Mind = Brain?

[fr0d0]

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.

Don't be an idiot rabbit. 1. You're disingenuous to the extreme 2. You're, as usual, misreading.. no doubt you'll drag out the 'oh I was trying to tease out more detail' bullshit again.

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.

So you're quoting Arcanus and putting it onto me right? (time to divert to reason (2) again). I read Arcanus to encompass outside influence. What we are programmed to do includes outside influence.. I find that quite simple to understand. Evidently you do not. Let me know how I can help with that.

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 you know what I am thinking/ saying. Interesting. Is that this 'spiritual' ability of yours in action?

I've never said that I fully understand 'will' or 'agent' concepts fully. I don't. It's something I'm learning about. You seem to want to stomp all over me over that. All I wanted to do was link to a previous exploration of the subject so we could continue from there. Apparently your ego needs some caressing here. So go for it.

I can distinguish the difference between choice and will... just your phraseology blurred the meaning to me, hence my request for clarity. Was that _so_ hard?

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?

Arcanus didn't say we could "sidestep the causal chain". That's a stretch too far. In my understanding, our intellect and our influences on top of our instincts determine any outcome of our actions. In other words, out instinct, influences and intellect all shape the causal chain. We would do no other., but we are not passive in the process. We are actors in the process, and so are our influences.

I assume you must substitute something else.

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

You prove my assumption with the following question

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?

Because 'identity' isn't 'soul'.

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.

The connection is solid. This is central to the notion of the soul, and the whole point of it. Soul has been raised in this topic, not by me, but by others who suppose mind = soul. And you brought 'soul' into our conversation and not me. Soul being an inextricable link to God within us in Christian dogma is entirely credible if you're questioning Christian dogma.

[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.

Don't be an idiot rabbit. 1. You're disingenuous to the extreme 2. You're, as usual, misreading.. no doubt you'll drag out the 'oh I was trying to tease out more detail' bullshit again.

Another not very impressive ad hominem diversion. Please answer the question about "actively shaping the causal chain" if you have any understanding of it.

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.

So you're quoting Arcanus and putting it onto me right? (time to divert to reason (2) again). I read Arcanus to encompass outside influence. What we are programmed to do includes outside influence.. I find that quite simple to understand. Evidently you do not. Let me know how I can help with that.

No, you were quoting Arcanus as an answer of some sort. Probably because you don't know shit yourself. We are engaged for several postings now in trying to get straight what these words of Arcanus mean, but you haven't been able so far to explain the text in any meaningfull way. However you still may do so. By explaining to me how one can be pre-programmed to influences outside oneself (meaning that the nature of these influences is unknown in advance) in any more particular way dan reacting to a stimulus from the outside. How do these "character or desires" know in advance how to respond to specific inputs, like say my question about "actively shaping the causal chain"? Is your diversion pre-programmed?

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 you know what I am thinking/ saying. Interesting. Is that this 'spiritual' ability of yours in action?

Saying yes (if you do it here), thinking no. Then we would be soul mates, which is not quite the case. I cannot know what is going around in your head, nor can you really, at the level of neuronic activity. But what is observable here is that you do dodge the question.

I've never said that I fully understand 'will' or 'agent' concepts fully. I don't.

Indeed you haven't.

It's something I'm learning about. You seem to want to stomp all over me over that. All I wanted to do was link to a previous exploration of the subject so we could continue from there. Apparently your ego needs some caressing here. So go for it.

You were free all along to say that you do not have the answers.

I can distinguish the difference between choice and will... just your phraseology blurred the meaning to me, hence my request for clarity. Was that _so_ hard?

Maybe frodo, we are all dazzled by phraseology from time to time. I'm doing my best here, but english is not my native language. I'll try to be clearer next time.

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?

Arcanus didn't say we could "sidestep the causal chain". That's a stretch too far. In my understanding, our intellect and our influences on top of our instincts determine any outcome of our actions. In other words, out instinct, influences and intellect all shape the causal chain. We would do no other., but we are not passive in the process. We are actors in the process, and so are our influences.

OK, if that's what he meant . But it would read passively shaping the causal chain in my words.

I assume you must substitute something else.

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

You prove my assumption with the following question

In that 'following question' I asked you why you need a word like 'soul'. You tell me that I need some substitue for it. That's simply a non sequitur, it does not follow from my question about the word that I need a substitute for the concept of soul. You're diverting again.

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?

Because 'identity' isn't 'soul'.

Then what is, according to you, the difference between identity and soul?

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.

The connection is solid. This is central to the notion of the soul, and the whole point of it. Soul has been raised in this topic, not by me, but by others who suppose mind = soul. And you brought 'soul' into our conversation and not me. Soul being an inextricable link to God within us in Christian dogma is entirely credible if you're questioning Christian dogma.

