Where Do Moral Questions Stop?

[seer]

How do you know it is impossible Tass? Based on what - your limited knowledge?

You are

Prove that God is a fantasy.

[Tassman]

How do you know it is impossible Tass? Based on what - your limited knowledge?

Until you can produce credible evidence of a nexus between the material universe and the hypothesised immaterial soul such a notion remains conjecture dating from an earlier era. There's no good reason to assume that the universe isn't entirely material.

Prove that God is a fantasy.

To which god are you referring?

[seer]

Until you can produce credible evidence of a nexus between the material universe and the hypothesised immaterial soul such a notion remains conjecture dating from an earlier era. There's no good reason to assume that the universe isn't entirely material.

Really? Are your thoughts material? Can I open you head and physically see thoughts?

[The Thinker]

You keep saying this, but I have no reason to accept it. Interaction has always been a sticking point for the dualist, but that could simply could be based on ignorance. Like I said I am not limited to your materialistic worldview and what can or can not be demonstrated within that model.

You keep saying this, but I have no reason to accept it. LFW is incoherent. You already admitted that you cannot have a thought about a thought, before you have the thought. Therefore thoughts are not free, hence no 'free' will. Also, for a thought to be 'free' it can't have a cause. So to believe in free will logically forces you to believe things begin to exist without a cause. Are you prepared to believe that? Believing in "free will" forces one to believe the will has a cause and doesn't have a cause at the same time, and that's why it's incoherent.

And regarding materialism, we already covered that. Any claim about the physical world is a scientific claim. If I claim that I can build a large suspense bridge out of bamboo and it will work just as good as concrete and steel, I'm making an engineering claim, because my claim is in the domain of engineering. If you make a claim about the human body (by claiming it is driven by a ghost in the machine and not just by physical forces and the brain) then you are making a scientific claim and you need scientific evidence for it. Time to face the music.

Nonsense Thinker. Again make a deductive argument that because you are determined to believe that A is true, that A is actually true, or that you can know that A is true. You can't because your position is not logical. I will be waiting for a rational response.

Easy.

1. Everything in the universe has a cause.
2. Reasoning to logical conclusions has been demonstrably shown to exist (if it didn't we'd all be dead).
3. When I logically reason to a conclusion it was caused.
4. Things that are caused are determined.
5. Therefore, reasoning is determined.



Also, unless you're prepared to reject premise 1, libertarian free will is inescapably false.

But you already agreed that brain chemicals are non-rational, and that our conscious thoughts, deliberations, etc... play no role in the process - so where does rationality come in? Where does understanding the laws of logic and reason come in?

I already explained that to you. The engine of a plane cannot fly on its own. Neither can the tail, or just the wings, or just the cockpit. So where does flight come in? The answer is when the whole thing is together (wings, tail, engine, cockpit, etc.) you get flight. But flight doesn't exist in each part. Likewise, the rationality comes in when the whole brain functions as a whole. How many times are you going to make the fallacy of division? It's been about 5-10 times already.

No Thinker, he does not reject libertarian free will out of hand, again:

Ambitious free will is libertarian free will.

Mele things consciousness is due to brain states. If consciousness is, there is no free will. Besides, LFW is incoherent, as I've repeatedly shown you. Keep trying, keep failing.

[The Thinker]

BTW Thinker, do you agree with Chalmers that there is a hard problem of consciousness? Also, are the physical brain processes the same thing as conscious thoughts?

Of course there is a hard problem of consciousness. That doesn't allow room for a ghost-like soul. Conscious thought is always caused by something in the brain, but it is not necessarily the same thing.

[seer]

You keep saying this, but I have no reason to accept it. LFW is incoherent. You already admitted that you cannot have a thought about a thought, before you have the thought. Therefore thoughts are not free, hence no 'free' will. Also, for a thought to be 'free' it can't have a cause. So to believe in free will logically forces you to believe things begin to exist without a cause. Are you prepared to believe that? Believing in "free will" forces one to believe the will has a cause and doesn't have a cause at the same time, and that's why it's incoherent.

No Thinker, is it not incoherent to believe that we can control thoughts or direct thoughts. I do that every day. I may have any number of desires or thoughts that present themselves and I can accept or reject them. I can have competing concepts and can choose between them using applied logic and reason. I believe that it is the soul that can control or direct said thoughts. If one wants a strictly materialistic model, the The Cogito Model seems to fit the bill.

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/cogito/

1. Everything in the universe has a cause.
2. Reasoning to logical conclusions has been demonstrably shown to exist (if it didn't we'd all be dead).
3. When I logically reason to a conclusion it was caused.
4. Things that are caused are determined.
5. Therefore, reasoning is determined.

