Free will Argument against Divine Providence

[bennyboy]

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.

Yes - sub-categories - meaning not representing the categories themselves. Are you really not getting the difference?

A: We have to keep dogs off the runway!
B: What about beagles? You didn't say beagles!

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.

I don't want to talk about freedom from swinging doors or exposure to tsetse flies. If you have a definition that is general enough to make interesting conversation, and specific enough to mean something, then bring it. I'm arguing against determinism because in my past experience, the free will argument is normally taken in that context.

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"?

Stop saying spiritual. Nobody's talking about that.

As for the other stuff: yes, absolutely. These are all subjective terms; they are all properties which only one person can interact with directly, and are not suitable for discussions of objective reality, aka science.

Don't want to drop all the feely-touchy language? That's because our actual experience of life ISN'T objective. Sentience isn't brain function, and feelings aren't hormones. Otherwise, we would in fact just look at a body as an organic machine: data in, processing in the brainomatic 2000, behavior out.

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.

On Christian forums, I'm often told the same thing. I just don't "get" God, and I should open my heart and make my own discoveries. Well, I've outlined my argument, and defined the terms as I intend to use them. If you don't like those terms, you have the burden of stating which ones, specifically, represent YOUR position. Waving your hand and hinting that there are other positions one might take is pointless-- of course there are. So take one.

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.

According to ALL physical monists that I've ever met, brain function is mind (or at least the mind is a byproduct of the brain). But it's a bullshit position. Mind is the awareness you have when you open your eyes in the morning, and know what it means to exist. You can say, "When patient X reports experience Y, we monitor increased blood flow in region Z." What you cannot do is prove that this active, speaking brain/body is actually experiencing anything, rather than just seeming to. That's because mind is personal and subjective, not objective; and it's why "brain function" cannot be allowed to be equated to "mind." You can't start a line of inquiry with a definition that so obviously begs the question.

Anyway, I think I already have a mind/matter thread open. This thread about determinism seems likely to get derailed by brain/mind talk, so I recommend moving this discussion there (if you even want to have it).