Free Will: Egnor shows neurological proof (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Friday, November 20, 2020, 22:38 (9 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: In Grand Mal seizure the person becomes unconscious from the wave of electricity that covers the brain.

dhw: Egnor refers to patients who are conscious, can experience all kinds of thoughts, but: “There are no seizures that invoke abstract thought or abstract decisions—there are no free will seizures.” My question is why are there no abstract thoughts and abstract decisions if the soul and not the incapacitated brain is the source of abstract thought and abstract decisions?

That would be petit mal. and remember I believe while the brain is alive the soul MUST USE the brain to form thoughts.


dhw: The dualist’s soul creates thought by using the information provided by the brain, and it implements its thoughts by using the brain to give them material expression. There is no other way we could live our material life in the material world. But the dualist’s brain does not think. The “classical” definition of dualism is “the theory that mind and matter are two distinct things” (Oxford Companion to Philosophy). In dualism, the mind = the soul, and does all the thinking. Matter does not think. Yes or no?

DAVID: Yes.

dhw: So do you see my point now? If the soul does the thinking, it should still be able to think abstract thoughts and take decisions (even if it can’t implement them physically). If it can’t, the malfunctioning of the brain indicates that the brain is the source of abstract thoughts and decisions. This, of course, is contradicted by NDEs, in which the unconscious patient is still able to think and even to take decisions (usually overturned, because the patient’s soul is told to go back into the body).

Exactly. In my view of dualism, the living soul and the living brain must work together to form/create thoughts.


Dhw: There is no disagreement between us, except that you choose the second option, whereas I recognize the validity of both arguments. It all depends on what you think you are free from.

DAVID: I think your point: 'we are never free from influences beyond our control' is an over-blown view of what influences us. They are background issues we can overcome or ignore.

dhw: I don’t know how you can claim that 40% of you is inbuilt but it doesn’t influence your decisions. However, we are going round in circles, as usual. The determinist says we are never free from influences beyond our control, so we don’t have free will. You disagree. Your basic argument is that those influences do not change the fact that it is our unique self that makes the decisions, so we do have free will. That is the second option, and I’m sure you will agree that your concept frees us from all constraints other than those of the situation and our own limitations. I really can’t see any disagreement between us.

You and I remain apart. The almost 92-year-old me is not the newborn which received a 40% hereditary input, a 40% parental input. Over all those years I have changed my thinking about how to do things, how to decide things. My construction of my current personality is very different than in my childhood. In fact at this point none of my cells except brain neurons are the same and they work with some new additions. Like I view evolution m y life is a continuum of change.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum