Monday, July 11, 2011

Dr. Steven Novella's 'proofs' of the materialistic theory of the mind

Philosophically-challenged materialist Dr. Steven Novella is at it again. He has a rambling post in response to a blogger who challenged his bizarre assertion that 'every single prediction of the materialist theory of the mind has been varified by science.'   He and I had a rather protracted blog debate about this a couple of years ago.  One would think that after his silly assertion was demolished that he would be reluctant to revisit it. Well, no. He again raises the issue.  He put together six assertions that he claims are proven scientifically and thus prove his theory that the mind is caused entirely by the brain. 

It's not even clear what he means by the "cause" of the mind. Novella is philosophically incompetent, and seems to have little engagement with the massive literature on the mind-brain problem in philosophy, which has probably been the most active area of analytical philosophy during the last century. For example,  Novella believes that the problem of how subjective first-person experience can be explained by objective science is a "non-problem".  He believes that intentionality and qualia are trivially explained by biology. Succinctly, he doesn't even understand the questions that the mind-body problem raises, let alone the answers.

His six questions are nonsense, because the inability of materialist ideology to explain the mind is a logical inability, a priori.  Materialism can't explain the mind, because the mind is not material.  I'll elaborate in future posts,  but for now let's take a look at Novella's six 'criteria' that "prove" that the mind is caused entirely by the brain, whatever he means by that.

Novella:



Just how is it clearly established that the brain causes mind?


If the brain causes mind, then:




1- Brain states will correlate to mental and behavioral states.
The correlation is quite poor. Using all available methods of brain assessment-- CT, MRI, fMRI, PET scanning, EEG, MEP, SSEP-- we still cannot correlate even a single thought (mental state) to a brain state with any reliability or reproducibility.  Not one. Of course, activation in certain regions of the brain is seen with fMRI, but the correlation is very loose, and there is nothing even approaching a 1:1 reduction of a mental state to a brain state.

We can't scan you and tell what you're thinking, no matter how we image your brain. Period.

Interestingly, the only way we can tell what you're thinking is by... asking you, and listening to your answer. That is, the only correlation we have is between a mental state and a behavioral state, which is variably reliable.

So the evidence from Novella's first "proof" is that we can't correlate any discrete mental state with a brain state. There are some perceptual states (i.e. visual) that can be correlated very roughly in a few instances, but no sane neuroscientist would say that we now have actual evidence that any discrete mental state (a discrete propositional thought) can correlate with a discrete brain state.

Novella's statement suggests abject ignorance of the state of the science, or willful misrepresentation.

2- Brain maturity will correlate with mental and emotional maturity.

What does Novella mean by "brain maturity"? Mylenation? If so, then there is a vague correlation. Babies are immature, and their brains are incompletely mylenated. What else could he mean by "brain maturity"? Size? Dendritic complexity? Anatomical (gyral) complexity? None of those brain states correlates in any reliable way with mental and emotional maturity. There are mentally/emotionally mature people with brains of all sizes and shapes and structures. There isn't the least bit of correlation.

Gross disease states can correlate, somewhat. A patient with advanced Alzheimers will have brain changes at autopsy that would lead the pathologist to predict that the patient was "immature" in behavior. But aside from gross obvious brain pathology, there is no consistent correlation.

Contra Novella, you can't do an MRI of your prospective spouse to determine how mature/immature he/she is.

I honestly have no idea what Novella means by "brain maturity will correlate with mental and emotional maturity."

It's just a stupid assertion.
3- Changing the brain’s function (with drugs, electrical or magnetic stimulation, or other methods) will change mental function.
Sometimes yes, most times no. There are all sorts of induced changes in brain function that have no effect whatsoever on mental function. I've had MEP stimulation as an experimental subject, and while it made my arm twitch, it had no effect on my mental function. Magnetic fields change brain states, without necessarily changing mental states. Anti-epileptic drugs change brain states, and often do not change mental states (they are often well-tolerated by patients).  Some seizures change brain states on EEG without discernible changes in mental states (so-called occult electrographic seizures). EEG testing is often used to detect occult seizures because there are no changes in mental states that would aid in diagnosis. Electrical stimulation during epilepsy surgery sometimes changes mental states, many times not.

Another stupid assertion by Dr. Novella.

4- Damaging the brain with damage the mind – producing specific deficits that correlate to the area of the brain damaged.
I see damaged brains on a daily basis-- trauma, tumors, stroke, etc. Sometimes I cause the damage myself (by placing a catheter in the brain to drain fluid). The specific mental deficits are highly variable, not the least predictable and very often there are no deficits at all. I've personally inserted at least 3000 catheters into patients' brains, and I've not once seen a change in a mental state from a catheter insertion that passes deep through brain tissue.

Certain areas of the brain (the speech areas, the motor areas, the visual areas, the brain stem) do have functions that are reliably interrupted by injury. Injury to most areas of the brain (association areas) does not reliably cause a change in mental states. I've removed major portions of fronal lobes for epilepsy and tumors in patients who were awake and talking to me while I was operating (under local anesthesia). I've never seen a discernable change in mental state during such surgery.

Notably, the least predictible associaton between brain damage (state) and neurological function is in mental states, what we normally think of as the mind.

Yet another stupid assertion by Novella.
5- There will be no documentable mental phenomena in the absence of brain function.
I don't know, and neither does Novella. There have been tens of millions of people (at least) who have had near-death experiences in which they had mental experiences during cardiac asystole and lack of brain perfusion.

This is a heterogenous group, and some of the experinces many have been due to drugs, endogenous neurotransmitters, etc. However, a substantial minority of these patients have corroborated experiences, in which the reality of the experience seems to check out.  For example, the patients recount detailed conversations or events in the hospital room during their cardiac arrest.

I know of two patients (of colleagues of mine) who claimed to have watched their brain surgery from outside of their bodies. One patient watched while she was in full cardiac arrest (done intentionally to repair an aneurysm), and after the surgery could identify in detail the instruments that she saw being used.  Another patient (a five year old boy) described watching his own complex skull surgery in detail to the surgeon who performed it (I know the surgeon personally).

I don't know if any of these are real. Neither does Novella. But his statement that there are "no documentable mental phenomena in the absence of brain function." is rank b.s. There are tens of millions of people who've had these experiences, and many have been documented and corroborated.

Are they all nuts? Are they all lying? Are they all deluded? Dr. Novella thinks so, but his opinion is based on his bias, not on any evidence.

Novella's asserts that "there will be no documentable mental phenomena in the absence of brain function." He couldn't be more wrong.  There are thousands of meticulously documented near death experiences, and there's even a scientific journal devoted entirely to their study. One of course can raise all sorts of questions about these experiences, but they are very well documented in the scientific literature.

Novella's no fool. He is as aware of this as I am.

Novella's assertion-- "no documentable mental phenomena"-- is simply a lie.

6- 

When the brain dies, mental function ends.
Ditto.  If Novella has scientific evidence proving that there is no afterlife,  I'd love to see it.

Novella:
Three through six are specific to the brain causes mind hypothesis and are not predicted by the mind causes brain hypothesis. There are now countless experiments and cases in which it is clearly demonstrated that doing something to the brain reliably results in a change of the mind. The arrow of causation is clear.

What tripe. Novella's "proofs" are sophomoric materialist boasts with no basis in medicine, science, or even reason. If one is to take these silly proofs seriously,  they suggest that the brain does not "cause" the mind, in any sort of proximate causation.

What then is the relationship between the mind and the brain? I'll explore this fascinating question in future posts. Succinctly: I believe that Thomistic dualism is the most plausible theory of the mind.

As for Novella, his "proofs" are a tangled mess of scientific ideological assertions that actually make the case opposite the one he thinks they do... if they are to be taken seriously at all, which they shouldn't be.

Several of his claims, coming from a practicing neurologist, are simply lies.

25 comments:

  1. Interesting. Would you mind having a piece of your own brain removed, on camera, for science?

    Let the materialists decide by internet poll which part has to go, afterwards an independent panel decides if your mental state changed. If you are uncomfortable with that idea, maybe you can also decide for yourself which part of your brain you don't need.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @Anonymous:

    Your comment sounds like the opinion of someone who just lost an argument.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  3. This subject is not my cup of tea, but I took a peek at the Board of Directors of the society publishing said "scientific journal." Here is a list of occupations:

    * Nurse, Educator, Retired Army Colonel, currently doing legal nurse consulting.
    * Chaplain.
    * Researcher (NDEs, consciousness, phantom limb phenomena), high school science teacher.
    * Executive director, Arizona Integrative Therapies, psychotherapist, author, international lecturer.
    * Events Coordinator.
    * Critical Care Clinical Nurse Specialist.
    * Interfaith Minister, Counselor.
    * Entrepreneur, New York Director, International Academy of Consciousness.
    * Proprietor, Siress Enterprises, Inc.
    * Chaplain.

    All science so far!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Novella would learn a lot by reading The Spiritual Brain, but I doubt he is open minded enough.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @oleg:

    [This subject is not my cup of tea, but I took a peek at the Board of Directors of the society publishing said "scientific journal." Here is a list of occupations:]

    And your critique of the science? Are all of the tens of millions of people who've had these experiences lying/deluded? Your evidence?

