Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor on the difference between human and animal minds

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
Egnor.jpg
Michael Egnor

Michael Egnor, here, at Evolution News & Views:

Regardless of the strengths and weaknesses of the evolutionary argument that humans are descended from apes, the differences between humans and apes are so profound as to render the view that humans are apes abject nonsense.

It is important to understand the fundamental difference between humans and nonhuman animals. Nonhuman animals such as apes have material mental powers. By material I mean powers that are instantiated in the brain and wholly depend upon matter for their operation. These powers include sensation, perception, imagination (the ability to form mental images), memory (of perceptions and images), and appetite. Nonhuman animals have a mental capacity to perceive and respond to particulars, which are specific material objects such as other animals, food, obstacles, and predators.

Human beings have mental powers that include the material mental powers of animals but in addition entail a profoundly different kind of thinking. Human beings think abstractly, and nonhuman animals do not. Human beings have the power to contemplate universals, which are concepts that have no material instantiation. Human beings think about mathematics, literature, art, language, justice, mercy, and an endless library of abstract concepts. Human beings are rational animals. More.

Not only so, but even human beings who have severe neurological deficits can display these qualities, imperfectly or in fits and starts.

As I wrote here,

When Canada effectually legalized euthanasia, I was dismayed. Dementia victims, certain to be targets, can be got to “consent” without any fixed or firm idea what they are doing. With the ageing of the world’s population dementia has become the new leprosy.

Legislators have sniffed the wind. People with dementias are looked on as beings apart, as lepers once were.

But dementias are not different in principle from other disabilities.

Dementia: The brain is an organ; when challenged, it tries to heal, like any other organ. And it often succeeds, up to a point, just by rewiring (neuroplasticity). So dementias go forward and backward, depending. They are more of a problem in some areas of life than others.

In that respect, dementias do not differ much from, say, mobility issues. It is true that mobility declines with age. But it is also true that seniors who arrive in rehab in wheelchairs routinely progress to walkers and canes.

Mental awareness is like that too. Just for example: I was in the dining room in an old age home a couple of months ago. Some residents were complaining that it was too dark for that time of year.

Well, no surprise there, five light bulbs were burnt out. I said, I am going to grab one of those deaders, go get five like it, and just screw them all in. (How big a committee do we need for this? How many meetings?)

Then an old fellow diagnosed with dementia—who usually could not speak clearly—rasped from the back of the room, “Maybe you should leave that to the landlord.”

I realized he was right. If I did it myself, I’d be personally responsible for any consequences, no matter how unforeseen. Following his implied suggestion, I spoke to the front desk, and they got Maintenance to do the job.More.

To think that way, he needed a type of life experience involving many abstract concepts, some of which had stayed with him in the gathering darkness. And one of which would never have dawned on an animal.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Dr. Egnor writes: "Regardless of the strengths and weaknesses of the evolutionary argument that humans are descended from apes, the differences between humans and apes are so profound as to render the view that humans are apes abject nonsense." I am not a scientist, but a science-interested clergyman. So the question I have is an earnest inquiry, not a veiled attempt to quibble with the good doctor. *Is* the evolutionary argument that "humans are descended from apes?" My understanding is that modern evolutionary thought posits not that humans are descended from apes, but that humans and apes are *related* through descent from a common ancestor. Is this a correct understanding, or have I missed something (a very real possibility)?ronalddrummond
November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
daveS, if you did not notice, I was not addressing you.bornagain
November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
I'm not sure if any of the above addresses my question. Do you agree that nonhuman animals are purely material beings, and in particular that their mental powers are purely material?daveS
November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
Quantum physics just got less complicated - Dec. 19, 2014 Excerpt: Patrick Coles, Jedrzej Kaniewski, and Stephanie Wehner,,, found that 'wave-particle duality' is simply the quantum 'uncertainty principle' in disguise, reducing two mysteries to one.,,, "The connection between uncertainty and wave-particle duality comes out very naturally when you consider them as questions about what information you can gain about a system. Our result highlights the power of thinking about physics from the perspective of information,",,, http://phys.org/news/2014-12-quantum-physics-complicated.html John Lennox at Rice University: Christianity Gave Us Science - Sept. 28, 2015 53:00 minute mark - mass-energy is derivative from information (i.e. It from bit) and life is based on information. https://youtu.be/PSq4KLjMSlI?t=3182
It is hard to imagine a more convincing proof that we are made 'in the image of God' than finding that both the universe and life itself are 'information theoretic' in their basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information. I guess a more convincing evidence could be that God Himself became a man, defeated death on a cross, and then rose from the dead to prove that He was God. But who has ever heard of such overwhelming evidence as that?
Turin Shroud Quantum Hologram Reveals The Words 'The Lamb' on a Solid Oval Object Under The Beard - video http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=J21MECNU Solid Oval Object Under The Beard http://shroud3d.com/findings/solid-oval-object-under-the-beard
Verses and Music:
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men. Casting Crowns - The Word Is Alive https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9itgOBAxSc
bornagain
November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT
Militant atheists, (if they had a mind), should learn to never mess with a brain surgeon when it comes to debating issues of the human mind:
Teaching a Parrot Newton's Principia - Michael Egnor - November 12, 2015 Excerpt: Shallit: "As for "instantiate a universal," I think you presume I belong to some philosophical school where this makes sense. I don't even believe in universals, at least as conceived of by some philosophers. I'm not a Platonist or Aristotelian, for example, nor am I a realist. Give me a specific example of something you want that cannot be possible under materialism, not vague prattle." Examples of universals: "philosophical school," "universals," "Platonist," "example," "Aristotelian," "realist," "specific," "something," "materialism," "vague prattle." Shallit's denial of universals is full of universals. Universals exist. There is genuine debate as to whether they exist in a separate realm (Plato), in particulars (Aristotle), or only in the mind with no independent existence per se (Ockham). But in order to debate universals one must invoke universals, whatever they are. And whatever universals are (I agree with Aristotle), it is men, and not animals, who contemplate them. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/11/teaching_a_parr100831.html
Of note: Egnor's contention that the Human mind is ontologically different than the animal mind is born out empirically, in that there is 'no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became who we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense'.
“A number of hominid crania are known from sites in eastern and southern Africa in the 400- to 200-thousand-year range, but none of them looks like a close antecedent of the anatomically distinctive Homo sapiens…Even allowing for the poor record we have of our close extinct kin, Homo sapiens appears as distinctive and unprecedented…there is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became who we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense.” Dr. Ian Tattersall: – paleoanthropologist – emeritus curator of the American Museum of Natural History – (Masters of the Planet, 2012) Evolution of the Genus Homo – Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences – Ian Tattersall, Jeffrey H. Schwartz, May 2009 Excerpt: “Unusual though Homo sapiens may be morphologically, it is undoubtedly our remarkable cognitive qualities that most strikingly demarcate us from all other extant species. They are certainly what give us our strong subjective sense of being qualitatively different. And they are all ultimately traceable to our symbolic capacity. Human beings alone, it seems, mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities. When exactly Homo sapiens acquired this unusual ability is the subject of debate.” http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100202 Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language - December 19, 2014 Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,, (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, "The mystery of language evolution," Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).) It's difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/leading_evoluti092141.html
More interesting still, the three Rs, reading, writing, and arithmetic, i.e. the unique ability to process information inherent to man, are the very first things to be taught to children when they enter elementary school. And yet it is this information processing, i.e. reading, writing, and arithmetic that is found to be foundational to life:
Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer - video clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVkdQhNdzHU Complex grammar of the genomic language - November 9, 2015 Excerpt: The 'grammar' of the human genetic code is more complex than that of even the most intricately constructed spoken languages in the world. The findings explain why the human genome is so difficult to decipher --,,, ,,, in their recent study in Nature, the Taipale team examines the binding preferences of pairs of transcription factors, and systematically maps the compound DNA words they bind to. Their analysis reveals that the grammar of the genetic code is much more complex than that of even the most complex human languages. Instead of simply joining two words together by deleting a space, the individual words that are joined together in compound DNA words are altered, leading to a large number of completely new words. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151109140252.htm
As well, as if that was not 'spooky enough', information, not material, is found to be foundational to physical reality:
"it from bit” Every “it”— every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely—even if in some contexts indirectly—from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. “It from bit” symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has a bottom—a very deep bottom, in most instances, an immaterial source and explanation, that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment—evoked responses, in short all matter and all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe." – Princeton University physicist John Wheeler (1911–2008) (Wheeler, John A. (1990), “Information, physics, quantum: The search for links”, in W. Zurek, Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information (Redwood City, California: Addison-Wesley)) Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation:
bornagain
November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
Egnor:
Nonhuman animals are purely material beings. They have no concepts. They experience hunger and pain. They don't contemplate the injustice of suffering.
Is anyone else surprised by the highlighted part of this statement? Especially when taken together with this:
Nonhuman animals such as apes have material mental powers. By material I mean powers that are instantiated in the brain and wholly depend upon matter for their operation. These powers include sensation, perception, imagination (the ability to form mental images), memory (of perceptions and images), and appetite. Nonhuman animals have a mental capacity to perceive and respond to particulars, which are specific material objects such as other animals, food, obstacles, and predators.
daveS
November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply