Where Do Moral Questions Stop?

[seer]

They are needed because we've already established that personal experience cannot establish free will. Free will is different from belief in an external world. The reasons for it make testable claims. If the soul has a causal affect on the physical body, that is scientifically testable. Belief in free will is not a basic belief. It is testable.

Please don't start with that basic belief nonsense. That is just an excuse so you (or others) don't have to demonstrate empirically or deductively that what goes on in your head corresponds to reality. Besides if we define a properly basic belief as something that is universally, or near universally held, then freedom of the will probably would qualify.

This could also occur under a "free will" belief. A Muslim born in Saudi Arabia is determined to believe in Islam because he had no other choice giving his access to information. So "free will" does nothing to save you. And since you cannot choose what thoughts enter your consciousness, there is no way for it to be free. You cannot have a thought about a thought, before you have the thought. You cannot say, "In 30 seconds I'm going to think about ice cream." Second, determinism doesn't preclude rationality. We can be determined to know the truth. And what determines us is the evidence and our reaction to it.

Yes free will does save us since we have the ability to accept or reject propositions. You may not be able to choose what thoughts enter your mind, but you can choose what to do with them, whether to act on them or not. And what exactly determined you to know the truth Thinker?

As I said before, free will is not a basic belief. It can be tested, and it has to be coherent. It is not in the same category that belief in an external world is. If you can't even explain a chronological order, or give any evidence for free will, why should any one believe you? Most philosophers reject libertarian free will. In fact, a philosopher told me a few months ago that no respectable philosopher does believe in it, and the vast majority of philosophers are either compatibilists or hard incompatibilists.

If your belief in the external world is properly basic then so can our belief in freedom of the will. Who BTW gets to decide what is properly basic?

What "lopping" effect is this? What does that mean? Where is your scientific evidence for it?

Do you hold to Scientism?

Absolutely not. Nothing about this requires a physical cause. The cause can be immaterial, just like a force, or even if it has no properties, if it affects things that are physical, it can be scientifically tested. So, where is your evidence?

So you know how the immaterial would effect the physical? In any case, I would say that thoughts are not physical. They are produced by the physical brain, but are not physical in themselves. And thoughts can in turn effect what we choose to do physically or loop back into the brain and effect what we think next. You may want to look into Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz's work on neuroplasticity. http://discovermagazine.com/2013/nov...ense-free-will

[JimL]

I answered: "The agent is made up of the brain's mental states."

And what determines the brains mental states?

No informed naturalist thinks we are just informational inputs.

Well sure, they think we are flesh and blood as well. But your argument is that somehow the self, unlike everything else in nature is not determined. That somehow the brain breaks free of the causal chain. Not saying you are wrong, just not seeing the logic behind the argument. Everyone does make different choices, but their differing choices are based upon the particular physical brain, information processer, they were born with as well as the differing input that evolves it.

That would be analogous saying two computers are identical just because you give them the same information inputs (ex: the same keystrokes on a keyboard).

Two exact computers are identical, and if you give two exact computers the exact same input you will get the exact same output.

I answered: "The agent is made up of the brain's mental states."

Not all brain states are sensory input.

Could you explain what you mean by a mental state? What is a mental state dependent upon?

There is no single thing that does the determining, unless you're talking about the sum total of all the prior states.

If it is the sum total of prior mental states that does the determining then that is determinism.

I don't need to claim that one particular aspect of that sum total, acts as the sole-determining cause for the effect. Instead, I can point to a number of things in the sum total, where each of those things has a causal influence on the effect.

By calling the present choice an effect of the sum total of prior states, you are not exactly explaining how that present effect/choice, is a free choice. A free agent, in order to be free, it seems to me would need be removed or distinct from the sum total of states about which it chooses from.

I answered: "The agent is made up of the brain's mental states."

Yes, the agent is made up of the brains mental states, or in other words, the agent is the brains mental states, but the mental states are all determined, no? If not, then what exactly do you mean by, or how are you defining a mental state?

It wouldn't. I said:

"two people can have the same sensory information and choose to do two different things."

Sensory information is not the only form of information brains have access to. So two brains with the same sensory information would not necessarily be identical brains.

Could you explain what you mean by "other forms of information" that brains have access to?

I have no idea what you're saying here.

Without going back to see the context, I believe I was saying that two exactly the same physical brains, with the exact same data input would make the exact same decisions in any particular circumstance. If you disagree, which seems to be the case, what is it that would be the cause of the differing outcomes?


[QUOTE]And I think you're conflating the two.

You're falsely presuming that agency precludes there being a causal chain. That is not the case. Agency is apart of the causal chain and agency presupposes causation occurring. After all, if an agent's mental states don't, in part, cause what the agent does and things, then there's no agency in play. And agents use causal interactions to learn the information those agents use to make informed choices.

I don't think that something can be said to "in part cause", it is true that no one bit of info is the cause of an action, but the action, for lack of a more articulate way of putting it, is still an effect determined by all prior bits of info taken as a whole. There is no agency apart from the info, apart from the brain, that looks at all the info the brain pocesses, and so makes a decision.

Because a part occurs at the same time as the whole which it is apart of. And since causes must occur before their effects, that means parts are not the cause of the whole which they are apart of.

Why do you say this. The thought process is fast, but not so fast that there is no process. Also, the effect we are discussing is an action, and the causes of that action, whether they all function as a whole, that whole is still the effect of prior causes.

You're presuming that agency requires there being a break in the causal chain. That's a false, libertarian assumption. Free will presupposes causation, as opposed to conflicting with it.

True, but you are not just suggesting that there is no break in the causal chain, what you are arguing is that there is a break in the otherwise determined causal chain, that somehow the brain free itself from the otherwise determined chain. Again, not saying you are wrong, just not seeing where or how this freedom emerges from the combatibilist perspective.






It is a fair analogy, since the brain shape is a part / aspect of the brain, just as the brain's informaton is a part / aspect of the brain. And parts / aspects do not causally determine the whole they are apart of, since parts occur at the same time as the whole they are apart of, and causes need to occur before their effects. Also, determinism does not imply that the brain information determines the brain. Instead, determinism states that the sum total of the prior states causally determines the subsequent state. Since that sum total includes more that just the brain's information, then it would not be the case that the brain's information alone determines the brain's subsequent states.

You're presupposing a libertarian account of free will, where free will precludes causation. That's not the account of free will under discussion here, and it's not even a coherent account of free will, since free will requires causation. Furthermore, on a libertarian account, one does not choose to do something do to having different information, reasoning differently, etc. or anything else one would assosciate with rational choice. After all, the libertarian wants people someone to make different choices, even when all those aspects ae kept the same. Instead, on the libertarian account, one makes a different choice due to just randomness. And that's anti-thetical to free will and decision-making.

I really don't think that makes sense. Free will requires causation? If the will is caused, then how is it free? Libertarian free will, at least makes sense, in the sense that, if it were a reality, it truly would be free. But of course for that to be true, a agency, ghost in the machine, would be necessary.

Part occur at the same time as the whole they are apart of. And since causes must occur before their effects, that means parts cannot be a cause of the whole. So instead of parts being causally related to the whole, they are instead constitutively related to the whole.

The parts are constitutively related to the whole, but the whole is still the effect of all prior causes by which it becomes a whole.

The same way I differentiate an apple's shape from the apple: that apple's shape is a facet or feature of the apple, just as a brain's mental states are a facet or feature of the brain.

Nope, the shape of an apple is not an analogy for mental states of a brain.

[Tassman]

No Tass, my point was that moral responsibility is a fiction if you or Dawkins are correct.

you choosing what socks to wear and a chimpanzee

And you agreed in that we are responsible if "not in actuality?

Tass how many times do I have to go over this? I'm not limited to your materialistic view of humankind or the universe.

as though you have it.

BTW - doesn't quantum mechanics tell us that the universe is indeterministic rather than deterministic?

No it doesn't.

So Tass, you were determined to believe the above - whether true or not correct?

Whatever is "true" can only be supported by verifiable evidence, not faith-beliefs. You cannot answer how free-will could arise in a determined universe or why humans have it but other mammals do not. Your only argument is that god-did-it, which is no argument at all.

So Tass, you were determined to believe the above - whether true or not correct?

Please don't start with that basic belief nonsense. That is just an excuse so you (or others) don't have to demonstrate empirically or deductively that what goes on in your head corresponds to reality.

