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

by dhw, Wednesday, January 13, 2021, 09:10 (14 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: You have agreed that we will always have the same disagreement.

And the disagreement is not over the design theory but over your interpretation of God’s purpose and method of achieving that purpose, which leaves you with no idea how to explain the combination. And I will not raise the subject again so long as you do not force me to do so!

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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: And the appearance/emergence of consciousness with self-awareness creates a dualism: the material brain and the conscious self. Materialism seems to invent a living driver to drive the material car. No material brain can think without first producing immaterial consciousness. So there is no escape from some form and interpretation of dualism.

Correct. And when you say no material brain can think without first PRODUCING consciousness, there is no escape from some form and interpretation of materialism. You have understood the compromise.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum