Determinism Is Self Defeating

[bennyboy]

Why is this important to this discussion? Because determinism is the argument that: 1) any physical system can only have one possible outcome; 2) the universe consists of nothing but physical systems.

No, the notion that any physical system can have only one outcome is pre-destination, not determinism. Determinism is the view that future physical states are determined by past physical states; nothing more. This is why substance dualism is a challenge to determinism because if substance dualism is correct, and the mind is beyond the physical, then future states are determined by past physical states plus whatever contribution the non-physical mind makes to the outcome.

I'm not familiar with this refinement of the word "determinism." To me (and in philosophical discussions I've seen with Dennett and others), it refers to the idea that what is could not have been other than it is. Dennett likes to talk about things being inevitable and "evitable."

3) You ( and by this I mean you and the other physical monists ) keep asking people to furnish evidence that any competitor to the physical monist determinism you take as the default is wrong/incomplete. However, at no point have you actually established the truth of determinism, particularly with regard to mind. Instead, you point to brain function. However, this begs the question-- kind of the point of non-determinism is that mind on some level transcends the pure physical mechanism of the brain. As for evidence, I take as evidence the existence of the subjective perspective, aka sentience, itself. Why should a purely objective physical process manifest as subjective awareness? So far, Dennett has made the most famous attempt at this, but I find it pretty unconvincing.

All valid points, until you get to the bolded part. Here you appear to be making an argument from ignorance, and that is not valid. Another person's inability to furnish a physicalist explanation for subjectivity counts as zero evidence in favor of other explanations.

I don't accept the idea that "substance dualism" (I'll use that word from now, though I just call it dualism) is an explanation of mind. It is a description of observation: I have a mind, and this mind perceives things. Any candidate for Master of the Universe (Theory) has to explain to me in meaningful terms why there is mind, and why there are objects for the mind to perceive.

I'm not bothered if you call this an argument from ignorance, as I'm not positing a theory about what mind is. I'm just saying that my experience of the thing called mind doesn't accord well with the theory which people are demanding be considered the default position. BOP goes on those with the theory, not on those who are describing their direct experience.