This is rich coming from a person who holds to the utterly unsubstantiated 'god-did-it' thesis.

Besides if we define a properly basic belief as something that is universally, or near universally held, then freedom of the will probably would qualify.

...so would the geocentric universe a few centuries ago. Your point!?

[seer]

you choosing what socks to wear and a chimpanzee

Yes and a coconut falling out of a tree and hitting you on the head is an "integral and effective part of the causal stream" but the coconut is not logically responsible any more than we are for our acts.

No it doesn't.

Actually it is becoming more clear that the universe is statistical i.e. indeterministic, not deterministic.

The nature of reality is indeed statistical. If you want to find any local hidden variables, you can find them on the same aisle with the aether, cold fusion, and the static universe. http://hackaday.com/2015/09/01/the-e...den-variables/

You did not answer the question Tass, do you believe the above because you were determined to or because it is true?

[The Thinker]

Please don't start with that basic belief nonsense. That is just an excuse so you (or others) don't have to demonstrate empirically or deductively that what goes on in your head corresponds to reality. Besides if we define a properly basic belief as something that is universally, or near universally held, then freedom of the will probably would qualify.

It is YOU, seer, who are starting with this "basic belief nonsense" by claiming free will is a basic belief. I'm arguing it isn't due to the evidence against it. Do you not see the egg on your own face?

Yes free will does save us since we have the ability to accept or reject propositions. You may not be able to choose what thoughts enter your mind, but you can choose what to do with them, whether to act on them or not.

No, free will doesn't, and you just made many claims that require evidential justification. Determinism also allows you to accept or reject propositions. So the first concession is that we have no control over our thoughts. If the choice to act on our thoughts is itself a thought, then how can we choose that either? And when you say "you" what are you referring to? Is it one's will? Is it one's soul? What is "you"?

And what exactly determined you to know the truth Thinker?

The evidence for it that my brain interpreted through my sense data.

If your belief in the external world is properly basic then so can our belief in freedom of the will. Who BTW gets to decide what is properly basic?

No it can't because there is significant evidence against it. First it isn't even logically coherent. Second, it isn't compatible with physics or neuroscience which shows that our brain always "decides" before we become consciously aware of our choices.

Do you hold to Scientism?

Nope, but you made a claim about the physical world - that human beings (and presumably no other animals) have libertarian free will, and that requires that our choices violate the laws of physics by having a causal impact in the atoms in our brains. That is a claim in the domain of science, so please stop retreating into your bag of apologetic quips. They won't work with me. Where is your scientific evidence to back up your scientific claim? If you don't have any, just admit it.

So you know how the immaterial would effect the physical? In any case, I would say that thoughts are not physical. They are produced by the physical brain, but are not physical in themselves. And thoughts can in turn effect what we choose to do physically or loop back into the brain and effect what we think next. You may want to look into Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz's work on neuroplasticity. http://discovermagazine.com/2013/nov...ense-free-will

If thoughts are caused by the physical brain, and are not physical themselves, how do they affect the physical brain? If thoughts are always caused by the brain then the thoughts can have no causal effect on it. Anything that affects the physical is described in the laws of physics. All matter, energy, forces, -- everything, is accounted for. If thoughts could somehow exist independently of a causal brain and effect it, the must be accounted for in physics.

[seer]

It is YOU, seer, who are starting with this "basic belief nonsense" by claiming free will is a basic belief. I'm arguing it isn't due to the evidence against it. Do you not see the egg on your own face?

Where did I use the term basic belief before you Thinker? What I did say is that I see no good reason to assume that my experience of freedom is wrong. Any more than my mental experience of reality is wrong.

No, free will doesn't, and you just made many claims that require evidential justification. Determinism also allows you to accept or reject propositions. So the first concession is that we have no control over our thoughts. If the choice to act on our thoughts is itself a thought, then how can we choose that either? And when you say "you" what are you referring to? Is it one's will? Is it one's soul? What is "you"?

I should have qualified that. We do have control over some thoughts, perhaps not all. For instance I can choose to think about a lobster diner as we speak. And yes, I can choose accept or reject propositions, but I'm not determined too. And when I say you, yes I'm speaking of the immaterial mind, the will, the spirit for lack of a better term.

The evidence for it that my brain interpreted through my sense data.

