Free Will: Egnor shows neurological proof (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, December 03, 2020, 12:21 (1239 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The point is the brain never produces abstract thought during seizures. Only the soul can do that as it uses the brain. You can't avoid that thought.

dhw: The point is that the SOUL never produces abstract thought during seizures, but if only the soul does the thinking (as you have agreed), it should be able to think about the information being sent to it by the sick brain. IT DOESN’T.

DAVID: No. My view is the soul cannot recognize what is truly going on because it is trapped into using a sick brain. A seizure can produce false sensory information as my sea shore patient's smell of the [sea] was a seizure reproducing a memory. The soul did recognize that brain production.

dhw: First you support Egnor’s contention that during seizures there is no abstract reasoning, and now you tell me that there is abstract reasoning (apparently the patient knew his brain had provided him with false information).

DAVID: I never said a seizure creates abstract thoughts. Neither does Egnor.

And neither did I. The whole point is that it STOPS abstract thinking/reasoning. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood your example. I thought you said the patient realized during the seizure that the smell of the sea was an illusion, in which case there WAS abstract reasoning, whereas Egnor says there is none during seizures. It doesn’t actually matter, as I explained in my post: the recognition could come from the soul (dualism) or from the part of the brain that is responsible for abstract thinking/reasoning (materialism) but has not been affected by the seizure.

dhw: Conclusion: the mechanism for abstract thought (Egnor equates it with reasoning) has been put out of action by the brain seizure, and therefore the mechanism for abstract thought must be part of the brain. Hence "sick brain = sick thoughts".

DAVID: You are so contortedly confused. The abstraction area is absolutely normal before and after the seizure. When the seizure electrical impulse enters the abstraction area it doesn't cause the brain to produce abstractions as it should if the brain was the only and total source of abstractions by itself.

What “abstraction area”? The whole point of dualism is that abstract thinking and reasoning is the province of the soul and not the brain! Why should an abnormal electrical impulse produce abstract thought in the BRAIN if the source of abstract thought is the soul? We would expect the abnormality to produce an abstract, reasoning response from the SOUL, which should not be affected by abnormal electrical impulses. But there is no reasoning response. After the seizure, presumably there are no more abnormal electrical impulses – the brain returns to normal, and abstract thinking/reasoning is resumed. The obvious conclusion is that part of the cerebrum (or whatever other parts of the brain are believed to produce abstract thought and reasoning) had been knocked out of kilter by the abnormal electrical impulse! The question, then, is not why the brain doesn’t produce abstract thought/reasoning when attacked by an abnormality, but why – if it exists – the SOUL doesn’t do so.

DAVID: Egnor has produced another essay:
https://mindmatters.ai/2020/12/has-neuroscience-proved-that-the-mind-is-just-the-brain/

A neat summary: “There is no explanation for the mental on the basis of the physical. No physics or chemistry explains thought.”

Agreed, and he goes on to quote scientists who share his views. However, here is an interesting point:
QUOTE: Sperry, whose philosophy I would describe as idealist, rejected the prevailing materialism common among neuroscientists

In nearly all the subjects we discuss, there are conflicting arguments. I don’t for one moment imagine that materialist neuroscientists know less than Egnor about the brain. The fact that nobody can explain consciousness suggests to me that anyone who thinks he can (either by inventing an immaterial soul or by inventing an unknown formula for physics + chemistry = consciousness) is relying on faith and not on science. Why can't people see that there are usually two sides to these arguments?

QUOTE: "The emerging science of near-death experiences, as well as the evidence for mental activity even in the most profound states of coma, provide powerful evidence for the ability of the mind to function at least somewhat independently of the body.”

I pointed this out in my previous post. The conflict between this and “sick brain = sick thought”, and the fact that consciousness remains a total mystery, make it impossible for me to decide between the two schools of thought. That is why I stay on my fence!