They Are Going After The Churches:

[seer]

Stop being silly. Now that you materialists have shown that all of our thoughts and behavior is completely determined we can throw this idea of moral responsibility out the window. It is irrational to speak this way in light of your beliefs. And as we discussed in the past Dawkins came to this exact conclusion.

Concepts like blame and responsibility are bandied about freely where human wrongdoers are concerned. When a child robs an old lady, should we blame the child himself or his parents? Or his school? Negligent social workers? In a court of law, feeble-mindedness is an accepted defence, as is insanity. Diminished responsibility is argued by the defence lawyer, who may also try to absolve his client of blame by pointing to his unhappy childhood, abuse by his father, or even unpropitious genes (not, so far as I am aware, unpropitious planetary conjunctions, though it wouldn't surprise me).

But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment.

Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live.

https://www.edge.org/annual-question...response/11416

[JimL]

You are off point Tass, do you agree with Thinker that our conscious, rational, deliberations play no role in the decision making process - yes or no.

Seer, when speaking of a conscious rational deliberater, you are speaking of a ghost, an immaterial thinking thing separate from and independent of the body. So, how do you suppose this ghost does its conscious, rational, deliberating, brainlessly?

[seer]

Seer, when speaking of a conscious rational deliberater, you are speaking of a ghost, an immaterial thinking thing separate from and independent of the body. So, how do you suppose this ghost does its conscious, rational, deliberating, brainlessly?

Who knows, but I am an emergent dualist, with is a bit different than what you describe above. If not Jim, then it is all determined, and it would be irrational for you to attack Trump as it would be irrational for you to attack a wolf for killing a deer. Both are equally determined. No harm, no foul - just nature being nature.

[JimL]

Who knows,

Well therein lies your problem. You not only don't know, but you can't even come up with a logical explanation as to how your brainless ghost does this conscious rational thinking.

but I am an emergent dualist, with is a bit different than what you describe above.

That doesn't explain anything seer. What exactly is an emergent dualist? What do they believe exactly?

If not Jim, then it is all determined, and it would be irrational for you to attack Trump as it would be irrational for you to attack a wolf for killing a deer. Both are equally determined. No harm, no foul - just nature being nature.

Perhaps, but not necessarily, the truth is that we just don't know with certainty exactly how the brain works. Perhaps free will, like consciousness itself, is an emergent function of the brain, but there is no evidence of an emergent ghost, nor does a brainless ghost that thinks make any sense.

[seer]

Well therein lies your problem. You not only don't know, but you can't even come up with a logical explanation as to how your brainless ghost does this conscious rational thinking.

Jim look up emergent dualism, it isn't a brainless ghost.

http://www.informationphilosopher.co...ophers/hasker/

Perhaps, but not necessarily, the truth is that we just don't know with certainty exactly how the brain works. Perhaps free will, like consciousness itself, is an emergent function of the brain, but there is no evidence of an emergent ghost, nor does a brainless ghost that thinks make any sense.

No Jim, you are logically left with determinism. If there is not something "more" that can interact or influence the physical process then all that is left is the physical. Take the ghost out of the machine then what is left is but the machine. Which makes getting upset with the Trumps of the world merely emotional, not rational.

[Tassman]

Jim look up emergent dualism, it isn't a brainless ghost.

http://www.informationphilosopher.co...ophers/hasker/

are what the brain is doing.

No Jim, you are logically left with determinism. If there is not something "more" that can interact or influence the physical process then all that is left is the physical. Take the ghost out of the machine then what is left is but the machine. Which makes getting upset with the Trumps of the world merely emotional, not rational.

[Tassman]

You are off point Tass, do you agree with Thinker that our conscious, rational, deliberations play no role in the decision making process - yes or no.

Answer the question. Are you claiming that your decisions occur in a vacuum and have not been affected or influenced by the myriad of life-experiences which have shaped your subconscious from birth onward? If not, please explain where these un-caused decisions of yours come from.

[Tassman]

Stop being silly. Now that you materialists have shown that all of our thoughts and behavior is completely determined we can throw this idea of moral responsibility out the window. It is irrational to speak this way in light of your beliefs.

And as we discussed in the past Dawkins came to this exact conclusion.

We track down the problem and fix it,https://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_9.html#dawkins

[seer]

are what the brain is doing.

No poop Sherlock, I know who Hasker is. The point is emergent dualism is not substance dualism, which Jim was suggesting.

I have no idea what a monkey thinks. But you you would agree that you are merely a biological automaton with no control over what you believe, do or say. That explains a lot.

[seer]

We track down the problem and fix it,https://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_9.html#dawkins

I did not quote mine anything Tass:

But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment.

What does this mean Tass: But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility

[seer]

Answer the question. Are you claiming that your decisions occur in a vacuum and have not been affected or influenced by the myriad of life-experiences which have shaped your subconscious from birth onward? If not, please explain where these un-caused decisions of yours come from.

I will answer you after you answer me: do you agree with Thinker that our conscious, rational, deliberations play no role in the decision making process - yes or no.

[The Thinker]

Obviously your brain is misfiring again, I clear demonstrated where you jumped to opinion, that greater sensitivity should lead to greater moral concern. Why is that - apart from your opinion?

It's your brain misfiring. That logically follows and I've already explained it. If morality depends on consciousness, as it clearly does, then more of it requires a greater moral concern because it makes one more susceptible to pleasure and pain which is a necessary component of morality. If concern for Y depends on X, then more of X leads to greater concern for Y. If 15 people getting an infectious disease is cause for concern, then 1,500 getting an infectious disease is cause for greater concern. You only deny this principle because you are afraid to admit my view on ethics makes a lot more sense than yours.

I have no idea what you mean. What is best for us is to be saved and spend eternity in blissful repose with our Creator.

What logical reasons does god have for wanting the best for us? He either has logical reasons or he doesn't, and in that case you'd be admitting your god isn't logical. And what does god define as "best for us"? Explain what that means. I'm talking about what's best for us in this world, not an afterlife. Why is spending an eternity with this god "blissful"? Define blissful.

What if the downs child has no family or loved ones, no one who really cares for her? Believe me, having worked in the field for tens years, this happens more than you think.

I'm not sure having downs syndrome makes one less susceptible to pain. Can you show this is the case? If it does I'd save the animal if possible. Don't you agree that there are situations where saving an animal's life would be preferable to saving a person's?

[Jedidiah]

. . . given that the 'mind' consists of what the brain is doing..you are what the brain is doing.

A pure assumption.

[JimL]

Jim look up emergent dualism, it isn't a brainless ghost.

http://www.informationphilosopher.co...ophers/hasker/

Calling it an emergent field of consciousness doesn't make it any less of a ghost. If it thinks and directs the action of matter, then it is a brainless ghost, a thing in itself, independent of the body.

No Jim, you are logically left with determinism. If there is not something "more" that can interact or influence the physical process then all that is left is the physical. Take the ghost out of the machine then what is left is but the machine. Which makes getting upset with the Trumps of the world merely emotional, not rational.

Well, what you need to explain to yourself then is what exactly it is that is meant by a field of consciousness. If it is a thinking thing in its own right then what else would you call it but a ghost. But if it is a thinking thing in its own right, a ghost, then it would have no need of the physical brain.

[Tassman]

A pure assumption.