Compatibalism

[Tassman]

And makes the living organism, what it is.

Modern neuroscience is rapidly reducing human thought, emotion and behaviour into component pieces of neuronal interactions. No 'soul' necessary!

Again I'm not sure you understand hylomorphic dualism. It is specifically not claiming that there's a second substance, remote controlling the brain. There's no ghost in the machine. The soul is the substantial form of the body. It is because my body is human, and functioning normally, that I'm able to think and reason.

Yes, I agree that doesn't describe how this takes place in detail, but so what? Your objection was to the soundness of Libertarian Free Will, to which you continuously return to the interaction problem whenever someone describes causation that isn't material. All I have to do is describe, not defend, but describe one single case that is logically self-consistent in order to defend against the notion that it is incoherent.

No the

I really don't have to do more than that.

If they do, that is not a problem. They have souls as well.

You're straw-manning the argument. I never said, "We don't know how this is done, ergo soul." My argument, if I were to make it and I won't here, would be to use intentionality, aboutness and possible qualia (less certain about that one) to argue that reductionistic materialism has serious conceptual problems with even describing these, no matter how complex the science of neurology gets, it would not amount to an explanation of those hard problems (as Chalmers calls them). Then I would focus on where I think the crux of the problem is, and defend hylomorphic dualism which solves all the conceptual problems, those hard ones, and leaves the soft ones as to how this works in detail, to the neurology department.

It is no argument from ignorance. And it adds no problems to the mix. A Thomist expects the brain to work brainly and do mind stuff. Which it is quite capable of doing. We don't make any claim about there being a secret part of the brain that acts as a transmission reciever, this is rather what the Cartesian dualists expect, the body being a remote controlled meat puppet and the soul being the driver. That's quite absurd and indeed creates a whole host of problems.

So does a neurobiologist without the need to conjure up a soul to explain the phenomenon.

[The Thinker]

Sure sock puppet, as soon as you deductively show me that you were determined to speak a truism above. After all your thoughts are too uncontrolled.

Ok sure, define "truth" for me and define "knowledge."

[seer]

Ok sure, define "truth" for me and define "knowledge."

Wow, you don't even know what truth and knowledge are! Way to weasel Thinker!

[The Thinker]

Wow, you don't even know what truth and knowledge are! Way to weasel Thinker!

I want to see if you know because I suspect you don't. There are also many competing theories. So go ahead and define them.

[seer]

I want to see if you know because I suspect you don't. There are also many competing theories. So go ahead and define them.

Really Thinker, the fact that you are even speaking of theories of truth or knowledge just proves that you know you can't answer my question are weaseling out of it.

But here you go,Truth: the state of being the case, the body of real things, events, and facts.

[The Thinker]

Really Thinker, the fact that you are even speaking of theories of truth or knowledge just proves that you know you can't answer my question are weaseling out of it.

But here you go,Truth: the state of being the case, the body of real things, events, and facts.

LOL. I ask this for several very important reasons that you should recognize. I want to get you on paper listing your theory of truth and knowledge to (1) know you have an actual understanding of these topics, (2) make sure you don't move the goal posts, and (3) find out of your own theory of these things makes it impossible for anyone on any view of free will to justify truth and knowledge under it.

How does one acquire the state of truth on your view, and how is knowledge justified? Do you adhere to the correspondence theory of truth, the coherent theory of truth, or something else? Do you adhere to justified true belief as your definition of knowledge? Or something else? If you don't have a working theory of truth and knowledge, what makes you able to claim my view cannot justify it? Given me standard to meet before you ask me to meet your challenge.

[seer]

LOL. I ask this for several very important reasons that you should recognize. I want to get you on paper listing your theory of truth and knowledge to (1) know you have an actual understanding of these topics, (2) make sure you don't move the goal posts, and (3) find out of your own theory of these things makes it impossible for anyone on any view of free will to justify truth and knowledge under it.

How does one acquire the state of truth on your view, and how is knowledge justified? Do you adhere to the correspondence theory of truth, the coherent theory of truth, or something else? Do you adhere to justified true belief as your definition of knowledge? Or something else? If you don't have a working theory of truth and knowledge, what makes you able to claim my view cannot justify it? Given me standard to meet before you ask me to meet your challenge.

Stop it Thinker! You are still dodging my question. Face it, you can not justify your position and you know it.

[Leonhard]

The rest of the post being just sophomoric blabber, I think I'll focus on this mistake of yours since there's no reason for me to advance the discussion at all, without you actual understanding what I'm talking about.

In Thomistic metaphysics, all things that are made of matter, have form. In fact, it's possible to have some things, not made of matter, who also have form, but that's more of an advanced topic. Imagine wood, unqualified, just wood. We know what wood is (though it can be more specified as what type of wood. If you're feeling pedantic, imagine pinewood). Wood has certain limits as to what it can be, part of a living tree is one example. Carved into a table, with the strength and properties limited by wood. The form dictates what the wood is, and the matter limits what that form can be.

You cannot make a wooden table that can fly. Wood just doesn't have the properties able to do that. The matter is acting as a limiting principle.

Neo-Aristotelian views on metaphysics (yes Thomism is one of those), separate all physical beings into matter and form. The arguments for doing so are fairly simple, but before I get into explaining the reasoning. I want you to at least understand what is meant, otherwise, it's an exercise in futility.

So what is a 'soul' in Thomism? Well, what we call 'soul' just is the substantial form of the body. It's what gives and adds properties and powers to flesh and bone. To move, respirate, sense and react all things all animals have in common, and all entirely bodily by the view of Thomism. In fact, no Thomist was surprised to know that when we view images, there will be specific neurons firing correlating precisely to that. "Told you so," St. Thomas Aquinas already wondered that inside the head of a person looking at something, alterations and changes reflecting things outside would be happening.

