In a thought-provoking interview hosted by Wesley J. Smith for the Humanize podcast, three scholars— philosopher Angus Menuge, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor, and engineer Brian Krouse— explore the central themes of the new anthology Minding the Brain. The conversation revolves around some of the most profound questions in science and philosophy: What is the mind? Is it reducible to the brain? Do we have free will? And how do humans differ from machines and animals?

The Mind Beyond Measurement

Menuge begins by addressing a fundamental limitation in neuroscience: while brain activity can be correlated with emotional or cognitive states, thoughts themselves cannot be localized in space the way physical objects can. This distinction leads naturally into the concept of dualism— the philosophical view that the mind is distinct from the physical brain.

As host, Smith raises a common question: must dualists also be theists? Menuge clarifies the fact that one can embrace dualism from a purely secular standpoint. Many philosophers have concluded from experience and introspection that mental phenomena cannot be reduced to neural mechanisms— regardless of their theological commitments.

The Free Will Debate

Much of the discussion centers on free will, which the participants see as a defining trait of human beings. Dr. Egnor delves into the famous experiments by Benjamin Libet (1916–2007), which suggested that the brain initiates actions before we become consciously aware of our decisions. But he also found that people could veto actions their brains had already initiated, a phenomenon he termed “free won’t.”

Egnor passionately argues that denying free will undermines moral responsibility and paves the way for totalitarian ideologies. He lists five reasons to affirm free will, including its universality in human experience, the logical inconsistency of denying it, and new physics that disproves classical determinism.  

Are We Just Fancy Computers?

Brian Krouse and Angus Menuge tackle the increasingly popular notion that the brain is merely a computer, and that the mind is nothing more than information processing. They say no. Despite massive advances in computational neuroscience, even simple organisms like the worm C. elegans, with just a few hundred neurons, resist complete computational modeling. If we can’t fully understand a nematode, how much less can we claim mastery over the human brain, which contains trillions of connections?

Egnor, who is author along with Denyse O’Leary of The Immortal Mind (June 3, 2025), adds a philosophical dimension to this critique. Drawing on the concept of intentionality— the “aboutness” of thought— he argues that the mind is categorically unlike computation. Thoughts carry meaning, while computation is blind to meaning. A word processor doesn’t care what you type; it just processes symbols. This, he claims, shows the mind is not only distinct from computation but its opposite.

Human Uniqueness and the Limits of AI

The discussion also touches on the rise of large language models like ChatGPT. While these systems appear intelligent, Krouse emphasizes that their “hallucinations” (errors) reveal their lack of true understanding. They do not grasp meaning; they merely complete patterns. Menuge underscores the danger of forgetting the fundamental distinction between machines and human creativity. The capacity for abstraction, purpose, and moral reasoning sets humans apart from both animals and AI.

Egnor illustrates this difference through a humorous but profound observation: his dog finds deep meaning in the smell of bacon, but she doesn’t reflect on nutrition or ethics. Human cognition, by contrast, includes abstract thought, moral deliberation, and metaphysical inquiry.

Why It Matters

As the conversation concludes, Menuge insists that these philosophical debates are not merely academic. Understanding the mind’s immaterial nature opens up new horizons for science and human flourishing. Our ability to transcend our biological limitations—to think about universal truths, moral ideals, and the cosmos itself—is central to what makes us human.

The guests all stress that Minding the Brain is not dogmatic but exploratory. The book presents diverse perspectives and invites open-minded inquiry. As Smith remarks, this is precisely what science and philosophy ought to be: a generous dialogue among differing views in pursuit of deeper truth.

Ultimately, Minding the Brain encourages readers to reconsider assumptions about mind, matter, and machine—and to appreciate the exceptional nature of human consciousness.