This is a fascinating presentation by Dr Michael Egnor – I don't fully embrace everything he says, but his presentation of the data certainly made me challenge certain assumptions.
Last edited:
Is the soul real? A Neurosurgeon explores the evidence
- Thread starter Thomas
- Start date
This is a fascinating presentation by Dr Michael Egnor – I don't fully embrace everything he says, but his presentation of the data certainly made me challenge certain assumptions.
Fascinating yes, intriguing yes, thought provoking yes. But my skeptical self was screaming is this just yet another aging atheist which is grasping at something later in life to feel comfortable about his mortality on this mortal coil, searching for some life extension albeit in the afterlife?
There were many dmall red flags (which will make many not fully embrace everything he says) and yet again when you have a scientist speak so eloquently to the lay person and fit an inclined paradigm...the credibility factor is an influence.
The jump for me was no discussion of the other hundreds of millions of nerves in the body that assist the brain, including the large ganglia that resides near our digestive tract and provides us that gut instinct that made my spider sense perk when he said the brain does not, has not evolved and then muttered, nothing evolves....
Then to find out he avoided saying that he works/shills for the Discovery Institute, a prominent organization that promotes Intelligent Design, a view that posits an intelligent cause for the complexity of life and the universe.
While he touts his credentials and education and seemingly avoided stating this prominently as it would have turned some of us off immediately.
There were many dmall red flags (which will make many not fully embrace everything he says) and yet again when you have a scientist speak so eloquently to the lay person and fit an inclined paradigm...the credibility factor is an influence.
The jump for me was no discussion of the other hundreds of millions of nerves in the body that assist the brain, including the large ganglia that resides near our digestive tract and provides us that gut instinct that made my spider sense perk when he said the brain does not, has not evolved and then muttered, nothing evolves....
Then to find out he avoided saying that he works/shills for the Discovery Institute, a prominent organization that promotes Intelligent Design, a view that posits an intelligent cause for the complexity of life and the universe.
While he touts his credentials and education and seemingly avoided stating this prominently as it would have turned some of us off immediately.
I found his number 8 discussion interesting...why did he pick us looking at the number 8? Me thinks because we all turn it sideways in our mind and contemplate infinity.
So much neural linguistic programming used in writing and delivering this sermon.
So much neural linguistic programming used in writing and delivering this sermon.
Not saying he is wrong or right on any of his points, just saying when he was previously atheist and today as a believer...his beliefs influence his conclusions, and the leaps he takes to get them, as does his association with the organization and the audience which he is presenting.
Appears he has definitely fallen out of favor with the bulk of the scientific community (as he rises in the theological one)
Appears he has definitely fallen out of favor with the bulk of the scientific community (as he rises in the theological one)
There are 9 numbers he did not select...and as soon as he said 8 before he said anything else..infinity came to mind...and when 8/infinity does not die came up. It cemented the concept...to me...in my Biased mind.
But as to the second part, I only have a nursery education on the topic and the research time needed to properly answer and elucidate my knee jerk conclusion I do not have...in 2025 I asked ai to do it for me...as follows (in ten seconds mind you)
When analyzing Dr. Michael Egnor's speeches and videos on the brain and the soul, particularly from the perspective of his arguments for Intelligent Design and an immaterial soul, we can observe several rhetorical patterns and persuasive techniques that align with elements often found in public speaking and communication, including some that could be considered part of a broad understanding of "NLP" (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) in the sense of influencing and framing.
Here's what you might observe:
1. Framing and Reframing:
Reframing "Materialism": He consistently reframes the mainstream scientific view of the mind as purely a product of the brain as "materialism" or "physicalism," often presenting it as a limited or insufficient explanation. This sets up his own view as a more complete or intellectually satisfying alternative.
Highlighting "Anomalies": He frequently presents medical cases (e.g., patients with significant brain damage who retain high cognitive function, split-brain patients) as "anomalies" that challenge the materialist paradigm. This creates a sense of paradox that his non-materialist explanation can resolve.
Defining Terms: He often takes time to define key terms like "soul" (often drawing from Thomistic philosophy) in a way that aligns with his argument, distinguishing it from popular, often "ghostly," misconceptions.