But what caused your brain to recognize truth? What determined your brain to do this?

No it can't because there is significant evidence against it. First it isn't even logically coherent. Second, it isn't compatible with physics or neuroscience which shows that our brain always "decides" before we become consciously aware of our choices.

Nonsense. You can not show that the brain always decides before we become aware (those are very limited studies). Did my brain just decide that I would think about a lobster diner as an example of my thought control? What did the deciding? What chose lobster? Chemicals? That makes no sense.

Nope, but you made a claim about the physical world - that human beings (and presumably no other animals) have libertarian free will, and that requires that our choices violate the laws of physics by having a causal impact in the atoms in our brains. That is a claim in the domain of science, so please stop retreating into your bag of apologetic quips. They won't work with me. Where is your scientific evidence to back up your scientific claim? If you don't have any, just admit it.

If thoughts are caused by the physical brain, and are not physical themselves, how do they affect the physical brain? If thoughts are always caused by the brain then the thoughts can have no causal effect on it. Anything that affects the physical is described in the laws of physics. All matter, energy, forces, -- everything, is accounted for. If thoughts could somehow exist independently of a causal brain and effect it, the must be accounted for in physics.

Again you are trying to force me into your worldview. I have no reason to assume that all phenomena, even if it interacts with physical objects, is knowable or testable. And Schwartz is pointing to the possibility of the mental life changing the physical brain.

[The Thinker]

Where did I use the term basic belief before you Thinker? What I did say is that I see no good reason to assume that my experience of freedom is wrong. Any more than my mental experience of reality is wrong.

You don't have to use the term to use the meaning. Claiming something as a presupposition is claiming it is a basic belief. The reason why you see no good reason is because you haven't done enough research, as is evidence from your inability to justify your claim.

I should have qualified that. We do have control over some thoughts, perhaps not all. For instance I can choose to think about a lobster diner as we speak. And yes, I can choose accept or reject propositions, but I'm not determined too. And when I say you, yes I'm speaking of the immaterial mind, the will, the spirit for lack of a better term.

OK, thanks for explaining for me. If you just admitted that you cannot choose what thoughts enter your consciousness, how then can you "choose" to think about lobster diner?

And if you believe your immaterial mind/will/soul causes your body to do things, by what mechanism does this happen and what is your evidence for it?


And more simply, do your thoughts have a cause, or not? If they have a cause, what is that cause?

But what caused your brain to recognize truth? What determined your brain to do this?

The laws of physics acting on the trillions of atoms in my brain. When I see a person jumping off of a building flapping their arms in an attempt to fly and they fall to their death, I can recognize this that I can't fly. It is a matter of survival.

Nonsense. You can not show that the brain always decides before we become aware (those are very limited studies). Did my brain just decide that I would think about a lobster diner as an example of my thought control? What did the deciding? What chose lobster? Chemicals? That makes no sense.

We have 35 years of empirical data showing that brain always causes mind. Always. Show me one scientific study showing the opposite. To answer your question, yes your brain decided on lobster. We've already agreed that you cannot have a thought about a thought, before you have the thought. You cannot say, "In 30 seconds I'm going to think about lobster." We have no control over what thoughts pop into our consciousness. What chose lobster? The neurons in your brain interacting in a very complex manner with the rest of your brain. It wasn't you, unless you now think that you can have a thought about a thought, before you have the thought.

Again you are trying to force me into your worldview. I have no reason to assume that all phenomena, even if it interacts with physical objects, is knowable or testable. And Schwartz is pointing to the possibility of the mental life changing the physical brain.

I'm trying to offer you another view, different from your own, which is actually backed up by evidence and not faith. And it is the view the majority of philosophers and neuroscientists hold, for good reason. If something interacts with atoms, it will be described in the Standard Model of Physics. There is nothing there that allows for a soul/will to effect atoms or it would've been discovered by now. Schwartz is not showing mental activities cause physical brains. He's teaching meditation techniques that may be able to affect the brain -- but the brain is always the initiator in the meditation. Show me the paper he produced and experiment he made showing that he specifically did this.

[Tassman]

Yes and a coconut falling out of a tree and hitting you on the head is an "integral and effective part of the causal stream" but the coconut is not logically responsible any more than we are for our acts.

