(June 1, 2012 at 7:26 pm)apophenia Wrote:

(June 1, 2012 at 7:03 pm)StatCrux Wrote: It can, that's an option, in fact it's more consistent with materialism. the problem is that it destroys freewill, we basically become automatons, Daniel Dennet agrees, saying freewill is illusory.

I think you're misunderstanding or misstating Dennett's position. I would be surprised to hear him say what you just said, and I've been reading Dennett for over 20 years. (Though admittedly I haven't read him lately, and though it's been at least a decade since my last reading of Elbow Room, I doubt he's defected from the compatibilist position as you suggest. His essay from 2002's The Oxford Handbook Of Free Will is in the section on compatibilism, though I haven't confirmed its content. Freedom Evolves, 2003, is on my reading list; I persuaded one of my atheist groups to make it a book selection. )

---

ETA: Speaking of which....

"Zawidzki reveals the systematic structure of my work as never before, and shows, with more patience than I have been able to muster, just how and why the parts fit together as they do. Zawidzki also usefully points out the weak spots in my position that need more work."

— Daniel Dennett on the back cover of the introductory work, by Tadeuz Zawidzki

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKLAbWFCh1E

Dennet essentially says that freewill is an illusion .

Quote:You "Thoughts are not material"

Neither is motion.


Yup,,so what?

can someone define "lessened" and "elevated" regarding brain death?

Elevated brain death is for theists.

Step 1. Imply electrical impulses in the brain are mystical and get your ass handed to you by a newbie as a result.
Step 2. ????
Step 3. ????
Step 4. Prove God exists.
Step 5. Profit.

(June 1, 2012 at 7:50 pm)StatCrux Wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKLAbWFCh1E

Dennet essentially says that freewill is an illusion .

A one hour and 23 minute video? Are you fucking stroking me? And what's with the weasel word 'essentially'? I might watch this, then again, I might just blow you off for being unable to present your evidence more concisely.

Note that the video you are citing was posted to Youtube in April 2009. In the abstract for Dennett's December 2010 lecture paper ""My Brain Made Me Do It" (When Neuroscientists
Think They Can Do Philosophy)", Dennett writes:

"Some philosophers and neuroscientists have recently been saying that science shows that we don't have free will,
but it turns out that this claim — which would be bad news if true — is due to misrepresentation and misinterpretation.
Since free will matters to people, and should matter, these contributions to public misunderstanding are regrettable."

So in other words, you're essentially an unreliable source.

(June 1, 2012 at 8:05 pm)StatCrux Wrote: can someone define "lessened" and "elevated" regarding brain death?

Allow me to explain myself a touch more simply. Your wording here makes me think you're not understanding exactly what I'm talking about.

In the terms of a biological machine, all living beings are machines. Let's use plants as one level, animals as another and then humans on top (I've left single celled organisms out for the sake of simplicity).
Plants operate almost like a fully mechanized assembly line. They take in sunlight for food and take in carbon dioxide to convert to oxygen. They grow, seed and die.
Animals are a step up (even though humans are animals, we are making a distinction for the sake of the argument). They have brains. These brains are so cool! Instead of automated assembly, we've switched to humans (not real humans, metaphorical humans)! Now, we're unsure if these animals can feel emotion, per-say, but their function is elevated from the cognitive functions of a plant. This is where the word elevate enters my argument. The term is one to describe a step up from mindlessness.
Humans (and other self-aware animals like gorillas and elephants) are one step further. How are they 'elevated' from the animal category we were discussing? It's one letter, one pronoun and it's an incredible one, "I". We can think in terms of "I". We're self-aware, we can conceptualize death, we can conceptualize the universe and our place in it (admittedly, I'm not sure if the non-humans who share self-awareness are quite at this level).
I hope this explained the use of the term 'elevated'.

Now, if those terms needed to be questioned in that sense, I'm sure my argument also is confused.
Everything that makes a person a person is stored in the brain. The brain is where our memories are stored, where sensation is processed and where motor function is controlled. Protect your brain, it's everything you are.
When a person suffers brain death, one of two things happens:
1. The body also dies.
2. The body continues to function, but higher brain function is non-existent.
Regardless of which outcome occurs, brain function is no longer present. All of the things that make a human a person has perished. For this reason, the human body, without the brain, is lessened in standing. We've gone from high cognition to automated assembly line. I'm sure you have heard the common term for these types of people, a "vegetable". No longer does the body think or contemplate, it is reduced to merely processing nutrients.
I hope this has cleared things up.

(June 1, 2012 at 4:46 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Why is this thread continuing?

Because you keep posting, moron.

(June 2, 2012 at 12:22 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(June 1, 2012 at 4:46 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Why is this thread continuing?

Because you keep posting, moron.

Let me see if I understand this correctly...

Brian hands you your ass in the first response to the OP. There really can't be any confusion about this. After five pages of mostly bullshit he asks why the thread is still alive.

Your response is that he is a moron for continuing to post, even though your response is a further continuance. Before you try to invoke the rubber/glue defense, please keep in mind that I stated no claim to the extent of the thread nor was I so stupid as to call someone a moron for the act that I had to commit to communicate the derision.

(June 2, 2012 at 1:36 am)cato123 Wrote:

(June 2, 2012 at 12:22 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Because you keep posting, moron.

Let me see if I understand this correctly...

Brian hands you your ass in the first response to the OP. There really can't be any confusion about this. After five pages of mostly bullshit he asks why the thread is still alive.

Your response is that he is a moron for continuing to post, even though your response is a further continuance. Before you try to invoke the rubber/glue defense, please keep in mind that I stated no claim to the extent of the thread nor was I so stupid as to call someone a moron for the act that I had to commit to communicate the derision.

I don't suppose he could persuade you to give him a Murphy?