtu.be/rQo6SWjwQIk?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1OmYcqv_yQSpje4p7rAE7-&t=20

    To make this ‘abstract’ dilemma all the more devastating to Darwinian materialists, advances in science have now shown that atoms themselves are not the solid indivisible concrete particles, as they were originally envisioned to be by materialists, but it turns out that the descriptions we now use to describe atoms themselves, the further down we go, dissolve into “abstract conceptual tools for describing nature, which themselves seem to lack any real, concrete essence.,,,”

    Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind
    So-called “information realism” has some surprising implications
    By Bernardo Kastrup – March 25, 2019
    Excerpt: according to the Greek atomists, if we kept on dividing things into ever-smaller bits, at the end there would remain solid, indivisible particles called atoms, imagined to be so concrete as to have even particular shapes. Yet, as our understanding of physics progressed, we’ve realized that atoms themselves can be further divided into smaller bits, and those into yet smaller ones, and so on, until what is left lacks shape and solidity altogether. At the bottom of the chain of physical reduction there are only elusive, phantasmal entities we label as “energy” and “fields”—abstract conceptual tools for describing nature, which themselves seem to lack any real, concrete essence.,,,
    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/

    In fact, according to quantum theory, the most fundamental ‘stuff’ of the world is not even matter or energy at all, (as Darwinian materialists presuppose), but turns out to be immaterial information itself, (as Christians presuppose in John 1:1).

    “The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.”
    Vlatko Vedral – Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College – a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics.

    “It is operationally impossible to separate Reality and Information”
    (48:35 minute mark)
    “In the beginning was the Word”
    John 1:1 (49:54 minute mark)
    Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT
    https://youtu.be/s3ZPWW5NOrw?t=2984

    Thus, in irony of ironies, not even the material particles themselves turn to be are ‘real’, (on a materialistic definition of what is ‘real’), but turn out to be “abstract” immaterial information.

    This puts the die-hard materialist in quite the conundrum because as Bernardo Kastrup further explains, to make sense of this conundrum of a non-material world of pure abstractions we must ultimately appeal to an immaterial mind. i.e. we must ultimately appeal to God!

    Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind
    So-called “information realism” has some surprising implications
    By Bernardo Kastrup – March 25, 2019
    Excerpt: “To make sense of this conundrum,,, we must stick to what is most immediately present to us: solidity and concreteness are qualities of our experience. The world measured, modeled and ultimately predicted by physics is the world of perceptions, a category of mentation. The phantasms and abstractions reside merely in our descriptions of the behavior of that world, not in the world itself.,,,
    Where we get lost and confused is in imagining that what we are describing is a non-mental reality underlying our perceptions, as opposed to the perceptions themselves. We then try to find the solidity and concreteness of the perceived world in that postulated underlying reality. However, a non-mental world is inevitably abstract. And since solidity and concreteness are felt qualities of experience—what else?—we cannot find them there. The problem we face is thus merely an artifact of thought, something we conjure up out of thin air because of our theoretical habits and prejudices.,,,
    As I elaborate extensively in my new book, The Idea of the World, none of this implies solipsism. The mental universe exists in mind but not in your personal mind alone. Instead, it is a transpersonal field of mentation that presents itself to us as physicality—with its concreteness, solidity and definiteness—once our personal mental processes interact with it through observation. This mental universe is what physics is leading us to, not the hand-waving word games of information realism.
    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/

    Or to put it much more simply, as Physics professor Richard Conn Henry put it at the end of the following article, “The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.”

    The mental Universe – Richard Conn Henry
    The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.
    Excerpt: “The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.”
    – Richard Conn Henry is a Professor in the Henry A. Rowland Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
    http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf

    The Darwinian materialist, in his rejection of God, and in his rejection of everything that may be considered ‘abstract’ and immaterial, i.e. irreducible to material particles, simply has no anchor for reality to grab onto:

    As I have pointed out several times now, assuming Naturalism instead of Theism as the worldview on which all of science is based leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself.

    Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft).
    Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    – Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – video – 39:45 minute mark
    per YouTube

    Thus, although the Darwinist may firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.

    It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

    One final note:

    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.
    – per realclearreligion

  18. 18
    Brother Brian says:

    KF

    This is not a business of 140 or 280 character tweets or rhetorically loaded sloganeering.

    You are correct. It was about an unsupported scientific claim made by BS77 that split brain patients don’t suffer any behavioural changes. A claim I was able to refute with a 10 second google search.

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    BB states:

    an unsupported scientific claim made by BS77 that split brain patients don’t suffer any behavioural changes.

    And yet I, nor Dr. Egnor, claimed “that split brain patients don’t suffer any behavioural changes”

    The specific claim was,

    “the disconnect did not affect the patient’s personality or capacity for abstract thought”

    Thus BB, as is typical for atheistic trolls, set up a strawman fallacy.

    Strawman Fallacy
    Description: Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument.

    Logical Form:
    Person 1 makes claim Y.
    Person 2 restates person 1’s claim (in a distorted way).
    Person 2 attacks the distorted version of the claim.
    Therefore, claim Y is false.

    And as ET pointed out at post 10

    YOU are the BS’er who brought up suicide. Talk about being clueless.

    What does suicide ideation have to do with personality?

    And to repeat some references in post 3

    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.”

    Further notes:

    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

  20. 20
    kairosfocus says:

    Folks, could we move away from schoolyard level vulgarisations of handles etc, even by way of the tissue-thin veil of initial letters? The gap between an A and an S above, for example, literally moves from the heavens to the sewer and is beyond doubt utterly inexcusable sacrilegious blasphemy. Not needed, points to “get thee behind me, Satan.” Let us do better. KF

  21. 21
    kairosfocus says:

    BB, It seems that BA77 has responded, identifying a fairly familiar concern on strawmannish distortion. Which, BTW, can be produced by overly simplistic summary. KF

  22. 22
    Brother Brian says:

    BS77@19, and I was under the assumption that behaviour was an aspect of personality. Silly me.

