Where Do Moral Questions Stop?

[Tassman]

The point Tass is that you claimed that conscious thoughts played a role - they don't if Thinker is correct. Biology makes all your decisions for you, dictates what you will believe or how you will act before you are even aware. And again, when the Muslim rapes and kills the twelve Kurdish girl he is only doing what his biology dictates.

No Tass, I want you to agree that we are merely biological automatons with no freedom of thought or freedom of behavior in your world. I want to see you accept this.

The first difference Jim, is that there is freedom in my position. I wake up, I have a number of conscious choices in what I will wear and what I will eat. I do the choosing, I'm not determined to do one thing over the other.

feel as though you're making free choices. Presumably other conscious creatures feel that they too make free choices. How are you different from them?

[seer]

[QUOTE=Tassman;250668]
Of course primates are automatons, just like us if there is no freedom of will. And automatons can choose as they were programmed to choose. Also you have no idea how or why consciousness occurred in the evolutionary chain - just that "nature did it." And again, I see no rational reason why science should be the last word on any of this or why I should believe that science can answer all question - that is your article of faith - no mine.

feel as though you're making free choices. Presumably other conscious creatures feel that they too make free choices. How are you different from them?

Yes and when the Jihadist rapes and murders a 12 year old Christian girl he is just doing what the laws of nature programmed him to do.

[seer]

That doesn't answer my question. That you do the choosing is true, but that your choices are conscious and free choices is just your belief, not necessarily a fact.

No Jim, it is not what I believe, it is what actually happens. When I go to choose my shirt I have a number of conscious choices. Do brain chemicals care about or decide what I should wear?

That too is a belief, not necessarily a fact.

OK, so you don't believe that men are morally responsible. Got it...

There are underlying reasons for eveything you do, for every choice you make, including the choice of shirt to wear. You talk of chemicals in the brain as if they have no purpose, as if they do nothing. All the knowledge you have is stored in those so called chemicals and your choices are based on that knowledge.

But again Jim, chemicals are chemicals - they don't care about shirts. Ask yourself - how do chemicals decide? Why do chemicals decide? How does a chemical decide that I choose a green shirt over a red shirt? I have no reason to assume that they do.

[The Thinker]

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?

I didn't say nothing chooses. The thought of lobster popping into your consciousness is determined by physics, which controls the chemicals, synapses in your brain. The memory of a lobster might have been the closest thing to access. Ultimately, everything in your brain is made of atoms and all atoms follow the laws of physics.

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

You didn't answer my questions. None of them! What's the matter? Answer them.

[seer]

I didn't say nothing chooses. The thought of lobster popping into your consciousness is determined by physics, which controls the chemicals, synapses in your brain. The memory of a lobster might have been the closest thing to access. Ultimately, everything in your brain is made of atoms and all atoms follow the laws of physics.

No Thinker, I was aware at the time of a number of options. Lobster, steak, chicken etc... I was even aware of other examples that would not include food - so why did the chemicals choose both a food option and lobster as the food? Again, if my conscious self is not making these choices what is? By what criterion do these chemicals or the laws of physics choose? Is it random?

You didn't answer my questions. None of them! What's the matter? Answer them.

Thinker, I don't believe that I or anyone understands the human mind well enough to answers the questions that you posed. But you do claim such knowledge - so again - do you agree that we are basically biological automatons with no control over that we think or believe? Why are you afraid to answer?

[The Thinker]

Yes and when the Jihadist rapes and murders a 12 year old Christian girl he is just doing what the laws of nature programmed him to do.

Seer, you're still on the hook for submitting actual evidence in favor of libertarian free will. You can't just assume it on faith and intuition. LFW makes empirical claims that need to be backed up by empirical evidence. And you need to coherently explain how thoughts that pop into your head are freely willed, when you can't have a thought about a thought before you have the thought.

[The Thinker]

No Thinker, I was aware at the time of a number of options. Lobster, steak, chicken etc... I was even aware of other examples that would not include food - so why did the chemicals choose both a food option and lobster as the food? Again, if my conscious self is not making these choices what is? By what criterion do these chemicals or the laws of physics choose? Is it random?

You are on the hook seer of explaining how your consciousness can make a choice, when thoughts pop into your mind without any control. Being aware of other kinds of food makes no difference whatsoever in terms of the fact that you can't have a thought about a thought before you have the thought. And you have to provide scientific evidence that mind causes brain. So far you have zero.

Thinker, I don't believe that I or anyone understands the human mind well enough to answers the questions that you posed. But you do claim such knowledge - so again - do you agree that we are basically biological automatons with no control over that we think or believe? Why are you afraid to answer?

