Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Hey everyone, A quick heads up before we get to today's episode. This fall, Discovery Institute Academy will be offering both high school biology and high school chemistry for the coming school year. These high quality online courses are designed especially for homeschool students.
They cover the fundamentals of biology and chemistry and also introduce students to the powerful evidence of intelligent design in nature.
The courses include video lectures, readings, lab activities, assignments, and more. They're designed to make it easy to teach science to your kids. There are options with a live science teacher and an option that is completely self paced. Even if you don't have kids who can participate. Can you help us get the word out to those who do? For a limited time, parents who register their student can get $50 off tuition. These courses are a wonderful way to raise up the next generation of scientists. Scientists who understand that we and our universe are intelligently designed. For more information, visit DiscoveryInstitute Academy. That's DiscoveryInstitute Academy.
[00:01:08] Speaker B: ID the future, a.
[00:01:10] Speaker A: Podcast about evolution and intelligent design.
It's commonly held in neuroscience that the soul is a myth and that the mind is nothing more than the workings of the brain.
But the findings of science are challenging these assertions.
Today, I get to speak with Denise o' Leary about a new book she has co authored with Dr. Michael Agnor called the Immortal A Neurosurgeon's Case for the Existence of the Soul. Denise is a freelance journalist based in Victoria, Canada, specializing in faith and science issues. She is also co author with neuroscientist Mario Beauregard of the Spiritual Brain A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul. She received her degree in Honors English Language and Literature. She writes up A Storm over at Mind Matters AI which is published by the Discovery Institute's Bradley center and covers news and analysis at the intersection of artificial and natural intelligence. Denise, welcome to Idea the Future.
[00:02:12] Speaker B: Thank you. Glad to be here.
[00:02:15] Speaker A: Well, the Immortal Mind is out and I bet you've been looking forward to the release date for a while. So tell us how you got involved in this unique project.
[00:02:25] Speaker B: Well, I'd have to start two books ago, but I'll make it brief.
In 2005, I was given permission to do a poster session at the World Science Journalists Conference in Montreal on a book I had written called By Design or By Chance about the history of the universe and life, making the case that it's very reasonable to suppose that we live in a design universe and that life is designed.
This is not the most popular position among science writers, but they Let me do the poster session. Anyway, a prominent science writer flagged me down, and he said, you've got to help me.
There's this neuroscientist who wants me to do a book with him. He has an agent in New York, but it goes against everything I believe in.
So he described the book, and it sounded like the Spiritual Brain, A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul.
So I said to him, very well, get the agent to get in touch with me, and I'll get in touch with Mario. We'll meet in Ottawa, work it out, and we'll publish a book, which we did in 2007.
And that was that book.
About five years ago, I began to get. Two things happened.
It earned out its advance, meaning the publisher now has to send me money. But more important, a number of professors and other academics were sending me notices via a group called Academia Edu, saying they had read the book.
And after a while, there were a couple of hundred of these. I started saving them. At first, I just deleted them. I thought, nice for you. I hope you enjoyed it and all that. But then I realized, wait a minute, this is forming a pattern.
And I realized this was about 2020.
It's been years since anybody published a book like this. Well, Mike Agnor, the neurosurgeon, was one of the fine writers at Mind Matters News. I edited his work, and I thought, wait a minute, Mike could write an even better book, and he and I can do it together.
So we contacted an agent, and five years later, here we are.
[00:05:08] Speaker A: Okay, so by design or by chance, which led you to the Spiritual Brain, and then this book.
That's really cool that they're all connected. And I was going to ask you about that. You know, what led to this new book from the Spiritual Brain? Obviously, there's lots of connections there, but do you see it as sort of a continuing argument or a sequel, per se?
[00:05:34] Speaker B: Well, not a sequel so much as. Okay, we've seen it from a neuroscientist's perspective, but there's something missing from a neuroscientist's perspective. And Mike put his finger on it when he says, most people in neuroscience have never seen a living human brain.
Mike has done 7,000 operations, so you can be sure that a living human brain is an everyday experience for him.
And so he's right, of course. And I thought, well, now let's hear it from that perspective.
[00:06:07] Speaker A: That's a great point. Well, what was it like to work with Dr. Agnor on this Book. And how long did the project take?