  23. 23
    kairosfocus says:

    BB, I specifically call your attention to 20 just above. You may not be aware of the severity of offensiveness in what you have again done. KF

  24. 24
    Brother Brian says:

    KF

    You may not be aware of the severity of offensiveness in what you have again done. KF

    No, I am well aware of it. Are you aware of the offensiveness intended in BA77’s oft used “Bob (and weave) O’H”? I will promise to stop using BS77 if BA77 promises to stop using his “(and weave)” add-on. That seems like a fair compromise.

    Cue ET with some insult.

  25. 25
    ET says:

    BS Brian:

    I was under the assumption that behaviour was an aspect of personality.

    Being suicidal is NOT a personality trait. So clearly you are full of BS

  26. 26
    ET says:

    BS Brian, the 3 year old:

    I will promise to stop using BS77 if BA77 promises to stop using his “(and weave)” add-on.

    The words of an infant…

  27. 27
    Brother Brian says:

    KF

    BB, It seems that BA77 has responded, identifying a fairly familiar concern on strawmannish distortion. Which, BTW, can be produced by overly simplistic summary. KF

    What strawman? The claim on the table is that split brain people do not suffer any changes in personality. This is demonstrably untrue. The changes are generally subtle but they are measurable and have been written about in numerous papers.

  28. 28
    ET says:

    BS Brian:

    It was about an unsupported scientific claim made by BS77 that split brain patients don’t suffer any behavioural changes.

    PERSONALITY changes, you ignorant troll. And becoming suicidal is not a personality trait. So you lose, again, as usual.

  29. 29
    ET says:

    BS Brian:

    The claim on the table is that split brain people do not suffer any changes in personality.

    And you have FAILed to demonstrate otherwise

    This is demonstrably untrue.

    And yet we are all still waiting for that demonstration.

    The changes are generally subtle but they are measurable and have been written about in numerous papers.

    So reference them or shut up.

  30. 30
    Brother Brian says:

    As to split brain patients,
    Berit Brogaard D.M.Sci., Ph.D

    Split-brain surgery, or corpus calloscotomy, is a drastic way of alleviating epileptic seizures, the occurrence of sporadic electrical storms in the brain. The procedure involves severing the corpus callosum, the main bond between the brain’s left and right hemispheres. After a split-brain surgery the two hemispheres do not exchange information as efficiently as before. This impairment can result in split-brain syndrome, a condition where the separation of the hemispheres affects behavior and agency.

    Michael Gazzaniga and Roger W. Sperry, the first to study split brains in humans, found that several patients who had undergone a complete calloscotomy suffered from split-brain syndrome. In patients with split-brain syndrome the right hemisphere, which controls the left hand and foot, acts independently of the left hemisphere and the person’s ability to make rational decisions. This can give rise to a kind of split personality, in which the left hemisphere give orders that reflect the person’s rational goals, whereas the right hemisphere issues conflicting demands that reveal hidden desires.

    Gazzaniga and Sperry’s split-brain research is now legendary. One of their child participants, Paul S, had a fully functional language center in both hemispheres. This allowed the researchers to question each side of the brain. When they asked the right side what their patient wanted to be when he grew up, he replied “an automobile racer.” When they posed the same question to the left, however, he responded “a draftsman.” Another patient pulled down his pants with the left hand and back up with the right in a continuing struggle. On a different occasion, this same patient’s left hand made an attempt to strike the unsuspecting wife as the right hand grabbed the villainous limp to stop it.

    Split personality is a rare consequence of a split brain. In some cases, impaired interhemispheric communication leaves personality intact but still allows people to use the two hemispheres to complete independent intellectual tasks. An MRI scan of the savant, Kim Peek, who lent inspiration to the fictional character Raymond Babbitt (played by Dustin Hoffman) in the movie Rain Man, revealed an absence of the corpus callosum, the anterior commissure and the hippocampal commissure, the three cables for information transfer between hemispheres. As a consequence of this complete split, Peek, who sadly died last year, was able to simultaneously read both pages of an open book and retain the information. He apparently had developed language areas in both hemispheres. Peek was a living encyclopedia. He spent every day with his dad in the library absorbing information. Among his most impressive feats was his ability to provide traveling directions between any two cities in the world.

    Today hemisphere interaction can be studied using devices that measure the electric or magnetic fields surrounding the skull. Unlike split-brain surgery these techniques are non-invasive. A team of researchers from UC Santa Barbara, led by Gazzaniga, recently tested information transfer using MEG. Language is processed in areas of the temporal lobe on the left side of the head. When you read with your left eye, the information first ends up in the right hemisphere and must be transferred to the left hemisphere via the corpus callosum to be processed. To test the efficiency of the hemispheric transfer the researchers showed a randomized list of words and nonsense words to the left or right eye of a number of research participants. They then measured how effectively the subjects would be able to distinguish words from nonsense words. The study showed that subjects were significantly more efficient in determining the nature of the string of letters when the information was fed directly to the left hemisphere via the right eye. Apparently the brain has difficulties processing information that has had to travel long distances.

    The researchers didn’t compare both-eye exposure to single-eye exposure. At first glance, it may seem that it would be an advantage to get information from both eyes. However, one can also imagine that hemispheric transfer has a hampering effect on language processing. If this is true, you might want to wear a pirate eye patch covering your left eye when completing the verbal section of the GRE. At the very least be careful not to shut your right eye while under time pressure.

    Moreover,

    When we listen to music, our brains naturally integrate the lyrics and the melody into one cohesive song. But to patients missing a crucial connecting structure in the brain, a song is made up of two components – music and lyrics – which remain distinct in their minds.

    These people lack something called the corpus callosum, which is a structure that connects the brain’s two hemispheres. This connector is crucial because the right and left hemispheres often have different specializations. For example, music processing occurs more in the right hemisphere, while language processing is more prominent in the left hemisphere. Therefore, split-brain patients who lack the corpus callosum, due either to its failure to develop or to surgery for severe epilepsy, perceive the world in a completely different way than we do.

    When split-brain patients are asked to listen to two different songs, one in each ear, and then repeat what they hear, something interesting happens: they repeat the lyrics of the song they heard in their right ear, and repeat the melody of the song that played in their left ear. Imagine you are wearing a weird set of earphones that plays two different songs, one in each earbud. In the right one, “Masterpiece” by Jessie J is playing. In the left one, it’s St. Lucia’s “Elevate”. If your corpus callosum is intact, you’ll hear a confusing jumble of Jessie J’s powerful lyrics and St. Lucia’s catchy tune. But if your brain’s hemispheres are not connected, you may hear the lyrics of “Masterpiece” layered on top of just the tune of “Elevate”. The melody of “Masterpiece” and St. Lucia’s lyrics will magically disappear.

