Re: Making your mind up

On 2024-04-11 2:42 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 10:19:45 -0500, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
 

On 2024-04-10 4:09 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 11:28:11 -0500, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:

 [snip for focus]
 

Yep. It's just the spectre (ha) of the supernatural that seems to
inevitably arise when 'free will' is invoked that bothers me.

>
What bothers me is when people dismiss things out of hand just because
they might have even a hint of the supernatural.
>

Hint? Is is supernatural

>
Funny how in the whole discussion about free will and determinism, you
are the only one to raise the supernatural.
>

see just below
>

and that bothers me because it invalidates much
of what we believe we know about the universe.

>
I think at this stage, you have a broad idea of my beliefs but just to
summarise them - I'm a religious believer (Catholic), I'm a dualist
inclined towards panpsychism and I believe there is such a thing as
free will. I don't reject any scientific knowledge or *evidence-based*
conclusions, finding my beliefs readily compatible with them. What in
my beliefs invalidates much of what we know about the universe?
>

 

It's the 'dualism' bit. Perhaps I misunderstand, but It seems to me that
dualism requires the existence of some non-material entity that can
cause material changes in defiance of physical laws.

 What physical laws are being defied?

Non-random physical activity without the required energy supply.

 

That meets my
definition of supernatural.

 The general definition of 'the supernatural' is "caused by forces that
cannot be explained by science" (adj) or "things that cannot be
explained by science" (noun)
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/supernatural
 

I'm happy with that definition as long as it is taken quite strictly, ie "cannot be explained by science" and not 'is not presently completely explicable by science'.

As discussed just a couple of months ago, science, at least at this
point in time, cannot explain consciousness of which decision-making
is a subset.

Except that there are scientists working on the problem and believe they have some promising ideas (there is a short discussion in last months Scientific American on AI)And there is no indication that it violates any physical laws. so I would call it paranormal, not supernatural.
  In that sense, therefore, determinism also qualifies as

the supernatural. I think your definition of the supernatural is
related to a particular association of the supernatural with religious
belief but that is down to your own personal belief

I'm sure you do believe that, but then I believe you had no choice but to do so, it's just who you are. I also believe that you are wrong.
  and, if you want

to be consistent in your scientific arguments, you really need to
treat belief in determinism just as much based on the "supernatural"
as free will is.
 

That does not follow. I believe that I did not chose my belief, I believe that I hold my belief because of who I am. where is the supernatural in that?
BTW, I am a bit pissed off by part of your other earlier reply and will not be responding to it. In future, I would appreciate it if, in responding to my points, you refrained from comparing me to some other arsehole on the web, I am arsehole enough on my own.

 

I can't help (ha) but feel that belief in
free will and dualism are two sides of the same coin.I'm sure you don't
*reject* scientific knowledge but I think you must be allowing some
'leeway?' to accept dualism.

 I honestly can't think of any area of scientific knowledge where I
have to allow any such 'leeway'; can you suggest any in particular?
 […]
 

--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)