2. Use of Storytelling and Personal Anecdotes:
Case Studies: His background as a neurosurgeon provides him with a rich source of personal stories and clinical case studies. These are highly impactful and relatable, adding a strong emotional and experiential component to his arguments. For example, he often describes patients with half a brain who are still intelligent, or those in persistent vegetative states who show signs of awareness.
Personal Journey/Doubt: He sometimes shares his own journey of doubt regarding materialism as a neurosurgeon, which can create a sense of credibility and relatability with the audience.
3. Appeals to Authority and Logic:
Scientific Authority (His Own): As a neurosurgeon, he implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) leverages his professional authority to lend weight to his claims, suggesting that his clinical experience offers unique insights.
Philosophical Authority: He frequently references historical philosophers like Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, appealing to a long tradition of thought that supports his view of the soul and mind. This suggests that his ideas are not new or fringe but rooted in established intellectual history.
Logical Deductions: He often presents his arguments as logical deductions from the observed evidence. For example, if abstract thought and free will are not reducible to material processes, then there must be an immaterial aspect to the mind.
4. Repetition and Emphasis:
Key Phrases/Concepts: He tends to repeat core ideas, such as the distinction between material and immaterial aspects of reality, or the limitations of a purely materialist explanation for consciousness. Repetition helps to embed these concepts in the listener's mind.
Emphatic Language: He uses strong, declarative statements to express his convictions, which can convey confidence and conviction.
5. Addressing Counterarguments (and sometimes dismissing them):
He often anticipates and addresses common counterarguments to his positions, attempting to dismantle them within his narrative. While he does this, the framing often positions the counterarguments as flawed or insufficient rather than engaging in a nuanced debate.
In summary, while he likely isn't consciously applying "NLP techniques" in the way a trained practitioner might, his speeches exhibit common persuasive communication strategies:
Clarity and Simplicity: He breaks down complex philosophical and scientific ideas into more digestible concepts.
Emotional Connection: His use of patient stories creates an emotional impact.
Credibility: His professional background and references to respected philosophical traditions enhance his perceived authority.
Logical Flow: He attempts to build a coherent argument based on his observations and philosophical framework.
These elements are fundamental to effective persuasion and communication, which are at the heart of what NLP broadly attempts to understand and systematize in human interaction. His goal is clearly to persuade the audience of the existence of an immaterial soul, and his communication style supports that objective.
His presentation (and interpretation) of the data ....yup.
So what did you agree with and what particularly could you not fully embrace?
Me thinks he was trying to appear to validate his choir with his interpretation of what they are likely to percieve as science.
Snap! But I came at it from the other direction!
Again it's a case of evidence and conclusions – as you say, fascinating, intriguing and thought-provoking, I wonder why, if those born missing significant brain matter, can function reasonably because the brain just takes over doing the stuff the missing brain stuff was supposed to do, why does that not happen in cases of brain damage – stroke recovery, for example?
The report on Dr Adrian Owen's research into persistent vegetative state cognition was, in a very real sense, horrifying.
A good point there, as even physicalists say mind is seated in the brain (head), whereas I do wonder about the other ganglia bundles around the body ... the heart has its own, too, and very clever it is ... but it seems to be system-oriented, rather than associated with mind/consciousness?
Interestingly, ancient cultures speak of the gut rather than the head as being the seat of, or associated with, the will, and so on ...
Yep, that's a red flag right there ...
Gotcha.
I suppose I was looking at the evidence, rather than on how he reads it ...
My own very limited position on this issue is in favour of panpsychism.
According to the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy:
"Panpsychism is the view that mentality is fundamental and ubiquitous in the natural world... For its proponents panpsychism offers an attractive middle way between physicalism on the one hand and dualism on the other. The worry with dualism—the view that mind and matter are fundamentally different kinds of thing—is that it leaves us with a radically disunified picture of nature, and the deep difficulty of understanding how mind and brain interact. And whilst physicalism offers a simple and unified vision of the world, this is arguably at the cost of being unable to give a satisfactory account of the emergence of human and animal consciousness. Panpsychism, strange as it may sound on first hearing, promises a satisfying account of the human mind within a unified conception of nature."
