Free Will

[bahman]

Well, if Determinism is true, there’s no “you”...

Why!?

Well, because then “Bahman” is not a person, but rather the end product of a causal chain. Bahman doesn’t think…rather, he is a combination of certain neurochemicals and electrical impulses, themselves caused by a long cascade of earlier things, all going back to time immemorial. One can no more talk about there being a “Bahman” to think something, or to make a decision, or to hold an opinion, than you can talk about a rock “deciding” to roll down a mountainside — rocks don’t “decide”: they merely roll because the ground gave way beneath them, which happened because of soil erosion, which happened because of the fire last year that burned the vegetation off the hillside, plus the rain which fell from the sky for no particular reason on that particular occasion…

Just so, Bahman is a “rock.” He’s just the last physical arrangement of a long causal chain. He’s not a person, anymore than the rock is. He didn’t actually “decide” anything.

At least, that’s how physical Determinism has to tell the story.

We know that for example thinking can be impaired if a part of your brain is damaged. How do you explain that? It is not the soul who is thinking.

[Immanuel Can]

Why!?

Well, because then “Bahman” is not a person, but rather the end product of a causal chain. Bahman doesn’t think…rather, he is a combination of certain neurochemicals and electrical impulses, themselves caused by a long cascade of earlier things, all going back to time immemorial. One can no more talk about there being a “Bahman” to think something, or to make a decision, or to hold an opinion, than you can talk about a rock “deciding” to roll down a mountainside — rocks don’t “decide”: they merely roll because the ground gave way beneath them, which happened because of soil erosion, which happened because of the fire last year that burned the vegetation off the hillside, plus the rain which fell from the sky for no particular reason on that particular occasion…

Just so, Bahman is a “rock.” He’s just the last physical arrangement of a long causal chain. He’s not a person, anymore than the rock is. He didn’t actually “decide” anything.

At least, that’s how physical Determinism has to tell the story.

We know that for example thinking can be impaired if a part of your brain is damaged. How do you explain that? It is not the soul who is thinking.

Nobody says that the brain isn't involved with the soul. It's obvious that it is. The two are linked, and they limit each other...no question.

But the brain without the soul is also inert and worthless. So we're going to end up with some sort of dualism, if we take our souls...and everything that goes along with them, including cognition, decision, identity, volition, morality, rationality, science and knowledge...with any degree of seriousness at all. And it seems obvious to me that we have to.

For example, look at this discussion you and I are having. It's not merely two brains, two hunks of hamburger-like meat, that are communicating: it's two people, two intellects, two sets of beliefs, two different patterns of reasoning, and maybe two different scientific or moral orientations that are in juxtaposition with one another here. Even to know that Physicalism is a "theory" requires the use of the mind, not merely the presence of the physical brain. And since we can't even ask the question without presuming the existence of something like a soul, why are we even debating it? Is it not perfectly obvious that more than mere "meat" has to be going on here?

[Harbal]

Why!?

Well, because then “Bahman” is not a person, but rather the end product of a causal chain. Bahman doesn’t think…rather, he is a combination of certain neurochemicals and electrical impulses, themselves caused by a long cascade of earlier things, all going back to time immemorial. One can no more talk about there being a “Bahman” to think something, or to make a decision, or to hold an opinion, than you can talk about a rock “deciding” to roll down a mountainside — rocks don’t “decide”: they merely roll because the ground gave way beneath them, which happened because of soil erosion, which happened because of the fire last year that burned the vegetation off the hillside, plus the rain which fell from the sky for no particular reason on that particular occasion…

Just so, Bahman is a “rock.” He’s just the last physical arrangement of a long causal chain. He’s not a person, anymore than the rock is. He didn’t actually “decide” anything.

At least, that’s how physical Determinism has to tell the story.

We know that for example thinking can be impaired if a part of your brain is damaged. How do you explain that? It is not the soul who is thinking.

It is hard to imagine what a soul amounts to without a functioning brain to attach itself to. Every scrap of information that informs our thinking is stored in the brain, so no brain, no thinking. All memory and experience is stored in the brain, so no brain, no sense of identity. Maybe a soul without the physical body it was once associated with is nothing more than pure awareness, but with absolutely nothing to be aware of except its own existence. What a dreadful thought. I don't believe in the existence of the soul; I can see absolutely no reason to believe it, and I really hope I am right about that.

[bahman]

Well, because then “Bahman” is not a person, but rather the end product of a causal chain. Bahman doesn’t think…rather, he is a combination of certain neurochemicals and electrical impulses, themselves caused by a long cascade of earlier things, all going back to time immemorial. One can no more talk about there being a “Bahman” to think something, or to make a decision, or to hold an opinion, than you can talk about a rock “deciding” to roll down a mountainside — rocks don’t “decide”: they merely roll because the ground gave way beneath them, which happened because of soil erosion, which happened because of the fire last year that burned the vegetation off the hillside, plus the rain which fell from the sky for no particular reason on that particular occasion…

Just so, Bahman is a “rock.” He’s just the last physical arrangement of a long causal chain. He’s not a person, anymore than the rock is. He didn’t actually “decide” anything.

At least, that’s how physical Determinism has to tell the story.

We know that for example thinking can be impaired if a part of your brain is damaged. How do you explain that? It is not the soul who is thinking.

Nobody says that the brain isn't involved with the soul. It's obvious that it is. The two are linked, and they limit each other...no question.

But the brain without the soul is also inert and worthless. So we're going to end up with some sort of dualism, if we take our souls...and everything that goes along with them, including cognition, decision, identity, volition, morality, rationality, science and knowledge...with any degree of seriousness at all. And it seems obvious to me that we have to.

For example, look at this discussion you and I are having. It's not merely two brains, two hunks of hamburger-like meat, that are communicating: it's two people, two intellects, two sets of beliefs, two different patterns of reasoning, and maybe two different scientific or moral orientations that are in juxtaposition with one another here. Even to know that Physicalism is a "theory" requires the use of the mind, not merely the presence of the physical brain. And since we can't even ask the question without presuming the existence of something like a soul, why are we even debating it? Is it not perfectly obvious that more than mere "meat" has to be going on here?

Well, I am trying my best to see if we can converge on the same understanding of dualism. Let's look at this list you provided: Cognition, decision, identity, volition, morality, rationality, science, and knowledge. In your understanding, which of these items is the duty of the mind, brain, or both? What is mind in your opinion and what it does. What is the brain and what it does.

[bahman]

Well, because then “Bahman” is not a person, but rather the end product of a causal chain. Bahman doesn’t think…rather, he is a combination of certain neurochemicals and electrical impulses, themselves caused by a long cascade of earlier things, all going back to time immemorial. One can no more talk about there being a “Bahman” to think something, or to make a decision, or to hold an opinion, than you can talk about a rock “deciding” to roll down a mountainside — rocks don’t “decide”: they merely roll because the ground gave way beneath them, which happened because of soil erosion, which happened because of the fire last year that burned the vegetation off the hillside, plus the rain which fell from the sky for no particular reason on that particular occasion…

Just so, Bahman is a “rock.” He’s just the last physical arrangement of a long causal chain. He’s not a person, anymore than the rock is. He didn’t actually “decide” anything.

At least, that’s how physical Determinism has to tell the story.

We know that for example thinking can be impaired if a part of your brain is damaged. How do you explain that? It is not the soul who is thinking.

It is hard to imagine what a soul amounts to without a functioning brain to attach itself to. Every scrap of information that informs our thinking is stored in the brain, so no brain, no thinking. All memory and experience is stored in the brain, so no brain, no sense of identity.

Correct.

Maybe a soul without the physical body it was once associated with is nothing more than pure awareness, but with absolutely nothing to be aware of except its own existence. What a dreadful thought.

Correct.

I don't believe in the existence of the soul; I can see absolutely no reason to believe it, and I really hope I am right about that.

Well, I think that there is a mind without it change is not possible.

[Dubious]

But the brain without the soul is also inert and worthless.

If that were true, then all living things must have a soul as that which is living cannot be inert.

Again, if your assertion were true, do you deny that animals must also have souls, not only humans?

[henry quirk]

You don't say why there can't be a universe without God, and you don't say why not having a soul makes you just meat. I won't even bother asking what you think a soul actually is.

