(August 8, 2013 at 10:42 am)bennyboy Wrote: A: We have to keep dogs off the runway!
B: What about beagles? You didn't say beagles!
Okay, so you don't get the difference. This should make it clearer:
A: We have to keep dogs off the runway!
B: Invalid rule. K-9 unit is required to be on the runway.
(August 8, 2013 at 10:42 am)bennyboy Wrote: 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.
Here's from the wiki:
Free will is the ability of agents to make choices unconstrained by certain factors. Factors of historical concern have included metaphysical constraints (such as logical, nomological, or theological determinism), physical constraints (such as chains or imprisonment), social constraints (such as threat of punishment or censure, or structural constraints), and mental constraints (such as compulsions or phobias, neurological disorders, or genetic predispositions).
General enough for you?
(August 8, 2013 at 10:42 am)bennyboy Wrote: Stop saying spiritual. Nobody's talking about that.
The dualists are.
(August 8, 2013 at 10:42 am)bennyboy Wrote: 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.
Good luck convincing monists to accept your argument.
(August 8, 2013 at 10:42 am)bennyboy Wrote: 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.
Few problems with that:
I'm not asking you to open your heart, I'm asking you to open your mind. I'm not hinting at other positions, I'm telling you that there are other positions and I'm telling you where you can find them.
In this discussion, you are criticizing the monist position as invalid without actually understanding what the monist position is. You are outlining your argument using your own definitions (which, btw, is your primary argument against the monist position), without any regard for how those definitions apply to the monist positions.
Go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_...dy_problem. Figure out what the monist position actually is and then evaluate which criticisms apply to it.
(August 8, 2013 at 10:42 am)bennyboy Wrote: 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.
That's what I've been trying to tell you. According to the monist position, you can prove that this active, speaking brain/body is experiencing something. There are quite specific explanations for things like "awareness", "experience" or "consciousness" within the monist position. Explanations which are available for you to study and evaluate. Refusing to do so while criticizing the strawman of that position does no-one any favors.