Unlike coconuts, you and chimpanzees are both conscious entities capable of making effective choices. If you want to claim that, unlike the chimp, you have libertarian free-will you need to say how this came about in a determined universe and why the chimp doesn't.

Actually it is becoming more clear that the universe is statistical i.e. indeterministic, not deterministic.

You did not answer the question Tass, do you believe the above because you were determined to or because it is true?

Because I believe it to be true! What I believe is based upon the evidence of life-experience plus a life-time of accumulated facts as interpreted by my brain. Why else would you believe things?

[seer]

Unlike coconuts, you and chimpanzees are both conscious entities capable of making effective choices. If you want to claim that, unlike the chimp, you have libertarian free-will you need to say how this came about in a determined universe and why the chimp doesn't.

But you or the chimp is no less determined by the laws of nature than the coconut to do what they do - and logically no more morally responsible.


Really, be specific. What did I take out of context in the link? It is increasing clear that the universe is not deterministic Tass. As a matter of if you watch the video, in the last five minutes, the physicist clearly states that the universe if "fundamentally indeterministic" - his words not mine

Because I believe it to be true! What I believe is based upon the evidence of life-experience plus a life-time of accumulated facts as interpreted by my brain. Why else would you believe things?

But you have no choice. How do you know you aren't determined to believe that false things are true?

[seer]

We have 35 years of empirical data showing that brain always causes mind. Always. Show me one scientific study showing the opposite. To answer your question, yes your brain decided on lobster. We've already agreed that you cannot have a thought about a thought, before you have the thought. You cannot say, "In 30 seconds I'm going to think about lobster." We have no control over what thoughts pop into our consciousness. What chose lobster? The neurons in your brain interacting in a very complex manner with the rest of your brain. It wasn't you, unless you now think that you can have a thought about a thought, before you have the thought.

Really so chemicals decided that I use the lobster example? Chemicals know what lobsters are? Did all the chemicals get together and decide, hey, lets send up a lobster example? And no matter how complex, all you have are electro-chemical interactions. And as far as I know, chemicals know nothing.

The laws of physics acting on the trillions of atoms in my brain. When I see a person jumping off of a building flapping their arms in an attempt to fly and they fall to their death, I can recognize this that I can't fly. It is a matter of survival.

So the non-rational laws of nature programmed you to be rational? Laws that care nothing for truth programmed you to recognized truisms?

[The Thinker]

Really so chemicals decided that I use the lobster example? Chemicals know what lobsters are? Did all the chemicals get together and decide, hey, lets send up a lobster example? And no matter how complex, all you have are electro-chemical interactions. And as far as I know, chemicals know nothing.

So the non-rational laws of nature programmed you to be rational? Laws that care nothing for truth programmed you to recognized truisms?

Yup. Laws don't care about truth, but evolved biological organisms must be able to learn from their environment, or else they would die and the species would go extinct. Natural selection favored organisms that could adapt and learn from its environment. This is allowed for in the laws of physics due to complexity that emerges as higher levels of function, in the biological sphere. So if you speak to biologists, chemists, or physicists, all of our behavior is compatible with the laws of physics and the laws describe how everything works. No where does a soul have any effect on this. So Seer, if you want to believe that your soul is somehow responsible for your decisions you have quite a problem on your hands.

For one thing, you even admitted that we don't consciously control our thoughts. So how can your thoughts be due to conscious rationality?

[seer]

So chemicals decided to choose the lobster example, then to deceive me into thinking that it was an example of freedom of thought. So why did the chemicals choose lobster over steak or pasta? Or something else completely? Random?

For one thing, you even admitted that we don't consciously control our thoughts. So how can your thoughts be due to conscious rationality?

No I said I misspoke. I did choose the lobster example. So you basically believe that you are a biological automaton with no control over that you think or believe?

[The Thinker]

So chemicals decided to choose the lobster example, then to deceive me into thinking that it was an example of freedom of thought. So why did the chemicals choose lobster over steak or pasta? Or something else completely? Random?

