Arcatia has stated that before any thought can occur, first there must be a chemical change in the brain. So if before any decision is made, we first need a chemical change, then it is not really a decision, now is it? It is merely a response to that chemical change, for which we have no control over.
On several occasions keiths has ducked and dodged away from this problem. Arcatia now seems to want to run away from it, as has every other materialist here on this forum. About the best you can hope for is some kind of obfuscated rant about what is meaning, what is will, how do we know we know, what’s the epistemological nature of the epistemology…and on, and on the deflections to anything that could be considered an answer go. Generally people here pretend that if you stick the suffix “sian” at the end of any name, you have said something profound.
So it deserves it own thread. Let the bullshit answers speak for themselves. In the end we will see if anyone actually tries to address it. Its the toughest question for materialists to wiggle out of in my opinion.
petrushka,
He isn’t. That’s your mistake.
Where does he suggest relabeling incarceration?
The point isn’t to relabel anything. It’s to think about what we are trying to accomplish by incarcerating people. Coyne thinks that retributive punishment doesn’t make sense, and I agree with him, though it’s perfectly understandable that people desire retribution.
The solution isn’t to eliminate punishment, but rather to tweak it so that it best achieves our social aims.
Oh my goodness, Keiths, I have to say, I am just realizing I am dealing who someone who is much much less contemplative than I realized. You are not even understanding the simplest of points. You are not getting what anyone on this thread is talking about whatsoever-its just rushing past you like the wind it seems.
We are talking about how the physical state of the chemicals is what determines ones actions, and you are just brushing that off by saying, “yea, but if you are weighing the alternatives and choosing…?” I mean holy shit Keiths, do you really not get at all what is being said here?
The whole entirety of this thread is lost on you apparently. Its gob-smacking how far this has gone over your head. You aren’t even close to understanding the problem.
Keiths will never get why you are laughing at this in a million years.
Not seeing a problem.
All depends what people mean by “free will”, of course. I take it to mean the ability of an organism (such as a human being but I see no reason to limit it to people only) to choose among options.
We’re not the Spanish Inquisition. Participation is voluntary. It is unfortunate when a participant ignores a pertinent question or well-argued point. Onlookers may draw their own conclusions, let’s hope!
phoodoo,
You’re cute when you try to condescend. It reminds me of this.
Do you see any reason why weighing, anticipating, deliberating, and selecting can’t be done by a physical system? You certainly haven’t offered any.
To say something profound you must first say something. phoodoo, when will you say something?
keiths,
Keiths, You can’t understand what Mung said, and you can’t understand what I said, and you have no idea what this thread is about.
You don’t know why a physical state causing a thought, means that the thought is not a choice, but rather a result of the physical state which causes it. Its so lost on you, you are not even at the level of contesting this issue.
Its amazing in fact.
Kantian Naturalist,
Here is what I think differentiates all other animals from humans.
I believe only humans can choose what it is they want to think about. I also don’t think baboons can decide, I need to start improving myself.
I think there are other choices that animals can make about what food to eat and what food to reject and such, but it still leaves humans as the only ones with real choice.
keiths:
phoodoo:
phoo,
I don’t see an answer in there. Just bluster.
Do you see any reason why weighing, anticipating, deliberating, and selecting can’t be done by a physical system? You haven’t offered any.
This is why I have him on ignore. He’s quite frankly, literally, intellectually and emotionally beneath most other people here. Including his fellow ID proponents.
A dumb man and proud of it. Argue with him? Thanks but no thanks.
phoodoo,
If only we could get you to make that decision. I’m not sure you’re capable of it.
You can freely choose to stay here or go elsewhere. You can freely choose to post here or not post. Or you can let the chemicals decide for you.
🙂
And searching. By God, don’t forget searching!
You see phoodoo, how consistent they are, when deciding what physical systems can and cannot do?
What does “material” actually mean, and what is our mode of epistemic access to the “material”, and why should we believe that our epistemic access here is reliable?
Do we even know yet what matter is, or what energy is?
Since “materialism” as understood by its critics is obviously a caricature, I shall ignore it in order to focus on the interesting questions.
I take it that once we set aside the idea of “free will,” the questions are:
How is the distinction between voluntary actions and involuntary actions consistent with affirming that humans are a kind of evolved animal?
and
To what extent are our practices of holding accountable, punishing, praising, etc. even intelligible without a commitment to libertarian freedom?
My view is that our social practices of moral accountability without the belief in free will are just like Christmas without a belief in Santa Claus: the gift-giving still goes on, stockings are still hung above the fire with care, chestnuts are still roasted on an open fire.
The intelligibility of the social practices does not depend on any particular belief about why we engage in those practices.
The belief in “free will” is a relatively recent phenomenon. It’s hard to find much of it before Augustine, and our modern conception of it goes back to Descartes and Locke. Aristotle and Mencius had no need of it, and neither do we.
