(August 7, 2013 at 11:50 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I don't reject God and fate, I discard them. I do this because nobodoy here is making a case for either of these (except of course in the OP lol). If anybody wants to make a serious case that gods can set our behavior, in the context of a free will discussion, then we can actually include that in the discussion.
Missed the point again. I was not criticizing your discarding of of the two cases, I was criticizing your limiting your consideration to the three.
(August 7, 2013 at 11:50 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Except all those things DID fall exactly as children of the first 3 categories I mentioned.
Yes - sub-categories - meaning not representing the categories themselves. Are you really not getting the difference?
(August 7, 2013 at 11:50 pm)bennyboy Wrote: My definition is "correct" because the words have always meant what I say they meant. Look to historical discussions of free will, or even to etymology of the words "free" and "will." This is not an arbitrary POSITION, it's just a knowledge of what those two words mean.
This is where you are wrong. Historical discussion of free-will is not limited to free-will vs determinism debate. Free-will is not historically defined as "not determinism" - that definition is only found within the context of that particular debate and not in other historical discussions or the words' etymology.
(August 7, 2013 at 11:50 pm)bennyboy Wrote: That being said, I acknowledge what you're saying: there are many world views, and depending on your world view, words can have various meanings. So, in a physical monist world view, will (if it means anything) means, and can only mean, the faculty of making decisions (based on both that world view and on one's emotional state, for example).
What I'm saying is that I do not accept that the words mind, will, etc. HAVE valid meanings in that kind of monism-- they are just euphemisms for brain function, and are better dropped than clung to.
Unfortunately, neither this view, nor your acceptance is considered applicable by anyone. What other words would you have replaced? Should we no longer talk about the 'self' because within the dualist view, 'self' referred to the spiritual you and there is no such thing within the monist philosophy? Should we stop referring to emotions and from now on, call them "neural activities in particular regions of the brain"?
(August 7, 2013 at 11:50 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Condescension much? If you want to pull out your philosophical pecker and measure it against mine, then there's always 1 vs. 1. Otherwise, let's stick to ideas rather than ad homs.
Its not condescension. I really wish you would study up on the monist position on the Philosophy of Mind. Explaining all the different positions taken by it would take too much time.
(August 7, 2013 at 11:50 pm)bennyboy Wrote: That's exactly what I'm saying.
That's the opposite of what you are saying.
(August 7, 2013 at 11:50 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Noooo. Brain function is measurable. I'm asking you to show me a mind. I'll show you red light, a property which emerges out of collections of particles which themselves have no color. You show me that emergent property, mind, which you say arises out of brains.
This is why I'm asking you to study up on the monist position. According to quite a few of them, brain function is mind. If you are looking at an FMRI with the memory section lighting up or the imagination sector lighting up, what you are seeing is that person's mind.