The only difference is when it comes to rationality. The ability to abstract and perceive forms.

To look at a chair and understand the concept chairs, as distinct from the particular, and to be able to consider, discuss and compare this abstracted concept with other abstract concepts.

Humans are so far the only species with this ability.

I hope this makes things a little clearer. You're completely right that I haven't argued for any of this, but I wasn't interested in doing so. I merely defended libertarian free will against your accussation that it was incoherent. To that end I simple explained one particular metaphysics that it worked.

All your objections regarding scientific popularity are, I'm afraid, irrelevant. You might not think they are, but since I was only targetting your view that libertarian free will was incoherent in and of itself, I don't actually have to make a case for it. I just have to show that there's at least one potential way in which it could make sense.

There's no reason to get salty about me doing so. That's just standad philosophy.

[Leonhard]

Okay, thats a little clearer I think. But so what, what does the form, and the properties associated with that form, have to do with a soul? I mean naming it a soul doesn't seem to change anything of its singular materialistic nature. The matter of a body in the form of a nervous system, a brain, has the property to rationaly compute. You say that therefore the brain acts in ways it otherwise wouldn't unless it had a human soul as if a human soul was something different than, and causative of, the properties of the material form. I guess what I'm trying to understand is in what sense do you understand hylomorphic dualism to actually be dualism.

(1:48AM posting time for me)

You wouldn't be the first one to suggest that Hylemorphic Dualism should be viewed as a kind of non-reductive physicalism. For various reasons I'd disagree with that, but right now it's really late and I have a programming marathon tomorrow, and I have to catch an early train to get there.

See you around. Will get back to this.

[JimL]

(1:48AM posting time for me)

You wouldn't be the first one to suggest that Hylemorphic Dualism should be viewed as a kind of non-reductive physicalism. For various reasons I'd disagree with that, but right now it's really late and I have a programming marathon tomorrow, and I have to catch an early train to get there.

See you around. Will get back to this.

Fair enough, good luck.

[Tassman]

Neo-Aristotelian views on metaphysics (yes Thomism is one of those), separate all physical beings into matter and form. The arguments for doing so are fairly simple, but before I get into explaining the reasoning. I want you to at least understand what is meant, otherwise, it's an exercise in futility.

So what is a 'soul' in Thomism? Well, what we call 'soul' just is the substantial form of the body. It's what gives and adds properties and powers to flesh and bone. To move, respirate, sense and react all things all animals have in common, and all entirely bodily by the view of Thomism. In fact, no Thomist was surprised to know that when we view images, there will be specific neurons firing correlating precisely to that. "Told you so," St. Thomas Aquinas already wondered that inside the head of a person looking at something, alterations and changes reflecting things outside would be happening.

All your objections regarding scientific popularity are, I'm afraid, irrelevant. You might not think they are, but since I was only targetting your view that libertarian free will was incoherent in and of itself, I don't actually have to make a case for it. I just have to show that there's at least one potential way in which it could make sense.

You have not demonstrated that libertarian free-will is logically coherent in a causally determined universe. All events and decisions are determined by an unbroken chain of antecedent occurrences and the level to which we have influence over our future is largely dependent on present and past. Your is a pre-scientific, purely academic argument, which is divorced from what we know of the real world.

[mattdamore]

Hi,

If I may, I have always thought about how libertarian free-will could "fit in" to a causally determined universe. To my mind, libertarian free-will is committed to the existence of something that does not fit in to a causally determined universe. What that something is is hard to say. If it's the soul, I guess I'd have to define what it is. If it's an emergent property, I'd have to spell how the nature of the relation between the subvenient properties that give rise to supervenient properties capable of causing things independently of the causal nexus that governed the activity of the subvenient properties. In this case, the causal chain of antecedent occurrences would include the emergence of such supervenient qualities, but I wonder if we might ask about whether or not such supervenient qualities would constitute an additional causal chain from which free-will decisions could issue. So, it may "fit in" to a causally determined universe at the threshold, but once that threshold had qualitatively shifted, new capacities for originating causal chains had been causally determined to be. So, perhaps I could say that we are in a causally determined universe, but that causal chains can culminate in the causal production of new capacities, able to originate causal chains in a way that is not causally dependent on the causal chains that gave rise to the said capacities.

[The Thinker]

Stop it Thinker! You are still dodging my question. Face it, you can not justify your position and you know it.

No. You're avoiding the fact that you are setting a standard no one can meet, not even you on your view. Prove to me you actually have an understanding of knowledge and truth.

[seer]

No. You're avoiding the fact that you are setting a standard no one can meet, not even you on your view. Prove to me you actually have an understanding of knowledge and truth.

What are you talking about? My answer was inherent in my definition, truth is that which corresponds to reality. The fact is Thinker you can not demonstrate logically, that on any given subject, that you were determined to spit out a truism. You can not demonstrate that what you just wrote corresponds to reality. You know this, that is why you are keeping up this subterfuge.

[The Thinker]

What are you talking about? My answer was inherent in my definition, truth is that which corresponds to reality. The fact is Thinker you can not demonstrate logically, that on any given subject, that you were determined to spit out a truism. You can not demonstrate that what you just wrote corresponds to reality. You know this, that is why you are keeping up this subterfuge.

Truth is what corresponds to reality? Reality corresponds to reality. What is the truth part? Is truth reality itself? It is it a proposition? Is it a mental state a person has? Can a computer have a truth? Be more specific.

Oh and I proved my point of view more than a year ago. You've never refuted what I wrote. Instead you try to move the goal posts to give an impossible standard no one can demonstrate.