[00:06:15] Speaker B: Well, altogether about five years, but only about two and a half to three years in the actual research and writing with a book. Much of it is producing draft after draft of the basic idea, right.
Until the agent is sure he can sell it and then the publisher wants changes, you know what I mean? So, yes, and it was inspiring to work with him because he's an excellent writer in his own right.
But of course, being a neurosurgeon and a professor of neurosurgery and responsible for teaching the residents in neurosurgery and also the director of a lab, it was much easier if I just did most of the day to day writing. And he went over everything carefully.
[00:07:10] Speaker A: Okay. And wow. So. So it was germinating for about five years, but a couple of those at least in the actual writing.
Now@mindmatters AI, you've written about some of the topics that are explored in the Immortal Mind. And of course you've edited pieces from Dr. Agnor. One of the pieces that you've written recently I found interesting was covering the findings of a recent multi year study that probes the origin of consciousness.
And this is touched on in the book, but you know, the results are just kind of coming out and being grasped. Now, how would you put the findings and what it shows about that part of the brain?
[00:07:52] Speaker B: Well, first off, the two major theories of the origin of human consciousness, Integrated information theory and global workspace theory, were tested against each other and neither of them eked out a win.
But one of the things they found was simply that the prefrontal cortex matters significantly less than scientists had thought it would. Which is quite interesting, as you say, because if you read popular literature on the subject, you'll be told that it's very, very important. Now that's one very big multi year study, multi center study.
Of course, in science everything depends on what comes next. So we don't know. But generally it points to the idea that it could be there is no consciousness center in the human brain. Or if there is, it could be something completely unexpected like the brainstem. But of course the brainstem is pretty basic, right?
By comparison. However, the truth is, after all these years, we don't know. Now, the same year that the preliminary findings for this big study were published, that was 23 a wager concluded a 25 year wager between philosopher of mind David Chalmers and prominent neuroscientist Christoph Koch. He's the sponsor of Integrated Information theory. Anyway, those two had a 25 year wager that began in 98 over a case of fine wine that by 23, a consciousness center would be found in the brain.
Well, it wasn't.
So Koch had to buy Chalmers a case of wine. But Chalmers took the matter as a good sport. He presented a bottle of the fine wine on stage to Koch and told him, basically, I'm not against research, I'm 100% for research, but I'm not sure you're going to find a spot in the human brain for consciousness. He's a dualist, by the way.
But the funny part of what happened was what happened later that was all very fine in June 2023. But then in September, something like 125 or more neuroscientists and philosophers of mind signed a cancel letter for Christoph Koch because they were concerned that his integrated information theory promoted panpsychism, the belief that everything is conscious to some extent and also it could interfere with pro abortion legislation.
You can see the connection. Of course, if all living things are conscious, then human embryos are conscious too, right?
So they were very worried about all this. Now, a number of other neuroscientists thought it was a blot on the discipline that they sent that letter. And to me, they sounded like the grade nine mean girls.
I mean, in the sense of, like, what were they trying to do? If they thought that his theory was a problem or wrong or something, why didn't they speak to him about it privately instead of writing a cancel letter? There's way too much of that sort of thing going on in science today, and it's a real blot.
But anyway, the point is that the field is electric, but maybe not in the right way, but it just shows you how important it is.
[00:11:50] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, it sounds like a very interesting study that sort of looks at, you know, the, the dualist and physicalist frameworks and says, hey, this is deeper and more interesting than any of us could imagine. Now, now, materialist theories of the mind typically set out to either deny the mind outright or reduce it to mere function of the physical parts of our nervous system, like the brain or the cerebral cortex.
But after 40 years of clinical practice and tens of thousands of patients in very extreme circumstances, Dr. Agnor writes that he came to realize that none of the materialist explanations we hear are the least bit credible.
So in other words, the evidence he came across in his work just wasn't matching up with the materialist assertions in the field of neuroscience.
And in a lot of ways, the book, you know, sort of unpacks that and presents an alternative to the materialist views in neuroscience. Now, you say there's a name for this kind of thing where materialists are confident there's going to be an explanation, even if it's in the future. And you say it follows a pretty typical script when this appears in science venues. Can you tell us a bit more about that?
[00:13:09] Speaker B: Well, the term that Mario Beauregard introduced me to is promissory materialism, as in, one of these days we're going to find the consciousness circuit in the brain.
