Where Do Moral Questions Stop?

[seer]

Wait, basing your views on intuition, subjective experience, and faith is not idiotic?

No Thinker, you assigning blame or deriding my conclusions is what is idiotic because if you are correct I have no control over what I believe. Brain chemicals alone cause me to base my beliefs on intuition. Your objection is irrational given your worldview.

There are many kinds of dualism. There is cartesian dulaism, which is what you hold. And then there is property dualism, which would be compatible with epiphenominalism. I'm open to that, but again, the brain is what's causing all thoughts.

OK, for now we agree that thoughts are different than brain chemicals.

So basically, you want me to answer all of your questions, and yet, you won't answer any of mine. I asked you several things:

1. What your scientific evidence that mind or soul causes the physical brain? This violates quantum field theory, which is our best tested scientific theory.
2. List a chronological order of events whenever a person makes a "freely" willed decision from first to last.
3. Explain whether you believe things begin to exist without a cause.

Why don't you try and answer these questions, at least number 2. In order to test whether A is true, it is either logically so, or evidentially so. That's how you know. Given "free will" how is it that our souls deceive us? What would make a soul deceive?

Again, I said a while ago that I don't know how it all works, only that it does. Yes that is intuitive. So this morning I either chose a red shirt (among the many options) by conscious deliberation, or the brain chemicals made that choice for me - so why would my brain chemicals choose red over the other options?

You're totally mistaken here and fail to understand the analogy. The components of the plane are analogous to the components of your brain, not your thoughts. Flight would be analogous to consciousness or rationality. You're utterly lost here.

No Thinker, you said:The truth of the matter would be the causal factor that leads me to believe it is true. And I can compare it to evidence.

Truth is propositional, it is an idea, a belief. A thought. You said that truisms have a causal effect, but then you hold to epiphenomenalism where thoughts and beliefs (true or not) play no role in the process. You are not making sense.

Still noticed you cannot make a coherent argument that your view is true. Face it seer, LFW is incoherent. You're just being a typical dishonest internet apologist now.

And I noticed that you could not logically go from being determined to believing that A is true to A actually being true. You're just being a typical dishonest internet atheist apologist now...

[seer]

Seer's view would allow us to have no brain and still be conscious and able to think. In fact, we would just be skin and bones and do the same things we can do.

Well yes in the next life that would be possible. I this life I believe the "mind/soul" is an emergent property of the physical brain, dependent on the physical brain.

http://www.informationphilosopher.co...t_dualism.html

[The Thinker]

No Thinker, you assigning blame or deriding my conclusions is what is idiotic because if you are correct I have no control over what I believe. Brain chemicals alone cause me to base my beliefs on intuition. Your objection is irrational given your worldview.

There's nothing irrational about it. We're all products of our environment. You're the product, most likely, of a Christian home, family, or culture. Your beliefs are shaped by the experiences and education you had. So I don't blame you in the libertarian sense.

OK, for now we agree that thoughts are different than brain chemicals.

Maybe, maybe not. Until we figure out the hard problem of consciousness, we cannot say. What we can say, is that the brain causes the mind.

Again, I said a while ago that I don't know how it all works, only that it does. Yes that is intuitive. So this morning I either chose a red shirt (among the many options) by conscious deliberation, or the brain chemicals made that choice for me - so why would my brain chemicals choose red over the other options?

You don't have to know how it all works, you have to have a basic logically coherent outline, which you don't. So you cannot say that you know it works. Intuition has been shown repeatedly to be false on a number of things. You need way more than intuition to back up your claims.

No Thinker, you said:The truth of the matter would be the causal factor that leads me to believe it is true. And I can compare it to evidence.

Truth is propositional, it is an idea, a belief. A thought. You said that truisms have a causal effect, but then you hold to epiphenomenalism where thoughts and beliefs (true or not) play no role in the process. You are not making sense.

You're just confused. Truth is when belief is in accord with fact or reality. Belief is all dependent on the brain. The brain gets information from the senses to process memories and thoughts. When they are processed accurately (in accord with fact or reality), the sense data is the causal factor that shapes my brain processing, and my thoughts about the world are the result of that. It is not the case that "truth" is some platonic thing that exists out there that causes anything in the physical brain.

And I noticed that you could not logically go from being determined to believing that A is true to A actually being true. You're just being a typical dishonest internet atheist apologist now...

Ha. Anyone reading our threads knows this is a figment of your imagination. Anytime you wanna show LFW is coherent, I'm all ears.

[The Thinker]

Well yes in the next life that would be possible. I this life I believe the "mind/soul" is an emergent property of the physical brain, dependent on the physical brain.

http://www.informationphilosopher.co...t_dualism.html

Why shouldn't it be possible now? Nothing about your views prevents a "soul" from animating a bag of bones.

If you think mind/soul is an emergent property of the physical brain, and dependent on it, then how do they interact?

[Tassman]

What does interplay mean Tass?

Do our conscious thoughts play a causal role in the process? That is something Thinker has denied.

[seer]

There's nothing irrational about it. We're all products of our environment. You're the product, most likely, of a Christian home, family, or culture. Your beliefs are shaped by the experiences and education you had. So I don't blame you in the libertarian sense.

No you can't blame me, or any criminal, in any sense. We would be no more blameworthy, morally, than a rock rolling down a hill and hitting you in the head.

Maybe, maybe not. Until we figure out the hard problem of consciousness, we cannot say. What we can say, is that the brain causes the mind.

Yes, I believe the brain causes the mind, the problem is that you do not believe the mind has input in the process. See I know how I logically decided to choose a red shirt, I can follow the rational. But you have no idea why brain chemicals would choose red over green.

You don't have to know how it all works, you have to have a basic logically coherent outline, which you don't. So you cannot say that you know it works. Intuition has been shown repeatedly to be false on a number of things. You need way more than intuition to back up your claims.

This is where you are completely hypocritical Thinker. I asked a while back for you to deductively demonstrate that what goes on in your mind actually reflects reality. You did not, nor can you. Then I asked you to deductively demonstrate that because you are determined to believe that A is true that A is actually true. And you can't - and we both know it. So what are you left with? Not logical reasoning, but faith and intuition. You trust that these things are so without deductive justification.

You're just confused. Truth is when belief is in accord with fact or reality. Belief is all dependent on the brain. The brain gets information from the senses to process memories and thoughts. When they are processed accurately (in accord with fact or reality), the sense data is the causal factor that shapes my brain processing, and my thoughts about the world are the result of that. It is not the case that "truth" is some platonic thing that exists out there that causes anything in the physical brain.

No you are obfuscating. You agreed that thoughts play no functional role in the process, and that brain chemicals are non-rational. You say that truth is what conforms to reality, but it is your non-rational brain chemicals that decide what conforms to reality - or not, hence truth. So your argument is completely circular. So again you violate the rules of logic yet still claim the rational high ground. Bad form old man.

[seer]

If you think mind/soul is an emergent property of the physical brain, and dependent on it, then how do they interact?

I don't know for sure and I did give you a link with scientists working on it, but you have no idea why my brain chemicals chose a red shirt over a green, especially in light of the fact that brain chemicals are non-rational, and could care less what shirt I picked.

[The Thinker]

No you can't blame me, or any criminal, in any sense. We would be no more blameworthy, morally, than a rock rolling down a hill and hitting you in the head.

That's not completely true. First there is the compatibilistic version of determinism, in which a notion of blame or responsibility can exist. Second, even on hard determinism/incompatibilism, in the criminal sense, we still remove people from society in the same way we remove defective products from stores.

Yes, I believe the brain causes the mind, the problem is that you do not believe the mind has input in the process. See I know how I logically decided to choose a red shirt, I can follow the rational. But you have no idea why brain chemicals would choose red over green.

This whole statement is incoherent because these two statements by you contradict each other:

(a) brain causes the mind
(b) I logically decided to choose a red shirt

The "I" in (b) would be your brain. There is no difference between you and your brain. So when you "logically decided to choose a red shirt" your brain is what decided. Thus your view is incoherent.

This is where you are completely hypocritical Thinker. I asked a while back for you to deductively demonstrate that what goes on in your mind actually reflects reality. You did not, nor can you. Then I asked you to deductively demonstrate that because you are determined to believe that A is true that A is actually true. And you can't - and we both know it. So what are you left with? Not logical reasoning, but faith and intuition. You trust that these things are so without deductive justification.

First of all, no one can logically prove that what goes on inside their mind reflects reality. It is impossible to disprove the idea that we're living in a computer simulation. So your asking me to do something no one else has, or ever will be able to do. I'm not asking the same thing. I'm asking you for a simple chronological order of events of what happens when you think someone makes a freely willed decision. If you expect me and others to take your views seriously, they must be coherent, and they must be compatible with the evidence. Smart people are simply not going to take your views on faith and intuition. We need evidence.

I've provided you with a logical argument that shows libertarian free will is impossible. You've never even tried to refute it. I've provided you with several lines of scientific evidence showing brain causes mind, always. You've never provided a single piece of scientific evidence to support your views at all, and that's because of 2 things: 1) your views are based on faith and intuition and not science, and therefore you have no scientific evidence to support your views; at best you have pseudoscience. 2) you've never even outlined or explained what your view even says, such as a chronological order of events that happens that can make predictions.

No you are obfuscating. You agreed that thoughts play no functional role in the process, and that brain chemicals are non-rational. You say that truth is what conforms to reality, but it is your non-rational brain chemicals that decide what conforms to reality - or not, hence truth. So your argument is completely circular. So again you violate the rules of logic yet still claim the rational high ground. Bad form old man.