The difference between us and Aristotle is that we have positive reasons to deny the existence of free will, on the assumptions that
The conceptual status of libertarian freedom: the Cartesian explication or articulation of free will — though with clear roots in Augustine, parallels in Locke, a further and more refined articulation in Kant, and with contemporary defenders such as Robert Kane — is the best articulation of the concept of free will. Put otherwise, incompatibilism “makes more sense” than compatibilism.
The pragmatically constrained epistemic priority of scientific practices for ontological commitment: we ought to accept as being real whatever is posited in scientific models or confirmed in scientific observations, disregard as real whatever cannot be confirmed by those methods, and give priority to scientific practices over other forms of knowledge whenever the two conflict, if we can do so without utterly disrupting the social practices on which the concept of personhood depends.
The reason why I don’t believe in free will or disembodied minds is because I believe (2): nothing of real value is lost from our concept of personhood once we reject the concepts of free will or disembodied minds. Persons are animals, and there’s nothing wrong with that. The philosophical task is to determine what kind of animal a person is. And here too I think Aristotle is basically right: a rational one
Which means that, all things considered, the question “what is rationality?” is answered, in scientific terms, as “a network of linguistically connected brains.”
But would it be Christmas without Jesus Christ?
I was wondering about that, which is why I haven’t had much to say about free will. Obviously Luther’s “On the Bondage of the Will” comes to mind, but I am not familiar with the history of the idea. These little insights of yours are appreciated.
Do you have any sort of references to where Aristotle discusses what it means to be a person and where he restricts personhood to animals?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_animal
But I do not at all follow your train of reasoning that gets us to rationality is, in scientific terms, a network of linguistically connected brains.
Of course ignoramuses would laugh. that’s how they cope with a lack of understanding.
Demon possession is widely documented and could very well be a cause of multiple personality. All it would take would be blocking or interrupting the connection between the two halfs. If humans can do it, then demonic spirits shouldn’t have a hard time of it.
Now that you have had your giggle fit, speak to the point about split-brain not being evidence against duelism.
Or do you even have a counter-point?
Prove that if the halfs were reconnected, the separate personalities would continue to exist.
Omagain,
WTF??!!
Alright, I will explain it sssssslllllllllllooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwlllllllllllllyyyyyyyyyy, K?
1+1 = 3;
…….. waits 15 minutes give or take a couple of hours – does the dishes, checks iphone, and watches Hillary fall into a black sedan.
left brain + right brain = whole brain (which said whole brain is greater than the sum of its two parts)
Hope that helps!
Which is it, Steve?
Steve, now:
Steve, then:
Fight it out with yourself. When you’ve settled on a position, let me know and I’ll respond.
Is this a trick question?
Weather systems dont. Galaxies dont. Volcanoes dont.
Life as purely a physical system is precisely what is in dispute and therefore cannot be used as an example of a physical system that weights, anticipates, deliberates, selects.
So life is off the table.
Next.
KN,
That doesn’t make sense. Rationality is not a network of brains, though a network of brains can exhibit rationality.
Also, the linguistic interconnection of brains doesn’t magically give rise to rationality. Consider the network of linguistically interconnected brains known as “Trump supporters”.
Steve,
You didn’t answer the question:
keiths,
it is not an either or answer.
You weak attempt at an evasion is duly noted.
So. Lets get back to the question at hand. How does split-brain disprove sustance dualism?
I have give an explanation that demonstrates the split-brain phenomenon does not disprove sustance dualism.
Rebuttal time. You get 15 minutes.
Go!
Steve,
Sure it is. If you have a reason (or reasons), then answer “yes” and give it (or them).
If you don’t have a reason, then answer “no”.
It’s either/or.
You continued pedantry is duly note.
But we’ll play.
Any system devoid of intelligence cannot possess the attributes you listed. They can neither weigh nor anticipate nor deliberate nor select.
Examples of systems that do not possess intelligence: weather systems, celestrial systems, volcanic systems.
?
keiths, i have all day.
your rhetorical tricks are lame.
The OP is about split-brain being evidence that disproves substance dualism.
I have spoken directly to that claim.
Rebut my reply that split-brain does not disprove substance dualism.
Show your work.
Steve,
That doesn’t answer the question, which is:
The answer appears to be “no”.
Steve,
Steve, you can’t possibly be this stupid.
Scroll up, look at the title of the OP, and read it.
Once again your pedantry is duly noted.
Physical systems cannot weigh, anticipate, deliberate, select because they do not possess intelligence.
Intelligence: the ability to weigh, anticipate, deliberate, select.
I stand corrected.
It was in response to Tristans comment in response to the OP.
Now.
Back to the question at hand.
How does split-brain disprove sustance dualism?
Steve,
That is an assertion. Please supply evidence and an argument in support of it.
Bullshit.
It is self-evident.
We OBSERVE no weather system, no celesial system, no volcanic system with those attributes.
Therefore, they do not possess them.
Not assertion. FACT.
You are not very good at this are you?
Pedantry is your one-trick pony.
Steve,
That isn’t the question at hand. Remember, you’re the doofus who thought we were in the split-brain thread.
Steve:
Volcanoes don’t decide.
