Where Do Moral Questions Stop?

[The Thinker]

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

Seer's MO is ask a million questions, repeat talking points ad nauseum, if any problems are found in his views, claim they are basic beliefs and don't need justification, and don't answer any questions asked.

Repeat.

[The Thinker]

Now that is incoherent Thinker since your thoughts play no role in the process, logic and reasoning play no part. Your brain states alone tell you what is evidence, what is logical, and how you reason. But chemical are not logical, and they are non-rational. Again, I'm not saying that you never get things right, I'm saying that you can never know if you got things right or wrong. As long as you remove thoughts as being influential.

The logic and reasoning is done by the brain. When chemicals are in the form of a functioning human brain they along with the synapse and the rest of the atoms are capable of rationally interpreting sense data, as is shown by the empirical evidence I showed you. How can you not ever know things are right because your brain is made of atoms and is determined? That is a total non-sequitor that needs logical justification.

Again, all I am saying at this time is that my thoughts have influence in the process. I gave you examples of this. If not, we are the slaves of biological processes that are neither logical and are non-rational.

Another appeal to consequences. You're really bad at logic seer. Show me empirical evidence that your thoughts influence the process.

So the researchers were determined by biological processes to come to these conclusions? Correct?

Everyone and everything is determined. You have yet to show determined = false. And more importantly you have not refuted the incoherency of LFW. You've been utterly silent on this and we all know why.

And BTW your studies are limited at best.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuros...tific_research

From that wiki link:

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".

Almost all or most of the scientists involved in neuroscience rule out libertarian free will, especially the kind dualism needs, like you believe. The "certain kinds" of free will are most certainly combatibilism kinds. When it comes to moving a finger, you must recognize that a split second decision to move a finger can pull or not pull a trigger on a gun, which can kill someone. That is a moral situation. My link was to show one thing. That is that the brain performs the rational decision making before we're aware of it, and that is not the simple moving of a finger, it is adding and subtracting numbers in our heads. This empirically falsifies your belief that our conscious thoughts are what cause the brain to perform rationality.

But as before Seer, you're in denial and probably always will be. That's because your beliefs are not based on evidence but based on faith.

[seer]

The logic and reasoning is done by the brain. When chemicals are in the form of a functioning human brain they along with the synapse and the rest of the atoms are capable of rationally interpreting sense data, as is shown by the empirical evidence I showed you. How can you not ever know things are right because your brain is made of atoms and is determined? That is a total non-sequitor that needs logical justification.

Nonsense, chemicals are neither rational or irrational - they are non rational - they care nothing for the laws of logic, only the conscious mind relates to that.

Everyone and everything is determined. You have yet to show determined = false. And more importantly you have not refuted the incoherency of LFW. You've been utterly silent on this and we all know why.

If it is all determined then you are back to square one. If your brain determines that you believe a falsehood to be true then you can never know any difference. You can not consciously reason your way out of it or around it. You are at the mercy of chemicals - not logic or reasoning. And that is the bottom line.

Again, let's see a logical syllogism going from I'm determined to believe that A is true, to A being true. Or admit that your position is irrational.

Almost all or most of the scientists involved in neuroscience rule out libertarian free will, especially the kind dualism needs, like you believe. The "certain kinds" of free will are most certainly combatibilism kinds. When it comes to moving a finger, you must recognize that a split second decision to move a finger can pull or not pull a trigger on a gun, which can kill someone. That is a moral situation. My link was to show one thing. That is that the brain performs the rational decision making before we're aware of it, and that is not the simple moving of a finger, it is adding and subtracting numbers in our heads. This empirically falsifies your belief that our conscious thoughts are what cause the brain to perform rationality.

Your studies are suggestive at best, completely inconclusive at worse. There are plenty of scientists in the field, as the link referenced, that don't agree.

https://www.newscientist.com/article...y-of-free-will

But as before Seer, you're in denial and probably always will be. That's because your beliefs are not based on evidence but based on faith.

And your beliefs are determined by chemicals with no possibility of rationally knowing if they are wrong or right. And you think your position is superior?

[The Thinker]

Nonsense, chemicals are neither rational or irrational - they are non rational - they care nothing for the laws of logic, only the conscious mind relates to that.

Oh, doubling down I see. Chemicals by themselves are not rational, just like atoms by themselves are not alive, but lots of atoms in certain arrangements make living things. Same is true for chemicals and atoms for rationality. You're making a classic case of the fallacy of division.

And once again, you are still on the hook for explain how libertarian free will is coherent. So far you've just declared that it is. And you need to show how a conscious mind can influence atoms.

If it is all determined then you are back to square one. If your brain determines that you believe a falsehood to be true then you can never know any difference. You can not consciously reason your way out of it or around it. You are at the mercy of chemicals - not logic or reasoning. And that is the bottom line.

No I'm not. You still haven't shown how determined = false. Please make a logical argument showing that.

Again, let's see a logical syllogism going from I'm determined to believe that A is true, to A being true. Or admit that your position is irrational.

