Michael Egnor: Is consciousness the sort of thing that could have evolved?

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 29, 2022

Human evolution, Intelligent Design, Mind}

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

Researchers Simona Ginsberg and Eva Jablonka have written a book attempting to trace the evolution of consciousness. Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor responds:

In addition to the problem of intentionality, the capacity of human beings to reason and use intellect and will is an insurmountable obstacle for Darwinian theories of the evolution of consciousness. As Aristotle and scientists and philosophers who have followed his thinking have noted for millennia, the human capacity for abstract reasoning is inherently immaterial. No material explanation for the human capacity of reason is even conceivable.
For example, how can human beings contemplate “infinity” using physiological (material) processes in the brain? All material processes are finite and could not thereby account for thoughts about infinity. Nor can material processes explain the perfection inherent in certain mathematical concepts, such as triangularity. All material instantiations of triangularity are imperfect — lines aren’t perfectly straight and angles in actual (material) triangles don’t add up to exactly 180 degrees. Yet our abstract understanding of triangularity is perfect, in the sense that we understand triangularity as involving straight sides and 180 degree sums of angles.
Michael Egnor, “Is consciousness the sort of thing that could have evolved?” at Mind Matters News (June 28, 2022)

The book is Picturing the Mind (MIT Press, 2022). Here’s a free excerpt.

Takehome: Material processes cannot, for example, account for the power to grasp infinity or perfection — which are not material ideas.

Note: A common response among naturalists is to claim that such abstractions, like consciousness itself, are an illusion. Egnor would respond, “If your hypothesis is that your mind is an illusion, then you do not have a hypothesis.” That’s one reason that panpsychism is better tolerated in science than it used to be. The reality is, slowly but surely, sinking in.

You may also wish to read: Did minimal consciousness drive the Cambrian Explosion? Eva Jablonka’s team makes the daring case, repurposing Hungarian chemist Tibor Gánti’s origin of life studies. The researchers point out that life forms that show minimal consciousness have very different brains from each other. Behavior, not brain anatomy, is the signal to look for.

Comments

Relatd@18, You can measure the frequency of reflected light, yes. If you defined color as merely "the frequency of light" then sure, that's that. But by "color" most people mean what they see, not the frequency of light measured by instruments. And the color we see is a function of all sorts of things, including our expectations and assumptions. (For example, remember the dress that was seen in different colors by different people? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress#Scientific_explanations )dogdoc_{June 30, 2022
June
06
Jun
30
30
2022
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

When a company makes a plastic toy and specifies a particular shade of red, they gives its frequency which can be measured and confirmed.relatd_{June 30, 2022
June
06
Jun
30
30
2022
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

SA @15,
We can apply physical measures to those things. We can measure the circumference of Texas.
First, I asked how much it weighed. Second, Texas is not a circle :-). Third, Texas is a complex, abstract concept that cannot be captured by any physical measurement of the land or anything else.
We can measure the quantity and physical location of the code that goes into your margin settings.
I asked about the margin settings, not "the code that goes into your margin settings". And it would be practically impossible to distinguish the physical locations of all bits involved in storing "margin settings" and where those bits "reside" in the machine, just as it would be practically impossible to distinguish all the physical changes in the brain related to "perceiving a dog".
At the same time, we might say that Bank of America is an immaterial entity since it may not be fully comprehended by physical measures.
Like Texas and margin settings, the BofA is a complex, abstract concept, not ammenable to describing with concepts about physical objects.
In the same way, we can’t physically measure your thoughts. That’s the point.
I agree of course. Not because they exist in a mysterious spiritual or immaterial realm of existence, but because a "thought" is not something that can be described in terms of things we perceive that are ammenable to physical description.
To then say “since we can’t provide weight, length, etc. of one’s thoughts means they do not exist” – is to misread the comment.
Sorry, I don't see that anyone here has said anything to that effect. I certainly have not. Where did you get that from?
The fact is, they do exist but they’re not material/physically/empirically accessible.
I'm fine with that. Monetary inflation, civil unrest, the Republican Party, summer vacation... most people would say all of these things exist, but none have locations, heights, weights, and so on. They are conceptual abstractions.
They’re immaterial entities.
And this brings me back to the question I started with. What does it mean to say something is an "immaterial entity"? Is a vacation an immaterial entity?
The clarification is appreciated but it still may come across as an attack of some kind or an attempt to obfuscate and use sophistry if you don’t also give your own views on the question.
Wow, I guess folks here are primed to fight. Too bad! Anyway, sorry, but I actually don't have the answers to these questions. I think it's very difficult to understand in what sense these things exist. Even something like the color "red" - does that color exist? In what sense?dogdoc_{June 30, 2022
June
06
Jun
30
30
2022
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

CD at 13, Was that a joke? Of course materialists exist. What is it with this "exist" nonsense?relatd_{June 30, 2022
June
06
Jun
30
30
2022
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

DogDoc
Can you cite the length, width, etc. of the margin settings of my word processor? How about of the Bank of America? Can you measure the weight of Texas, or the speed of income tax? If not, does this mean these things don’t exist?
We can apply physical measures to those things. We can measure the circumference of Texas. We can measure the quantity and physical location of the code that goes into your margin settings. At the same time, we might say that Bank of America is an immaterial entity since it may not be fully comprehended by physical measures. In the same way, we can't physically measure your thoughts. That's the point. To then say "since we can't provide weight, length, etc. of one's thoughts means they do not exist" - is to misread the comment. The fact is, they do exist but they're not material/physically/empirically accessible. They're immaterial entities.
I’m not making claims here, or trying to obfuscate; I’m actually trying to clarify what people mean.
The clarification is appreciated but it still may come across as an attack of some kind or an attempt to obfuscate and use sophistry if you don't also give your own views on the question.Silver Asiatic_{June 30, 2022
June
06
Jun
30
30
2022
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

Some may find the following of interest to the fairly sharp divide that is found between the material realm and the realm of the mind
"We wish to measure a temperature.,,, But in any case, no matter how far we calculate -- to the mercury vessel, to the scale of the thermometer, to the retina, or into the brain, at some time we must say: and this is perceived by the observer. That is, we must always divide the world into two parts, the one being the observed system, the other the observer.” - John von Neumann - 1903-1957 - The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, pp.418-21 - 1955 Does Quantum Physics Make it Easier to Believe in God? Stephen M. Barr - July 10, 2012 Excerpt: Couldn’t an inanimate physical device (say, a Geiger counter) carry out a “measurement”? That would run into the very problem pointed out by von Neumann: If the “observer” were just a purely physical entity, such as a Geiger counter, one could in principle write down a bigger wavefunction that described not only the thing being measured but also the observer. And, when calculated with the Schrödinger equation, that bigger wave function would not jump! Again: as long as only purely physical entities are involved, they are governed by an equation that says that the probabilities don’t jump. That’s why, when Peierls was asked whether a machine could be an “observer,” he said no, explaining that “the quantum mechanical description is in terms of knowledge, and knowledge requires somebody who knows.” Not a purely physical thing, but a mind. https://books.google.com/books?id=jP0lDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA89#v=onepage&q&f=false
Of note: Wigner's friend thought experiment made its first appearance in this paper where Wigner provocatively stated, "It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality"
Remarks on the mind-body question - E.P. Wigner (1961), Excerpt: "It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality" https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-78374-6_20?noAccess=true
And now Wigner’s Friend thought experiment has, 60 years hence, finally been experimentally realized, albeit with the caveat, it was realized using photons as proxies for the humans.
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 Quantum paradox points to shaky foundations of reality - 17 Aug 2020 Excerpt: Nearly 60 years ago, the Nobel Prize–winning physicist Eugene Wigner captured one of the many oddities of quantum mechanics in a thought experiment. He imagined a friend of his, sealed in a lab, measuring a particle such as an atom while Wigner stood outside. Quantum mechanics famously allows particles to occupy many locations at once—a so-called superposition—but the friend's observation "collapses" the particle to just one spot. Yet for Wigner, the superposition remains: The collapse occurs only when he makes a measurement sometime later. Worse, Wigner also sees the friend in a superposition. Their experiences directly conflict. Now, researchers in Australia and Taiwan offer perhaps the sharpest demonstration that Wigner's paradox is real. In a study published this week in Nature Physics, they transform the thought experiment into a mathematical theorem that confirms the irreconcilable contradiction at the heart of the scenario. The team also tests the theorem with an experiment, using photons as proxies for the humans. https://www.science.org/content/article/quantum-paradox-points-shaky-foundations-reality
Quote;
"It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays "Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays" - 1970;
Of note: Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, (i.e. quantum symmetries), for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963. No less than Anton Zeilinger paid homage to Wigner for fostering a "Second Quantum Revolution"
Eugene Wigner – A Gedanken Pioneer of the Second Quantum Revolution - Anton Zeilinger - Sept. 2014 Conclusion It would be fascinating to know Eugene Wigner’s reaction to the fact that the gedanken experiments he discussed (in 1963 and 1970) have not only become reality, but building on his gedanken experiments, new ideas have developed which on the one hand probe the foundations of quantum mechanics even deeper, and which on the other hand also provide the foundations to the new field of quantum information technology. All these experiments pay homage to the great insight Wigner expressed in developing these gedanken experiments and in his analyses of the foundations of quantum mechanics, http://epjwoc.epj.org/articles/epjconf/pdf/2014/15/epjconf_wigner2014_01010.pdf
bornagain77_{June 30, 2022
June
06
Jun
30
30
2022
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

Pater Kimbridge/7 You hit that nail on the head. There’s a subset of those folks that take it one more step over the rainbow and will tell you that as a materialist, you don’t exist…..chuckdarwin_{June 30, 2022
June
06
Jun
30
30
2022
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

Doubter@10,
Obfuscation in response to solid points of argument.
If you read my post, you'll see I was actually asking questions to clarify the term "material", hardly an obfuscation. LOL!
Are you saying...
Um, I was asking a question.
...that thoughts, perceptions, intellectual insights and subjective conscious experience in general (qualia) are somehow material in some sense or other, simply because “material” is differently or ambiguously defined depending on scientific context?
I was trying to understand what the word "material" (or "immaterial") is supposed to mean in the context of the OP. I asked a number of questions to try and clarify the concept. It seems you are unable to answer any of my questions. That's OK!
Or because from a metaphysical standpoint the ultimate nature or essence of materiality is totally unknown?
I think what you mean here is that we cannot intuitively understand the fundamental nature of the perceived world, and that science has arrived at a point where we can explain and predict experimental results mathematically, but not conceptually. If that is what you mean, I agree completely.
OK then, cite the length, width, breadth, mass, energy, field strength, velocity etc. etc. of any thought or perception (including the mental concept of “metaphysical”), or simply of the pain experience of a toothache, or how qualia and thought can be partly material and partly immaterial in some form of continuum between extremes. Like, subjective pain experience being partly heavy (in grams) and fast (in meters per second) and lengthy (in centimeters), and partly immaterial.
Sorry, I don't understand what you're getting at here. Can you cite the length, width, etc. of the margin settings of my word processor? How about of the Bank of America? Can you measure the weight of Texas, or the speed of income tax? If not, does this mean these things don't exist? Or that they are composed of a different sort of immaterial substance - res cogitans - or something? I'm not making claims here, or trying to obfuscate; I'm actually trying to clarify what people mean.dogdoc_{June 30, 2022
June
06
Jun
30
30
2022
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

PK @7: I agree, it does appear that for many here the words "materialist", "atheist", and "evolutionist" are somehow thought to be synonymous, or thought to all fully entail each other. While they certainly covary in many people, the concepts are nearly orthogonal.dogdoc_{June 30, 2022
June
06
Jun
30
30
2022
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

Dogdoc @3 Obfuscation in response to solid points of argument. Are you saying that thoughts, perceptions, intellectual insights and subjective conscious experience in general (qualia) are somehow material in some sense or other, simply because "material" is differently or ambiguously defined depending on scientific context? Or because from a metaphysical standpoint the ultimate nature or essence of materiality is totally unknown? OK then, cite the length, width, breadth, mass, energy, field strength, velocity etc. etc. of any thought or perception (including the mental concept of "metaphysical"), or simply of the pain experience of a toothache, or how qualia and thought can be partly material and partly immaterial in some form of continuum between extremes. Like, subjective pain experience being partly heavy (in grams) and fast (in meters per second) and lengthy (in centimeters), and partly immaterial.doubter_{June 30, 2022
June
06
Jun
30
30
2022
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