Volcanoes are physical systems.
Brains are physical systems.
Therefore brains don’t decide.
Steve logic. FAIL.
When you respond to one of my comments you need to understand what it is in reponse to.
If you are only willing to reply to comments that are directly responding to the OP, then the proper procedure is to IGNORE the comment.
If you DO NOT ignore the comment, then the comment becomes the question at hand, not the question in the OP.
Please DO follow along keiths.
So your unwillingness to reply to MY comment regarding Tristan’s assertion that split-brain disproves sustance dualism is duly noted.
If you are not interested in rebutting my reply, then just say so.
Steve:
Heh.
Steve.
I’m happy to discuss split-brain patients, because they make the problems with dualism so obvious, Here’s the latest thread dedicated to that very topic:
Split-brain patients and the dire implications for the soul, continued
Have at it. Post your “possession” defense there, and I will respond.
Meanwhile, do you see your logical mistake?
Keiths’ little logic exercise is simplistic and irrelevant here.
Volcan systems are physical.
Brain systems are physical.
However, this does not mean both systems will contain the same attributes.
Observation will make it clear that both systems are not equal in terms of their attributes..
So the logical question is, what makes the brain system categoricall different from the volcanic system?
Hypothesis: Intelligence is responsible for the difference in attritubes between volcanic systems and brain systems. One contains it. The other does not.
Steve,
How do you think of “intelligence”? Could you suggest a definition?
Again, keiths. Respond to the comment already made.
Split-brain patients do not debunk sustance dualism since the analysis that each half of a brain exhibit what appears to be separate personalities and wills does support the conclusion that there are two-separate brains or two separate persons residing within the brain.
The only conclusion that can be derived from the analysis is that different parts of the brain store different sets of information, that when combined together create the whole experience of a single person.
In a nutshell. the whole is greater than its parts.
Economists have failed to learn this lesson when studying the market.
Its pretty clear the scientists studying split-brain have made the same mistake.
Show me that this is not the case and in fact there are at least two persons residing in everyone’s brain.
Simple enough.
Please do avoid more evasive tactics. Its really unnecessary and tedious. My reply to tristan is clear. If you can show otherwise, state it here just as clear.
We can use the working definition keiths provided.
Intelligence: exhibiting the capabilities to weigh, anticipate, deliberate, select.
Using this working definition, we can compare numerous physical systems to this benchmark and see how many exhibit the characterisic of intelligence. From experience, so far only 1 physical system exhibits that capability: biological organisms.
Steve,
You don’t think the ability to learn might also be an attribute of an intelligent organism? And by learning, I guess I mean adapting behaviour using experience (remembering the results of previous outcomes) to improve (in the sense of costs and benefits) outcomes.
Clarification: The contemplation of free will may be a recent phenomenon.
The knowledge and practice of free will has existing for ages, unless of course you are saying that there were no prisons or executions or suicides before Augustine.
I think it is safe to say that humanity very early on understood the decision making process and how it affected their mental and physical freedom.
Mental gymnastics aren’t required to grasp a straight forward observation.
“Speak and you will die.”
“Excuse me, but I value my dignity more than my life. Now off with my head.”
That is free will in action.
KN: “The belief in “free will” is a relatively recent phenomenon. It’s hard to find much of it before Augustine, and our modern conception of it goes back to Descartes and Locke. Aristotle and Mencius had no need of it, and neither do we.”
Steve,
This doesn’t even begin to address the issue. When a person with split brain does two contradictory things, what is triggering the seamingly oposite decisions? Is the soul split in two when the corpus callosum is severed? If the soul has all the “information”, how come it’s interfacing with the brain can’t overcome the physical effects of the split brain?
I completely disagree, because you are assuming the very claim that I am contesting.
I understand you to be assuming that agent causation is constitutive of the distinction between voluntary action and involuntary action.
By that, I mean that no one could draw that distinction unless they were implicitly committed to the idea that some actions are causally unconstrained (not unconstrained per se, since we still need plenty of room for rational constraint).
I am denying that, because I think that agent causation is an explanation of the difference between voluntary and involuntary actions, and not constitutive of those concepts themselves.
In an analogy: free will is to voluntary actions as phlogiston is to burning and rusting. It is not a description of the phenomenon but an explanation for them.
Then the question is, is it a good explanation?
I don’t think it is, because of a more general philosophical commitment that I have to preferring testable posits over untestable posits. Agent causation is untestable. It is, quite simply, magic. (In that regard it is epistemically more like fairies than like phlogiston.)
Yes and no — when I said that “rationality is a network of linguistically connected brains”, I was not proposing a definition of rationality, neither a bit of conceptual analysis, nor any sort of explication of the concept of rationality. I was rather attempting to start developing a causal explanation of what rationality is.
Ideology is fascinating to me. I’m not going to take up bytes and band-with at TSZ with my understanding of what ideology is and how it works. Suffice it to say, for the time being, that ideology is a “pathology of reason”. Beings utterly lacking in rationality can’t be seduced by any ideology.