You still need evidence in favor of your views otherwise you must admit that they are based entirely on faith and intuition. I can only claim the knowledge that I can show using reason and evidence. I can claim that 35 years of neuroscientific data shows brain always causes mind and that this is the dominant view in neuroscience and the philosophy of mind (of which 61% are physicalists). I can claim that the laws of quantum mechanics that govern all atoms - including the atoms in your brain - do not allow for a soul to have any effect on them. That hypothesis is empirically ruled out. I can claim that libertarian free will is not even logically coherent, and this is demonstrated by your inability to come to terms with the fact that you can't have a thought about a thought before you have the thought.

I think you can answer this question at least:

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

As far as your question, I am not afraid to answer. We are indeed biological automatons completely controlled by the laws of physics. There is no libertarian free will and there can't be. The whole concept is logically incoherent. This may seem depressing or weird, but when you really think about libertarian free will, although it seems appealing at first, it actually makes no sense, nor is it supported by any scientific evidence. Determinism actually makes more sense. I presume you believe that everything that begins to exist has a cause right? If our will "begins to exist" it must have a cause. And whatever caused that must have a cause, and that must have a cause, and so on and so on back to the big bang. Once you acknowledge that, you essentially have determinism. Otherwise, you must believe that things begin to exist in the universe without a cause. And if they have no cause why are they ordered? Why aren't they random? You see, just 2 years ago I like you naively believed in free will. Once you study it, and all the evidence, you will realize it is impossible that it is true.

[seer]

Seer, you're still on the hook for submitting actual evidence in favor of libertarian free will. You can't just assume it on faith and intuition. LFW makes empirical claims that need to be backed up by empirical evidence. And you need to coherently explain how thoughts that pop into your head are freely willed, when you can't have a thought about a thought before you have the thought.

Then just agree Thinker, that when a Jihadist rapes and murders a 12 year old Christian girl he is just doing what the laws of nature programmed him to do. And as far as intuition Thinker, we all use it - like when you assume that what goes on in your mind actually corresponds to reality with out empirical or logical justification. So spare me...

[seer]

You are on the hook seer of explaining how your consciousness can make a choice, when thoughts pop into your mind without any control. Being aware of other kinds of food makes no difference whatsoever in terms of the fact that you can't have a thought about a thought before you have the thought. And you have to provide scientific evidence that mind causes brain. So far you have zero.

One thing at a time Thinker, I gave you a clear example. Let's say the idea of the free will example just popped into my head (I guess according to you randomly). I then had a number of different possibilities to choose from. So even if these possibilities just popped up (again randomly I guess according to you) I am still presented with a number of choices in my conscious mind - then I choose from those possibilities and used a lobster dinner in my example. I see no reason to assume that even if your chemicals presented me with these differing choices that they then chose lobster for me, I was aware and made the choice. And again Thinker - why did the chemicals choose lobster over the number of other possibilities? What do chemicals know?

[JimL]

No Jim, it is not what I believe, it is what actually happens. When I go to choose my shirt I have a number of conscious choices. Do brain chemicals care about or decide what I should wear?

You don't know that seer, that is the assumption you are making. Asserting that your choices are consciously made doesn't make it so. You are your brain as far as you can tell, and so yes, as far as you can tell, your brain decides all by itself.

OK, so you don't believe that men are morally responsible. Got it...

Einstein didn't believe it either, to paraphrase a quote of his: "I know it isn't the fault of the ax murderer that he is an ax murderer, but I wouldn't want to sit at tea with him. But personally, I don't think that we can say that with certainty we know the answer. The brain is a complex and complicated thing, so I am withholding judgement for the time being, but asserting consciousness itself doesn't tell me anything about free will. So what if you are conscious of the choices made, you could be both conscious and determined.

But again Jim, chemicals are chemicals - they don't care about shirts. Ask yourself - how do chemicals decide? Why do chemicals decide? How does a chemical decide that I choose a green shirt over a red shirt? I have no reason to assume that they do.

Well, yes you do have reason to believe that, because as far as you can tell, you are your brain. You don't believe that, I know, but you do have reason to believe it. Again you talk of the brain as if it is just a blob of matter that just sits there doing nothing. I'd appreciate it if you would explain what you think is going on there. How does this conscious agency of yours, the ghost in the machine, interact with the brain? What need has it of a distinct material brain, doesn't it have an immaterial brain of its own?

[Tassman]

That is not what Thinker was saying.

I believe this isis the machine. Your dualism is utterly unsubstantiated.

Of course primates are automatons, just like us if there is no freedom of will. And automatons can choose as they were programmed to choose.

All

Also you have no idea how or why consciousness occurred in the evolutionary chain - just that "nature did it."