    And regarding credentials, have you looked at the leading lights of skepticism lately (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi)?

    Why there's even a Yale neurologist who makes batsh*t claims about the brain!

    If you've got evidence that the mind can be explained entirely in the materialist framework, I'd love to hear it.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm just teasing you, Mike. The journal is all sciencey, I'm sure. Does Stony Brook subscribe to it, by the way? It isn't in our library.

    When you have a chance, please get back to the, umm, dialogue we're having on another thread.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Mike: No, I'm dead serious.

    "I've removed major portions of fronal lobes for epilepsy and tumors in patients who were awake and talking to me while I was operating (under local anesthesia). I've never seen a discernable change in mental state during such surgery. "

    Again, this should be easy to demonstrate. You, holding a nice portion of your own frontal lobe inside a glass of formaldehyde in your hand saying "and those materialists claim that I am that!".

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anon wrote:
    "...You, holding a nice portion of your own frontal lobe inside a glass of formaldehyde in your hand saying "and those materialists claim that I am that!..."
    Well, baring some bloody sci-fi laboratory scene, how do you explain the good doctor's (and many others) observations that you quote before this? How do you reconcile with the clinical observation "...I've removed major portions of fronal lobes for epilepsy and tumors in patients who were awake and talking to me while I was operating (under local anesthesia). I've never seen a discernable change in mental state during such surgery..."?
    Are you suggesting this is not so? That the patients are drugged, or unable to interact during these procedures?
    You are quick to suggest people cutting out their own brains, but seem to have very little to say about the Doctor's observations themselves. Do you concede his point then? That such surgeries do occur?
    Would you cut out your own eye to PROVE that you can adapt to having only one eye, and that you are still YOU with only one eye? Or would you rely on the weight of your work and experience?
    I for one would like Dr. Egnor to keep operating on OTHER people!

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Do you concede his point then? That such surgeries do occur?"

    Miracles occur every day! Praise the LORD

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Would you cut out your own eye to PROVE that you can adapt to having only one eye, and that you are still YOU with only one eye? Or would you rely on the weight of your work and experience?"

    I would if I claimed "eyes and 'seeing' correlate poorly and I have removed many eyes without any noticeable effect".

    ReplyDelete
  11. I would if I claimed "eyes and 'seeing' correlate poorly and I have removed many eyes without any noticeable effect".

    A good example of the closed-mindedness and abject stupidity of atheists. I'm merely telling them what every neurosurgeon and honest neurologist knows: the actual correlation between brain function and mental function, in real medical practice, is fairly loose. This is not debatable. Novella is either stupid or lying. I note that his speciality in neurology is mostly peripheral nerve diseases, so he may deal very little with the brain in actual practice.

    Materialists would rather stick to their stupid ideology than listen to the facts about the mind-brain relationship.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anon?
    How did
    "...never seen a discernable change in mental state..."
    Get transformed through the 'eye' analogy of "you can adapt to having only one eye, and that you are still YOU with only one eye"
    Into YOUR
    "...without any noticeable effect."
    One can not have a verruca or molar removed "without any noticeable effect", can they? Nobody is arguing that a person will sit through a surgery of any sort and feel no "noticeable effects".
    For my own part, I am arguing from the position that the mind and personality is not an organ. I see Dr Egnor's observations supportive of that viewpoint. I chose the eyes because I have seen the psychic/mental damage caused by the rapid onset of almost total blindness.
    I know what type of demoralizing debility it is, but I have seen good, strong folks bounce back. It is still THEM in there.
    The brain, is perhaps the most complex of all the organs. I do not pretend to understand all its function, even on a basic level. But I do understand it is an organ, and as such is limited to performing it's function.
    The mind? Limitless.
    Want proof of that? Reread this conversation a few times. Your counterpoints alone are evidence of the limitless powers of human imagination.
    Perhaps by shifting the weight of proofs (moving the goal posts) you seek to evade the central idea that a human being is more than the material sum of their parts?
    Or maybe you just don't see the forest for the the trees?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anon wrote:
    "Miracles occur every day! Praise the LORD"
    I will take that as a concession.
    You will forgive me, however, if I do not take it as an honest conversion.

    ReplyDelete
  14. > [insults] I'm merely telling them what every neurosurgeon and honest neurologist knows: the actual correlation between brain function and mental function, in real medical practice, is fairly loose.

    Could you point me to specific cases where people lost a sizable part of their brain in adult life without any noticeable damage? I'd be very interested in that.

    Also can you explain what happens when people get Alzheimers?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous said...