Now, it's sort of like, unfortunately, I'm a couple of generations removed from many of our heroes, perhaps, but there was once a cartoon character who was always promising to pay on Thursday for a hamburger that somebody bought him on Tuesday. And of course, you knew he never would, but that's where you knew. Unfortunately, we, when science writers will end their articles about some conundrum in consciousness by saying, and future research will shed light on this.
What they mean is we'll show that there is a consciousness circuit in the brain, or that consciousness is just an illusion of folk psychology or something, and so on and so forth.
It never happens. But nobody questions the premise.
Nobody asks, could it be that you're on the wrong track?
What if human consciousness is an immaterial reality?
[00:14:33] Speaker A: Yeah, and I really want to linger on this just for a few minutes because I do think it's a profound insight about materialism. You say that when it comes to evidence for the soul, a good place to start is by asking this, what evidence would be satisfactory to you?
Why is that a good jumping off point for having conversations about the mind and the brain?
[00:14:56] Speaker B: Well, it establishes what the conversation could be about.
See, if it becomes clear that no evidence would be acceptable, that the only purpose of new information is to try to find a way to shoehorn it into a materialist interpretation or else ignore it, then as a conversation, it may well be a waste of time.
That doesn't mean there won't be interesting new evidence. But one needs to see that the body of evidence quietly grows, quietly disconfirms materialism.
But nobody discusses it that way. It's always one of these days. More research will elucidate this area.
In other words, show that it really is materialist.
Of course, that can go on indefinitely. They may be doing it 50 years from now. The trouble is, what's lost in the meantime?
If, in fact the human mind is in some part immaterial, then the question becomes, what do we lose if we don't recognize that fact?
One thing we have is Textbooks that, as Mike Egnor points out, persistently told him things that he found didn't check out in practice.
Like if a person doesn't have this brain part, he will not be able to X, Y, Z. Now often that's true, sometimes it's not.
If the materialist theory was right, it should never be true.
What I mean is a three legged dog cannot win a serious race against a four legged dog because we're talking about a material situation, right?
But what if some people missing some brain part actually functioned normally and you wouldn't know? You see, one of the things that changed, Andrew, was that brain imaging came along.
It was easy to say, oh well, if a person doesn't have this part, he can't do X, Y or Z.
And then you image the brain of someone who doesn't have that part, who does in fact do those things.
So I mean, there may be explanations, but I would suggest treating cautiously materialist explanations along the lines of, oh well, all that happened was because I want to stop and say, wait a minute, that's not what you said before.
If you're changing your story, that's fine, you can change your story, but remember you changed your story.
So I wonder when that person will have to change the story again.
[00:18:01] Speaker A: So really, no matter how hard you try to disconfirm materialism with contrary evidence, the reply is always going to be along the lines of extending that prediction out into the future with the belief that one day science will confirm what we currently predict.
But the problem with that science or that type of science is that, you know, we're not studying future evidence or future observations. It's based on what we know now and what we observe now.
So as you were mentioning, perhaps no evidence is good enough to disconfirm materialism in the minds of its adherents. And really the only way to move forward is to reject materialism as a model and pivot to a theory that better explains the evidence.
And it sounds like that's what you and Dr. Egnor are proposing in this book.
[00:18:50] Speaker B: And heaven help him. So was poor Christoph Kock, the one who was the recipient of the cancel letter. It's probably true that he was kind of flirting with panpsychism because that's a form of materialism. That's a kind of a get out of this problem free card in the sense that, that, well, if everything is conscious to some extent, or every living thing is conscious to some extent, then we can say, well, human beings are the most intense expression of consciousness right now, whether it'll work or not work remains to be seen, at least as a theory. I remember something Mike said. He said, well, he didn't agree with panpsychism.
He sympathized with its adherence, as I do myself.
They're at least trying, right?
[00:19:48] Speaker A: Yeah. They're seeing something they can't explain away, and they're trying to put it in a general framework. Yeah.
Well, another of the lines of evidence that you and Dr. Agnor discuss in the Immortal Mind is near death experiences, or NDEs.
Has evidence for NDES become more widely accepted in recent decades? And if so, why?
[00:20:11] Speaker B: My sense is that it has.
First thing I want to say about that is the advent of serious research. Study of NDEs tracks the ability of doctors to pull people back from death.
