Free Will: Egnor shows neurological proof - PART ONE (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, January 12, 2021, 09:13 (13 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: For the umpteenth time, I do NOT have a problem with the design argument! Why do you keep forcing me to repeat what I DO have a problem with? How many of your ID scientists claim that your/their God changed pre-whale legs into fins before the pre-whales entered the water, and that your/their God preprogrammed or directly dabbled every single life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. in life’s history, 99% of which had no connection with humans although all of them were part of your/their God’s one and only goal of evolving [= directly designing] humans? Please don’t restart the game of picking on individual premises. It is the combination of premises that makes no sense – hence your acknowledgement that you have no idea why your God would have chosen your version of his method to fulfil your version of his purpose. However, that is what you believe, and we agreed to leave it at that. Let’s stick to that agreement.

DAVID: You've repeated your illogical complaint again. I won't bother to answer. If I could get you to read some ID material directly, you would understand my design argument with clarity. The folks I quote are PhD's and MD's. They all think evolution is designed by an unnamed mind.

Yet again, and in bolded block capitals: I ACCEPT YOUR DESIGN ARGUMENT AS BEING PERFECTLY LOGICAL, AND IT IS A MAJOR REASON WHY I CANNOT EMBRACE ATHEISM. It is the theory bolded above that I reject – namely the theory that led you to say: “You are correct. I have no idea why He uses that method.” And we agreed to leave it at that. Please leave it at that and stop pretending that my complaint is against the design argument.

Under Dualism: materialism is only as our mind sees it

QUOTE: we cannot empirically observe matter outside and independent of mind, for we are forever locked in mind. All we can observe are the contents of perception, which are inherently mental. Even the output of measurement instruments is only accessible to us insofar as it is mentally perceived.

DAVID: I can expect the comment that the material brain conjures all of these impressions, but the point is the impressions we have are second hand representations of the outside world. We only know what the brain allows us to think it is as we use our mind to drive the the brain to produce impressions and thought. The mind uses the brain as a material tool, and produces immaterial thoughts and concepts.

Yes, yes, we all know that perception is subjective. We dealt with this ages ago when discussing epistemology. And yes, yes, we use our brains to acquire information and to give material implementation to our immaterial thoughts, but nobody knows whether “we” means two separate entities working together – soul and brain – or a single entity (brain) from which emerges the phenomenon we call consciousness. That is the unresolved conflict between material and dualism, and I have offered a compromise between the two theories, which you agreed was perfectly logical.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum