^CategoryPhilosophy of Mind

Yes, the Placebo Effect Is Real, Not a Trick

_{But the fact that the mind acts on the body troubles materialists. Such facts, they say, require revision} _{Mind Matters

November 16, 2018

Neuroscience, Philosophy of Mind}

The fact that you may start to get better if you believe you are receiving treatment is one of the best-attested facts in medicine. Despite that, far from being accepted, this "placebo effect" is seen in many quarters as, at best, a “pesky thing” and at worst, a “trick,” if not a “fraud.” Perhaps that is due to a drive to reduce medical science to the purely physical. Read More ›

Panpsychism: You Are Conscious but So Is Your Coffee Mug

_{Materialists have a solution to the problem of consciousness, and it may startle you} _{Mind Matters

November 13, 2018

Philosophy of Mind}

To understand why Scientific American would take panpsychism or the "multiple personality disorder" universe seriously, one needs to begin by grasping how very hard the problem of consciousness is for materialists (naturalists). Put simply, it is easier for many today to stomach the idea that an electron is conscious than the idea that consciousness is not a material entity. Read More ›

Noted Astronomer Envisions Cyborgs on Mars

_{Sir Martin Rees thinks of this “post-human evolution” as going beyond Darwin to “secular intelligent design.”} _{Mind Matters

November 12, 2018

Philosophy of Mind}

AI apocalypse is certainly in the air. Elon Musk, Henry Kissinger, and the late Stephen Hawking have all predicted an AI doomsday. Industry professionals’ doubt and disparagement don’t seem to register with the media in the same way. Read More ›

Brains are not billions of little computers

_{Despite the hype. Also, life forms are not machines and neurons are not neural networks} _{Mind Matters

November 10, 2018

Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Natural Intelligence, Philosophy of Mind}

Life forms exist in a dance with their environment (homeostasis) that requires constant adjustment, an adjustment generated by the inner drive to continue in existence. How does the drive come to be there? The analogy between life forms and machines like computers is not particularly convincing, on close examination. Read More ›

Hamlet: Did his perplexing neurotransmitters cause the tragedy?

_{The neuroscientist working from a mechanical perspective would study the material and efficient causes of Hamlet’s act of revenge.} _{Michael Egnor

October 31, 2018

Neuroscience, Philosophy of Mind}

It is essential to note that the Aristotelian neuroscientist, while delving into the complexities of Shakespeare’s remarkable psychological portrayal of this tortured man, can also study Hamlet’s murder of Claudius in just the same way that the mechanistic neuroscientist can. But he doesn’t lose the plot. Read More ›

Yes, your brain is a machine—if you choose to see it that way

_{As a Nobel Prize physicist pointed out, our method of study determines what we learn} _{Michael Egnor

October 29, 2018

Neuroscience, Philosophy of Mind}

Anil Seth, a Professor of Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience at the University of Sussex, gave a TED talk recently (linked below) in which he asserted that “the combined activity of many billions of neurons—each one a tiny biological machine—is generating our conscious experience…” So, is your brain really a biological “machine”? Or is that just an analogy, like saying that a restaurant kitchen is a “hive” of activity? If so, how good is the analogy? Why do we select the analogy of a “machine” rather than a different one? It’s an important question, as we will see, because the questions we ask of nature constrain the answers we obtain. A machine is an artifact. It is a human-built assembly of Read More ›

A Short Argument Against the Materialist Account of the Mind

_{You can simply picture yourself eating a chocolate ice cream sundae.} _{Jay Richards

October 12, 2018

Philosophy of Mind}

We have thoughts and ideas—what philosophers call “intentional” states—that are about things other than themselves. We don’t really know how this works. But whenever we speak to another person, we assume it must be true. And in our own case, we know it’s true. Even to deny it is to affirm it. Read More ›

Does brain stimulation research challenge free will?

_{If we can be forced to want something, is the will still free?} _{Michael Egnor

October 12, 2018

Neuroscience, Philosophy of Mind}

The materialist interpretation of Reilly’s work is a misunderstanding of what the research actually shows. The stimulations did not evoke complex abstract intentions and acts—the patients didn’t reflexively decide to do integral calculus or donate to Amnesty International. Read More ›

Is Free Will a Dangerous Myth?

_{The denial of free will is a much more dangerous myth} _{Michael Egnor

October 4, 2018

Philosophy of Mind}

Denial of free will, in a culture of pervasive surveillance, is the straightest road to totalitarianism. Read More ›

Do either machines—or brains—really learn?

_{A further response to Jeffrey Shallit: Actually, brains don’t learn either. Only minds learn.} _{Michael Egnor

September 26, 2018

Machine Learning, Neuroscience, Philosophy of Mind}

Learning is an ability of human beings, considered as a whole, to acquire new knowledge, not an ability of human organs considered individually. Read More ›

Could AI understand the universe?

_{World-renowned chemist thinks it might understand what we can’t, including consciousness} _{Denyse O'Leary

August 31, 2018}

Atkins is arguing that the fact that we do not understand what consciousness is, far from being a barrier to creating artificial consciousness, offers the hope that, once we do create them, artificially conscious entities will understand consciousness but we won’t. The proposition sounds a bit confused, no? Read More ›

Can a game prove that computers could really think?

_{Philosopher Daniel Dennett thinks so. Let's apply Occam's Razor and see} _{Robert Verrill, OP

August 27, 2018}

While I agree with Dennett that Occam’s Razor shouldn’t be used overzealously, we shouldn’t be too reluctant to use it either. The reason why Dennett rejects Occam’s Razor in the Game of Life is that if he didn’t, then nothing in the Game of Life would be capable of possessing cognitive states. Read More ›

Do big brains matter to human intelligence?

_{We don’t know. Brain research readily dissolves into confusion at that point} _{Denyse O'Leary

August 24, 2018}

We also know very little about the human brain. Take this controversy about why the large human brain evolved... Read More ›

Why can’t machines learn simple tasks?

_{They can learn to play chess more easily than to walk} _{Denyse O'Leary

August 9, 2018}

If specifically human intelligence is related to consciousness, the robotics engineers might best leave consciousness out of their goals for their products and focus on more tangible ones. Read More ›

The brain is not a “meat computer”

_{Dramatic recoveries from brain injury highlight the difference} _{Michael Egnor

August 7, 2018}

The brain looks like a computer only if we analyze it as if it were a computer. Our analysis does not mean that it is a computer, and it does not mean that computation explains the mind or even that computational approaches to neuroscience provide genuinely meaningful insight into neurophysiology. Read More ›