    Since the left ear is connected to the right hemisphere and the right ear is connected to the left hemisphere, the likely explanation for this is that when the song presented in the left ear projects to the right hemisphere, the brain mainly perceives the melody. In the same way, the left hemisphere focuses on the lyrics of the song in the right ear, due to its language specialization. Therefore, split-brain patients may feel as if they are hearing one song composed of the lyrics heard in the right ear and the melody heard in the left ear, instead of a confusing jumble of two songs that people with normal corpus callosums would hear. This curious experience that split-brain patients have shows us the corpus callosum’s crucial role in integrating the tune and lyrics of songs by connecting the two hemispheres.

    Further research on the behavior of split-brain patients has revealed that the left hemisphere has dominant control over speech. This is a problem in split-brain patients because what they say may be uninformed by the information processed in the right hemisphere. Imagine that the word “beach” is presented to the right hemisphere of a split-brain patient. When asked to choose a picture that best represents summer from among several choices, the patient is likely to choose a picture of a beach. So far, this makes sense. But when the subject is asked why they chose the image of a beach over other images of things such as sunglasses, a swimming pool, or ice-cream, they will make up an explanation, like the fact that they saw a poster of a beach earlier that day. They are not intentionally lying. They do this because the left hemisphere, which controls the content of speech, is uninformed by the fact that the right hemisphere saw the word “beach” before choosing the image. This tells us that the left hemisphere is not only in charge of our mouth but also that it attempts to make a plausible narrative that explains our actions.

    Observing the behavior of split-brain patients has offered a deeper understanding of the corpus callosum’s crucial role of integrating the information in the left and right hemispheres to create a coherent understanding of our surroundings. The left hemisphere’s dominant control over speech leaves us with many future topics of research, including the topic of consciousness. Given that a lot of our consciousness is made up of interpreting our actions and our surroundings, it seems plausible that the narrative-making role that the left hemisphere plays in split-brain patients is associated with consciousness. It remains to be seen whether there are specific areas in the brain’s left hemisphere that are responsible for making narratives. If so, studying patients with lesions in that area of the brain has the potential to shed light on what life may look like with diminished awareness, and thereby solidify our understanding of the nature of consciousness.

  31. 31
    ET says:

    Personality is NOT behavior. You have to be a desperate and ignorant troll to conflate the two. The DIFFERENCE between personality and behavior:

    It may be a little tough to differentiate between personality and behaviour at times. But, of course, you should not confuse the two terms. Personality defines you, while behavior defines your reaction in a particular setting.

    BS Brian- less than zero credibility…

  32. 32
    Ed George says:

    KF

    BB, I specifically call your attention to 20 just above. You may not be aware of the severity of offensiveness in what you have again done. KF

    KF, I fully support the sentiment, but might I suggest that you also direct it directly to BA77 and ET as well? The three of them are acting like spoiled kids in a school yard.

  33. 33
    kairosfocus says:

    EG, you will see that I did precisely that, only noting that case because of its extreme nature. KF

  34. 34
    kairosfocus says:

    Folks, the lot of you have gone way too far with personalities and animosity. I suggest you restrain yourselves, if needs be taking a time-out. Go get a walk, chill out at a pub, visit a park, go fishing or whatever. Nothing warrants the above behaviour. KF

  35. 35
    kairosfocus says:

    BB, I have to single you out yet again, as your behaviour is apparently knowing sacrilegious blasphemy, patently demonic. It is utterly disproportionate to any provocation, fully equivalent to use of terms that routinely get people deplatformed or even lose jobs. For your own good, stop. Think what you are doing and ask yourself what could ever have motivated you to go there. KF

  36. 36
    Brother Brian says:

    KF

    BB, I have to single you out yet again, as your behaviour is apparently knowing sacrilegious blasphemy, patently demonic.

    I have no idea what you are talking about. I refer to BA77 as BS77 because it is the equivalent of his using “Bob (and weave) O’H”. They both mean bull sh$& (using words to baffle and confuse). How the hell is that blasphemous, sacrilegious and demonic? Is it because his moniker is bornagain? Suggesting that he is immune from ridicule because of his moniker is equally ridiculous. I am honestly hoping that your reason for calling me blasphemous, sacrilegious and demonic is due to something else.

  37. 37
    bornagain77 says:

    You are right Kf. BB’s behavior towards me and his mocking of religion in general (not just my name) has been getting progressively worse and worse. Any reasoned discourse with BB, in so far as it involves me personally, has long left the building. As I stated yesterday.

    In fact, I hold that BB’s primary motivation for being a atheistic troll on UD is not his love for the truth of science but is his hatred for God and for Christianity in particular. In fact, when backed into a corner on the science, he has, many times, simply thrown up his hands in ignorance or just simply walked away from the exchange without acknowledging the error of any particular claim he may have made in the exchange. Only to reappear later with another trollish comment.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/direct-experimental-falsification-of-darwinism/#comment-681424

    If BB does not change his behavior as a guest on UD, and if you do not ban him, I will ask admin myself to permanently ban him for his trollish behavior.

  38. 38
    Brother Brian says:

    BS77

    If BB does not change his behavior as a guest on UD, and if you do not ban him, I will ask admin myself to permanently ban him for his trollish behavior.

    Does that mean that you won’t agree to stop using the “Bob (and weave) O’H” insult? Asking me to be banned because I use the same tactic as you is very telling.

  39. 39
    bornagain77 says:

    The admin will have final say. I do not see it ending well for you if you continue to troll not just me but mock God and Christianity in general.

    You are given a chance.

    A wise man would take heed.

  40. 40
    ET says:

    LoL! @ Ed George- You aren’t anyone to be calling out other people’s posts.

  41. 41
    ET says:

    How is Bob an weave and insult when it reflects reality?

  42. 42
    Brother Brian says:

    BA77, as a sign of good faith, I will stop using BS77 forthwith. No strings attached.

  43. 43
    bornagain77 says:

    BB. I will forward your change of heart to the admin so as to prevent any miscommunication that might result in unintended consequences.

  44. 44
    kairosfocus says:

    FYI-FTR:

    John 3 Amplified Bible (AMP)
    The New Birth

    3 Now there was a certain man among the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler (member of the Sanhedrin) among the Jews, 2 who came to Jesus at night and said to Him, “Rabbi (Teacher), we know [without any doubt] that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs [these wonders, these attesting miracles] that You do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered him, “I assure you and most solemnly say to you, unless a person is born again [reborn from above—spiritually transformed, renewed, sanctified], he cannot [ever] see and experience the kingdom of God.”

    4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter his mother’s womb a second time and be born, can he?” 5 Jesus answered, “I assure you and most solemnly say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot [ever] enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh [the physical is merely physical], and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be surprised that I have told you, ‘You must be born again [reborn from above—spiritually transformed, renewed, sanctified].’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it is coming from and where it is going; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

    9 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can these things be possible?” 10 Jesus replied, “You are the [great and well-known] teacher of Israel, and yet you do not know nor understand these things [from Scripture]? 11 I assure you and most solemnly say to you, we speak only of what we [absolutely] know and testify about what we have [actually] seen [as eyewitnesses]; and [still] you [reject our evidence and] do not accept our testimony. 12 If I told you earthly things [that is, things that happen right here on earth] and you do not believe, how will you believe and trust Me if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has gone up into heaven, but there is One who came down from heaven, the Son of Man [Himself—whose home is in heaven]. 14 Just as Moses lifted up the [bronze] serpent in the desert [on a pole], so must the Son of Man be lifted up [on the cross], 15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life [after physical death, and will actually live forever].

    16 “For God so [greatly] loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave His [One and] [a]only begotten Son, so that whoever believes and trusts in Him [as Savior] shall not perish, but have eternal life. [AMP]

    KF

  45. 45
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77 @ 17

    Seversky claims that we are nothing but particles in motion.

    No, as I’ve said many times before, we can be reduced to matter and energy but that is not all we are, just as the Mona Lisa can be reduced to daubs of paint on a canvas but that hardly does justice to a great work of art.

    Yet he reluctantly admits that he does not really know “how does matter and energy come to form these unique arrangements and how does the behavior of this matter and energy that we recognize as personality come about?”

    That’s right, nobody really knows. We all know what you believe because you have explained it many times before. I’ve replied, as I do now, that I cannot rule out the possibility of your God being behind everything but neither do I find it compelling.

    The answer to Seversky’s reluctant question, ” how does matter and energy come to form these unique arrangements”, is quantum information.

    No, it doesn’t answer the question being asked. The regularities we call laws may well be expressed or somehow embodied at the quantum level but that still does not tell us from whence they came.

    Welcome to advances in modern science, and to the world of quantum biology, Seversky. Darwinian evolution, with its reductive materialistic framework, is now shown to not even on the correct theoretical foundation in order to properly understand quantum biology in the first place.

    Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection still works perfectly within the domain to which it was intended to apply, namely, the macroscopic world of terrestrial biology. Given that the quantum world was completely unknown at the time he was working, it is hardly surprising he made no reference to it.

    Welcome to advances in modern science, and to the world of quantum biology, Seversky. Darwinian evolution, with its reductive materialistic framework, is now shown to not even on the correct theoretical foundation in order to properly understand quantum biology in the first place.

    You do realize that, as stated, that makes no sense?

    First, if this hypothetical quantum information can be neither created nor destroyed then where does it come from, since it cannot be created?

    Second, if quantum information, whatever it might be, always exists then the events which it specifies must be time-independent. Not only is quantum information about our past embedded in the fabric of the universe but so must information about what is in the future relative to our present. In other words, it implies the future is pre-determined and that, therefore, we have no free will.

  46. 46
    Seversky says:

    Kairosfocus @ 44

    16 “For God so [greatly] loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave His [One and] [a]only begotten Son, so that whoever believes and trusts in Him [as Savior] shall not perish, but have eternal life. [AMP]

    Except that was after Genesis 6: 1-7 (KJV):

    1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

    2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

    3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

    4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

    5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

    6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

    7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

    In other words, we have a being that is claimed to be all-knowing and all-powerful not only admitting He made a mistake but ‘correcting’ that error (something of which He should have been incapable) by committing mass-murder on a planet-wide scale, something no twentieth-century dictator has come remotely close to achieving.

  47. 47
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev, you raise a significant issue, regarding how issues are addressed in terms of metaphors and analogies when we talk of God generally and in the text of Scripture. When there is mention of God’s arm or finger, it is by way of a metaphor and analogy. Similarly, in describing God’s emotions and responses to our behaviour. In prayer, we do not inform God of something he would not otherwise have known, but largely address our own attitude that equips us so something can be safely given to us. Likewise, the text you cite to suggest a breakdown of omniscience etc is to be understood against that wider background: God’s just response to a civilisation grossly and willfully going astray in word, thought and deed, in the teeth of adequate information and knowledge that would lead to a better way; including information built in in us (as morally governed rational creatures) and the world around us (which gives powerful signs that are accessible, e,g, by asking: why is there something instead of no-thing?). Responsible freedom can be abused, leading to not only reprobate minds and lives, but to civilisations in grave moral spin-out [as at present BTW, reflecting the Dominical saying, “as in the days of Noe . . .”]. There are consequences, there are warnings, there is the building up of centres of refuge for a remnant. Defiance and insistence on suicidal folly predictably lead to collapse, with rescue of the remnant through its counter-culture initiatives that will be mocked and even attacked while they are a-building. And I assure you, arks are a-building today, even as Western Civilisation is increasingly hell-bent on suicide. KF

  48. 48
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: Some relevant context:

    Rom 1:18 For [God does not overlook sin and] the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who in their wickedness suppress and stifle the truth, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them [in their inner consciousness], for God made it evident to them. 20 For ever since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through His workmanship [all His creation, the wonderful things that He has made], so that they [who fail to believe and trust in Him] are without excuse and without defense. 21 For even though [d]they knew God [as the Creator], they did not [e]honor Him as God or give thanks [for His wondrous creation]. On the contrary, they became worthless in their thinking [godless, with pointless reasonings, and silly speculations], and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory and majesty and excellence of the immortal God for [f]an image [worthless idols] in the shape of mortal man and birds and four-footed animals and reptiles.

