Free Will: Egnor shows neurological proof (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, November 22, 2020, 11:48 (1249 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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).

DAVID: You are constantly ignoring what I believe in this discussion. I'll repeat as shown by NDE's. The soul MUST use the brain's processes to create thought while the brain is living. It becomes disconnected from that requirement only if the cortex is non-functional or dead. Only at that juncture is the soul free to think totally on it own. You contort that approach to fit what you desire to exist.

There is no contortion. I have pointed out that NDEs CONTRADICT the implications of Egnor’s example. I’ll repeat as shown by seizures: if the soul does the thinking (you have agreed), and only uses the brain for information and for implementing its thoughts, then the soul should be able to produce abstract thoughts even if the brain is incapacitated. Egnor’s point is that it doesn’t, which implies that abstract thoughts come from the brain and not the soul. I am disagreeing with Egnor’s interpretation of seizures. NDEs support the case for a soul, but seizures don’t.

dhw: […] All of us change as life goes on, because life is a continual gathering of experiences, some of which can change us completely. Why do we respond as we do? I am by nature a worrier. If something is wrong, I can't rest till it's put right (you may have noticed). This has its good side and its bad side, but I can't make myself not care. It's as if there's a force inside me over which I have no control. A determinist will argue that every effect has a cause, and what seem like free decisions are governed by causes over which we have no control. But you don’t need to explain to me the opposite view (I am "me" and I make my own decisions), which I have already explained to you and which I accept as equally valid. It all depends on what you think free will is free from. I still don't know why you disagree.

DAVID: we have different views of ourselves and each other. Have you analyzed yourself to recognize where the worrisome problem comes from? Note I called it a problem. I've spent almost a lifetime in self-analysis ever since I read books by Freud as a teenager. With problems I've had brief counselling twice. I've bolded in your discussion the strongest consideration, which I think applies to all of us who seriously self-evaluate.

I don’t call it a problem. I am using it as an illustration of the DETERMINIST case, that behind every decision we make, there are causes over which we have no control. That does not mean we stay the same all through our lives – every change in us (and every decision we make) will have a cause that we may or may not be aware of, going as far back in time as you like. (Romansh took it back to the beginning of the universe!) The converse to the determinist case is the argument that even though these influences have shaped my identity, it is mine and mine alone: nobody and nothing outside “me” forces the individual “me” to make my decisions, apart from the constraints of the situation and of my own limitations, and so the one and only me DOES have free will. I still don’t know why you can’t agree that belief in free will depends on what we think we are free from.