If there is a connection between soul and free will, then what is it? You say it is central to the notion of soul but not how. It is central to christian dogma allright but if will only can be excercised along the paths of "pre-programmed" causal chains, as you seem to acknowledge, then how can the soul have any influence?

[fr0d0]

By explaining to me how one can be pre-programmed to influences outside oneself (meaning that the nature of these influences is unknown in advance) in any more particular way dan reacting to a stimulus from the outside. How do these "character or desires" know in advance how to respond to specific inputs, like say my question about "actively shaping the causal chain"? Is your diversion pre-programmed?

I'm not really stating anything here, just repeating what Evie has said many times. Everything we do is mechanical in a way because we have no real option than to do what our 1. instincts 2. intellect and 3. outside influences would already have us do. It matters not if the influence is spontaneous or dormant, however that influence affects us determines the choices we make. Likewise our reasoning could be spontaneous - does that mean it cannot also be mechanical and what we always would have reasoned? Do you think an influence is more another agent imposing onto us as agents?

Then what is, according to you, the difference between identity and soul?

Identity is your outward persona, or intellectual picture of yourself. Your soul is your unknowable self. It _is influenced_ by what you choose. It _cannot_ influence you.

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

I never said that ignorance of reasons of the opposite is why science believes the mind is in the body... I said that I am not going go believe that anything a 'mind' (my mind) does can be done outside my brain without evidence.

EvF

[Purple Rabbit]

You said "and I know of no evidence whatsoever that any of my thinking of anything a 'mind' does can be done outside of my brain or without it."

So you might be ignorant of such evidence. Fine.

The point is that it is not an argument for anything, ever. That's all.

[Edwardo Piet]

I never said it was an argument. That was never my point. My point is that's why I don't believe, because there's no evidence that I know of.

EvF

[Purple Rabbit]

I never said it was an argument. That was never my point. My point is that's why I don't believe, because there's no evidence that I know of.

EvF

You keep on doing it. The "that's why" is reasoning. It is argument. It is using ignorance as an argument. Because of ignorance of proof of A, you don't believe A.

Well, it is a phrasing I could have used myself, that's not the point. I'm often not accurate enough myself. And I've seen enough of your postings to know you do not mean it as an argument. This is the difference between formally correct use and common use of language. And sure, this is hair splitting and it is going on far too long now. And I apologize for my nagging.

But the point is however that in your response you do not make a difference between the semantics at the formal level and at the common language level. Keeps one wondering.

[Edwardo Piet]

I was talking about why I don't believe. You seem to misunderstand The Argument from Ignorance and I believe you've incorrectly had me with it before too. The Argument From Ignorance is when I claim that because I know of no evidence for something that it therefore can't be so.... I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that I don't believe because I know of no evidence. When I say "that's why I don't believe" the emphasis is on the that's why I don't believe. I personally would require to have what I at least thought was evidence before I am to believe.

What I am giving is not an argument from ignorance, what I am giving you is basically.... - if you don't mind me quoting your own signature at you? -:

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." - Christopher Hitchens

That is not the argument from ignorance of course. There's a difference.

For it to be the argument from ignorance it would have to be something more like "What can be asserted without proof is surely absolutely false".

If you see implications of the argument from ignorance then I don't and I didn't intend any... perhaps you should make sure you catch me more explicitly making it next time if I really am making it. What I am speaking of is dismissing the belief in a mind without a brain because I know of no evidence. 'That's why' I personally disbelieve. I believe 'that's why' anyway....

EvF

[Purple Rabbit]

I was talking about why I don't believe. You seem to misunderstand The Argument from Ignorance and I believe you've incorrectly had me with it before too. The Argument From Ignorance is when I claim that because I know of no evidence for something that it therefore can't be so.... I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that I don't believe because I know of no evidence. When I say "that's why I don't believe" the emphasis is on the that's why I don't believe. I personally would require to have what I at least thought was evidence before I am to believe.

What I am giving is not an argument from ignorance, what I am giving you is basically.... - if you don't mind me quoting your own signature at you? -:

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." - Christopher Hitchens

That is not the argument from ignorance of course. There's a difference.

For it to be the argument from ignorance it would have to be something more like "What can be asserted without proof is surely absolutely false".

If you see implications of the argument from ignorance then I don't and I didn't intend any... perhaps you should make sure you catch me more explicitly making it next time if I really am making it. What I am speaking of is dismissing the belief in a mind without a brain because I know of no evidence. 'That's why' I personally disbelieve. I believe 'that's why' anyway....

EvF

See my former post.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well could you elaborate on this please?:

But the point is however that in your response you do not make a difference between the semantics at the formal level and at the common language level. Keeps one wondering.

So you know I'm not making the argument from ignorance really and yet you persist?

I accept your apology.

EvF