    24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their own hearts to [sexual] impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them [abandoning them to the degrading power of sin], 25 because [by choice] they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! . . . .

    28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God or consider Him worth knowing [as their Creator], God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do things which are improper and repulsive, 29 until they were filled (permeated, saturated) with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice and mean-spiritedness. They are gossips [spreading rumors], 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors [of new forms] of evil, disobedient and disrespectful to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful [without pity]. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree and His judgment, that those who do such things deserve death, yet they not only do them, but they even [enthusiastically] approve and tolerate others who practice them. [AMP]

    Since you asked, but let us not pull this thread off on a tangent occasioned by the necessity to address a case of gravely offensive commentary, it deals with a material issue. Namely, the unified self with a recognisable core personality that endures even through such drastic interventions as split brain surgery to address major epilepsy. Linked, the gap between computation on a neural network substrate and that freely rational abstract thought that is core to our intellectual lives. I again point to Reppert:

    . . . let us suppose that brain state A [–> notice, state of a wetware, electrochemically operated computational substrate], which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief [–> concious, perceptual state or disposition] that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.

    I think I should add that that free rationality is inescapably morally governed, pivoting on known duties to truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, justice etc. Indeed, that is what you appeal to in your argument. Such moral government does not pop up out of no-thing, it requires bridging the IS-OUGHT gap, and that is only feasible at the level of the necessary being world root. Which points to the inherently good and utterly wise as causally adequate source of reality.

  49. 49
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky states:

    BA77: Seversky claims that we are nothing but particles in motion.

    Sev: No, as I’ve said many times before, we can be reduced to matter and energy but that is not all we are, just as the Mona Lisa can be reduced to daubs of paint on a canvas but that hardly does justice to a great work of art.

    Since we must reference the genius of Leonardo da Vinci to explain how ‘daubs of paint’ became the Mona Lisa, how much more so must we reference ‘super-genius’ to explain how the human body itself came about? After all Leonardo da Vinci, in all his genius, was still only imitating the human body. It might also interest you to know that da Vinci was one of the original ID thinkers

    The Vitruvian Man – Leonardo da Vinci – Drawing
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/Da_Vinci_Vitruve_Luc_Viatour.jpg/441px-Da_Vinci_Vitruve_Luc_Viatour.jpg
    “Speaking as one who has examined the original Vitruvian Man drawing, I can say that Leonardo was looking for a numerical design scheme that informs the proportions of the human body.
    The drawing began as an illustration from Vitruvius’ book, De Architectura where Vitruvius justifies the use of the square and circle as design elements because those shapes are integral to the human body: a man’s height is equal to his width (with arms outstretched) as a square, and a circle drawn with the navel as center and feet as radius is coincident with the hands’ reach.
    Leonardo also notes the other proportional relationships from Vitruvius such as the head height measures to the whole as well as the arms and hand sections.
    Leonardo then continued measuring (from the evidence of pin point indentations made by walking dividers, especially along the left vertical edge) to find more proportional relationships. He would take a measure of a part of the figure with the dividers and walk that measure along the height to see if the measure would fit an even number of times.
    From this drawing and others where Leonardo was working on the same type of problem it is evident that Leonardo believed there was a something like a unified field theory of design where everything in nature was related by numerical and geometrical design systems.
    He was one of the original ID thinkers.”
    – Dr. Ford – UD blogger
    Of note: The Vitruvian Man is a world-renowned drawing created by Leonardo da Vinci c. 1487. It is the one most often commonly associated with the science of physiology

    The rest of Seversky’s post is a muddled mess of his misunderstanding of Quantum Theory. To take one example out of his post:

    BA77: The answer to Seversky’s reluctant question, ” how does matter and energy come to form these unique arrangements”, is quantum information.

    Sev: No, it doesn’t answer the question being asked. The regularities we call laws may well be expressed or somehow embodied at the quantum level but that still does not tell us from whence they came.

    First off, free will, which certainly cannot be termed to be a ‘regularity’ and/or a ‘law’, was recently experimentally verified to be ’embodied at the quantum level’. As Steven Weinberg, an atheist himself, stated,

    “In the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,,, Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,”

    The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017
    Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,,
    In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11
    Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,,
    Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,
    http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/46.....inberg.pdf

    In fact Weinberg, again an atheist, rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and because it undermined the Darwinian worldview from within. Yet, regardless of how he and other atheists may prefer the world to behave, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave.

    For instance, this recent 2019 experimental confirmation of the “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

    Moreover, although there have been several major loopholes in quantum mechanics over the past several decades that atheists have tried to appeal to in order to try to avoid the ‘spooky’ Theistic implications of quantum mechanics, over the past several years each of those major loopholes have each been closed one by one. The last major loophole that was left to be closed was the “setting independence” and/or the ‘free-will’ loophole:

    Closing the ‘free will’ loophole: Using distant quasars to test Bell’s theorem – February 20, 2014
    Excerpt: Though two major loopholes have since been closed, a third remains; physicists refer to it as “setting independence,” or more provocatively, “free will.” This loophole proposes that a particle detector’s settings may “conspire” with events in the shared causal past of the detectors themselves to determine which properties of the particle to measure — a scenario that, however far-fetched, implies that a physicist running the experiment does not have complete free will in choosing each detector’s setting. Such a scenario would result in biased measurements, suggesting that two particles are correlated more than they actually are, and giving more weight to quantum mechanics than classical physics.
    “It sounds creepy, but people realized that’s a logical possibility that hasn’t been closed yet,” says MIT’s David Kaiser, the Germeshausen Professor of the History of Science and senior lecturer in the Department of Physics. “Before we make the leap to say the equations of quantum theory tell us the world is inescapably crazy and bizarre, have we closed every conceivable logical loophole, even if they may not seem plausible in the world we know today?”
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140220112515.htm

    And now Anton Zeilinger and company have recently, as of 2018, pushed the ‘free will loophole’ back to 7.8 billion years ago, thereby firmly establishing the ‘common sense’ fact that the free will choices of the experimenter in the quantum experiments are truly free and are not determined by any possible causal influences from the past for at least the last 7.8 billion years, and that experimenters themselves are therefore shown to be truly free to choose whatever measurement settings in the experiments that he or she may so desire to choose so as to ‘logically’ probe whatever aspect of reality that he or she may be interested in probing.

    Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018
    Abstract: In this Letter, we present a cosmic Bell experiment with polarization-entangled photons, in which measurement settings were determined based on real-time measurements of the wavelength of photons from high-redshift quasars, whose light was emitted billions of years ago; the experiment simultaneously ensures locality. Assuming fair sampling for all detected photons and that the wavelength of the quasar photons had not been selectively altered or previewed between emission and detection, we observe statistically significant violation of Bell’s inequality by 9.3 standard deviations, corresponding to an estimated p value of ? 7.4 × 10^21. This experiment pushes back to at least ? 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today.
    https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403

    Moreover, here is another recent interesting experiment by Anton Zeilinger, (and about 70 other researchers), that closed a technical loop-hole and insured the complete independence of the measurement settings in a Bell test by using the free will choices of 100,000 human participants instead of having a super fast randomizer determine the measurement settings (as is usually done in these quantum experiments).

    Challenging local realism with human choices – A. Zeilinger – 20 May 2018
    Abstract: A Bell test, which challenges the philosophical worldview of local realism against experimental observations, is a randomized trial requiring spatially-distributed entanglement, fast and high-efficiency detection, and unpredictable measurement settings. While technology can perfect the first two of these, and while technological randomness sources enable device-independent protocols based on Bell inequality violation, challenging local realism using physical randomizers inevitably makes assumptions about the same physics one aims to test. Bell himself noted this weakness of physical setting choices and argued that human free will could rigorously be used to assure unpredictability in Bell tests. Here we report a suite of local realism tests using human choices, avoiding assumptions about predictability in physics. We recruited ~100,000 human participants to play an online video game that incentivizes fast, sustained input of unpredictable bits while also illustrating Bell test methodology. The participants generated 97,347,490 binary choices, which were directed via a scalable web platform to twelve laboratories on five continents, in which 13 experiments tested local realism using photons, single atoms, atomic ensembles, and superconducting devices. Over a 12-hour period on the 30 Nov. 2016, participants worldwide provided a sustained flow of over 1000 bits/s to the experiments, which used different human-generated bits to choose each measurement setting. The observed correlations strongly contradict local realism and other realist positions in bi-partite and tri-partite scenarios. Project outcomes include closing of the freedom-of-choice loophole, gamification of statistical and quantum non-locality concepts, new methods for quantum-secured communications, a very large dataset of human-generated randomness, and networking techniques for global participation in experimental science.
    https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.04431

    Thus regardless of how Steven Weinberg and other atheists may prefer the universe to behave, with the closing of the last remaining free will loophole in quantum mechanics, “humans are indeed brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”, and thus these recent findings from quantum mechanics directly undermine, as Weinberg himself stated, the “vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.”

    ,,,, it is also very important to note that classical information is now shown to be a subset of quantum information.

    In making this point clear, it is first important to note that the quantum entanglement is critical for quantum information processing to even be possible in the first place. As the following article states, “quantum entanglement, plays crucial roles in quantum information processing such as quantum computation, quantum teleportation, dense coding, quantum error correction, quantum cryptographic schemes, entanglement swapping, and remote states preparation.”

    Quantum Information and Entanglement – 2010
    Excerpt: ,,, quantum entanglement, which can be traced back to the EPR paradox in 1935 and gave rise to the discussions on the foundations of quantum mechanics related to reality and locality, plays crucial roles in quantum information processing such as quantum computation, quantum teleportation, dense coding, quantum error correction, quantum cryptographic schemes, entanglement swapping, and remote states preparation. Many striking achievements have been witnessed for the past ten years.
    https://www.hindawi.com/journals/amp/2010/657878/

    And as the following article states, “Quantum entanglement is a physical resource, like energy,,, A pair of quantum systems in an entangled state can be used as a quantum information channel to perform computational and cryptographic tasks that are impossible for classical systems.”

    Quantum Entanglement and Information
    Quantum entanglement is a physical resource, like energy, associated with the peculiar nonclassical correlations that are possible between separated quantum systems. Entanglement can be measured, transformed, and purified. A pair of quantum systems in an entangled state can be used as a quantum information channel to perform computational and cryptographic tasks that are impossible for classical systems. The general study of the information-processing capabilities of quantum systems is the subject of quantum information theory.
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/

    And now classical information is shown to be a subset of quantum information by the following method. Specifically, in the following 2011 paper, researchers ,,, show that when the bits (in a computer) to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer’s state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,, In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that (in quantum information theory) an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer.

    Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 1, 2011
    Excerpt: Recent research by a team of physicists,,, describe,,, how the deletion of data, under certain conditions, can create a cooling effect instead of generating heat. The cooling effect appears when the strange quantum phenomenon of entanglement is invoked.,,,
    The new study revisits Landauer’s principle for cases when the values of the bits to be deleted may be known. When the memory content is known, it should be possible to delete the bits in such a manner that it is theoretically possible to re-create them. It has previously been shown that such reversible deletion would generate no heat. In the new paper, the researchers go a step further. They show that when the bits to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer’s state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,,
    In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer. Applied to the example of deleting data, this means that if two individuals delete data in a memory and one has more knowledge of this data, she perceives the memory to have lower entropy and can then delete the memory using less energy.,,,
    No heat, even a cooling effect;
    In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy.
    Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....134300.htm

  50. 50
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, in 2010 the Maxwell’s demon thought experiment, which was originally devised by James Clerk Maxwell in 1867, was finally experimentally realized. As the following paper highlights, it has now been experimentally demonstrated that knowledge of a particle’s location and/or position converts information into energy.

