Mind = Brain?

[fr0d0]

"freedom is predicated of persons, not faculties. In other words, the agent is free, not his will. A person's will is determined by his character and desires." - Arcanus

"In order for choice to be meaningful and morally significant, it must be deliberate. To make a deliberate choice is to contemplate a set of options (e.g., chocolate or vanilla pudding) and to instantiate that which enjoys the greater degree of our desires (e.g., chocolate pudding), whether those desires are rational or emotional or some concert of both. If we evaluate this series closely, we realize that our choices are a function of our cognitive faculties; for example, the choice of chocolate pudding is a causal chain that is propagated and filtered through the motivational complex of our desires. This is why choices of the will always reveal the character of the person. The causal chain runs through the agent's cognitive faculties, not irrespective of them (libertarianism) but concordantly with them. Put in other words, the volitional activity of our will actively shapes this causal chain, as opposed to passively responding to a causal chain (determinism). We are not puppets. Nothing makes our choices for us. We make our own choices. Although our will is determined or "causally necessitated," it is so in the right way by forces internal to the choice-maker, not external. We know from the laws of nature that determinism is real, but we also know from the human experience that choice is real. Compatibilism is the theory that takes both seriously and articulates them as co-existent realities." - Arcanus

"Free will is not being defined differently so much as properly, foremost by the rejection of "free will" as a misnomer because the will is not free. I once shared your confusion because, perhaps like you, I persisted in the notion that the will is free, but it was a confusion that disappeared when I let go of that idea, substituting it with "free agency" instead. But I had to be shown the incoherence of "free will"—how it creates a dissonance in our intuitions and is violently inconsistent with a biblical world view—before I was able to drop it and pursue a more coherent view. Indeterminism or "free will" simply does not work. But neither does determinism, which, when held consistently, results in the nihilistic repudiation of truth, knowledge, science, etc. Evidently the truth was somewhere in between. Ergo, compatibilism. It is coherent and consistent biblically, logically, intuitively, and scientifically." - Arcnus

from this thread: http://atheistforums.org/thread-2044-pag...ight=agent

[Purple Rabbit]

Why are you simply quoting Arcanus, is he your house guru? Are you a free agent acting according to your own will or are you a copycat?

"freedom is predicated of persons, not faculties. In other words, the agent is free, not his will. A person's will is determined by his character and desires." - Arcanus

That's wordplay at best. With free will generally is meant the freedom of a person to act according to his/her will. Most notably freedom from persuasion by other agents. So my question to you in these terms would be: what delivers will, body or soul?

"In order for choice to be meaningful and morally significant, it must be deliberate. To make a deliberate choice is to contemplate a set of options (e.g., chocolate or vanilla pudding) and to instantiate that which enjoys the greater degree of our desires (e.g., chocolate pudding), whether those desires are rational or emotional or some concert of both. If we evaluate this series closely, we realize that our choices are a function of our cognitive faculties; for example, the choice of chocolate pudding is a causal chain that is propagated and filtered through the motivational complex of our desires. This is why choices of the will always reveal the character of the person. The causal chain runs through the agent's cognitive faculties, not irrespective of them (libertarianism) but concordantly with them. Put in other words, the volitional activity of our will actively shapes this causal chain, as opposed to passively responding to a causal chain (determinism). We are not puppets. Nothing makes our choices for us. We make our own choices. Although our will is determined or "causally necessitated," it is so in the right way by forces internal to the choice-maker, not external. We know from the laws of nature that determinism is real, but we also know from the human experience that choice is real. Compatibilism is the theory that takes both seriously and articulates them as co-existent realities." - Arcanus

Some bullet style remarks on this:

• It is rather presumptuous to assert that choice should a priori be morally significant. It reveals special pleading.
  
• Arcanus postulates that a causal chain is 'actively shaped' but presents no argument or evidence to sustain this.
  
• The rest of his reasoning points to monism stating that while the choices are being made from within the body, therefore the agent is free. A rather simplified version of physical monism. There is no room for a soul separate from the body in this reasoning. Which is fine by me.
  