There have been thousands of years of accounts that people have written about how I died and came back, and this is what I saw. Right.
And you can believe it or not believe it. It's a substantial part of the folklore of, as far as I can tell, most human cultures. But where do you go in studying it? Well, enter the intensive care unit, where not only are people pulled back from death, but they're monitored at the time.
You can know that a person is brain dead in the sense that the EEG is flat.
And then they decide to try the defibrillation one more time. Hands off the patient, right. And guess what? He comes back.
I'm simplifying here. This isn't a specific instance, but there are many of these instances. And when he comes back, he says, I felt I was floating toward the ceiling. Doctor, I think your toupee is crooked.
And it turns out he noticed something that he shouldn't have been able to notice because perhaps his eyes were taped shut, as they are during neurosurgery operations.
Anyway, his EEG is flat. How did he notice anything?
So the main thing that near death experiences as clinically studied seem to show is that the human mind can at times operate independently of the brain.
Now, that doesn't prove that the soul is immortal because we don't know what happens after the body decisively dies, like when someone is cremated.
The only information we have is from people who came back and resumed living again. And some of them tell us about these experiences and the veridical ones, that's the technical term for experiences where the person tells you things that can be checked out and turn out to be true.
So like in one case, a famous case, the psychiatrist who was attending a woman who'd attempted suicide and had an nde, she told Him. You had a spaghetti stain on your tie.
Well, it turned out he had, but he'd managed to conceal it from colleagues.
So that was Bruce Grayson. And he ended up altering his career in order to also study near death experiences.
And he authored the Grayson scale for evaluating them. But anyway, so he got into it quite by accident, as a number of doctors apparently did when startling episodes like that happened.
I believe in the immortality of the soul, but I would attempt to defend it on slightly different grounds. That is, I think near death experiences are a valid form of evidence.
But if we look at what the nature of the immaterial mind is, it's easy to see why it would not die.
Things that are material die because that's the nature of our universe. It's called entropy.
But things that are immaterial, like the number seven or truth, beauty and goodness, don't die in the same way.
So if the soul is like that, then it doesn't die.
And that was the traditional view.
[00:24:23] Speaker A: And you're saying here with this book that there is scientific evidence that supports the immaterial realm, as it were, whether we're talking about the genome and, you know, the information that powers life, as in Dr. Richard Sternberg's work, or this, this book and the evidence that it's highlighting, it's the immaterial realm that you can't explain on material grounds. And yet this NDES does keep materialists up at night. I mean, they have all sorts of ways to try and explain that away.
Do you find any of that to be appealing or believable or are they grasping at straws?
[00:25:07] Speaker B: Well, the first big problem is the veridical near death experience.
However you want to explain or explain away near death experiences. If someone who is clinically dead reports seeing something which checks out afterward, you're going to have a difficult time arguing that the mind is simply what the brain does.
Because the brain was at that time flat eeg, right?
[00:25:40] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:25:41] Speaker B: Until they decided to try one more time with the defibrillator.
Okay.
Now, however, not all near death experiences, only some of them feature veridical experiences.
But some people say, well, it's hypoxia, that is shortage of oxygen.
But Mike points out in the book he's treated lots of patients for hypoxia, and it doesn't produce anything like the peacefulness, the moving toward the light, stuff like that of the near death experience. It's an experience of terror that just means shortage of oxygen to your brain.
So you're not thinking right, you're frightened. You don't know what's going on. You can't understand things because your brain isn't working right. Because it doesn't have enough oxygen. Right.
Another explanation is hypercarbia.
That means too much carbon dioxide in your blood. This causes people to have hallucinations.
But the hallucinations aren't seen by the person who's having them as spiritually meaningful.
They're just hallucinations. Right. As in, help, I see a giant dog and then you look again and the giant dog isn't there.
So, like, that's what hypercarbia does.
Carl Sagan, many people may remember him. He was a celebrity astronomer and science writer.
He had a theory that near death experiences were birth memories, memories of what it was like being born.
But of course, as we point out in the book, being born isn't a very pleasant experience.
The child is forced out of the womb from a rather warm environment into quite a cold one, from a dark environment into a quite bright one. And what is the first thing the child does?
He starts to wail.
Which people take as a good sign. But it's not because he's happy. Right?