Sure once you actually start answering my questions. Your MO is ask a million questions, repeat talking points ad nauseum, if any problems are found in your views, claim they are basic beliefs and don't need justification, and don't answer any questions asked. Then repeat.

Your studies are suggestive at best, completely inconclusive at worse. There are plenty of scientists in the field, as the link referenced, that don't agree.

https://www.newscientist.com/article...y-of-free-will

Ha ha. Your article relies entirely on criticism of Libet's experiment. If all I had was Libet's experiment, you'd have a point. But Libet's experiment was in 1983, and since then his finding have been replicated in more complex and more accurate experiments culminating in 35 years of empirical research all showing the same thing: brain causes mind, always. The laws of physics also rule out mental phenomena causing physical phenomena.

And your beliefs are determined by chemicals with no possibility of rationally knowing if they are wrong or right. And you think your position is superior?

Seer, are you serious or are you going to stick to your MO above? Please show me that you're a rational person who can respond to evidence. You never answer my questions. Why? Do you not have any ability to explain logically or empirically how libertarian free will is coherent?

[JimL]

But my caring, my thoughts, play no in the process. My conscious thoughts are meaningless. So again we are back to chemicals deciding what shirt I should wear. And chemicals don't "care" they are chemicals for goodness sake.

Seer, you are those chemicals, so to speak, so it is you who decide. Your conscious thoughts are the result of the decisions you make. Consciousness itself is nothing but an awarenes, it isn't a being. Consciousness isn't meaningless, it is part of the process, but it isn't a separate being that has thoughts of its own. If there is some logical reason that makes you believe that consciousness is something other than an emergent awareness of an entities unconscious processes, a ghost in the machine say, then please define this conscious being as it is in itself and how its thinking and decision making proces differs from that of the physical brain? And then explain why, if it is conscious and has some sort of a brain of its own, it has need of a physical brain as well?

No Jim, I believe things because I consciously work through problems using logic and reasoning. You do not - your beliefs are dictated to you by chemicals. They may be right, but they are not gained by rational means (i.e. thinking through) - but by the non-rational electro-chemical interaction.

Yes, that is what you believe you are doing, but now explain how that process works? In order for that to make sense at all, your conscious immaterial self, i.e. the ghost in you, must needs a brain of sorts distinct from that of the physical brain, and if that be the case, then it would have no need of a physical brain in the first place. If you can overcome that problem, then you need to explain how the immaterial ghost can move the physical body to action.

Are you joking Jim? Look, if you are correct you were determined to say the above. But why should we believe that it is true?

A good reason would be because that is what the evidence clearly shows, and there is no evidence supporting your belief in the existence of conscious ghosts.

How do you go from being determined to believe that A is true to therefore A is true.

Why do you believe A is true? Why do you believe that 2+2=4? Your beliefs are based upon the info, whether true or false, that you have access to. The unconscious brain comes to its conclusions the same way, based upon the info it has access to. We call that process thinking and assume that it is something other than the brain that does it.

The thing is you have given up freedom of the will and moral responsibility - they are just illusions. Well if that is the case so is your rationality - it, in this model, is just as much an illusion. But you atheists do not want to give that one up.

If the brains conclusions are in agreement with reason, then its conclusions are rational, if they are not, then they are not rational, and that would be the case whether the process is a conscious or an unconscious one.

[Tassman]

Then Tass, you do not understand what is being said here, what epiphenomenalism is. Thoughts and deliberations play no causal role in the decision making process.

your own position, not nit-pick that of your opponents. Our views have considerable evidential support, yours have none.

Your rationality Tass, would be just as much an illusion as our free will and moral responsibility.

just knows he's Napoleon and no amount of evidence will convince him otherwise.

[Tassman]

Seer's MO is ask a million questions, repeat talking points ad nauseum, if any problems are found in his views, claim they are basic beliefs and don't need justification, and don't answer any questions asked.

Repeat.

The logic and reasoning is done by the brain. When chemicals are in the form of a functioning human brain they along with the synapse and the rest of the atoms are capable of rationally interpreting sense data, as is shown by the empirical evidence I showed you. How can you not ever know things are right because your brain is made of atoms and is determined? That is a total non-sequitor that needs logical justification.

Ah, but it's his soul/mind, i.e. the essential seer, that knows these things don't-ya-know. It's a spiritual thing, nothing to do with the crass material world you and I inhabit.

[seer]

Oh, doubling down I see. Chemicals by themselves are not rational, just like atoms by themselves are not alive, but lots of atoms in certain arrangements make living things. Same is true for chemicals and atoms for rationality. You're making a classic case of the fallacy of division.

And once again, you are still on the hook for explain how libertarian free will is coherent. So far you've just declared that it is. And you need to show how a conscious mind can influence atoms.

