sam weissman is another major character in this book who early in the story expressed skepticism about the concept of making a conscious machine. He felt it absurd to do so since “it’s a machine, albeit a really complex one; but in the end, it’s just a machine that executes code written by humans. . . . was it really necessary to define consciousness in order to recreate it? . . . . the consensus of the best and brightest minds in the field . . . was that consciousness is, like in the human brain, a derived attribute of the machine and its software. it’s an emergent property of its processing. in other words, if its designers were successful in mimicking enough of the neural activity of the human brain in their hardware and software, then that would be sufficient for consciousness to arise spontaneously.”

so we see how materialist reductionism had to be confronted by the building and encoding of rodin! we will address the role of autonomy in the next blog post.

carl redmond is a main character in this novel, the inventor of rodin, the computer equipped with artificial intelligence. “his vision of the future where the intellect of machines would at first eclipse, and then easily surpass, that of humans was one of unimaginable possibilities. it was a world where hunger, disease, poverty, and even death would be virtually eradicated. carl truly believed there would be no problem his system could not solve, and no dream, human or otherwise, that couldn’t be realized. . . . carl envisioned that within his lifetime, our biological bodies would be completely replaced with cybernetic parts that could last almost forever. . . . his adherence to the strict precepts of materialism convinced him consciousness was something that could be artificially reproduced inside a computer. he considered it to be either purely an illusion our brains labor under or an immaterial manifestation of the electro-neural activities.”

cregg describes the precepts of materialism very well, precepts that are yet prevalent within neuroscience and neuropsychology. as we proceed we shall learn the deficiency of rodin, the machine, described by the author.

I highly recommend this book to anyone who has experience with AI computers. it is a book which, in the final analysis, its author identifies what a computer cannot do employing artificial intelligence.

on p. 30 one of the main characters, Laura, states, “and all this - this, artificial intelligence nonsense. i don’t know how he let steve convince him he could somehow copy his soul into a computer!”

in my books and blogs i have defined with documentation the soul as having attributes of mind, will and emotion, and also conscience. Materialists maintain that the human mind is an emergent property that reduces to the material brain, and nothing else. the book’s characters designed a computer named rodin, programming it so it would think like a human - be creative, autonomous, introspective and have self-awareness. in excerpts to come i shall elaborate on how the author addresses this point, acknowledging the role of intelligent design in the formulation of the human soul.

over the next several days i shall be posting blogs that address what the author of a stimulating book shares about what artificial intelligence cannot do. one of my last blogs considered what the brain cannot do, and the theme of this book aligns with that blog.

the book, an emergent truth, Texas sisters press, 2022 is authored by jeffery c. cregg. though a fictional story it is written by a retired software developer and follower of the intelligent design movement, as am i. cregg’s theme is consistent with the concept of dualist interaction that i have studied for almost 25 years, discussed in my two books and blog posts. can an artificial intelligence computer express will, creativity and self consciousness, attributes of the mind of man created in the image of the mind of god? stand by and see how cregg addresses this issue in his work. i thank him for permission to cite excerpts from his book.

In my two books and many blog posts i have shared what i trust is compelling evidence acquired over a span of more than 20 years of my research for dualist interaction between the immaterial mind of man (and of god) and the material components of the human brain, the neural synaptic networks. i am sharing an article composed by Dr. Michael Egnor that was featured in “mind matters.” i have chosen to post the entire article which provides strong confirmation of dualist interaction by Dr. Egnor, a neurosurgeon, who cites the pioneering findings of another neurosurgeon, Dr. Wilder Penfield. the article provides support for my findings:

“What, Exactly, Does Your Brain Do? What Can’t It Do?”

A surprising result of pioneering neurosurgery was the discovery that some mental processes could be stimulated in the brain but others could not be

Michael Egnor

Mind Matters December 16, 2024

Your organs have jobs to do. Your heart pumps blood. Your lungs exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide. Your kidneys make urine. Your skin keeps you inside and your environment outside.

So what does your brain do? We naturally answer: “It makes me think, use my mind, stuff like that.” But that’s not exactly true. The brain does have a job, of course, but it’s a more limited job than producing all that is in our mind. Neuroscience tells a very different story about what the brain does. And it’s a fascinating one.