[00:27:57] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:27:58] Speaker B: So, and anyway, another, a neuroscientist who doesn't believe that near death experiences are real.
She did an interesting study.
She studied near death experiences of people who had been born by cesarean section and those who had been born by the usual vaginal birth.
And there was no difference in the content.
So to me, that kind of would cause a reasonable person to set Carl Sagan's theory aside.
That can't be a reasonable explanation.
[00:28:36] Speaker A: But again, as you're pointing out, there's no shortage of materialist explanations as they try to explain away these aspects. But as you guys point out in the book, you know, NDEs just don't fit neatly with the materialist, you know, view in neuroscience. And that's, that's why we're still having these discussions. But it's great that there's more technology and they're being reported more widely so that we get, you know, more data and can apply that as needed to show that, you know, hey, this is pointing to something that we can't deny.
[00:29:12] Speaker B: There's another element of that, if I may raise it.
Near death experiences have a comparatively high rate of causing people to make life changes.
Now, to me, that's very significant because as everybody knows, it's very hard to make significant life changes, especially if you're middle aged or older.
For example, a striking example in my view, people who had an NDE while attempting suicide and were pulled back tend not to attempt suicide. Again, the reason this is significant is that the best predictor of a successful suicide attempt, unfortunately, is previous attempts at suicide.
So it actually goes against the normal pattern that people simply stop attempting suicide.
I suppose it can be explained logically in the sense that if you have a near death experience, you know that suicide is not an escape.
In fact, some people who've had NDEs while attempting suicide have been told as much during the near death experience. This is not the way.
So anyway, the.
Yes, I just thought I would throw that out because again, the pattern suggests that it's not something frivolous like you.
People sometimes think they can get into serious meditation by taking a course one night a week for 10 weeks. It's not like that.
In a great many cases, it really does change the person's attitude to life.
[00:31:03] Speaker A: Yeah. And that is something significant and demands an adequate explanation.
Well, one of the conclusions you and Dr. Agnor make in the book is that the immaterial aspect of the human soul is a unity. It has no parts, so it can't be split or multiplied. How does the discussion of split brain surgery and the cases of conjoined twins support that idea?
[00:31:28] Speaker B: Well, at one point, Mike had to split a guy's brain in half, Right.
Because he had really bad epilepsy. And that's a treatment because when an epilepsy is really bad, it jumps from one side of the brain to the other side, destroying everything in its path, wrecking the person's life and I suppose eventually killing them. Okay, but you split the brain in half, as neurosurgeons discovered mid last century, and it can't jump.
So although seizures may continue, they're not nearly as severe.
But the question was, and Mike was wondering about this, but what about the person's mind?
Well, he interviewed the guy a couple of days later when he was less groggy, and the guy said, I feel fine. I feel like I'm the same person.
And this was true.
But the two halves of his brain were separated.
And this is generally true of people who have split brain surgery.
Some people think there must be some communication going on between the two halves through other elements of the nervous system. I'm going to let them argue that if they want, but I mean, I don't know. And nobody's come up with a convincing explanation, but it seems as though a human being can get by with a split brain.
Well, then I looked into it a little more when we were doing research, and Mike knew this already, but I Had to discover it.
Sometimes people are born with only half a brain.
Sometimes half the brain has to be removed.
Now, usually when that happens, that half isn't working anyway, so it won't be missed. Except the question is, why won't it be missed?
As Mike puts it, if I sawed my computer in half, it wouldn't work.
So what we're dealing with here is a unity that doesn't seem able to be split, and it also seemingly can't be melded with another such unity. And we know that from the experience of conjoined twins who have access to control of each other's limbs.
I'm talking about twins, say, who are joined at the head.
In the case of one Canadian pair, they have a thalamic bridge between the two brains. Nonetheless, their minds are completely separate, even though they can.
Now, this obviously has to be, with cooperation and permission, move each other's limbs.
It was kind of funny listening to their mother explain that she had to get them to understand. As small children, you're stuck together, you're just going to have to learn to get along.
Which they did.
[00:34:35] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. And these cases are quite amazing and do offer some really compelling evidence of that unity of the mind that we're talking about.
Now, as you were putting this book together, what line or lines of evidence seem to impact you the most or surprise you the most or amaze you the most?