Let's focus. First, no chemicals are not rational, in that they understand the laws of logic, deliberate and reason through problems based on logic. These things are the qualities of the conscious mind. But I'm not saying that chemicals can't cause us to have rational thoughts or actions. What I'm saying is that you can never know if you are having a rational thought. You can never know on any given subject that you were determined to think correctly. And that would include everything, like what you consider evidence, how you process evidence, and the conclusions you come to. My argument for thoughts playing a causal role in the process is the fact that rationality or knowing is impossible apart from conscious deliberations. If our thoughts are the meaningless by products of brain processes, then so is everything you just wrote and your scientific studies which are the results of "thoughts" where you can not know if you were determined to believe or think the right thing.

[seer]

Et tu, Brute?

[seer]

A good reason would be because that is what the evidence clearly shows, and there is no evidence supporting your belief in the existence of conscious ghosts.

Jim this makes no sense in your theory. You do not control what you brain decides is evidence or is not evidence or the conclusions it comes to.

If the brains conclusions are in agreement with reason, then its conclusions are rational, if they are not, then they are not rational, and that would be the case whether the process is a conscious or an unconscious one.

Again this makes no sense. Your brain dictates to you what is rational, whether it is or not. And you have no way of knowing otherwise

[JimL]

Jim this makes no sense in your theory. You do not control what you brain decides is evidence or is not evidence or the conclusions it comes to.

Again, that would depend upon what you mean by "you." Being that you are your brain, it is you who examines the evidence available to you, and you who comes to a conclusion. A self operating information processer needn't be conscious, or be controlled by another consciousness, in order to do this, but just like your ghost in the machine, the machine is not omniscient and so just like your presumed ghost, its determined conclusions will sometimes be wrong, sometimes right, and sometimes irrelevent.

Again this makes no sense. Your brain dictates to you what is rational, whether it is or not. And you have no way of knowing otherwise

No, information dictates what is rational, and you know it to be a rational conclusion because it is in agreement with reason. Information tells you that it is irrational that a man can walk on water, fly bodily up into space, walk through walls, or bring the clinically dead back to life, but false and unsubstantiated information can overide reason bringing one to irrational conclusions. Again, the same would be true whether the thinking thing is conscious or unconscious.

But again, your biggest problem is in defining your ghost and explaining how its thinking process functions differently. Does it have a brain of its own? If so, what need has it of the physical brain? How does it function without the physical brain? How does it, being that it is immaterial, interact with and move the physical body?

[seer]

Again, that would depend upon what you mean by "you." Being that you are your brain, it is you who examines the evidence available to you, and you who comes to a conclusion. A self operating information processer needn't be conscious, or be controlled by another consciousness, in order to do this, but just like your ghost in the machine, the machine is not omniscient and so just like your presumed ghost, its determined conclusions will sometimes be wrong, sometimes right, and sometimes irrelevent.

When I say you Jim, I mean our conscious self aware, self. And no, the conscious self, using logic and reason can be fairly certain about a lot. If not, you can never be certain of anything. How could you? How can you know when your determined knowledge got it right or wrong? How would you judge that without conscious logic and reason?

No, information dictates what is rational, and you know it to be a rational conclusion because it is in agreement with reason.

I'm sorry Jim this is completely idiotic given your theory. What you consider rational or in accordance with reason is all dictated - you have no choice in what you accept or what you find reasonable.

But again, your biggest problem is in defining your ghost and explaining how its thinking process functions differently. Does it have a brain of its own? If so, what need has it of the physical brain? How does it function without the physical brain? How does it, being that it is immaterial, interact with and move the physical body?

When I came to believe in God Jim I changed my moral behavior. So that immaterial thought or concept created physical change.

[Tassman]

Et tu, Brute?

Not at all.

The likes of Thinker, Jim, Jichard and I have repeatedly provided explanations of why the universe can only be causally determined with very little room for free-will (as per Jichard re 'compatibilism') or no room at all apart from the illusion of free will. But you don't like this notion, despite the irrefutable evidence supporting it, so you do what all religionists of your ilk do. You simply deny the evidence. Your beliefs are not based on evidence at all, but based upon faith. And you propagate this faith-based ignorance to the detriment of the only discipline that actually helps humanity, namely science.

[Tassman]

When I say you Jim, I mean our conscious self aware, self. And no, the conscious self, using logic and reason can be fairly certain about a lot. If not, you can never be certain of anything. How could you? How can you know when your determined knowledge got it right or wrong? How would you judge that without conscious logic and reason?

I'm sorry Jim this is completely idiotic given your theory. What you consider rational or in accordance with reason is all dictated - you have no choice in what you accept or what you find reasonable.

This is incorrect. Within the framework of our evolved being our brains make rational, reasonable decisions, because that is how we've evolved to think and behave. Such a capacity is a survival mechanism. Our neural circuits were formed millions of years ago by natural selection to solve problems that our ancestors faced during our species' evolutionary history.

When I came to believe in God Jim I changed my moral behavior. So that immaterial thought or concept created physical change.

[seer]

Tass you keep missing what epiphenomenalism actually is. Our conscious thoughts and reasoning play no causal role in the mental process. They don't do anything - they are merely by products of the physical processes.


No the question is why would the chemicals in my brain decide on Aug.19 1990 to cause me to go from being an agnostic to being a Christian. After all I had no choice in the matter if you guys are right.