material/materialist
Like a lot of words, it can have several definitions/connotations. From Genevieve Sugrue daughter of Michael Sugrue.
When I was 4 years old, my dad decided that it was time for my intro to philosophy. So he told me, "Did you know that I get all my ideas at the idea store?". This didn't sit well with me and I kept insisting "No you don't!". For the next two years, many car rides were spent talking about the idea store. It baffled my little mind but I kept trying to reason with him the best I could. At age 6 I found the solution. "You can't see and touch ideas. You can only buy things you can see and touch. Ideas are different". My dad was ecstatic. He had just taught his daughter the basics of metaphysics.
jerry_{June 30, 2022
June
06
Jun
30
30
2022
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

PK at 7, Uh, the material is all there is? God? Show me God. If you can show me God I might believe in him. So, the conclusion is pretty obvious. Nothing personal.relatd_{June 30, 2022
June
06
Jun
30
30
2022
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

@DogDoc #3 That's a good question. From reading the posts here over several years, it is pretty obvious that when someone calls you a "materialist", what they really mean is "atheist".Pater Kimbridge_{June 30, 2022
June
06
Jun
30
30
2022
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

BA77 @ 5 - Agreed. I am very concerned though that science will eventually simply posit "emergence" as the explanation. It appears that the practice of just asserting the most empty concepts as true is gaining legitimacy. Your points, though, are all correct.hnorman42_{June 30, 2022
June
06
Jun
30
30
2022
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT}

So ChuckyD, let's get this straight. The Wright Brothers infuse immaterial information,,,
Wright Flyer - Airplane Blueprint. https://pixels.com/featured/3-wright-flyer-restored-patent-drawing-for-the-1906-orville-wilbur-wright-brothers-flying-machine-jose-elias-sofia-pereira.html
,, infuse immaterial information into the proper material substrates in order to, via their immaterial minds, intelligently design an airplane, and in your twisted Darwinian reasoning you somehow think that their invention of the airplane provides 'proof of principle' that a material explanation for the human capacity to reason will be forthcoming? Well ChuckyD I hate to inform you, but, if anything, the Wright Brother's invention of the airplane, via the infusion of immaterial information into the proper material substrates, directly undermines your claim, and instead provides solid support for Dr. Egnor's contention that there never will be a material explanation for the human capacity to reason.bornagain77_{June 29, 2022
June
06
Jun
29
29
2022
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT}

Egnor states, apparently in all seriousness:
No material explanation for the human capacity of reason is even conceivable.
Never say never, doc. Just when you’ve convinced everyone you can that man will never fly, a couple of clever bicycle builders from Dayton will come along and manage to fly a plane over the beach in North Carolina…..chuckdarwin_{June 29, 2022
June
06
Jun
29
29
2022
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

I don't understand what is meant by "material" in these discussions. Are quantum fields "material"? Is spacetime "material"? These things certainly aren't made of matter in the way 19th century physicists imagined, when "materialism" meant that nothing existed except particles bouncing around in the void. Egnor says that abstract concepts like "infinity" or "perfection" are "not material". How about more concrete concepts like "chair" or "dog"? What does it mean for ideas to exist but not be "material"? Computers are "material" I assume, but what about the paragraph margin settings in my word processor? Are those material or immaterial? Why?dogdoc_{June 29, 2022
June
06
Jun
29
29
2022
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

As humans were made in the image of God, and as God is Spirit, then his image is spiritual, and that is what makes us human. We have spirits that set us apart from other animals. God breathed a spirit into Adam and he became a living (human) being. Here is some Biblical speculation on the subject: https://thopid.blogspot.com/2019/06/thoughts-on-genesis-1-4.htmlFasteddious_{June 29, 2022
June
06
Jun
29
29
2022
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

Consciousness is actually an argument against natural Evolution. If it evolved in humans as opposed to being created, there would be some gradations of it existing in the natural world. But we don’t see this. Yes, we do see some animals smarter than others but there is such a huge gulf between humans and chimps, one would have expected many more species closer to humans. But they don’t exist. Hence, another nail in the naturalistic argument.jerry_{June 29, 2022
June
06
Jun
29
29
2022
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply