The Vicious Circle Argument

1. Regarding the first claim. This is the libertarian view.. But how does it come to pass that this thought itself is not a mental product of the physical, just as the other mental phenomena such as the conscience (experience of conscience) and the image are a product of the physical?
2.”Says something” = The a priori foundation of libertarian thought is that there is a mental gap between the emotion that is a product of the physical effect (as can be observed in damaged minds) and the decision to choose, according to this approach the decision itself is not necessary from the mental state that preceded it. Although the decision to choose is perceived by us as a motivation for action and even this motivation has a neural counterpart.. There is no motivation to help a person whose specific part of the brain is damaged, so just as the initial mental tendency that is determined is determined by the physical, like other cognitive phenomena (the recognition of any issue, color for example), so too is the experience of choice itself not immune to this influence.
3. Why does the entire mental need the physical, why can't I imagine something when my brain is damaged? Why do I need a material appearance of the wavelength in the senses in the past to imagine a color?

1. This is just a skeptical claim. Skepticism can attack any position and there is no point in engaging with it. Those who are bothered by it are bothered, and those who are not are not. My claim, on the other hand, is not skeptical. There is a positive reason to be satisfied there, and not just a claim of "maybe not". I explained this in the book.
2. I didn't understand. Just as I know that what I see does exist (because I am not a skeptic), so I know that what I experience is real. And if I experience that I have a choice, I have no reason to doubt it. We are back to section 1.
3. Because you are a creature composed of a body and a soul. Why can't I walk without legs? Similarly, I can't think without a brain. I think with my brain (and not that the brain activates the mind), just as I walk with my legs.

Let's start with section 3. Walking is a physical action, it is likely that it will depend on a physical condition that allows it. Mental phenomena are metaphysical, why do they need the physical to exist in consciousness?
And hence to section 2. Logical conclusion = the physical is a necessary and sufficient condition for the mental. .(Full disclosure, I don't know why), just as it is necessary for the inclinations themselves and for mental cognition, so it is necessary for logical thought and moral intuition, without which they do not exist. This logical logic applies to all mental phenomena, including choice and moral value judgment. (On page 435 of the book, you defined this condition of a brain-damaged person as blind to moral aspects. It should be emphasized and added that he is also blind to morality itself and not just to its circumstantial conditions. On page 436, you noted that according to the Kantian view, such a person could be moral in his mind.. Right? What would prevent him from killing his friend if he does not have the emotional experience that such a thing is problematic?)
We returned to section 1. Determinism's duty to prove the validity of logic stems from the fact that, according to him, our judgments are not the ones that make decisions for us.. They are an illusion.. I do not understand why you say that, it is true that they are not the ones that make decisions for us.. They are an illusion.. I do not understand why you say that, it is true that they are not the ones that make decisions because the physical does not need them, because consciousness makes its judgments in parallel with the desired physical state.. You could call this adaptation.. Consciousness is free for itself, even if it has a tendency to explain necessary and survival physical states as true even That the physical has no real need for it. The only illusion is the experience of the two-way psycho-physical influence. On the other hand, there is the knowledge that teaches us that we have not yet found a mental state that is possible without an appropriate physical and mental background, a phenomenon that is not explained in the libertarian view.

It is clear that one cannot walk without legs. Nor can one perform an act of thinking in the physical sense without a brain. What does the mind do when it is not connected to the brain? I do not know. I suppose there is thinking there in a more abstract sense. Consciousness is also something that happens to us when we are in a body. I do not know what the consciousness of a distinct soul looks like. Perhaps one can distinguish between consciousness and consciousness that I know (reflection on being aware).

I do not agree with your projection of other mental actions into choice. All the others are deterministic, but this is an action that cannot be performed by the physical because the physical is deterministic.
As for a person devoid of empathy, of course he can be moral, only the applications will change. To act morally, two things are needed, and they are different: 1. To understand that there is a moral obligation. 2. To understand that it applies in a situation where I cause another wound (because it hurts him). The second part does not exist in the brain-damaged person because it is a type of consciousness. Just as a blind person cannot see. But there is no reason to assume that the first part does not exist in him. Important: Can a blind person not decipher mirrors? If we manage to bypass his eye and bring visual information by mechanical means directly to the brain (the visual center), will he not be able to see and process the mirrors he receives?

Interesting to note on that matter.
In the aforementioned book, page 139, you brought up Plantinga's argument that evolution has no explanation for the need for mental adaptation for our survival.. I would like to understand whether this argument is directed only at the materialist who denies the influence of the mental on the physical, but the libertarian who perceives the mental as influencing the physical will be able to explain mental phenomena according to the law of natural selection? After all, in his opinion, the mind must be adapted to its survival needs, otherwise it will make "active" decisions and cause the physical to behave contrary to the better choice.
Or is the libertarian also not immune to Plantinga's argument?

What is your soul, the libertine, exempt from? If there is evolution on souls in order, and if there is not, then the structure of the soul was designed by God and not evolution, and again it is not difficult or excessive.

Does evolution provide a full explanation of mental phenomena through the principle of natural selection, or do they have a priori meaning?

I didn't understand the question.

The principle of natural selection generally eliminates the need to provide an autonomous logical explanation for mental phenomena, for example, I may believe in God and morality, not because it is logical or necessarily true (there is no such thing as “true” in this picture) but because only people with such random beliefs and tendencies could survive.
On the other hand, our faith in reason does not accept this assumption, and as you elaborated in your book. Or in short, the naturalistic fallacy.

I asked; Are all mental phenomena, such as the need for respect in social relationships, friendship, love and hate (not based on an ethical rupture), random and irrational feelings that natural selection preferred over other mental traits, by virtue of their survival properties, or do they have an autonomous internal logic, inherent to the mental essence itself? As it seems to me that Jewish thought prefers to provide explanations for human traits according to their internal cognitive basis. Is there a logical necessity for this?

I don't know, and I don't think anyone does. It's always possible to find an evolutionary explanation for this or that human trait. By the very nature of evolutionary explanations, they are formulated ad hoc (therefore, it is an irrefutable theory). The very existence of the mental dimension in us is not explained within an evolutionary framework.
By the way, maybe I also believe in evolution only because evolution forces me to.