Free Will: Egnor shows neurological proof (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, December 15, 2020, 14:32 (1226 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE
Although we’ve had these discussions before, I think it’s worth making another effort, but these are deep waters and it doesn’t help if they get muddied. I will quote some of your comments, answer them as briefly as possible, and then try to provide a round-up of the arguments. Our basic subject is dualism v materialism, with free will as a related question.

dhw: [the soul] gathers information from the brain, thinks about it, works out its concepts/takes its decisions etc, and then instructs the brain to give material expression to its thoughts.

DAVID: It uses all those mechanisms. But it also forms thoughts using the brain networks, and cannot do so if the brain is any way sick. The thoughts will be distorted and the soul cannot fix them, as it must use the sick brain to do so.

First you say the soul cannot form thoughts if the brain is sick. Then you say the thoughts will be distorted. Are there thoughts or aren’t there, and what thinks them? Quotes from you: “sick brain can only produce sick thoughts”; “sick brain equals sick thoughts”; “normal thinking can only come from a normal brain”. All suggesting that the brain is the source of thought (= materialism).

DAVID: 1) If the brain the soul is using is normal, it will know false, because the soul using a normal brain is clear thinking.
DAVID: 2) The soul doesn't just instruct the brain. it must use the brain circuits to have brain form a thought of false.

You now have the soul making the brain think. (In dualism, one would expect the brain’s passing of information to make the soul think.) Your concept of the thinking brain is confirmed by the following:

DAVID: If the brain is sick, the soul trying to use its circuits will only receive false information or incorrect analytic thought.

Here you have the soul receiving not only the information, but also the brain’s analysis of the information. If the sick brain offers a sick analysis, the soul can do nothing about it, and as “normal thinking can only come from a normal brain”, there will be no need for the soul to do anything anyway. This makes the very concept of a soul unnecessary, because the thinking, analysing brain = materialism.

DAVID: The psychopath example I used is for the purpose of showing you a psychopath cannot develop a conscience, but the examples you are tortuously using above are all folks who can know or learn right and wrong, and are therefore guilty of crimes.

This is the point at which I would like to summarize the arguments, which in effect boil down to the source of consciousness itself. The psychopath has permanent defects in the brain; the epileptic has temporary defects. These might be put on a par with the effects of drugs and alcohol, as evidence that the brain is the source of consciousness/thought (“sick brain equals sick thoughts” plus the other quotes above). And the awful example of your mother-in-law’s dementia – this is becoming increasingly common, and I can only express my sympathy to all of you – is further evidence for materialism and determinism. The diseased brain produces false information and false analysis of the information. There is no role for a soul. But this is only one third of the argument.

Your second point can be extended: although we know that changes to the brain can cause changes in thought patterns (materialism), we also know that changes in thought patterns can change the brain. Immaterial thoughts, emotions, new experiences, learning etc. can release chemicals or result in new connections. This known fact does not provide evidence for either theory: the immaterial factors may be the product of a soul, or it may be that the brain produces them. We don’t know the source of consciousness, and so we don’t know the source of our thinking.

The third part of the argument is so-called psychic experiences, including NDEs. If they are real – and I for one am not prepared to dismiss them – then they are evidence for dualism.
As is so often the case, I remain neutral, because it seems to me that there is no conclusive evidence for either theory, and the same applies to free will, which also depends on what we believe to be the source of consciousness (plus certain other factors that we have discussed elsewhere).