Secular Morality?

[JimL]

No Jim, no such thing was "observed." No one ever observed consciousness or rationality emerging from the non-rational forces of nature.

The nervous system, the brain, evolved seer, and consciousness is an emergent property of the nervous system. No one ever saw it because no one was ever conscious until they were.

Look Jim, I will explain this one more time. Your mind, in your worldview, was created by forces that did not intend to create rationality, and were not rational themselves. And these forces, that were not in any way rational, predetermined that your mind work in a specific rational way. But why?

Because that is how evolution works. The forces involved are neither conscious or rational and intend nothing. The primordial gas didn't intend to gravitate into clumps forming stars and planets and galaxies. Stars didn't intend to create within themselves the elements of life through nuclear synthesis, and life didn't intend to evolve into nervous systems that would become conscious minds. Asking why is like asking why does anything at all exist, or as Locke put it, "why is there something rather than nothing?" There is no answer to that question seer. Existence is, and evolution is what it does.

When you look at a working, accurate calculator the only reason it is accurate is because the engineer that designed and created it was rational. The calculator depends completely on a rational creator. No one would trust the answers of a calculator that was created by non-rational forces. Would you?

The human nervous system was formed over billions of years of evolution and is only "defined as being rational" because it comports with the enviroment out of which it was formed. An engineer is not necessary for that.

BTW everyone - that is my new grandson I'm holding - Isaac James...

Thats great seer, happy for you. Glad to see you had them name him after me.

[JimL]

Concerning the present scientific research and conclusions concerning the nature of human will the following is a good starting point for discussion, but in no way conclusive.

Source: Disputed relevance of scientific research

In many senses the field remains highly controversial and there is no consensus among researchers about the significance of findings, their meaning, or what conclusions may be drawn. It has been suggested that consciousness mostly serves to cancel certain actions initiated by the unconscious,[7] so its role in decision making is experimentally investigated. Some thinkers, like Daniel Dennett or Alfred Mele, say it is important to explain that "free will" means many different things; among these versions of free will some are dualistic, some not. But a variety of conceptions of "free will" that matter to people are compatible with the evidence from neuroscience.

Free Will as Illusion

It is quite likely that a large range of cognitive operations are necessary to freely press a button. Research at least suggests that our conscious self does not initiate all behavior. Instead, the conscious self is somehow alerted to a given behavior that the rest of the brain and body are already planning and performing. These findings do not forbid conscious experience from playing some moderating role, although it is also possible that some form of unconscious process is what is causing modification in our behavioral response. Unconscious processes may play a larger role in behavior than previously thought.

It may be possible, then, that our intuitions about the role of our conscious "intentions" have led us astray; it may be the case that we have confused correlation with causation by believing that conscious awareness necessarily causes the body's movement. This possibility is bolstered by findings in neurostimulation, brain damage, but also research into introspection illusions. Such illusions show that humans do not have full access to various internal processes. The discovery that humans possess a determined will would have implications for moral responsibility. Neuroscientist and author Sam Harris believes that we are mistaken in believing the intuitive idea that intention initiates actions. In fact, Harris is even critical of the idea that free will is "intuitive": he says careful introspection can cast doubt on free will. Harris argues "Thoughts simply arise in the brain. What else could they do? The truth about us is even stranger than we may suppose: The illusion of free will is itself an illusion".[15] Philosopher Walter Jackson Freeman III nevertheless talks about the power of even unconscious systems and actions to change the world according to our intentions. He writes "our intentional actions continually flow into the world, changing the world and the relations of our bodies to it. This dynamic system is the self in each of us, it is the agency in charge, not our awareness, which is constantly trying to keep up with what we do."[16] To Freeman, the power of intention and action can be independent of awareness.

Disputed relevance of scientific research 'Research Inconclusive'

Some thinkers like neuroscientist and philosopher Adina Roskies think these studies can still only show, unsurprisingly, that physical factors in the brain are involved before decision making. In contrast, Haggard believes that "We feel we choose, but we don't".[10] Researcher John-Dylan Haynes adds "How can I call a will 'mine' if I don't even know when it occurred and what it has decided to do?".[10] Philosophers Walter Glannon and Alfred Mele think some scientists are getting the science right, but misrepresenting modern philosophers. This is mainly because "free will" can mean many things: It is unclear what someone means when they say "free will does not exist". Mele and Glannon say that the available research is more evidence against any dualistic notions of free will - but that is an "easy target for neuroscientists to knock down".[10] Mele says that most discussions of free will are now had in materialistic terms. In these cases, "free will" means something more like "not coerced" or that "the person could have done otherwise at the last moment". The existence of these types of free will is debatable. Mele agrees, however, that science will continue to reveal critical details about what goes on in the brain during decision making.

© Copyright Original Source

I like this latter rendering or definition of free will. Though it isn't exactly free, but then again it is your brain, endowed with whatever information it is endowed with and so when it makes a decision, forms an opinion, moves the body to action, even though unconsciously, it is still you who is making the decision, forming the opinion, or moving the body to action. The only difference in this definition of free will is that "you" are not conscious of "the choices that "you" make," until after "you" make them!

[Tassman]

The nervous system, the brain, evolved seer, and consciousness is an emergent property of the nervous system. No one ever saw it because no one was ever conscious until they were.



Because that is how evolution works. The forces involved are neither conscious or rational and intend nothing. The primordial gas didn't intend to gravitate into clumps forming stars and planets and galaxies. Stars didn't intend to create within themselves the elements of life through nuclear synthesis, and life didn't intend to evolve into nervous systems that would become conscious minds. Asking why is like asking why does anything at all exist, or as Locke put it, "why is there something rather than nothing?" There is no answer to that question seer. Existence is, and evolution is what it does.



The human nervous system was formed over billions of years of evolution and is only "defined as being rational" because it comports with the enviroment out of which it was formed. An engineer is not necessary for that.

Excellent post. Seer take note.

[seer]

Science cannot claim anything that cannot be falsified by scientific methods. The nature of soul is beyond the capability of Methodological Naturalism to determine anything.

But nevertheless the human soul is a fact. Agreed?

[shunyadragon]

But nevertheless the human soul is a fact. Agreed?

Yes, I believe it so, but this does not address the problems in discussion in this thread. This should have been perfectly clear to you as long as I have been on Tweb.

[seer]

The nervous system, the brain, evolved seer, and consciousness is an emergent property of the nervous system. No one ever saw it because no one was ever conscious until they were.

LOL, this is an assertion Jim. You claimed that all this was "observed" - your words. That was just false.

And to quote Sam Harris again:

Most scientists are confident that consciousness emerges from unconscious complexity. We have compelling reasons for believing this, because the only signs of consciousness we see in the universe are found in evolved organisms like ourselves. Nevertheless, this notion of emergence strikes me as nothing more than a restatement of a miracle. To say that consciousness emerged at some point in the evolution of life doesn’t give us an inkling of how it could emerge from unconscious processes, even in principle.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/t...-consciousness

Because that is how evolution works. The forces involved are neither conscious or rational and intend nothing. The primordial gas didn't intend to gravitate into clumps forming stars and planets and galaxies. Stars didn't intend to create within themselves the elements of life through nuclear synthesis, and life didn't intend to evolve into nervous systems that would become conscious minds. Asking why is like asking why does anything at all exist, or as Locke put it, "why is there something rather than nothing?" There is no answer to that question seer. Existence is, and evolution is what it does.

Again another assertion. There is exactly zero reason to expect that non-rational, non-conscious forces could or did produce rational, conscious beings. And zero reason to believe that they could. Without begging the question.

The human nervous system was formed over billions of years of evolution and is only "defined as being rational" because it comports with the enviroment out of which it was formed. An engineer is not necessary for that.

Jim, I know that you have faith that this happened but there is still no reason to assume that natural laws that were not rational or conscious, that did not intend to create rationality or consciousness, just by accident stumbled on both. In reality creating attributes that these forces did not have. The non-rational creating the rational, the non-conscious creating the conscious. And there would be no reason to trust our cognitive abilities in such a model. Any more than we would trust a calculator that was cobbled together by these said forces - no matter how much time went by.

Thats great seer, happy for you. Glad to see you had them name him after me.

Yes Jim, named after you, me and my son. Of course you were foremost in that decision!

[seer]

Yes, I believe it so, but this does not address the problems in discussion in this thread. This should have been perfectly clear to you as long as I have been on Tweb.

Well I'm glad we agree that science does not have all the answers.

[JimL]

LOL, this is an assertion Jim. You claimed that all this was "observed" - your words. That was just false.

What I implied was that the process of evolution itself is observed, even if retrospectively through scientific investigation. We din't observe any of these evolving changes in living organisms first hand, any more than we directly observed the forming of the milky way, but nonetheless we now understand how it did form. Perhaps you would like to deny the evolution of stars and planets as well because you didn't directly observe the process?

And to quote Sam Harris again:



http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/t...-consciousness

Well, perhaps that is because Sam Harris is of the eroneous notion that consciousness is distinct from matter, that it is a thing in itself, and thus if it emerged it must needs have emerged from nothing. A miracle! Thats dualistic thinking from someone who isn't even a dualist. Just because he, just because we, don't know the exact way in which the elements of life come together to form nervous systems which slowly become more and more aware of their environment doesn't mean that that isn't exactly what it does. And we have no reason, zero, not to believe that to be the case. It isn't matter that is conscious, it is the particular configurations that matter forms that themselves become conscious. A material brick is not conscious, a material brain is.

Again another assertion. There is exactly zero reason to expect that non-rational, non-conscious forces could or did produce rational, conscious beings. And zero reason to believe that they could. Without begging the question.