You're completely lost....again. Truth is belief that conforms to reality. Beliefs are all formed by brains. Brains get data from the senses. The truth of a tire in the middle of the road that I must avoid while driving comes from the light emitted from the tire that goes into my eyes and that my brain processes. Your still obsessed with brain chemicals and think that each chemical must "think" in the same way my entire brain does. That's a reductio ad absurdum, like the cartesian theater idea of a little man inside our heads controlling us like a robot, but who is inside the little man's head? Another little man! ....Ad infinitum. You see how that view is absurd. The intelligence and rationality come from the whole brain functioning together, the individual parts do not have rationality. How many times are you going to make the fallacy of division over and over again? This is the 5th time.

Now your view says that a thought, which you admit is caused by the brain, since you said "I believe the brain causes the mind" - somehow how causal power over the brain. But thoughts are a part of the mind, which is caused by the brain, as you admitted above, so if it is caused by the brain, the brain cannot be caused by the mind. Your whole view is incoherent.

[The Thinker]

I don't know for sure and I did give you a link with scientists working on it, but you have no idea why my brain chemicals chose a red shirt over a green, especially in light of the fact that brain chemicals are non-rational, and could care less what shirt I picked.

This is your problem, your still obsessed with chemicals being rational, not realizing that rationality is a property of the brain that only exists when the whole thing is functioning together, in the same way how the individual parts of a brain do not fly by themselves.

[seer]

This is your problem, your still obsessed with chemicals being rational, not realizing that rationality is a property of the brain that only exists when the whole thing is functioning together, in the same way how the individual parts of a brain do not fly by themselves.

Again Thinker what is the whole thing if thoughts and conscious deliberations have no causal effect? Thoughts are mere by products, and meaningless. They are an unnecessary "part." What is left but brain chemicals?

[seer]

That's not completely true. First there is the compatibilistic version of determinism, in which a notion of blame or responsibility can exist. Second, even on hard determinism/incompatibilism, in the criminal sense, we still remove people from society in the same way we remove defective products from stores.

Yes, we would remove them from society, for our protection, but logically they are no more morally blameworthy than a coconut that falls out of a tree and hits you in the head.

This whole statement is incoherent because these two statements by you contradict each other:

(a) brain causes the mind
(b) I logically decided to choose a red shirt

The "I" in (b) would be your brain. There is no difference between you and your brain. So when you "logically decided to choose a red shirt" your brain is what decided. Thus your view is incoherent.

First, you already agreed that the brain and mind were different. So yes, my conscious thoughts and brain make me. And again, why did my brain chemicals choose the red shirt. I know why my conscious reasoning did.

First of all, no one can logically prove that what goes on inside their mind reflects reality. It is impossible to disprove the idea that we're living in a computer simulation. So your asking me to do something no one else has, or ever will be able to do. I'm not asking the same thing. I'm asking you for a simple chronological order of events of what happens when you think someone makes a freely willed decision. If you expect me and others to take your views seriously, they must be coherent, and they must be compatible with the evidence. Smart people are simply not going to take your views on faith and intuition. We need evidence.

Yet you are perfectly fine with grounding your epistemology on faith and intuition (trusting that is so without logical justification). But chide me for doing the same.

I've provided you with a logical argument that shows libertarian free will is impossible. You've never even tried to refute it. I've provided you with several lines of scientific evidence showing brain causes mind, always. You've never provided a single piece of scientific evidence to support your views at all, and that's because of 2 things: 1) your views are based on faith and intuition and not science, and therefore you have no scientific evidence to support your views; at best you have pseudoscience. 2) you've never even outlined or explained what your view even says, such as a chronological order of events that happens that can make predictions

Call it pseudoscience if you will, and I will remind you that one, I am not a materialist, so "science" is not the last word - God is. Two, you have yet to logically bridge the gap from being determined to believe that A is true to A actually being true. So again, you take it by faith.

You're completely lost....again. Truth is belief that conforms to reality. Beliefs are all formed by brains. Brains get data from the senses. The truth of a tire in the middle of the road that I must avoid while driving comes from the light emitted from the tire that goes into my eyes and that my brain processes. Your still obsessed with brain chemicals and think that each chemical must "think" in the same way my entire brain does.

When it comes to the brain all you have are chemicals - turtles all the way down. And you argument is still circular - The brain decides what reality is, then decides what conforms to reality. That is a vicious circle. So again, you throw off logic and embrace faith, all the while accusing me of doing the same.

[The Thinker]

Again Thinker what is the whole thing if thoughts and conscious deliberations have no causal effect? Thoughts are mere by products, and meaningless. They are an unnecessary "part." What is left but brain chemicals?

How could thoughts, which you said are caused by the brain, have a causal impact on the brain? That makes no sense. And how does a thought that has no physical property, suddenly change the arrangement of atoms in your brain?

[The Thinker]

Yes, we would remove them from society, for our protection, but logically they are no more morally blameworthy than a coconut that falls out of a tree and hits you in the head.

So? It's no different from how we treat those who are mentally ill. But like I said there are two views on this, the compatibilist view, and the incompatibilist view.

First, you already agreed that the brain and mind were different. So yes, my conscious thoughts and brain make me. And again, why did my brain chemicals choose the red shirt. I know why my conscious reasoning did.

First, I said that I'm open to brain and mind being different, via property dualism. Second, that doesn't mean that mind causes brain. It still means that brain causes mind, always. Your brain chemicals made the choice to make you choose the red shirt because of all the antecedent causes of them going back to the big bang. More proximately, your brain might be wired up for liking red over blue, or you may have had good experiences with red. The answer is not in the single atoms in your brain, the answer is in your whole brain and its history.

Yet you are perfectly fine with grounding your epistemology on faith and intuition (trusting that is so without logical justification). But chide me for doing the same.

Once again, as with morality, there is a difference between one's basic beliefs, which no one can prove, and one's non-basic beliefs. You seem to think that because we cannot prove we're not living in a computer simulation, then every belief or claim is equally justified. That is absurd. Free will cannot be a basic belief, because we have logical and scientific evidence against it.

Call it pseudoscience if you will, and I will remind you that one, I am not a materialist, so "science" is not the last word - God is. Two, you have yet to logically bridge the gap from being determined to believe that A is true to A actually being true. So again, you take it by faith.

So if a scientific fact disproved a theological belief of yours, would you accept the fact, or reject it?

You're view on mind is refuted by science, so no amount of faith is going to make it true.

When it comes to the brain all you have are chemicals - turtles all the way down. And you argument is still circular - The brain decides what reality is, then decides what conforms to reality. That is a vicious circle. So again, you throw off logic and embrace faith, all the while accusing me of doing the same.

That is a ridiculous caricature of my views and something a person with no ability to justify his views would say. My argument is not circular. All we have in order to know the external world is our senses and our brain. That's it. Our brains are all we have in order to be able to form beliefs about the world. There's no faith on my view, except my basic beliefs which I cannot prove. I have logic and evidence to support my views, you have neither. So please don't compare my views to yours.

[seer]

How could thoughts, which you said are caused by the brain, have a causal impact on the brain? That makes no sense. And how does a thought that has no physical property, suddenly change the arrangement of atoms in your brain?

So you agree that thoughts are not physical?

[seer]

So? It's no different from how we treat those who are mentally ill. But like I said there are two views on this, the compatibilist view, and the incompatibilist view.

So which one is yours?

First, I said that I'm open to brain and mind being different, via property dualism. Second, that doesn't mean that mind causes brain. It still means that brain causes mind, always. Your brain chemicals made the choice to make you choose the red shirt because of all the antecedent causes of them going back to the big bang. More proximately, your brain might be wired up for liking red over blue, or you may have had good experiences with red. The answer is not in the single atoms in your brain, the answer is in your whole brain and its history.

See none of this works, because on other days I would choose green over red and so fourth. And I have logical reasons for doing so, I can follow the reasoning in my conscious mind. Now I don't know how my conscious choices effected or directed the physical brain, I just know that at the end of the reasoning process I physically picked the red shirt based on rational deliberation. You on the other hand remove rational conscious deliberation from the picture as having any effect in the choice. So I can not tell you how my deliberations actually caused the choice, and you can not tell me why brain chemicals picked red over green. What I do know is that conscious logical reasoning and deliberation play a causal role in my model, but do not in yours.

Once again, as with morality, there is a difference between one's basic beliefs, which no one can prove, and one's non-basic beliefs. You seem to think that because we cannot prove we're not living in a computer simulation, then every belief or claim is equally justified. That is absurd. Free will cannot be a basic belief, because we have logical and scientific evidence against it.

I'm just making the point that we all have faith positions, ones that we readily accept. With out logical justifications.

That is a ridiculous caricature of my views and something a person with no ability to justify his views would say. My argument is not circular. All we have in order to know the external world is our senses and our brain. That's it. Our brains are all we have in order to be able to form beliefs about the world. There's no faith on my view, except my basic beliefs which I cannot prove. I have logic and evidence to support my views, you have neither. So please don't compare my views to yours.

No Thinker, it is not caricature. Show me where my point was not circular. And the fact is you can not logically go from being determined to believing that A is true to A being actually true. You can not logically justify it - yet you claim that you have logic on your side! And on top of this you have no control over what you accept as evidence or how you process evidence or the conclusions you come to. Faith, and faith, and faith... Own it.