Free Will: Egnor shows neurological proof (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, November 23, 2020, 11:36 (1461 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] 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.

DAVID: The oft repeated bold is a total constant misunderstanding of my and Egnor's thinking about soul/brain arrangement and is your sole concept of the relationship as I see it. To repeat: while living the soul can think only by using the networks of the brains living/functional neurons. It is an absolute requirement. It does also receive info that way.

But what does the soul use the brain for???? Of course it’s an absolute requirement in life: you cannot live life in the material world without information about the material world and without giving material implementation to your thoughts. What else does the soul use the brain for? Please answer.

DAVID: […] Egnor's point is simple. During seizures immaterial concept never appear. Seizures do not cause the soul to think about immaterial concepts. Therefore the brain does not control the soul's thinking. The soul is in control of the brain's production of immaterial thought.

This is sheer muddle. Who on earth is claiming that seizures CAUSE the soul to think abstractly? Egnor’s point is that the soul doesn’t produce abstract thought or decisions during a seizure. But that can only mean abstract thought and decision-making depend on the brain! It is an argument against the existence of a soul. If, as you say, the brain does not control the soul’s thinking, the soul should be able to think abstract thoughts when the brain is not functioning! And the dualist’s brain does not produce immaterial thought! The soul produces the thought, and the brain gives it material implementation. Friday 20th November:
dhw: In dualism, the mind = the soul, and does all the thinking. Matter does not think. Yes or no?
DAVID: Yes.

dhw: (referring to my own characteristic as a “worrier”): 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. […]

DAVID: Note the bold. I think I am free from all those causes, because I can analyze them away. That is freedom. No self introspection, no freedom!!!

You can only analyse those causes you are aware of, and the determinist will argue that we are not even aware of most of the causes. You may indeed “think” you are free (most of us do) but he says you are not. I really can’t understand why you refuse to recognize that there are two different approaches to the subject: 1) we are NOT free from all the causes beyond our control (= no free will); 2) freedom from those causes is irrelevant: what counts is the individuality of the “me” who takes “my” decisions: nobody else takes them for me and I am free from all constraints other than those of the situation and my own limitations (= I have free will). What is your objection to this argument?