Shallow analysis is a common bedfellow of attempts to link science to stealth metaphysics. The stealth metaphysics considered here is the issue of free will. Denialists- materialists who maintain that free will is but an illusion- on occasion invoke a study showing brain activity in a specified brain region prior to the moment an individual expresses a decision. Patterns of brain activity consistent with the choice made can be evident seconds prior to the moment an individual actually commits to a decision. That data is used to support the contention that physical brain dynamics, preceeding a decision, determine the decision and allow the individual to falsely think that he or she has chosen between available options.

So what's wrong with the preceeding analysis? One striking aspect of denialist thinking is its vagueness. We have no neural mappings allowing us to distinguish between opting for a banana instead of an apple. We lack the details needed to link pre-decision process thinking to precise brain conditions. Materialists will assert that desires and decisions are reducible to states of a physical system. But they lack detailed knowledge not just of the range of possible relevant physical states, but also of the thoughts correlating to different physical states. Free will denialists all too frequently mask their metaphysics in sciency garb.

Michael Egnor wrote Consciousness and Intelligent Design which appears at Evolution News & Views. From his article:

"Lawful dependence" in science has always been restricted to correlations between manifestations of third-person objective ontology. Lawful dependence correlates things. The correlations are generally quantitative, described by mathematics. A moving magnet (third person ontology) induces electrical current (third person ontology), in accordance with Maxwell’s equations.

Egnor gives us a glimpse of what a brain/mind model would indicate. When x induces biochemical cascade y in a specified area of Jason's brain, Jason communicates in his second language- Spanish. Happens every time for reasons unknown to researchers. Researchers also discovered that Jason's word choice consists of about three times more words prone to be utilized when he is angry (insults, curses, trash talk etc.) than when he normally speaks Spanish. The words correlate to vital signs consistent with the anger emotion.

Read the rest of this entry »

In Bradford's thread Superstitious Nonsense I found myself sidetracked from the actual topic by a couple of our critics who seemed to be playing dumb. In the attempt to outline the evidence for immaterial process in what we call the "Mind" - as opposed to the physical machine we call the brain - I introduced the concept of noncomputability which factors large in the Hameroff-Penrose Orch-OR theory of consciousness.

Raevmo asked repeatedly for an example of this noncomputability, which I realize would take us even farther afield (deep subject). With that thread now over 100 comments, not something I would long be able to follow with my clunky dial-up. So this thread will take that topic out of Bradford's thread so that it can be examined further.

Read the rest of this entry »

Dr. Egnor has posted The Mind and Materialist Superstition at Evolution News and Views. Egnor includes a mini-glossary and then delves into different aspects of the overall topic. This from Egnor:

If the mind is entirely caused by matter, it is difficult to understand how free will can exist. Matter is governed by fixed laws, and if our thoughts are entirely the product of brain chemistry, then our thoughts are determined by brain chemistry. But chemistry doesn’t have "truth" or "falsehood," or any other values for that matter. It just is. Enzymatic catalysis isn’t true or false, it just is. In fact, the view that "materialism is true" is meaningless… if materialism is true. If materialism is true, than the thought "materialism is true" is just a chemical reaction, neither true nor false. While there are some philosophers who assert that free will can exist in a deterministic materialistic world (they’re called "compatibilists"), and some have argued that quantum indeterminacy may leave room for free will, the most parsimonious explanation for free will is that there is an immaterial component of the mind that is undetermined by matter.

Read the rest of this entry »

Dualism Dueling With Science? is the title of the linked blog entry at Thinking Christian. Tom Gilson starts with this opening paragraph:

There is a lively debate going on regarding two views of the mind: dualist vs. materialist. Last month’s New Scientist article, “Creationists Declare War Over the Brain,” prompted responses from several quarters, including one of my own. Dr. Steven Novella wrote a two-part response (Part One, Part Two), taking the opportunity especially to make swipes at Michael Egnor of the Discovery Institute who has written on the topic more than once.

Indeed he has written more than once about this topic. Here and there a piece featuring Egnor's views appears. Tom Gilson quoting Novella:

Read the rest of this entry »

The nature of consciousness has long defied empirical resolutions. The First Few Minutes After Death discusses a study which may shed some light on the puzzle. It is known as the Human Consciousness Project and intends to explore what have been dubbed as near death experiences. Reports have depicted near death experiences as analogous to floating outside one's body. So a capacity to see things, that could not be physically observed from the vantage point of an individual undergoing a near death experience, could indicate a mind/brain duality. On the other hand perhaps differences in biochemically based brain states account for the floating sensation. Maybe we'll find out.

If the ability to detect design necessarily entails a subjective element, then any investigator should be aware of the subjective obstacles that can come into play. And for those who have noticed, I have been laying the groundwork not only in The Design Matrix, but also here on Telic Thoughts.

I have tried to get people to understand that we all don't see and think alike. I have spoken of naïve realism, disconfirmation bias, stereotypes, maintaining an open mind, and confirmation bias.