Brain surgery while the patient is awake

Neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield (1891‒1976), who pioneered epilepsy surgery at the Montreal Neurological Institute in the mid-20th century, asked this very question: What does the brain do? He explored the question during eleven hundred “awake” brain operations over four decades. He needed patients to be awake so that he could communicate with them, to be sure that he was not damaging vital tissue while removing the tissue that was prone to epileptic seizures.

Penfield could do brain surgery while a patient is awake because the brain has no pain sensors. A local anesthetic (similar to the novocaine used in dentists’ offices) ensures that there is no pain in the scalp either during the surgery. Neurosurgeons still do this type of surgery today.

While epilepsy patients were awake and their responses to brain stimulation could be observed, he mapped their brains using electrical probes to find and remove seizure foci but also to determine which parts of the patients’ brains did what. He could answer questions like “What part of the brain makes us move our muscles?”, “What part of the brain enables us to see?” and “What part of the brain enables us to have memories and emotions?”

What fascinated Penfield is not so much what he found—i.e., which parts of the brain caused movement, perception, memory and emotions—but what he didn’t find.

What Penfield could not find in the brain

Penfield could find no part of the brain that, when stimulated, caused patients to think abstractly—to reason, think logically, do mathematics or philosophy or exercise free will.

He noticed the same thing about epileptic seizures as about stimulation during surgery. Patients who were having seizures did all sorts of things—they jerked their muscles, they saw flashes of light or had unusual sensations on their skin. They even occasionally had specific memories and emotions. Then they fell unconscious.

But patients never had intellectual seizures. That is, they never had seizures that caused them to reason, think logically, or do mathematics or philosophy. There are no “calculus seizures” that cause them to uncontrollably take first derivatives. There are no philosophical seizures that cause them to uncontrollably contemplate Plato’s Republic.

Penfield asked the obvious question: why did brain stimulation only cause certain mental operations, like movement, perception, memory and emotion to happen, but not other ones, like abstract thought and free will? As Denyse O’Leary and I discuss in The Immortal Mind (Worthy June 3, 2025), he eventually came to the obvious conclusion: he couldn’t evoke abstract thought or free will by stimulating the brain because abstract thought and free will don’t come from the brain.

Penfield started out as a materialist, like most scientists do, but, as he learned more about the mind and the brain he became a dualist. He concluded in his book Mystery of the Mind (1975) that the mind is something separate from the brain, and that there are aspects of the mind that don’t come from the brain but are spiritual in nature. As he put it, “The mind must be viewed as a basic element in itself . . . That is to say, it has a continuing existence.” (p. xxi.)

Many other neuroscientists have followed in Penfield’s footsteps and their research points to the very same conclusion. That said, within the neuroscience community materialism reigns so it is unfashionable (and dangerous to a scientists’ career) to admit the truth about dualism. Neuroscience shows us that the brain is an organ, like the heart or the liver, that has specific jobs to do. The brain orchestrates our bodily processes (sometimes called vegetative functions)—our heart rate, our blood pressure, our hormone levels and so on. The brain is the source of our ability to move, to perceive, to remember and to have emotions. 

But the brain is not the source of our intellect or our free will

Neuroscience shows that intellect and free will are spiritual powers of the human soul. Our spiritual powers depend on the brain and body for our normal functioning—e.g., we can’t reason well after being hit on the head with a baseball bat and we don’t always exercise our free will wisely when we’ve had too much alcohol. The brain, that is, is necessary and sufficient for our embodied powers—vegetative, locomotor, perceptual, mnemonic, and emotional—and the brain is necessary but not sufficient for the normal exercise of our intellect and our free will.

The human soul is an embodied spirit, a composite of bodily and spiritual powers. We are created by God with some abilities that are physical and some abilities that are not strictly physical—i.e., that are spiritual, created in His Image. This insight is actually quite ancient. It was an insight of many great classical philosophers and theologians, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, and countless others. What is remarkable in our day is that this profound and true understanding of the human soul—our spiritual soul—is now being confirmed by modern neuroscience.

in my writings i have endeavored to highlight the love of god for the crown of his creation, mankind, who was created in his image, including our mind. god created our capacity to commune with him, both by prayer and by receiving communion via our neural synaptic networks in multiple ways. it has always been the plan of god for man to be in a personal, intimate communion with him, made possible by his holy spirit and the sin sacrifice of jesus, who lives.

today i received an e-mail from one of my best friends, in which was a scripture from the book of psalms I want to share. it applies to the objective of my writings, derived from well over 20 years of research into the means by which the holy spirit communes with us.

Psalm 33:8
Father, you inspire me. My being is filled to overflowing with declarations of praise. Melodies flow unceasingly from my lips. With words of life, you breathe clarity into the most obscure places, and I’m reminded over and over again how majestic you are.
You breathe light into the galaxies with stars too vast to number and illuminate my body with your Spirit. The same hands that are big enough to measure the oceans are careful enough to cradle me with love. You began the earth with words of promise and each one will come to pass.
You’re forever faithful, unfailing in love; the Master Creator who gazes upon all he has made and declares it good. Yet nothing holds your heart the way we do. Even our weakest worship captures your attention. I feel you gazing at me from heaven, overshadowing me with the radiance of your presence and smiling at me with kindness and compassion. Never stop, Lord, for I am awestruck by your love.

I am referring the reader to a highly technical article entitled “Common neural choice signals emerge artifactually amidst multiple distinct value signals,” authored by R. Fromer et al, October 2022. In their significance statement the authors state that “these findings call for a significant reexamination of established links between neural and computational mechanisms of choice, while inviting deeper consideration of the array of cognitive and affective processes that occur in parallel.” they go on to conclude their article with the comment, “our work shows that evidence of accumulation is not sufficient to argue for an evidence accumulation account, and that to better understand the array of signals that appear over the course of a decision, we need to incorporate insights from affective science, metacognition and cognitive control [Italics added].”

i suggest that neuroscientists are acknowledging that there is more to cognition than what is considered by the perspective of materialist reductionism that maintains that the mind is the brain. i refer you to my last blog post that deals with metacognition.

I am referring IN THIS WRITING to a blog dated july 30, 2015, by arthur l. costa, professor emeritus, california state university, sacramento. it is entitled “metacognition: what makes humans unique?” recall that i have endeavored to provide A compelling ACCUMULATION OF evidence FOR bidirectional, dual interaction between the immaterial mind and the material components of the neural synaptic networks of the brain in my writings. this perspective is in contrast to that of materialist reductionism that posits that the brain is the mind. I will post several excerpts from this blog by costa and suggest that it is not possible to reduce metacognition solely to the physiological activities of the brain’s synaptic networks. I AM ADDING A FEW COMMENTS IN BRACKETS FROM MY OWN WORK.

“if you caUGHT YOURSELF HAVING AN ‘INNER’DIALOGUE INSIDE YOUR BRAIN, AND IF YOU HAD TO STOP TO EVALUATE YOUR OWN DECISION MAKING/PROBLEM-SOLVING PROCESSES, YOU WERE EXPERIENCING METACOGNITION. . . . HOMO SAPIENS, SAPIENS, [IS] A BEING THAT KNOWS THEIR KNOWING (OR MAYBE IT IS ‘KNOWS THEY ARE KNOWING’) . . . . METACOGNITION - THE ABILITY TO BE A SPECTATOR OF OWN THOUGHTS WHILE WE ENGAGE IN THEM. . . . OCCURRING IN THE NEOCORTEX AND THEREFORE THOUGHT BY SOME NEUROLOGISTS TO BE UNIQUELY HUMAN, METACOGNITION IS OUR ABILITY TO KNOW WHAT WE KNOW [ARCHIVED IN MEMORY] AND WHAT WE DON’T KNOW. IT IS OUR ABILITY TO PLAN A STRATEGY FOR PRODUCING [BY THE IMMATERIAL MIND] WHAT INFORMATION [THE SOURCE BEING ONLY A/THE MIND] IS NEEDED, TO BE CONSCIOUS OF OUR OWN STEPS AND STRATEGIES DURING THE ACT OF PROBLEM SOLVING, AND TO REFLECT ON AND EVALUATE THE PRODUCTIVENESS OF OUR OWN THINKING.”

THE AUTHOR STATES THAT PEOPLE WITH WELL-DEVELOPED METACOGNITIVE ABILITIES ARE “THOSE WHO ‘MANAGE’ THEIR INTELLECTUAL RESOURCES WELL: 1) THEIR BASIC PERCEPTUAL-MOTOR SKILLS; 2) THEIR LANGUAGE, BELIEFS, KNOWLEDGE OF CONTENT, AND MEMORY PROCESSES; AND 3) THEIR PURPOSEFUL AND VOLUNTARY STRATEGIES INTENDED TO ACHIEVE A DESIRED OUTCOME; 4) SELF-KNOWLEDGE ABOUT ONE’S OWN LEARNING STYLES AND HOW TO ALLOCATE RESOURCES ACCORDINGLY.”

