Free Will: Egnor shows neurological proof (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, November 25, 2020, 11:46 (1459 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw (Monday 23 November): Of course it [use of the brain] is an absolute requirement: 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?

DAVID: We do not differ on that point. But in my form of dualism the key point is the soul MUST use the functioning brain to think in life, and can separate and think on its own only in true death or a transiently with non-functioning brain in NDE's. Yes or no?

Yes (as above) and yes.

dhw: […] 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: The answer to your question is never. If the brain is the primary source of all thought (materialism) Egnor's point is a seizure should be able to produce such thought and never does. Seizures can produce all sorts of sensory experiences. I had a patient who smelled the ocean!

So the brain is able to provide information about the material world (sometimes false), but your patients’ souls never come up with abstract thoughts! If the soul does the thinking, what stops it from thinking???? If the soul is the source of consciousness, then it must be conscious of the brain, so why can't it think about the brain's weird behaviour, which itself is information? The only thing that has changed during the seizure is the brain, and so the absence of abstract thinking can only be due to a fault in the brain, which means the brain must be the source of abstract thought! The exact opposite of what you and Egnor are trying to prove.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: You are certainly correct that we are born with certain special abilities that influence them to choose a career path. But there is still free will choice to accept that ability or to do something else. We are free to choose that specific ability or not as we pursue our way in life. That is how I view free will. Your thought implies people are bound to follow only what they may have been given. And unfortunately some never get the opportunity.

You keep embracing option 2, which is perfectly reasonable, but the whole point of option 1 is that our choice is influenced by factors over which we have no control. Yes, the individual “me” makes the choice (option 2), but the individual “me” would never have made that choice if it hadn’t been for the fact that he/she was born with certain characteristics, or has been influenced by certain factors (upbringing, experiences, accidents, diseases etc.) beyond his/her control etc. (option 1) Whether you think your will is free or not depends on which of these approaches you take: 1) you are not free from all the causes that have made you what you are and that therefore influence your decision (no free will); 2) you are what you are, regardless of the influences, and it is you who take the decision, and nobody else. You are free from all constraints other than those of the situation and of your own limitations. (You have free will). I still can’t see why you refuse to acknowledge that belief in free will depends on what you think the will is free from
.