[00:34:56] Speaker B: Well, it wasn't any one piece of evidence in my case, because, remember, I had been on the spiritual brain project 20 years ago, and what struck me was that in the intervening years, materialism seems to have lost ground.
When we were working on the Spiritual Brain, it was quite easy to come across comparatively sneery people who were quite sure that there would soon be a materialist explanation for what we were able to determine was relevant to our project at the time.
Well, that didn't happen.
And the fact that it didn't happen is slowly becoming more evident.
For example, Mike did a show which won't be released until the 24th of June, with prominent, well, perhaps celebrity skeptic Michael Shermer.
And Christoph Koch, the neuroscientist I was referring to earlier, turns out to be a friend of Shermer and asked to be on the show.
And of course, Mike was delighted because we had, you know, written about him in his work at Mind Matters News and wrote about him in the book.
And it was actually a pleasant and thoughtful conversation. Mike says, now remember, I haven't heard it.
I won't hear it or see the transcript until the 24th of June. But I trust Mike's judgment in the matter that they all got along fine and corresponded and sent each other papers to read and so forth.
And I thought, boy, that wasn't happening when Mario was struggling to get his PhD in 2005.
So things are changing in the sense that now the very good news is people want to know more.
They're not hunkering down and trying to fight. They want to know more.
That's what people in science should be like.
There are still people out there who will plug their ears no matter what you do. That's their choice. But that's not how science advances.
[00:37:25] Speaker A: Yeah, well, that's a very encouraging report.
I'm glad you shared that. Well, as we wrap up our discussion today, I did want to touch on one other thing, and that is AI. There's a chapter in your book about AI as it relates to the. The immortal mind that we're proposing here.
AI, of course, is all around us these days, not going anywhere. Are we likely to see AI at some point down the road that has an immaterial soul and mind like human beings?
What do you think?
[00:37:57] Speaker B: Here's the biggest challenge to that.
A computer cannot think anything that cannot be expressed in ones and zeros.
That's what a computer is.
Now, the human mind, for that matter, the human brain does not work on those principles.
Let's say we were willing to grant the materialist, just for the sake of argument, that the mind is simply what the brain does.
It isn't, but never mind. Okay, Just for the sake of argument, it still operates on completely different principles.
So there are things you're not going to, in fact, do with the computer. And most of what people think the computer is doing, it isn't. For example, chatbots.
Somebody will say. I fed a request to a chatbot for my essay on the Civil War, and it turned out this not too bad paper. There were a number of bloopers I had to fix, but now I'm going to give it to the Prof. That means I don't need to know anything about the Civil War myself.
Okay, well, now that just shows how smart the chatbot is. No, the chatbot went through the Internet, grabbed all sorts of things from here and there and put it together in a sequence, and the student prints it out.
Now, as you can tell, the education industry is going to have a job on its hands dealing with people who try to do this.
Basically, it's the same thing as getting your friend to write the essay for you, except it's not really a friend writing the essay for you. It's a chatbot searching the Internet for other people who did the work that you're supposed to be learning to do.
So people who think that chatbots are a step on the road to machines that think simply don't understand how they work.
And I'm sure it can sound very convincing. In fact, there are people out there who are in love with chatbots.
You know, they have a relationship with something that doesn't even actually exist.
[00:40:14] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:40:15] Speaker B: It's what they want.
[00:40:16] Speaker A: Illusion of something.
[00:40:17] Speaker B: It's an illusion. But then lots of people have illusions.
[00:40:21] Speaker A: Yes.
Yeah. This is just the latest type, I would say.
Well, Denise, we could talk, you know, for much longer, but we'll, we'll end today's episode. Maybe we'll come back and talk about more of these insights that you've worked into the immortal mind.
But thank you for taking the time and chatting with us today.
[00:40:41] Speaker B: Thank you for inviting me.
[00:40:44] Speaker A: Well, you know, you can learn more about the immortal mind. The website is the immortal mind.org There you'll be able to find the interviews I've been doing with Dr. Ragnor as well. And you'll be able to order a copy of the book. It's available everywhere. So get yourselves a copy. Read it. It is very worth picking up this summer and just, you know, really soaking in the arguments. There's some great, powerful arguments that have been made for the mind and the existence of the soul. Again, that's the immortal mind.org for I Do the Future. I'm Andrew McDermott. Thanks for joining us. Id the Future, a podcast about evolution and intelligent design.