COGNITION: THE MENTAL ACTION OR PROCESS OF ACQUIRING KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING THROUGH THOUGHT, EXPERIENCE, AND THE SENSES. (wIKIPEDIA)

I refer you to an article by joni d. Wallis entitled “Decoding Cognitive processes from neural ensembles.” it appeared in trends in cognitive science, 2018, dec; 22(12): 1091-1102. i am identifying this work since it shows how neuroscientists are endeavoring to decode cognitive processes, called “unobservable states that exist in between observable responses to the sensory environment. cognitive states must be inferred from indirect behavioral measures.” the author does not reduce cognition soley to the activities of the physical brain; hence my interest in this work.

the author identifies a central tenet of neuroscience, that neurons represent information as codes. tHEY ARE instantiated within action potentials at various frequencies, amplitudes, phases and shapes, discussed at length in my writings. it is stated that “the experimenter has little control over the cognitive process. . . [the approach is] to record the activity of many single neurons simultaneously and then project the pattern of neural ACTIVITY INTO A HIGH DIMENSIONAL SPACE THAT CAN BE USED TO CLASSIFY THE INFORMATION REPRESENTED BY THE NEURONS.”

NEUROSCIENTISTS ARE WORKING TO APPLY “DECODING ANALYSES TO UNCOVER OTHERWISE UNOBSERVABLE STates. . . . it has been possible to decode speech from neural activity in the superior temporal cortex evoked by speech,” but immaterial, unobservable cognition, such as choice, cannot be directly interpreted from codes within neural activity. but neuroscientists are getting close!

the author states “that hippocampal neural activity may provide an insight into the decision-making process. the experimenters [cited by the author] used decoders trained on established ground truths (hippocampal place fields during actual navigation) to measure hidden cognitive states (navigational decisions). however, they lack a critical piece of the decision: what makes one option preferable to another?” the selection of an option is a cognitive act of an immaterial mind. the author goes on to state the following, “unlike sensory stimuli, value judgments are frequently hidden states [of a mind] that must be inferred. . . . because value is a hidden state and inherently subjective, studying the mechanisms underpinning value-based decision-making is particularly difficult. decoding provides a potential solution. . . . what is noticeably absent from the above discussion is how the choice is implemented. . . . one of the posited reasons that we have working memory is so that we are not ‘stimulus-bound’: we can think about things we are not necessarily looking at.” the author asks “how do we access the contents of working memory, which is an unobservable, covert process?”

i highly value this article. it strongly suggests the reality of the immateriality of the human mind (the “unobservable”) that causally interacts with the material components of the synaptic networks of the brain.

the author makes the following statement toward the end of the article: “decoding enables neuroscientists to measure cognitive processes as they unfold. however, there are some caveats to keep in mind in interpreting the results of a decoding analysis. most importantly, just because we can decode information from the activity of a neural ensemble, this does not mean that individual neurons are encoding that information.”

I trust that i have been able to provide compelling evidence that the immaterial mind is the source of the power, perhaps as wave forms, to instantiate specified information into neural codes.

in my blogs and books i have endeavored to provide compelling evidence for what is called interactive dualism. This is a concept that refers to a personal interaction between the immaterial mind of god and His holy spirit, sent as promised by the living jesus christ, and the immaterial mind of man, working in large part through the material neural synaptic networks of the human brain. it is a bidirectional process. for those who have been following the content of my posts, i am sharing two scriptures that should now be understood as to reality. these are:

john 10:27 my sheep listen to my voice; i know them, and they follow me.

hebrews 10:16 this is the covenant i will make with them after that time, says the lord. i will put my laws in their hearts, and i will write them on their minds.

synaptic transmission involves the linguistic features of neural codes “written” within action potentials that are interpreted by the human immaterial mind and archived in memory. i address this process extensively in my posts and books.

it is my hope that we are seeing the harmony and concordance between what is being learned in the neurosciences and properly interpreted scripture.

thank you.