Let me now add another concept from psychology "“ tolerance for ambiguity. I myself have a very high tolerance for ambiguity, as can be seen in The Design Matrix, but also in most areas of my life. But what is ambiguity tolerance? that Let me just quote from the short Wikipedia entry on this phenomenon.

Ambiguity tolerance is the ability to perceive ambiguity in information and behavior in a neutral and open way.

Ambiguity tolerance is an important issue in personality development and education. In psychology and in management, levels of tolerance of ambiguity are correlated with creativity,[1] risk aversion, psychological resilience, lifestyle,[2] orientation towards diversity (cross-cultural communication, intercultural competence), and leadership style.[3]

Wilkinson's Modes of Leadership is largely based on ambiguity tolerance. Mode one leaders have the least tolerance to ambiguity with mode four leaders enjoying and preferring to work in ambiguous situations. In part this is due to what Wilkinson calls 'emotional resilience'.

The converse, ambiguity intolerance,[4][5] which was introduced in The Authoritarian Personality in 1950,[6] was defined in 1975 as a "tendency to perceive or interpret information marked by vague, incomplete, fragmented, multiple, probable, unstructured, uncertain, inconsistent, contrary, contradictory, or unclear meanings as actual or potential sources of psychological discomfort or threat."

I myself don't follow the mind-brain debates closely, but I do know there are several readers of our blog who are quite interested in that topic. If you are one of them, you will probably be interested in an article in the recent issue of BioEssays by Alfred Gierer (from the Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology) entitled "Brain, mind and limitations of a scientific theory of human consciousness" (BioEssays 2008; 30:499"“505.) Here is the abstract:

In biological terms, human consciousness appears as a feature associated with the functioning of the human brain. The corresponding activities of the neural network occur strictly in accord with physical laws; however, this fact does not necessarily imply that there can be a comprehensive scientific theory of consciousness, despite all the progress in neurobiology, neuropsychology and neurocomputation. Predictions of the extent to which such a theory may become possible vary widely in the scientific community. There are basic reasons"”not only practical but also epistemological"”why the brain"“mind relation may never be fully "˜"˜decodable" by general finite procedures. In particular self-referential features of consciousness, such as self-representations involved in strategic thought and dispositions, may not be resolvable in all their essential aspects by brain analysis. Assuming that such limitations exist, objective analysis by the methods of natural science cannot, in principle, fully encompass subjective, mental experience.

An excerpt is below the fold:

Read the rest of this entry »

In genetics, there is a concept known as penetrance. This concept is typically most relevant with dominant mutations that cause disease and the idea here is that not all genotypes elicit their expected phenotypes. For example, consider the phenonmena of polydactyly in humans. This is where an individual has extra fingers and/or toes. Since this trait is caused by a dominant mutation, you would expect that anyone with the dominant allele would have this trait. Yet this is not always true. The concept of penetrance comes into play when we estimate how many with a particular genotype express the trait. For example, if 90 out of 100 people who are heterozygous have the trait, we'd say the trait is 90% penetrant.

So why is it that many traits show less than 100% penetrance? Two factors come into play "“ the genetic background and the environment. Whether or not a particular allele at a specific locus is expressed can be a function of the expression of other alleles at other loci. Thus, without the right genetic context, a particular genotype may not be expressed. As for environment, it is well known that it can work in conjunction with a genotype to determine whether a particular phenotype is seen. This means that certain traits will be expressed only in the right environmental context.

I mention all of this simply because it makes for a nice metaphor in understanding how humans believe.

Many people share the naïve notion that a powerful argument for X should elicit belief X. If someone is thus presented with argument X, yet fails to adopt belief X, that person is then viewed negatively (i.e., they are stupid, deluded, or dishonest).

But let's assume the argument is the allele (genotype) and the belief is the trait (phenotype). Whether the argument leads to belief depends on the context of background beliefs and experience that already exist (akin to genetic background) and the social setting (the environment). The argument for X may fail to elicit belief X simply because of incomplete penetrance. In such cases, the power of the argument for X is dependent on the context of other beliefs and knowledge and the way belief X plays out in social reality.

Such incomplete penetrance is not stupidity, delusion, or dishonesty. It exists as a function of the Complexity of Belief. We not only believe differently, but we think differently. Thus, an important lesson in life is to realize that other people are not extensions of your self.

Scientific American has published in its October 2007 issue a lengthy review of past and present neurophysiological research - using everything from EEG to fMRI and everything in between - in the scientific quest to understand God's interactions with human beings. Or maybe just understand human beings' communion with God.

Searching for God in the Brain covers the spectrum of scientific interpretations of the findings too. From those who dismiss the evidence as anything but errant brain states to those who think it may be possible to use the knowledge to help people overcome depression, enjoy their lives more, even better their chances for defeating dread diseases that science already knows happens more often in people of faith than in people who have no spiritual leanings or ties.

Read the rest of this entry »