It appears Dr Egnor is a dualist ...
Another view that piqued my interest was part of a thesis of Dr Peter Fenwick, neuropsychiatrist, that the brain does not 'create' consciousness, but 'filters' it. He argues analogies of the eye which perceives only a segment of the electromagnetic spectrum; the ear only a narrow range of sonic frequencies (and decreasing, in my experience). According to Fenwick, the brain filters and perceives only a tiny part of the cosmos' intrinsic "consciousness."
An answer to the Buddhist saw, "when a tree falls unseen in the forest, does it make a noise" is no. It produces waves in the atmosphere as it falls, but 'sound' is specific to creatures who have ears. It's the result of those waves on the eardrum, the sound is the product of that, not the wave itself ...
+++
Now I don't buy Fenwick's entire thesis – he argues strongly for NDEs and the like – and I don't fully understand the ramifications of panpsychism – the various theories listed on the Stanford page linked to above. Rather, it's just ideas that catch, that's all.
The idea that we filter consciousness I've held for a long time. Why is it that when she and I walk down the street, I clock the approach of some V8 engine long before she does? Cos she's not a petrolhead. That kind of thing. Why do I not notice things she does? The answer is obvious, but the ramifications of that.
"According to Fenwick, our consciousness tricks us into perceiving a false duality of self and other when in fact there is only unity. We are not separate from other aspects of the universe but an integral and inextricable part of them. And when we die, we transcend the human experience of consciousness, and its illusion of duality, and merge with the universe's entire and unified property of consciousness. So, ironically, only in death can we be fully conscious."
I can get that ...
Fenwick is not arguing God. The 'consciousness' that Fenwick describes is not the creator of the cosmos but simply a property of it.
According to the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy:
"Panpsychism is the view that mentality is fundamental and ubiquitous in the natural world... For its proponents panpsychism offers an attractive middle way between physicalism on the one hand and dualism on the other. The worry with dualism—the view that mind and matter are fundamentally different kinds of thing—is that it leaves us with a radically disunified picture of nature, and the deep difficulty of understanding how mind and brain interact. And whilst physicalism offers a simple and unified vision of the world, this is arguably at the cost of being unable to give a satisfactory account of the emergence of human and animal consciousness. Panpsychism, strange as it may sound on first hearing, promises a satisfying account of the human mind within a unified conception of nature."
It appears Dr Egnor is a dualist ...
Another view that piqued my interest was part of a thesis of Dr Peter Fenwick, neuropsychiatrist, that the brain does not 'create' consciousness, but 'filters' it. He argues analogies of the eye which perceives only a segment of the electromagnetic spectrum; the ear only a narrow range of sonic frequencies (and decreasing, in my experience). According to Fenwick, the brain filters and perceives only a tiny part of the cosmos' intrinsic "consciousness."
An answer to the Buddhist saw, "when a tree falls unseen in the forest, does it make a noise" is no. It produces waves in the atmosphere as it falls, but 'sound' is specific to creatures who have ears. It's the result of those waves on the eardrum, the sound is the product of that, not the wave itself ...
+++
Now I don't buy Fenwick's entire thesis – he argues strongly for NDEs and the like – and I don't fully understand the ramifications of panpsychism – the various theories listed on the Stanford page linked to above. Rather, it's just ideas that catch, that's all.
The idea that we filter consciousness I've held for a long time. Why is it that when she and I walk down the street, I clock the approach of some V8 engine long before she does? Cos she's not a petrolhead. That kind of thing. Why do I not notice things she does? The answer is obvious, but the ramifications of that.
"According to Fenwick, our consciousness tricks us into perceiving a false duality of self and other when in fact there is only unity. We are not separate from other aspects of the universe but an integral and inextricable part of them. And when we die, we transcend the human experience of consciousness, and its illusion of duality, and merge with the universe's entire and unified property of consciousness. So, ironically, only in death can we be fully conscious."
I can get that ...