"Free will is not being defined differently so much as properly, foremost by the rejection of "free will" as a misnomer because the will is not free. I once shared your confusion because, perhaps like you, I persisted in the notion that the will is free, but it was a confusion that disappeared when I let go of that idea, substituting it with "free agency" instead. But I had to be shown the incoherence of "free will"—how it creates a dissonance in our intuitions and is violently inconsistent with a biblical world view—before I was able to drop it and pursue a more coherent view. Indeterminism or "free will" simply does not work. But neither does determinism, which, when held consistently, results in the nihilistic repudiation of truth, knowledge, science, etc. Evidently the truth was somewhere in between. Ergo, compatibilism. It is coherent and consistent biblically, logically, intuitively, and scientifically." - Arcanus

Some bullet style remarks on this:

• A lot more drabble on the filological interpretation of 'free will' that only, as we saw in the above, rephrases the question.
  
• I'm not sure if he meant it but surely indeterminsm does not equate to free will.
  
• From determinism he jumps to the conclusions that truth will be repudiated. Clearly a non sequitur.
  

[fr0d0]

I quote Arcanus because he put it most clearly. No point trying to re-invent the best explanation.

"That's wordplay at best. With free will generally is meant the freedom of a person to act according to his/her will. Most notably freedom from persuasion by other agents. So my question to you in these terms would be: what delivers will, body or soul?"

I strongly disagree that it's wordplay. It's a more accurate use of language. 'Will' is commonly assumed to be 'choice'. You cannot make any choice you aren't programmed to make through your own "character or desires". This includes persuasion by other agents. You are not restricted externally from making these choices so you are a free agent.

What delivers will: your influences and desires. Your mind.

Your body is a mind driven machine. Your soul is a container: It is influenced by your mind.

[Purple Rabbit]

I strongly disagree that it's wordplay. It's a more accurate use of language. 'Will' is commonly assumed to be 'choice'. You cannot make any choice you aren't programmed to make through your own "character or desires". This includes persuasion by other agents. You are not restricted externally from making these choices so you are a free agent.

If you wanna be accurate with language, be accurate. Choice is not the same as will. Will is about striving for a particular outcome not for the choice as such.

Are you saying people cannot be persuaded by others?

What delivers will: your influences and desires. Your mind.

And now straight on to the big question. What delivers your desires?

Your body is a mind driven machine. Your soul is a container: It is influenced by your mind.

Where exactly in the latter does the soul pop into existence?

[fr0d0]

Influence is part of the decision process. Could you differentiate will a bit more?

Desires are instinctual urges I think. the soul is just there. It's an description of something reasoned.

[Purple Rabbit]

Influence is part of the decision process.

So? Please highlight the information part in this sentence for me. It feels like forcing an open door.

Could you differentiate will a bit more?

I've done a lot of differentiating in my lifetime already. I've decided not to differentiate any more without a clear goal to do so. What exactly are you looking for?

But please do elaborate on the "actively shaping of the causal chain" thing. Is there some homunculus inside the brain interfering with pre-programmed desires by rerouting from the main switchboard?

Desires are instinctual urges I think. the soul is just there. It's an description of something reasoned.

Then what do we need a soul for? It's useless in your/Arcanus "explanation" so far.

[fr0d0]

You're so pedantic Rabbit

You asked if I was saying people cannot be persuaded by others. I repeated what I'd said a couple of times already: that outside influence affects the decision process.

I was asking if you'd differentiate between will and choice a bit more, as your statement that "Will is about striving for a particular outcome not for the choice as such" ..didn't seem much of a distinction; or even apt in this case.

So are you saying that free will is not about choice but about being determined in what you've chosen?


I have no idea what you're getting at with the causal chain question.

Apparently our use for soul is currently outside your consideration. Which is fine. I assume you must substitute something else. Your soul is your state as a person. The sum of your mind and instincts which goes to make your identity. You can nurture a positive harmonious persona which would then lead to a balanced life. In a Christian worldview a balanced life is achieved through living right with God.