    Maxwell’s demon demonstration turns information into energy – November 2010
    Excerpt: Scientists in Japan are the first to have succeeded in converting information into free energy in an experiment that verifies the “Maxwell demon” thought experiment devised in 1867.,,, In Maxwell’s thought experiment the demon creates a temperature difference simply from information about the gas molecule temperatures and without transferring any energy directly to them.,,, Until now, demonstrating the conversion of information to energy has been elusive, but University of Tokyo physicist Masaki Sano and colleagues have succeeded in demonstrating it in a nano-scale experiment. In a paper published in Nature Physics they describe how they coaxed a Brownian particle to travel upwards on a “spiral-staircase-like” potential energy created by an electric field solely on the basis of information on its location. As the particle traveled up the staircase it gained energy from moving to an area of higher potential, and the team was able to measure precisely how much energy had been converted from information.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....nergy.html

    And as the following 2010 article stated about the preceding experiment, “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,”

    Demonic device converts information to energy – 2010
    Excerpt: “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,” says Christopher Jarzynski, a statistical chemist at the University of Maryland in College Park. In 1997, Jarzynski formulated an equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information2; the work by Sano and his team has now confirmed this equation. “This tells us something new about how the laws of thermodynamics work on the microscopic scale,” says Jarzynski.
    http://www.scientificamerican......rts-inform

    And as the following 2017 article states: James Clerk Maxwell (said), “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”,,,
    quantum information theory,,, describes the spread of information through quantum systems.,,,
    Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,

    The Quantum Thermodynamics Revolution – May 2017
    Excerpt: the 19th-century physicist James Clerk Maxwell put it, “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”
    In recent years, a revolutionary understanding of thermodynamics has emerged that explains this subjectivity using quantum information theory — “a toddler among physical theories,” as del Rio and co-authors put it, that describes the spread of information through quantum systems. Just as thermodynamics initially grew out of trying to improve steam engines, today’s thermodynamicists are mulling over the workings of quantum machines. Shrinking technology — a single-ion engine and three-atom fridge were both experimentally realized for the first time within the past year — is forcing them to extend thermodynamics to the quantum realm, where notions like temperature and work lose their usual meanings, and the classical laws don’t necessarily apply.
    They’ve found new, quantum versions of the laws that scale up to the originals. Rewriting the theory from the bottom up has led experts to recast its basic concepts in terms of its subjective nature, and to unravel the deep and often surprising relationship between energy and information — the abstract 1s and 0s by which physical states are distinguished and knowledge is measured.,,,
    Renato Renner, a professor at ETH Zurich in Switzerland, described this as a radical shift in perspective. Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-thermodynamics-revolution/

    Again to repeat that last sentence,“Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,

    That statement about entropy being a property of an observer who describes the system, for anyone involved in the ID vs. Darwinism debate, ought to send chills down their scientific spine.

    Simply put, these developments go to the very heart of the ID vs. Evolution debate and directly falsify, number one, Darwinian claims that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from some material basis. And number two, these experimental realizations of the Maxwell’s demon thought experiment go even further and also directly validate a primary claim from ID proponents that an Intelligent Designer who imparts information into a biological system is necessary in order to circumvent the second law. As William Dembski himself stated in 1999, “It is CSI (Complex Specified Information) that enables Maxwell’s demon to outsmart a thermodynamic system tending toward thermal equilibrium”

    “It is CSI (Complex Specified Information) that enables Maxwell’s demon to outsmart a thermodynamic system tending toward thermal equilibrium”
    William Dembki – Intelligent Design, pg. 159

    As to providing us with a real clue as to exactly how an embryo might actually achieve its adult form, at about the 41:00 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Jonathan Wells, who specializes in embryology, using a branch of mathematics called category theory, demonstrates that during embryological development ‘positional information’ must somehow be coming into the developing embryo, ‘from the outside’, by some ‘non-material’ method, in order to explain the transdifferentiation of cells into their multiple different states during embryological development.

    Design Beyond DNA: A Conversation with Dr. Jonathan Wells – video (41:00 minute mark) – January 2017
    https://youtu.be/ASAaANVBoiE?t=2484

    The amount of ‘positional information’ that is somehow coming into a developing embryo from the outside by some non-material method is immense. Vastly outstripping, by many orders of magnitude, the amount of sequential information that is contained within DNA itself. As Doug Axe states in the following video, “there are a quadrillion neural connections in the human brain, that’s vastly more neural connections in the human brain than there are bits (of information) in the human genome. So,,, there’s got to be something else going on that makes us what we are.”

    “There is also a presumption, typically when we talk about our genome, (that the genome) is a blueprint for making us. And that is actually not a proven fact in biology. That is an assumption. And (one) that I question because I don’t think that 4 billion bases, which would be 8 billion bits of information, that you would actually have enough information to specify a human being. If you consider for example that there are a quadrillion neural connections in the human brain, that’s vastly more neural connections in the human brain than there are bits (of information) in the human genome. So,,, there’s got to be something else going on that makes us what we are.”
    Doug Axe – Intelligent Design 3.0 – Stephen C. Meyer – video (1 hour 16 minute mark)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvwBaD8-00w&t=4575s

    And as the following article states, the information to build a human infant, atom by atom, would take up the equivalent of enough thumb drives to fill the Titanic, multiplied by 2,000.

    In a TED Talk, (the Question You May Not Ask,,, Where did the information come from?) – November 29, 2017
    Excerpt: Sabatini is charming.,,, he deploys some memorable images. He points out that the information to build a human infant, atom by atom, would take up the equivalent of enough thumb drives to fill the Titanic, multiplied by 2,000. Later he wheels out the entire genome, in printed form, of a human being,,,,:
    [F]or the first time in history, this is the genome of a specific human, printed page-by-page, letter-by-letter: 262,000 pages of information, 450 kilograms.,,,
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/in-a-ted-talk-heres-the-question-you-may-not-ask/

    As to how thermodynamics itself relates to this immense amount of positional information that is somehow coming into the developing embryo from the outside by some non-material method, work done on bacteria can give us a small glimpse into just how far out of thermodynamic equilibrium multicellular organisms actually are.
    The information content that is found to be in a simple one cell bacterium, when working from the thermodynamic perspective, is found to be around 10 to the 12 bits,,,

    Biophysics – Information theory. Relation between information and entropy: – Setlow-Pollard, Ed. Addison Wesley
    Excerpt: Linschitz gave the figure 9.3 x 10^12 cal/deg or 9.3 x 10^12 x 4.2 joules/deg for the entropy of a bacterial cell. Using the relation H = S/(k In 2), we find that the information content is 4 x 10^12 bits. Morowitz’ deduction from the work of Bayne-Jones and Rhees gives the lower value of 5.6 x 10^11 bits, which is still in the neighborhood of 10^12 bits. Thus two quite different approaches give rather concordant figures.
    http://www.astroscu.unam.mx/~a.....ecular.htm

    ,,, Which is the equivalent of about 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. ‘In comparison,,, the largest libraries in the world,, have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.”