Fenwick is not arguing God. The 'consciousness' that Fenwick describes is not the creator of the cosmos but simply a property of it.
Yes, possibly, but I am sure we can all remember being patronized for our youthful opinions at some point. Age can certainly play a role, but in debate it is a two-way street.
But that can be true for atheists too.
It looks to me that if you work in a scientific field and have a religion you either have to be one hell of a juggler or pretend one half of your beliefs don't exist.
- Messages
- 2,771
- Reaction score
- 1,450
- Points
- 108
I have long thought that some people manage to reconcile their beliefs in some fashion. I was always interested in that.
- Messages
- 2,771
- Reaction score
- 1,450
- Points
- 108
I notice he zipped right past Phineas Gage, and minimized how radically Mr. Gage's personality and behavior was said by his community to have changed - "Gage was no longer Gage" is the oft-repeated quote.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/phineasgage1-bca69df0b020421eb41a8e748ab172bd.jpg)
www.verywellmind.com
Though this source claims "Everything you know about Phineas Gage is wrong"
www.sciencehistory.org
The Famous Case of Phineas Gage's Astonishing Brain Injury
Phineas Gage suffered a terrible accident that made him one of the most famous cases of traumatic brain injury. Learn Gage's story and its impact on psychology.
Everything You Know About Phineas Gage Is Wrong
What can a foreman's devastating skull injury teach us about the brain's ability to heal?
www.sciencehistory.org
powessy
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 443
- Reaction score
- 206
- Points
- 43
I am a soul experiencing this world through this person I am. I hold memories prior to this life time and I remember the process of becoming myself here through my mothers womb to become myself only. I remember in my youth drinking alcohol and being able to separate myself from my drunken body this often kept me from tossing my cookies. I have experienced thousands of obes that could also be defined as ndes because of their similarities.
I have never seen a god or angels but I do see minds and they are not who we are, they can be whatever or whoever you want them to be but they are not us. I keep trying to explain the difference between us and minds, When you die you will enter into yourself to figure yourself out until there is no time and there is nothing becoming you(your cells). This means that we are not the cells that make us but a soul, once this happens then you can become yourself again and again but you cannot become yourself (first). This is the reason for the minds they allow us to become ourselves first and not just inside of ourselves.
I find it very interesting that people believe in this stuff so fully and blindly, if minds were not teaching me this stuff I would just stop asking questions and not really care at all.
powessy
I have never seen a god or angels but I do see minds and they are not who we are, they can be whatever or whoever you want them to be but they are not us. I keep trying to explain the difference between us and minds, When you die you will enter into yourself to figure yourself out until there is no time and there is nothing becoming you(your cells). This means that we are not the cells that make us but a soul, once this happens then you can become yourself again and again but you cannot become yourself (first). This is the reason for the minds they allow us to become ourselves first and not just inside of ourselves.
I find it very interesting that people believe in this stuff so fully and blindly, if minds were not teaching me this stuff I would just stop asking questions and not really care at all.
powessy
- Messages
- 2,771
- Reaction score
- 1,450
- Points
- 108
This sounds like something my mom would have said.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
faithforall
Member
- Messages
- 8
- Reaction score
- 16
- Points
- 3
Hey wil, I really appreciate you diving into Dr. Egnor’s approach like this—it’s a great breakdown of how he communicates such a complex topic. Your points about his storytelling and use of authority hit home, especially since they show how he connects with people on both an emotional and intellectual level. I’d add that his approach reminds me of how Jesus often used parables to make deep truths accessible. By sharing patient stories, Egnor’s not just arguing for the soul; he’s inviting us to see God’s mystery in the lives of real people. His emphasis on cases like split-brain patients or those with unexpected awareness feels like a modern echo of biblical calls to look beyond the surface—like in 1 Samuel 16:7, where God looks at the heart, not the outward appearance. It challenges us to think about what makes us truly human, beyond just the physical. Thanks for sparking this discussion—it’s got me reflecting on how faith and science can point to the same truth!
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
What you or Egnor say does not appeal to atheists at all. I have no mystery in my life. Every thing is crystal clear.
Wasn't me...was ai