[Edwardo Piet]

Ignorance is not a valid argument.

No but it is a good reason why not to have a strong belief, in my opinion.

I'm not going to believe that anything a 'mind' does can be done outside of my brain without evidence. But that's just me.

I wasn't making an argument, I was just stating what I believed/disbelieved and why (no evidence as far as I know, that's why I don't believe in minds away from the brain).

EvF

[Purple Rabbit]

You're so pedantic Rabbit

This is what you do best. Divert attention when it is time for answers you suggest you have. I gave you ample opportunity to state your views on the quotes you dropped from Arcanus as if they totally reflect your own. I asked what you/he meant by "actively shaping the causal chain" which seems to suggest that humans can somehow step with their identity and will outside their causal determination and affect it in some way.

You asked if I was saying people cannot be persuaded by others. I repeated what I'd said a couple of times already: that outside influence affects the decision process.

You also said that "You cannot make any choice you aren't programmed to make through your own "character or desires"." which seems to suggest quite the opposite, whatever the persuasion attempts of others, there is no effect of it on the decision one is programmed to make.

I was asking if you'd differentiate between will and choice a bit more, as your statement that "Will is about striving for a particular outcome not for the choice as such" ..didn't seem much of a distinction; or even apt in this case.

No, you asked me to differentiate on will, not on will and choice, thereby suggesting that there was some other relevant distinction to be made about will. The distinction between will and choice I gave is in plain english, which part don't you get? The point is that choice does not equate to will, which is what you suggested ("'Will' is commonly assumed to be 'choice'."). Why not? Because choice is a situation of more than one possible outcome (no agent involved here) , while will is the striving of some agent for a certain outcome. So choice drastically differs in nature from will. If you cannot distinguish the two or think the dstinction is not apt, then how can you ever hope to be accurate on interpreting quotes from others on this subject? The thing is that you use inaccuracies like this to hide incomplete reasoning for the supernatural, like the soul.

So are you saying that free will is not about choice but about being determined in what you've chosen?

I'm saying that both will and choice are concepts that need evaluation when trying to understand the free will problem and that they are not the same.

I have no idea what you're getting at with the causal chain question.

That's very odd indeed since you brought it up with quoting Arcanus. Are you implying that you don't understand what Arcanus is saying while still quoting him? My question is very simple. Arcanus suggested that it is posibble to sidestep causal chains ("actively shape the causal chain"). How?

Apparently our use for soul is currently outside your consideration. Which is fine.

Right. Like fairies, leprachauns and goblins.

I assume you must substitute something else.

Your assumption is false. Why do you make such an assumption?

Your soul is your state as a person. The sum of your mind and instincts which goes to make your identity.

Why should I need a word like 'soul', a word with strong supernatural connotations, when 'identity' suffices and is without that connotation as shown in this sentence by yourself?

You can nurture a positive harmonious persona which would then lead to a balanced life. In a Christian worldview a balanced life is achieved through living right with God.

The predicate of leading a balanced life is a result of a personal assessment and thus subjective. There is no need for a god in it, nor does the reference to a god add up to credibility for such a being. But this has nothing to do with the question of free will. You brought it up to lend some credulity to a supernatural soul, but failed to make the connection.

---

I'm not going to believe that anything a 'mind' does can be done outside of my brain without evidence. But that's just me.

Yeah, but the point is that there are good reasons to believe that the mind is in the body. Ignorance of reasons of the opposite is not why science believes the mind is in the body.

[solarwave]

Ok I havn't read anything here other than the first post and Frodos retelling of Arcanus.

I think that the mind is something different from the brain but it is caused by the brain. So at a certain level of complexity the brain creates a non-physical mind which is affected by the brain since the brain is the source of the mind, but the mind is different enough from the brain to have a causal effect on the brain.

To Frodo: If the way Arcanus explains it is correct in what way are we morally responsible if we can't control our thought processes ether. It may be the agents choice, but everything he bases his choice on is beyond his control. How would you answer this?