Picture
Pioneering research on the localization of brain functions by the eminent neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield (1891-1976) provides scientific evidence for the existence of a spirit.

Penfield was attempting to identify the origins of epileptic seizures by stimulating exposed regions of patients’ brains with an electrode. If the initial seizure location could be identified then he would consider removing tissue at the trigger site. By repeatedly stimulating brain regions in conscious patients and noting the effects, Penfield was able to construct a remarkably detailed map of localized functions in the brain. Equally impressive was what he did not find. In all his work on stimulating the human brain, Penfield could not locate the mind.

When Penfield carried out his investigations, patients would report all sorts of sensations, memories, and movements, but the electrode never activated the patients’ mind. He could not stimulate the brain and cause a patient to make a choice, to believe something, or to reason. This discovery led him to conclude that “it will always be quite impossible to explain the mind on the basis of neuronal activity in the brain.”

Penfield noted that throughout his research the mind was manifested in the patients’ reports of what his electrode caused them to do and feel. For example, when the electrode caused a hand to move, the patients did not say, “I wanted to move my hand;” they said, “I didn’t do that, you did.” He concluded that “The patient’s mind, which is considering the situation in such an aloof and critical manner, can only be something quite apart from the neuronal reflex action.”

When Penfield began his studies of the human brain, he had hoped to discover how the brain causes the mind. However, unable to find the physical correlates of the mind in the brain and at the same time ever aware of the presence of mind during his research, Penfield reached an unexpected conclusion. He determined that a human spirit must be the source of the mind. This conclusion brought him great joy. “What a thrill it [was],” he declared, “to discover that the scientist, too, can legitimately believe in the existence of the spirit!”

(Source: an excerpt taken from Truth and Science: An LDS Perspective)
 


Comments

Arthur H.

Wed, 17 Mar 2010 1:24:48 pm

Interesting and oft-referenced findings. Unfortunately, science as an institution simply cannot appeal to immaterial or supernatural entities as explanations, even if those things exist. It is simply outside the scope of science.

That having been said, science has been kind of a let-down when it comes to explaining consciousness. Qualia, just like the causes of wave-function collapse, are still completely inaccessible to the scientific method, and I imagine they will be forever.

 

S.Faux

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:55:43 am

Dave C:

I don't know if Penfield's findings constitute evidence for spirit, but they are indeed fascinating. There are a variety of brain syndromes where the sense of "will" or "volition" seem to be broken -- for example, akinetic mutism, which often results from damage to anterior cingulate gyrus.

Schizophrenic patients often complain of "thought insertions," thoughts over which they have no control. I wonder how this might relate to Penfield.

I do seriously wonder whether we LDS need to come up with a more sophisticated notion of agency that adapts well to scientific evidence. I am a huge fan of 2 Nephi 2, which I think is the philosophical core of the Book of Mormon, but I also think our notion of agency can be made more flexible with modern scientific findings.

OK, deep down I am deterministic, but I also think we know VERY little about behavior, let alone volition.

Just some thoughts. Also, check out my essay on biocentrism that I just posted. I know you have some interests in quantum mechanics.

 

Jacob J

Sat, 20 Mar 2010 9:51:17 pm

This is an <em>absence</em> of scientific evidence you are referring to. Just because a scientist decided to fill in the gaps of our knowledge with his belief in a human spirit, that does not mean he did so based on science or evidence.

 

Dave C.

Sat, 20 Mar 2010 11:57:59 pm

Thanks Arthur and S.Faux. I will take a look at any quantum mechanics post, S.Faux.

Jacob,
Hmm. Let's see. Absence of evidence does not prove a thing, but it still comprises evidence nonetheless, whether you accept it as evidence or not. If I search the world for a black swan and all I find are white swans, that is pretty good evidence for all swans are white, until I find a black one.

"Just because a scientist decided to fill in the gaps of our knowledge with his belief in a human spirit, that does not mean he did so based on science or evidence."
- In the full account, Penfield points out that he did not believe in a spirit nor did he set out to prove the existence of a spirit when he set out to identify localization of functions in epileptic brains.

 

S.Faux

Sun, 21 Mar 2010 5:02:50 am

Dave C:

Concerning your white swan analogy, the "new atheists" make a similar argument about the absence of God. They search for God and do not find Him.

Even so, mystery is not disproof. This is why we do research. We must assume right off the bat that we do not know much, and therefore our searches and researches will bring new light.

Thanks for your thoughts, as always.

 

S.Faux,

Sun, 21 Mar 2010 8:10:31 pm

 

Jacob J

Mon, 22 Mar 2010 3:29:59 pm

Dave C,

In addition to S.Faux's point (which I agree with) your swan analogy is not a good fit. In the swan analogy, you look everywhere and after finding only white swans you count this as evidence against the existence of black swans. So your conclusions (tentative as they must be) are in line with evidence you have so far: you found white swans so you believe in them, you haven't found back swans so you conclude they don't exist. Notice, the non-evidence of black swans suggests the non-existence of swans.

In your post, Penfield does something quite different than that. He is taking the _non-evidence_ of a-specific spot-in-the-brain-that-controls-choices/beliefs/reason and extrapolating from this lack of evidence the _existence_ of a spirit. That logic is fundamentally more broken than the swan logic.

"In the full account, Penfield points out that he did not believe in a spirit"

And yet, your last two sentences in the post say that his conclusion gave him great joy and a thill. He is obviously eexcited and anxious to believe in a human spirit, according to his own words.

 

Dave C.

Mon, 22 Mar 2010 3:39:40 pm

Jacob,

"you found white swans so you believe in them, you haven't found back swans so you conclude they don't exist."

- No, I only said that the ongoing inability to locate black swans is evidence for their nonexistence. This post is about evidence, not proof.

" Penfield does something quite different than [the swan analogy]."

-Ageed, but since the swan analogy focused on absence of evidence I felt it was relevant.

"He is taking the _non-evidence_ of a-specific spot-in-the-brain-that-controls-choices/beliefs/reason and extrapolating from this lack of evidence the _existence_ of a spirit. That logic is fundamentally more broken than the swan logic."

- I am not sure what your motives are here. I only argued his inability to find consciousness in the physical brain as evidence, albeit weak, for the existence of a human spirit. It is evidence nonetheless.

"And yet, your last two sentences in the post say that his conclusion gave him great joy and a thill. He is obviously eexcited and anxious to believe in a human spirit, according to his own words."

-Agreed.

 

Dchyde

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:24:36 am



The data does not suggest the existence of the spirit anymore than it suggests the existence of aliens that control our minds from outer space. Both of these hypotheses are perfectly plausible and supported by the "evidence" as you call it. In reality, there is no evidence FOR either of these interpretations of a null result. Of course, the evidence does not contradict the interpretation, but it doesn't support it either.

More broadly, Penfield was wrong that the brain can not tell you anything about the mind. We have learned a substantial amount about the mind in the last 30 years thanks to modern Cognitive Science and Cognitive Neuroscience.

 

Comments are closed.
Google Analytics