More to the point, you have no idea how the notion of libertarian free-will can coherently exist in a determined universe without arbitrarily invoking a divine fiat.

And again, I see no rational reason why science should be the last word on any of this or why I should believe that science can answer all question - that is your article of faith - no mine.

Yes and when the Jihadist rapes and murders a 12 year old Christian girl he is just doing what the laws of nature programmed him to do.

we are good and must survive at all costs", and "they

You didn't answer my questions. None of them! What's the matter? Answer them.

He never does. Other than misrepresenting the arguments, he only pushes his ever more threadbare agenda.

[seer]

You don't know that seer, that is the assumption you are making. Asserting that your choices are consciously made doesn't make it so. You are your brain as far as you can tell, and so yes, as far as you can tell, your brain decides all by itself.

Jim, what assumptions? That chemicals don't care what color shirt I choose?

Einstein didn't believe it either, to paraphrase a quote of his: "I know it isn't the fault of the ax murderer that he is an ax murderer, but I wouldn't want to sit at tea with him. But personally, I don't think that we can say that with certainty we know the answer. The brain is a complex and complicated thing, so I am withholding judgement for the time being, but asserting consciousness itself doesn't tell me anything about free will. So what if you are conscious of the choices made, you could be both conscious and determined.

You also know that it undermines rationality? Our rational decisions are generally made by thinking them through, figuring out the best options then making a choice or acting. If you are correct all this thinking and our thoughts, are immaterial - they play no effective part in the process. So back to what I said earlier - you do not believe things because they are true, you believe them because you were determined to - true or not.

Well, yes you do have reason to believe that, because as far as you can tell, you are your brain. You don't believe that, I know, but you do have reason to believe it. Again you talk of the brain as if it is just a blob of matter that just sits there doing nothing. I'd appreciate it if you would explain what you think is going on there. How does this conscious agency of yours, the ghost in the machine, interact with the brain? What need has it of a distinct material brain, doesn't it have an immaterial brain of its own?

Jim if thoughts have a casual role then my case is made, to a degree. And I don't have to know how this all works to see that chemicals don't decide anything, don't care about anything. They are chemicals.

[seer]

I believe this isis the machine. Your dualism is utterly unsubstantiated.

And if Thinker, and now Jim, are correct in their epiphenomenalism then our conscious thoughts and reasoning play no causal role in our mental processes or decisions. Not only is moral responsibility lost so is rationality. You do not believe things because they are true, you believe them because you were determined to - true or not. And epiphenomenalism seems to gaining ground in the scientific community. Are you willing to give up rationality as well as moral responsibility Tass?

[The Thinker]

Then just agree Thinker, that when a Jihadist rapes and murders a 12 year old Christian girl he is just doing what the laws of nature programmed him to do.

That's not an argument. That's an appeal to consequence, which is an informal fallacy. So basically you admit that you have no actual evidence backing up your views on free will. It is entirely faith and intuition based.

And as far as intuition Thinker, we all use it - like when you assume that what goes on in your mind actually corresponds to reality with out empirical or logical justification. So spare me...

The two are not in the same category. For the 10th time, claiming libertarian free will exists is an empirical claim about the physical universe. The empirical evidence is against your view. So no, you cannot just claim that free will is a basic belief and think that this allows you to not provide justification for it. Libertarian free will is neither logically coherent nor does it have any evidence backing it up. But hey, you're a Christian, so that hasn't stopped you in the past from believing what you want.

[The Thinker]

One thing at a time Thinker, I gave you a clear example. Let's say the idea of the free will example just popped into my head (I guess according to you randomly). I then had a number of different possibilities to choose from. So even if these possibilities just popped up (again randomly I guess according to you) I am still presented with a number of choices in my conscious mind - then I choose from those possibilities and used a lobster dinner in my example. I see no reason to assume that even if your chemicals presented me with these differing choices that they then chose lobster for me, I was aware and made the choice. And again Thinker - why did the chemicals choose lobster over the number of other possibilities? What do chemicals know?

Claiming that you "had a number of different possibilities to choose from" is presupposing libertarian free will, which is the very thing that you are trying to show. You cannot assume the thing you're trying to show! You do not consciously choose what your thoughts are. It is logically impossible to do so. Your whole reply to be is incoherent. I could throw out all the scientific evidence I have against libertarian free will (LFW) and I could still destroy it on the basis of pure logic. Face it Seer, just like with your views on morality, your belief in free will comes down to something totally incoherent. Complain all you want about the Jihadist, it's not an argument. That's like a creationist saying, "If evolution is true, I'm related to monkeys. I don't want to believe that, therefore evolution is false."