In the final part of his discussion with Pat Flynn, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor gave reasons why he believes the power of materialism in science is waning:
So I think that atheism and materialism, which kind of go together, are not the ultimate way of looking at the world. Some people have called it that, and I think that’s kind of true, bookless. And what they mean by “bookless” is that it’s such a boring, mind-numbing way of looking at life that you’ll never get anywhere. It’s like there’s never going to be anyone writing profound books, like the works of Aristotle or Thomas Aquinas or Bonaventure, all these wonderful people who wrote these fantastic things. That’s never going to happen in materialism.
He’s right. In neuroscience, the best-selling materialist works are usually grim tomes like that of primatologist Robert Sapolsky. Determined: A science of life without free will (Penguin 2023). In the realm of “public intellectuals,” it might be Yuval Noah Harari’s rants about the problem of “useless people.” In cosmology, we are asked to accept the existence of an arbitrarily large number of universes, just to avoid the obvious conclusion that our universe seems to be tuned for life. And so on.
In short, there are no great new ideas, but a great many daunting, discouraging, malicious and insidious little ideas.
But there are two trends to keep an eye on and the difference they will make:
● As we’ve discussed here many times, watch for the rise of panpsychism in science – the belief that all life forms have consciousness – or perhaps that everything has consciousness, as in “consciousness permeates the universe.” Panpsychist ideas are increasingly being discussed in scientific journals, whether it’s the thesis that cellular cognition drives evolution or that goldenrod plants are intelligent.
The good news is that the materialistic attempt to pretend that the mind or consciousness somehow doesn’t exist may be slowly dying out. On the other hand, we may have to get used to the politics of insect rights and rocks whose lives matter.
This is because many panpsychists resist any distinction between human and plant life. If this seems strange to you, remember that panpsychism, which has its origins in the sciences*, is a form of naturalism (nature is all there is). It contains consciousness in nature rather than excluding it—and therefore does not declare human consciousness to be an illusion, as a strict physicalist/eliminationist would. But a panpsychist may be just as uncomfortable with the idea that humans are exceptional as a physicalist.
● scientism, One aspect of materialism is the view that all valid knowledge comes from the sciences. This is wrong, but it has a good aspect: its adherents are not necessarily harsh boycotters and censors of things they do not consider to be right. her Area.
Today, our politicians seem to consider everything their territory. For a variety of reasons, we are therefore witnessing a huge increase in attempts to suppress unauthorized expression. This includes the revival of boycotts at universities, which are sure to spread to the sciences and the arts and stifle innovation. In addition, there is serious censorship of social media in the UK; in Canada, the idea of before the crime …and they’re just getting started! New AI technologies are making the job much easier. It’s not clear whether panpsychism can buck this trend, as the idea of freedom of the human mind may not be a major focus.
In short, the demise of eliminative materialism will bring about changes, but they will not necessarily be positive. We shall see.
*There are forms of panpsychism that have their origins in religion and are often very different from the kind that is gaining ground in the sciences. That is really the subject of another discussion; here is an article that presents such views.
Here are excerpts from the transcript with notes:
Is materialism slowly losing its stranglehold on science? If so, neuroscientific discoveries will play a key role, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor tells podcaster Pat Flynn in a recent podcast interview. Materialism is a totalitarian claim. If the human mind is not simply the physical processes of the brain without residue, then materialism is refuted.
What brain surgery for epilepsy has taught us about the human mind. Michael Egnor continues his discussion with Pat Flynn, noting that neither seizures nor Penfield’s brain stimulation induced abstract thought. To claim that one day, with no exact date, we will find a materialistic explanation means that we never expect that we will not.
What did splitting human brains in half tell us about the mind? How could subjects with split brains compare things when no part of their brain saw both things? As Michael Egnor explained to Pat Flynn, research of this kind—in which split brains lead to unified perceptions—is an unacknowledged problem for materialism.
And
Michael Egnor: The Neuroscientific Evidence for Free Will. If you ask a hundred neuroscientists about Libet’s work, 95% will say he disproved free will, when in fact he did the exact opposite. Egnor talks about the demand for materialistic conformity: “If I were a basic scientist and my life depended on grants, I would be finished.”