No, that is not what I asked, I asked - show that because you are determined to believe that A is true, that A is actually true, or that you can know that A is true. Think about what is actually being asked. Present a syllogism going from A being determined to A being true. BTW Thinker, many creatures survive just fine with out "logical reasoning?"

I already explained that to you. The engine of a plane cannot fly on its own. Neither can the tail, or just the wings, or just the cockpit. So where does flight come in? The answer is when the whole thing is together (wings, tail, engine, cockpit, etc.) you get flight. But flight doesn't exist in each part. Likewise, the rationality comes in when the whole brain functions as a whole. How many times are you going to make the fallacy of division? It's been about 5-10 times already.

What does that mean? If our thoughts are causally impotent and brain chemicals are non-rational there is no logical way for rationality to emerge. The parts built a plane that can not fly.

Mele things consciousness is due to brain states. If consciousness is, there is no free will. Besides, LFW is incoherent, as I've repeatedly shown you. Keep trying, keep failing.

Like I said free will is no more incoherent than you believing that you are rational.

[seer]

Of course there is a hard problem of consciousness. That doesn't allow room for a ghost-like soul. Conscious thought is always caused by something in the brain, but it is not necessarily the same thing.

So you are a dualist?

[Tassman]

Really? Are your thoughts material?

Your "thoughts" are totally dependent upon the state of your material brain. If you damage or drug the brain then your thoughts will be similarly altered...and at death you and your your thoughts become non-existent.

Can I open you head and physically see thoughts?

http://news.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-movies/

[Tassman]

No Thinker, is it not incoherent to believe that we can control thoughts or direct thoughts. I do that every day. I may have any number of desires or thoughts that present themselves and I can accept or reject them. I can have competing concepts and can choose between them using applied logic and reason.

Certainly you do, we all do. That's the illusion we have of free-will. No doubt your chimpanzee cousin has the same illusion of freedom to choose.

I believe that it is the soul that can control or direct said thoughts.

Really! Does your friendly chimpanzee cousin have a soul that "can control or direct said thoughts"? Where's your evidence? Where's the nexus between the material body and this alleged immaterial soul? Unless you can answer that question you don't have an argument...claims about the physical world are scientific claims and subject to scientific investigation.

If one wants a strictly materialistic model, the The Cogito Model seems to fit the bill.

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/cogito/

Congrats, you've managed to quote-mine an argument which you think may allow for your presuppositions. He's just one

[seer]

http://news.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-movies/

Nope, not at all. They do not see "thoughts" they map chemical interactions then "reconstruct" the a picture or movie based on the neurons involved. So they don't see the actual thoughts/images that the person sees - but a computer based reconstruction. So thoughts are clearly immaterial.

[JimL]

Nope, not at all. They do not see "thoughts" they map chemical interactions then "reconstruct" the a picture or movie based on the neurons involved. So they don't see the actual thoughts/images that the person sees - but a computer based reconstruction. So thoughts are clearly immaterial.

So,you think that thoughts are things that exist in their own right? Do they still exist when you are not having them? Where would you say they reside, and what are they doing there, just floating about waiting to be had?

[Tassman]

Nope, not at all. They do not see "thoughts" they map chemical interactions then "reconstruct" the a picture or movie based on the neurons involved. So they don't see the actual thoughts/images that the person sees - but a computer based reconstruction. So thoughts are clearly immaterial.

[seer]

So,you think that thoughts are things that exist in their own right? Do they still exist when you are not having them? Where would you say they reside, and what are they doing there, just floating about waiting to be had?

Jim, I suspect that thoughts are an emergent phenomenon of the physical brain. Perhaps like the field around the magnet. Are the local? I don't know, I do know that they are different from brain chemicals which can be seen and touched.

[seer]

Tass I was speaking about your link. They do not see what I see. If I have an image of my dear mother in my mind, they can know which neurons I am using to create that image, but what they can not do is see my image. And I'm not saying that the physical brain doesn't cause thoughts, but that thoughts are something more and non-physical. Which is obvious since you can not see the image of my mom.

[JimL]

Jim, I suspect that thoughts are an emergent phenomenon of the physical brain. Perhaps like the field around the magnet. Are the local? I don't know, I do know that they are different from brain chemicals which can be seen and touched.

So, as an emergent property, do you think that thoughts are immaterial existing things that separate from the physical brain and float about in space? Btw, if that is what you believe, that thoughts are an emergent property of the physical brain, then where does the soul enter the picture?