    “a one-celled bacterium, e. coli, is estimated to contain the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. Expressed in information in science jargon, this would be the same as 10^12 bits of information. In comparison, the total writings from classical Greek Civilization is only 10^9 bits, and the largest libraries in the world – The British Museum, Oxford Bodleian Library, New York Public Library, Harvard Widenier Library, and the Moscow Lenin Library – have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.”
    – R. C. Wysong – The Creation-evolution Controversy

    ‘The information content of a simple cell has been estimated as around 10^12 bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica.”
    Carl Sagan, “Life” in Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia (1974 ed.), pp. 893-894

    Thus since Bacterial cells are about 10 times smaller than most plant and animal cells.

    Size Comparisons of Bacteria, Amoeba, Animal & Plant Cells
    Excerpt: Bacterial cells are very small – about 10 times smaller than most plant and animal cells.
    https://education.seattlepi.com/size-comparisons-bacteria-amoeba-animal-plant-cells-4966.html

    And since there are conservatively estimated to be around 30 trillion cells within the average human body,

    Revised Estimates for the Number of Human and Bacteria Cells in the Body – 2016
    Abstract: Reported values in the literature on the number of cells in the body differ by orders of magnitude and are very seldom supported by any measurements or calculations. Here, we integrate the most up-to-date information on the number of human and bacterial cells in the body. We estimate the total number of bacteria in the 70 kg “reference man” to be 3.8·10^13. For human cells, we identify the dominant role of the hematopoietic lineage to the total count (?90%) and revise past estimates to 3.0·10^13 human cells. Our analysis also updates the widely-cited 10:1 ratio, showing that the number of bacteria in the body is actually of the same order as the number of human cells, and their total mass is about 0.2 kg.
    https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002533

    Then that gives us a rough ballpark estimate of around 300 trillion times 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. Or about 300 trillion times the information content contained within the books of all the largest libraries in the world. Needless to say, that is a massive amount of positional information that is somehow coming into a developing embryo from the outside by some non-material method.

  51. 51
    bornagain77 says:

    On top of all that, and as was highlighted earlier, as far as quantum information theory is concerned, this positional information that is somehow coming into the developing embryo from the outside, by some non-material method, to bring the developing embryo to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium, is found to be “a property of an observer who describes a system.”

    The Quantum Thermodynamics Revolution – May 2017
    Excerpt: “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-thermodynamics-revolution/

    In other words, some ‘outside observer’ who, due to the ‘beyond space and time’ quantum non-locality of the quantum coherence and/or entanglement of biological molecules, must necessarily exist outside the space-time of the universe, is now required in order for us to give an adequate causal account so that we may explain how it is even possible for this immense amount of positional information to somehow be coming into the developing embryo ‘from the outside’, by some ‘non-material’ method.

    Whereas Darwinists, because of their reductive materialistic framework, deny the existence of anything beyond space and time, especially denying that God could possibly be directing embryological development, on the other hand, Christianity just so happens to give us an adequate causal account for exactly Who this outside observer might be Who is imparting this immense amount of positional information into developing embryos. As Hebrews chapter 4 verse 13 states, “And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.”

    Hebrews 4:13
    And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

    And as Psalm 139:13-14 states, “For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;”

    Psalm 139:13-14
    For You formed my inward parts;
    You covered me in my mother’s womb.
    I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
    Marvelous are Your works,
    And that my soul knows very well.

    Of supplemental note, This Quantum Information. which requires a causal Agent Who is beyond space and time in order to explain its existence, is now found to be ubiquitous within molecular biology:

    “What happens is this classical information (of DNA) is embedded, sandwiched, into the quantum information (of DNA). And most likely this classical information is never accessed because it is inside all the quantum information. You can only access the quantum information or the electron clouds and the protons. So mathematically you can describe that as a quantum/classical state.”
    Elisabeth Rieper – Classical and Quantum Information in DNA – video (Longitudinal Quantum Information resides along the entire length of DNA discussed at the 19:30 minute mark; at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper remarks that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it)
    https://youtu.be/2nqHOnVTxJE?t=1176

    Classical and Quantum Information Channels in Protein Chain – Dj. Koruga, A. Tomi?, Z. Ratkaj, L. Matija – 2006
    Abstract: Investigation of the properties of peptide plane in protein chain from both classical and quantum approach is presented. We calculated interatomic force constants for peptide plane and hydrogen bonds between peptide planes in protein chain. On the basis of force constants, displacements of each atom in peptide plane, and time of action we found that the value of the peptide plane action is close to the Planck constant. This indicates that peptide plane from the energy viewpoint possesses synergetic classical/quantum properties. Consideration of peptide planes in protein chain from information viewpoint also shows that protein chain possesses classical and quantum properties. So, it appears that protein chain behaves as a triple dual system: (1) structural – amino acids and peptide planes, (2) energy – classical and quantum state, and (3) information – classical and quantum coding. Based on experimental facts of protein chain, we proposed from the structure-energy-information viewpoint its synergetic code system.
    http://www.scientific.net/MSF.518.491

    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-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552

    Verse:

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

  52. 52
    ET says:

    seversky:

    No, as I’ve said many times before, we can be reduced to matter and energy but that is not all we are,…

    Saying it many times does not make it so. You need evidence to support your claim and you have failed to produce any.

    Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection still works perfectly within the domain to which it was intended to apply, namely, the macroscopic world of terrestrial biology.

    And more evidence-free claims. Natural selection has proven to be impotent with respect to what it was invented for- namely the ability to produce the appearance of design without an intelligent designer.

    In other words, we have a being that is claimed to be all-knowing and all-powerful not only admitting He made a mistake but ‘correcting’ that error (something of which He should have been incapable) by committing mass-murder on a planet-wide scale, something no twentieth-century dictator has come remotely close to achieving.

    That is your agenda-driven and ignorant opinion, anyway.

Leave a Reply