[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

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 believe Ian's proof has logical flaws. It has nothing to do with my viewpoint.

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.

And yet you won't present a nonmaterialist definition of these terms. That certainly guarantees you won't be laughed out of court.

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........"

But that's not a flaw in his proof, it's just an opinion on my part. He is presenting a logical proof. Any refutation has to be in the form of flaws in the proof itself.

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.

We're arguing about a proof. A logical proof. How many times do I have to repeat this? If he cannot supply definitions of the terms used in his proof, then his proof is meaningless.

You want to avoid strict definitions of terms yet make assertions about those terms. It just doesn't work.

~~ Paul