    [Could you point me to specific cases where people lost a sizable part of their brain in adult life without any noticeable damage? I'd be very interested in that.]

    It happens constantly, in every hospital, every day. Most strokes (loss of brain tissue) are silent.

    I have no interest in 'proving' this to you. I'm telling you. I do this for a living, and if you're too stupid to take my word for it, that's your problem.

    Atheists are fools. You believe the most bizarre Darwinian crap, but when a neurosurgeon tells you a simple fact, you refuse to believe it.

    If you think that materialism and atheism are true, it's your problem and your soul. I tried to tell you the truth, and you wouldn't listen.

    [Also can you explain what happens when people get Alzheimers?]

    Look it up.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Mike I didn't know about silent strokes, thanks.

    I found out however that they are the "cause of vascular cognitive impairment and may also lead to a loss of urinary bladder control".

    ReplyDelete
  17. @anon:

    [I found out however that they are the "cause of vascular cognitive impairment and may also lead to a loss of urinary bladder control".]

    Sometimes strokes cause symptoms, sometimes not. Sometimes the symptoms are subtle, sometimes they're obvious, sometimes they're non-existent.

    The point is this: Novella is grossly exaggerating the correlation between brain damage and changes in mental states. There is a correlation, but it is quite variable. Novella is claiming this correlation to advance his ideology, and he is lying to you.

    The mind is not the brain. crusadeRex said it nicely: the brain is an organ, and the mind is a power of the soul. They are related, but they are not identical. The brain obviously plays an important role in mental function, but materialist theories fail to correlate with reality.

    Science needs to tell the truth. The truth in this instance is that materialism is a lie.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  18. The materialist position expects a correlation between size of the brain damage and size of personality changes. Somebody with brain damage as extensive as Terry Schiavo is expected to lose all behavioral functions associated with having a mind, as she did. I understand the dualist position that says "But Terry still is alive, you just can't see it", but I can't understand your position.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @Anon:

    I've written on PVS here [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/02/proving_dr_novella_wrong_imagi004840.html]

    It's a much more complex issue than you think it is.

    My position on Novella's claims is this:

    1) There are aspects of mental function (reasoning, abstract thought) that are inherently immaterial, and cannot be reduced to material cause. This is a logical issue.

    2) The materialist view that all mental function can be mapped to brain function is not supported by the scientific evidence.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  20. Just try drinking a bottle of whisky and see what you "mind" thinks of that! As it's independant of the brain, I guess it won't notice!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Insults, arguments from authority, appeals to ignorance, 'no true scotsman' too - Dr. Egnor, I'm very glad you're having this spat with Dr. Novella, because it's proving to be very educational.

    I understand you claim that you have observed that some brain injuries do not manifest in functional changes to the mind. I don't doubt that's possible at all - but I am curious: if it is as you claim (that the mind does not manifest from the brain), how do you explain the changes to the mind that *do* stem from brain injuries?

    I mean, not *every* brain injury has to have an effect on the mind in order for the materialist standpoint to be correct, does it?

    ReplyDelete
  22. @Erik:

    I'm not saying that brain function is unrelated to mind function. They're obviously related. The question is: how are they related?

    Novella's explanation is hard materialism (to the extent that he is coherent). My explanation is Thomistic dualism, which I've blogged about before (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/01/daniel_dennett_call_your_offic015121.html) and will discuss in further detail soon.

    My beef with Novella is that his "test" for materialism is nuts. It doesn't really address the important questions, which are logical and metaphysical, not empirical, and if you take the test seriously, it supports immaterialism, not materialism.

    I'll post on all that soon.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Another Anonymous:

    @Egnor
    Seriously?

    "I have no interest in 'proving' this to you. I'm telling you. I do this for a living, and if you're too stupid to take my word for it, that's your problem."

    I'm not bothering nor competent enough to debate on this subject but I could as well say - "You are an idiot. I have no interest in 'proving' this to you. I'm telling you. If you're too stupid to take my word for it, that's your problem.. I tried to tell you the truth, and you wouldn't listen"

    Decent argument? I can make any claim I want. At least Novella tries to support his statements.

    ReplyDelete
  24. MREgnor: It doesn't really address the important questions, which are logical and metaphysical, not empirical, and if you take the test seriously, it supports immaterialism, not materialism
    Saying questions of mind are not empirical seems ridiculous to me. In saying that it appears you're claiming that the mind has no discernible effects. So you're either you're arguing for epiphenomenalism (which you're not), or you're simply mistaken.

    ReplyDelete
  25. His arguments for a dualistic approach to thought is debunked in http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-materialist_neuroscience check it out

    ReplyDelete