I'm not sure I understand your first sentence. Chemicals don't decide consciously, and neither do you. Either way, "you" didn't consciously choose anything, and if you think you did, then explain how. Neuroscientist David Eagleman explains a bit about the process that happens when a thought pops into your mind:

The brain is a complex system, but that doesn't mean it's incomprehensible. Our neural circuits were carved by natural selection to solve problems that our ancestors faced during our species' evolutionary history. Your brain is carved by evolutionary pressures just as your spleen and eyes are. And so is your consciousness. Consciousness developed because it was advantageous, but advantageous only in limited amounts. Our conscious minds are limited representations of the activity in our heads. Consciousness is the lowest man on the totem pole in the power structure of the brain. Most of what we do and think and feel is not under conscious control.

Consider the activity that characterizes a nation at any moment. Factories churn, telecommunication lines buzz with activity, businesses ship products. People eat constantly. Sewer lines direct waste. All across the great stretches of land, police chase criminals. Handshakes secure deals. Lovers rendezvous. Secretaries field calls, teachers profess, athletes compete, doctors operate, bus drivers navigate. You may wish to know what's happening at any moment in your great nation, but you can't possibly take in all the information at once. Nor would it be useful, even if you could. You want a summary. So you pick up a newspaper--not a dense paper like the New York Times, but instead lighter fare such as USA Today. You won't be surprised that none of the details of the activity are listed in the paper: after all, you want to know the bottom line. You want to know that Congress just signed a new tax law that affects your family, but the detailed origin of the idea -- involving lawyers and corporations and filibusters -- isn't especially important to that new bottom line. And you certainly wouldn't want to know all the details of the food supply of the nation--how the cows are eating and how many are being eaten--you only want to be alerted if we're running out of cows. You don't care how the garbage is produced and packed away, you only care if it ends up in your backyard. You don't care about the wiring and infrastructure of the factories, you only care when they go on strike. That's what you get from reading the newspaper.

Your conscious mind is that newspaper. Your brain is buzzing with activity around the clock, and, just like the nation, almost everything transpires locally: small groups are constantly making decisions and sending out messages to other groups. Out of these local interactions emerge larger coalitions. By the time you read a mental headline, the important action has already transpired, the deals are done. You have surprisingly little access to what happened behind the scenes. Entire political movements gain ground-up support and become unstoppable movements before you ever catch wind of them as a feeling or intuition or thought that strikes you. You're the last one on the chain of command to hear the information.

However, you're an odd kind of newspaper reader, reading the headline and taking credit for the idea as though you thought of it first.

No I said I misspoke. I did choose the lobster example. So you basically believe that you are a biological automaton with no control over that you think or believe?

Ok, so explain to me now how you can have a thought about a thought, before you have that thought? How is this logically or physically possible? And answer this:

1. And if you believe your immaterial mind/will/soul causes your body to do things, by what mechanism does this happen and what is your evidence for it?

2. And more simply, do your thoughts have a cause, or not? If they have a cause, what is that cause?

[seer]

I'm not sure I understand your first sentence. Chemicals don't decide consciously, and neither do you. Either way, "you" didn't consciously choose anything, and if you think you did, then explain how. Neuroscientist David Eagleman explains a bit about the process that happens when a thought pops into your mind:

No Thinker I asked - why did the chemicals choose lobster. Now you are saying that nothing chooses - is it random? You said in your quote that the brain is doing a vast amount of work - OK, but something is still choosing to use lobster instead of something else. What is doing that, if "I" or chemicals don't decide, what does? Was the lobster example just random?

Ok, so explain to me now how you can have a thought about a thought, before you have that thought? How is this logically or physically possible? And answer this:

1. And if you believe your immaterial mind/will/soul causes your body to do things, by what mechanism does this happen and what is your evidence for it?

2. And more simply, do your thoughts have a cause, or not? If they have a cause, what is that cause?

To be clear, you agree that we are basically biological automatons with no control over that we think or believe?

[Tassman]

But you or the chimp is no less determined by the laws of nature than the coconut to do what they do - and logically no more morally responsible.

Really, be specific. What did I take out of context in the link? It is increasing clear that the universe is not deterministic Tass. As a matter of if you watch the video, in the last five minutes, the physicist clearly states that the universe if "fundamentally indeterministic" - his words not mine

So your authority is the blog of a computer hacker. Gotcha!

Regardless, quantum mechanics operates at the level of particles not at the level governed by classical physics which is where we're at.

But you have no choice. How do you know you aren't determined to believe that false things are true?