Free Will: Egnor shows neurological proof (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, November 24, 2020, 11:14 (1460 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] 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.

dhw: 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: I have answered. The bold is your strange limitation on the theory. The soul creates its immaterial thoughts by using brain neuron networks.

You have not answered. I keep asking you what the soul uses the brain FOR, other than gathering information and implementing its thoughts. And all you can do is repeat that the soul uses the brain.

DAVID: My soul is answering you in the immaterial thought created, then translated to my typing fingers.

Yes, your dualist’s soul is thinking about the information your brain has provided by enabling you to read my words, and now that your soul has thought up an answer, your brain is guiding your fingers so that you can put your immaterial thoughts into material form. You keep confirming my point, and then trying to disagree!

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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: You totally misunderstand his import. If a brain is in charge of abstract thought, seizures should produce abstract thought and never does. Soul is required for abstract thought.

Why on earth should a malfunctioning brain produce abstract thought? Your materialist will tell you that the malfunction is what PREVENTS it from producing abstract thought! Yes indeed, the dualist’s soul produces abstract thought. But when the brain has a seizure, apparently the soul does NOT produce abstract thought. Why not, if it is the soul and not the brain that does the thinking? But how many patients have recovered and told you and Egnor all about the abstract thoughts they had during the seizure?

DAVID: Nowhere above do you accept the requirement that in life with a functioning brain the soul MUST use brain circuits to create abstractions. The soul always initiates through use of the material brain.

I have explained it umpteen times. Look at my reply to your first comment above! I’ve now bolded it all for you.

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!!!

dhw: 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?

DAVID: I still don't accept 1) as valid for me. I accept it as a vapid argument. I have analyzed away troubling background issues, with an analyst and on my own.

We are not talking about “troubling issues”! We are talking about the causes that influence our decisions. It may not have escaped your notice that some people are more intelligent than others, and some people have better health than others, and sometimes musicians are born to musicians, and mathematicians to mathematicians, and people born into poverty have fewer opportunities in life than richer people etc. These are all factors which may influence people’s decisions but which they cannot control. Hence the determinist argument that we are not “free” from the chain of cause and effect. I have already explained the converse argument which supports the concept of free will, and I remain puzzled by your objection to the proposal that our conclusion depends on our understanding of what the will is supposed to be free from.