Michael Egnor: The Evidence against Materialism

Or at least of vision and hearing. I don’t get that either, but it’s not my circus.

@Faizal_Ali,

What do you make of Egnor’s claim (based on the work of Wilder Penfield) that neurosurgeons “have stimulated every imaginable region of the brain yet they have never stimulated abstract thought nor have they observed an intellectual seizure”? This strikes me as an interesting point.

1 Like

It seems to be an incorrect claim. A lot of people would call schizophrenia something like an intellectual seizure (though not technically a seizure), and it can be induced with medication in normal people.

I am curious @Faizal_Ali’s thoughts too.

It strikes me as not at all relevant.

That is an interesting example, and I think it may well be germane.

But the other point is that Egnor is simply wrong. Intellectual seizures do occur. Here, for example, is a woman with frontal lobe epilepsy whose seizures consisted of the thought "“I have something that I must do”

There are other such examples.

I think Egnor’s argument errs in failing to appreciate the neurological complexity involved in complex abstract thoughts. Similar to his other arguments, he seems to believe that there is a single point in the brain that, when stimulated, should cause someone to understand the Pythagorean theorem or make an argument in favour of a flat tax rate. By the same token, you don’t just stimulate a tiny point in the brain and cause someone to brush his teeth.

4 Likes

I don’t think you understand what material/immaterial means. Consciousness is immaterial by virtue of the fact it has no physical properties – no mass, no electric charge, no velocity, it can’t be seen, touched etc. That is simply the way things are. Materialism so defined is simply not correct.

I’m sure no one in the history of the Universe has ever claimed the brain has zero effects on consciousness. As usual, materialists attacking ludicrous straw men.

No idea why my comment doesn’t appear underneath this Faizel Ali’s comment.

Can disembodied consciousness see or hear etc? Why wouldn’t it be able to? I think people that ask this question appear to be presupposing the brain produces consciousness. If the brain doesn’t produce consciousness, then it doesn’t produce my visual perceptions etc either.

The issue is no whether consciousness is “material” in that sense. Rather, the issue is whether anything other than material brain processes are needed to account for its existence.

Who has claimed that anyone has?

Right. So…?

Can there be such a thing as disembodied consciousness?

That is the question. Theoretically/conceptually? I guess it can. Does it exist? No good evidence for that as far as I can see. Egnor’s video does not change that.

2 Likes

Hi @Faizal_Ali,

Thank you for the interesting link. I’m not so sure of its relevance, however:

A 50-year-old, ambidextrous woman was referred for the management of intractable partial seizures which began at the age of 13. During the first several years, she reported experiencing recurrent episodes of flash-backs which she described as “very familiar scenes passing by me”. She also reported olfactory hallucinations which consisted of odd smells. At the age of 17, she started to have complex partial seizures (CPS) which were associated with different types of psychic auras such as déjà-vu, jamais-vu, and FT. These auras were experienced alone or in various combinations. She also had experienced two prolonged episodes of continuous FT which lasted for several days after clusters of CPS. She recalled these episodes of FT as “I forgot something that I should do”. Despite systematic trials of antiepileptic drugs (AED), she was still having two to three episodes of CPS monthly, and she decided to receive epilepsy surgery.

That doesn’t sound like intellectual cogitations to me. There was no syllogizing involved.

I think Egnor’s argument errs in failing to appreciate the neurological complexity involved in complex abstract thoughts. Similar to his other arguments, he seems to believe that there is a single point in the brain that, when stimulated, should cause someone to understand the Pythagorean theorem or make an argument in favour of a flat tax rate. By the same token, you don’t just stimulate a tiny point in the brain and cause someone to brush his teeth.

Well, I don’t know. If brain stimulation can cause a man to develop a powerful love for Johnny Cash’s music, why can’t it cause a man to spout syllogisms?

2 Likes

I have no idea whether a disembodied consciousness could exist. I was addressing the question whether a disembodied consciousness would be able to see or hear. Obviously, if a disembodied consciousness is not possible, then a disembodied consciousness wouldn’t be able to see or hear.

But if that is the issue, why did the original person bother asking if a disembodied consciousness can see or hear?

Sighs…

So you’re an agnostic and have no idea whether or not God could exist?

Because we don’t yet know how to stimulate it. We also cannot stimulate a brain to make a woman dance Swan Lake. But I guess Egnor might think that involves some immaterial spooky magic, as well.

A strong counter to the immaterial mind concept, IMHO, is that we have now created computers that can play chess and poker at the highest level of expertise. They do so far better than the people who programmed them.

2 Likes

If you can see without eyes, hear without ears, and think without a brain, why have them in the first place?

1 Like

Have you ever wondered why cogitation takes time? It’s not instantaneous. Thinking literally requires a span of time to occur. Information enters through the senses, then thinking happens and it takes time, and then some result is produced and the person acts a certain way (or concludes something through some period of thinking). Why? If thinking has no, or does not take place in spatial dimensions, why should thinking take time? Why are some people slower thinkers than others? Why do some problems take much more time to work out than others? The physics of computation by physical information processing architectures explain and answer these questions, which implies mind and thoughts is some sort of material process where interactions has to take place between entities distributed in space.
Electrical or other physical signals literally have to travel from one location to another, whether through copper wires and transistors, or axons between neurons or what have you in terms of physical connections.

1 Like

How do you know it has no physical properties? Take velocity, how do you know it doesn’t have velocity? Or electric charge?

This feels like another discussion that doesn’t seem to be resolvable.

The materialists are suggesting that all we can observe is the material (properties of, or changes in, matter) and we know that material changes in the brain affect thinking and behavior. So, even if we can’t explain everything, there doesn’t seem to be a reason to invoke the immaterial.

The dualists are suggesting that there is a layer beyond the material, that interacts with and is in some way reliant on the material. The points in Egnor’s video in the OP would be supportive of that. So it’s not that the brain doesn’t do anything, Egnor seems to be suggesting it’s primarily to handle sensory input and basic tasks, but that higher functions are a mixture of brain inputs and processing and something else that is immaterial.

I don’t see a way how to demonstrate either case conclusively.

3 Likes

It doesn’t have velocity since it has no location. It’s meaningless to ascribe location or electric charge, or mass to consciousness since such physical properties are not what we mean by consciousness. Consciousness is all our thoughts, emotions, experiences, none of which are captured by electric charge etc.