Well, even as an atheist (only five or six years back) it didn't make sense the universe just happened. I didn't accept that, couldn't accept the infinite regress of an always existing universe, and rejected God did it. I said, back then, in a conversation with Mannie, there had to be another option. There isn't. The universe just happened, it's always been, or God did it. Only the last makes sense.

I can give links if you like, but, in short: there's a growing body of evidence coming out of neuroscience suggesting mind is not a product of brain activity. Wilder Penfield (a neurosurgeon who worked extensively with epileptics), his research is particularly demonstrative. But all that really just supports a sensible observation: mindless particles, no matter the amount or configuration, cannot think or feel or understand. But we do, don't we.

As to what the soul is: hell if I know. What's information? We know it exists, but what is it? Information has no mass, no volume, is not situated. We can point to representations of information but never to information itself. This word -- FIRE -- s a placeholder for information, but where's the information? In the word? In your head? Where is it? What is it? It's like that with the soul.

What does Deism say about the origine of human beings?

All any strain of deism sez is: God Created and God is not personally involved in what He Created. He set the conditions, turned the universe on and then, mebbe, went off and had a beer. One can infer that man, as part of the Creation, is part of the original blue print. We're meant to be. One can further infer man is meant to be a free will capable of and subject to moral judgment as measured against an objective standard cuz that's how it seems to be. Really, though, all the deist can say is God Created and God is not personally involved in what He Created cuz that's deism.

Were they created as they are now, are they the result of Darwinian evolution, along with all other life on the planet, or did they come into existence some other way?

Since deism only makes one claim -- God Created and God is not personally involved in what He Created -- I imagine there are all kinds of deists with all kinds of opinions on that. Me, I'm agnostic on the subject. There's too many holes in Darwin's theory to accept it as is, but I don't accept man as coming into world fully formed either.

That seems very relevant to our place in the "scheme" of things.

Not to me.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, I am trying my best to see if we can converge on the same understanding of dualism.

I imagine we never will. Your view, I think, is that reality is samsara and maya. I don't take that to be obvious at all. Physical reality is real, to me. But so is mind...just as real, although its functions are "realized" in a different way.

Let's look at this list you provided: Cognition, decision, identity, volition, morality, rationality, science, and knowledge. In your understanding, which of these items is the duty of the mind, brain, or both?

Those are all "mind" functions. The brain, considered merely physically, is just a lump of meat, chemicals and meaningless electrical impulses.

"Meaning" comes only from mind. Consider it this way: our conversation is a combination of pixels forming black squiggles on screen -- but also of ideas and concepts we are debating thereby. Without the black squiggles, no such thing would be possible -- but "black squiggles" is not a proper explanation of the words, concepts and ideas we're debating. The latter is mind; the former is like brain. "Squiggles" are real, but are meaningless unless decoded by an intelligence, a consciousness, and translated into meaning. Just so, the brain is a lump of meat in which the meanings taken in through the eyes and the cortex are assembled and arranged chemically and biologically, but the brain is not even capable of infusing them with any significance or meaning; only the mind can do that.

[henry quirk]

Your turn.

I don't understand anything you posted except for...

You can't step in the same river twice, so to speak.

You can't step into the same water, sure, but a river isn't just the water. The banks, the bed, the features around, these all fall into what makes a particular river, a particular river. And even as things change, continuity remains. My 18 year is not a different person from the one he was at 8. He's more complex, yes, but he's the same person.

[Harbal]

I don't believe in the existence of the soul; I can see absolutely no reason to believe it, and I really hope I am right about that.

Well, I think that there is a mind without it change is not possible.

Is mind just another name for consciousness, or, rather, consciousness in conjunction with the brain? Not that we know what consciousness is. We don't even know if it is some kind of emergent property of the brain, or if it is something that is temporarily attached to the brain, or something else entirely.

[Fairy]

Bahman …yes there is a mind, the mind is the immortal energy that is expressing as and through everything. I agree with your immortal mind theory.

The mind is energy, and it generates energy through thinking, feeling, and choosing. It is our aliveness, without which, the physical brain and body would be useless. That means we are our mind, and mind-in-action is how we generate energy in the brain.

We do not have a mind, we are the mind.

The mind being the immortal energy that generates the mortal brain. The brain being just a responder of mental activity.

The mind is separate, yet inseparable from the brain. The mind is never seen as a physical entity like the brain. And so the brain is useless without the mind in the same context an electrical oven is useless without electricity to power it.

[bahman]

Well, I am trying my best to see if we can converge on the same understanding of dualism.

I imagine we never will. Your view, I think, is that reality is samsara and maya. I don't take that to be obvious at all. Physical reality is real, to me. But so is mind...just as real, although its functions are "realized" in a different way.

You then need to perform deep meditation. LSD also does the job.

Let's look at this list you provided: Cognition, decision, identity, volition, morality, rationality, science, and knowledge. In your understanding, which of these items is the duty of the mind, brain, or both?

Those are all "mind" functions. The brain, considered merely physically, is just a lump of meat, chemicals and meaningless electrical impulses.

I don't think so. I think that you agree that brain damage can impair your thinking.

"Meaning" comes only from mind. Consider it this way: our conversation is a combination of pixels forming black squiggles on screen -- but also of ideas and concepts we are debating thereby. Without the black squiggles, no such thing would be possible -- but "black squiggles" is not a proper explanation of the words, concepts and ideas we're debating. The latter is mind; the former is like brain. "Squiggles" are real, but are meaningless unless decoded by an intelligence, a consciousness, and translated into meaning. Just so, the brain is a lump of meat in which the meanings taken in through the eyes and the cortex are assembled and arranged chemically and biologically, but the brain is not even capable of infusing them with any significance or meaning; only the mind can do that.

You cannot defend any form of substance dualism if you cannot define the mind and the brain.

[Immanuel Can]

But the brain without the soul is also inert and worthless.

If that were true, then all living things must have a soul as that which is living cannot be inert.

I think that's a fair characterization. Animals do have souls, if all we mean is "animating force." But they operate by instinct, by programming, rather than by conceptualization. So whatever it is that humans have beyond mere "animating force," they do not have.

Consider this: our closest alleged relatives are the chimps. They are also among the most highly intelligent of animals. So far, so good? (We could pick something else, if you think any animal is smarter -- say, the dolphins, or cats, or whales, or orangs; it doesn't matter.)

Well, given that we are told that chimps have existed for millions, or possibly billions, of years, where is the first chimp treatise on free will? Where is their Shakespeare? Where is their Einstein? If millions or billions of years have passed, and if chimps even had a minute part part of our capacities, we should not merely have a scrawl or two from them, but libraries. Given enough time, we should have vast bodies of chimp erudition, maybe civilizations built by chimp wisdom...if they were one thousand times slower than us, then over a million years, then they would still have something to show for it.

But we've got nothing. Today's chimps are very much like yesterday's, and very much like chimps from ancient days, and very much like chimps from as far back as human records go -- and by the evidence of today, were the same as far back as there have been chimps. If we were on a continuum with chimps, though, that should not be the case; even a tiny bit of the same potential that's in us should have produced, over the vast timespans posited, significant evidence of chimp social and intellectual contributions.

So we have something they don't have at all. What is that thing? It's not just a difference of quantity, because that would be taken care of by the millions of years. It must be an important qualitative distinction, something they just don't have any of, but that we do...

And what would that be?

[bahman]

I don't believe in the existence of the soul; I can see absolutely no reason to believe it, and I really hope I am right about that.

Well, I think that there is a mind without it change is not possible.

Is mind just another name for consciousness, or, rather, consciousness in conjunction with the brain?

To me, consciousness is the ability of the mind, namely the ability to experience. Mind also has the ability to cause.

Not that we know what consciousness is. We don't even know if it is some kind of emergent property of the brain, or if it is something that is temporarily attached to the brain, or something else entirely.

Consciousness cannot be the emergent property of the brain. I have an argument for that.

[Fairy]

Your turn.

I don't understand anything you posted except for...

You can't step in the same river twice, so to speak.

You can't step into the same water, sure, but a river isn't just the water. The banks, the bed, the features around, these all fall into what makes a particular river, a particular river. And even as things change, continuity remains. My 18 year is not a different person from the one he was at 8. He's more complex, yes, but he's the same person.

Ok, thanks for your idea. It’s how you see it there in you. I wouldn’t quite put it like you’ve done, but I believe we each see reality within the unique lens of our own perceptions, that make sense to us as we understand it. We each hold to the god of our own understanding. I believe everything is god, and there is nothing else but god.