Thats just false seer, there is every reason to believe it because that is exactly what we see. Some forms that matter takes become conscious, some forms remain unconscious. Theres no begging the question, that is exactly what we see of evolution. Do you think that stars intended to create within themselves the elements of life? Its seems rather odd to me that it is so difficult for you to believe that conscious thinking minds can evolve from out of the substance of that which has always existed, but so easy for you to accept that a conscious thinking immaterial mind just always existed. You can't even define such an eternally existing mind with any kind of logic.

Jim, I know that you have faith that this happened but there is still no reason to assume that natural laws that were not rational or conscious, that did not intend to create rationality or consciousness, just by accident stumbled on both. In reality creating attributes that these forces did not have. The non-rational creating the rational, the non-conscious creating the conscious. And there would be no reason to trust our cognitive abilities in such a model. Any more than we would trust a calculator that was cobbled together by these said forces - no matter how much time went by.

Well consciousness is not an attribute of matter, it is an attribute of the particular forms that matter takes. Life is not an attribute of matter either, as you know, all forms of matter are not living, but life is an attribute of the particular forms that matter takes. And natural laws do not intend anything, natural laws do not create, they are not the cause of anything, they are just desciptive of how nature works. Without a material world doing what it does, there are no natural laws.

Yes Jim, named after you, me and my son. Of course you were foremost in that decision!

Well congrats anyway seer. All the best!

[shunyadragon]

Well I'm glad we agree that science does not have all the answers.

Seer, the degree of agreement has always been on shaky grounds, and illusive.

Just believing you have the 'Truth' does not go far in debate and dialogue. It is like . . .

[Tassman]

LOL, this is an assertion Jim. You claimed that all this was "observed" - your words. That was just false.

And to quote Sam Harris again:



http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/t...-consciousness

Then, given that you regard Harris as authoritative you must also agree with him that free-will is an illusion unless, heaven forbid, you were cherry-picking him out of context? <sarcasm> And BTW, Harris never implies that 'consciousness' is not of natural origin, so he's not supporting your implied god-of-the-gaps argument anyway.

Again another assertion. There is exactly zero reason to expect that non-rational, non-conscious forces could or did produce rational, conscious beings. And zero reason to believe that they could. Without begging the question.

There is every

Jim, I know that you have faith that this happened but there is still no reason to assume that natural laws that were not rational or conscious, that did not intend to create rationality or consciousness, just by accident stumbled on both. In reality creating attributes that these forces did not have. The non-rational creating the rational, the non-conscious creating the conscious. And there would be no reason to trust our cognitive abilities in such a model. Any more than we would trust a calculator that was cobbled together by these said forces - no matter how much time went by.

they were - by us, because we

[seer]

I will leave you all with one question. Would you trust the sums of a calculator that was cobbled together by forces that had no understanding of math? No matter how long the process took, or how incrementally?

[JimL]

I will leave you all with one question. Would you trust the sums of a calculator that was cobbled together by forces that had no understanding of math? No matter how long the process took, or how incrementally?

No matter how long the process took, nature did not cobble together a calculator, it cobbled together imperfect minds, so that analogy and your question are moot. Remember this seer, in this debate you never once defended your own position, never gave evidence as to when or how free will came about, never gave evidence concerning the existence of conscious spirits or how they effect the body etc. etc., but all you can do in defense of your position is to try and malign the other side. I know you have faith in the existence of those things, but that is all you have and that is why you can not support your argument.

[shunyadragon]

I will leave you all with one question. Would you trust the sums of a calculator that was cobbled together by forces that had no understanding of math? No matter how long the process took, or how incrementally?

The Laws of Nature do not cobble things together. Humans have to that many times before they are successful.

[Tassman]

No matter how long the process took, nature did not cobble together a calculator, it cobbled together imperfect minds, so that analogy and your question are moot. Remember this seer, in this debate you never once defended your own position, never gave evidence as to when or how free will came about, never gave evidence concerning the existence of conscious spirits or how they effect the body etc. etc., but all you can do in defense of your position is to try and malign the other side. I know you have faith in the existence of those things, but that is all you have and that is why you can not support your argument.

I will leave you all with one question. Would you trust the sums of a calculator that was cobbled together by forces that had no understanding of math? No matter how long the process took, or how incrementally?

We trust calculators made by evolved creatures, i.e. us, that DO have an understanding of math, although the natural forces driving natural selection had no understanding of math or anything else.

[seer]

No matter how long the process took, nature did not cobble together a calculator, it cobbled together imperfect minds, so that analogy and your question are moot. Remember this seer, in this debate you never once defended your own position, never gave evidence as to when or how free will came about, never gave evidence concerning the existence of conscious spirits or how they effect the body etc. etc., but all you can do in defense of your position is to try and malign the other side. I know you have faith in the existence of those things, but that is all you have and that is why you can not support your argument.

No Jim, the point is if your side is correct there would be no reason to trust our rational abilities. Not only in the sense that these abilities were created by forces that were non rational, and did not intend to create rationality but also in the sense that there would be no freedom of thought. You do not believe things because the are true, you believe things because you were determined to - true or not. You give up a lot for your atheism - actually everything...