Paul,
OK - I tend to agree that formal proofs - as offered by Ian come unstuck for this reason. However, I might want to quibble as to who is to blame (so to speak) because I think this is another manifestation of the unreasonableness of the physicalist viewpoint.
I have said before that knock-down proofs in this area are always suspect because terms cannot be defined precisely enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos  Sure they do. Pain is one set of brain processes, joy is another.
The problem with the folk definitions is that they are metaphysically loaded (theory laden) and so we talk past one another because we assume different metaphysics.
~~ Paul |
Two different processes, one has the informational content "Pain is large", the other has the informational content "Joy is large". I just think the only reason that supporters of complete materialism are not just laughed out of court, is that their bizarre beliefs are well wrapped in obscurantist language.
The best way to debate here would be for you to say to Ian (say):
"Yes but I don't really think 'free will' as you conceive of it, exists - so your proof is meaningless. Free will is an illusion........"
That way, you stop arguing about semantics, and get your disagreements out into the open. Asking him for a definition that you know he cannot supply - because nobody can - just seems silly.
David