Where Do Moral Questions Stop?

[JimL]

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.

An image, in the original sense of the word, is not a thing that is seen, it is a thing that is imagined, which is why it is called an image.

[seer]

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?

I have no idea if thoughts are local or non-local. And thoughts/mind/personality is the soul - probably.

[seer]

An image, in the original sense of the word, is not a thing that is seen, it is a thing that is imagined, which is why it is called an image.

Yes I imagine an image of my mother - I do in fact see it. But you do not - because it is not physical.

[Tassman]

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.

I have no idea if thoughts are local or non-local. And thoughts/mind/personality is the soul - probably.

Why probably???

[seer]

Except if I am wrong you are no more than a sock puppet to antecedent, non-rational, biological processes. But you don't believe that, you actually believe that you are rational. So your very behavior undermines your theory. And why should anyone believe a sock puppet that has no control over what it thinks, believes or spits out?

[The Thinker]

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/

No, you don't do that. Ever. Not one single thought you've ever had was your free will "choice." Every single thought popped into you mind without you being able to choose it. It is logically impossible to be otherwise. Thoughts are caused by your brain and then you become consciously aware of them later. You are simply delusional about this.

You are also confusing two different things:

(1) your thoughts are "free" to "choose"
(2) your thoughts control your body

(1) is libertarian free will and is logically incoherent. (2) is logically possible, but empirically false due to scientific evidence. Please do not conflate the issues.

At any time you want to make a logically coherent case for LFW, be my guest.

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?"

In cases where my belief matches reality, the reason why I would be determined is because it is true. The truth of the matter would be the causal factor that leads me to believe it is true. And I can compare it to evidence. You're still mistaken that "determined" means we're just a bunch of ping pong balls bounding around randomly. Under free will my thoughts cannot have causes, because if they did they'd be determined, and because of that LFW can never make sense or allow you to know the truth. Thoughts must have a cause to allow you to be rational, but if they have a cause they are determined. You're stuck.

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.

You seem to be massively unable to understand analogy. Our thoughts and memories, it has been discovered via empirical science, are stored in our brain. We can literally see memories forming in the brain. Those parts of the brain are not = to the memories. If I think about a cat, a little cat is not going to appear in my brain. They brain simply has a way of creating those ideas via a complex interaction of neurons. Individual neurons don't need to be "rational" in the same way you think rationality exists. Rationality emerges in the same way that flight emerges as a property about airplanes.

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

Yes it is, I'll prove it to you by declaring that you cannot make a coherent argument showing it is true. Can you meet this challenge?

[seer]

No, you don't do that. Ever. Not one single thought you've ever had was your free will "choice." Every single thought popped into you mind without you being able to choose it. It is logically impossible to be otherwise. Thoughts are caused by your brain and then you become consciously aware of them later. You are simply delusional about this.

Then most of mankind is deluded about this. So the forces of nature have once again deceived us - what else did they deceive us about?

You are also confusing two different things:

(1) your thoughts are "free" to "choose"
(2) your thoughts control your body

(1) is libertarian free will and is logically incoherent. (2) is logically possible, but empirically false due to scientific evidence. Please do not conflate the issues.

At any time you want to make a logically coherent case for LFW, be my guest.

First, as Mele discussed in his talk you are generalizing too much concerning the "scientific evidence" - and he gave good reasons for that. Second, if I didn't consciously reason and choose the red shirt I picked from a number of options this morning then what did? Brain chemicals? Why did they choose red for me instead of green?

In cases where my belief matches reality, the reason why I would be determined is because it is true. The truth of the matter would be the causal factor that leads me to believe it is true. And I can compare it to evidence. You're still mistaken that "determined" means we're just a bunch of ping pong balls bounding around randomly. Under free will my thoughts cannot have causes, because if they did they'd be determined, and because of that LFW can never make sense or allow you to know the truth. Thoughts must have a cause to allow you to be rational, but if they have a cause they are determined. You're stuck.

Wait, so thoughts (true thoughts) have a causal effect? Since when? Brain chemicals don't care about "truth." What are you talking about?

If I think about a cat, a little cat is not going to appear in my brain. They brain simply has a way of creating those ideas via a complex interaction of neurons. Individual neurons don't need to be "rational" in the same way you think rationality exists. Rationality emerges in the same way that flight emerges as a property about airplanes.

But rationality is not a function of brain chemicals, and brain chemicals run the whole show. If our thoughts have no causal effect then we are left with non-rational chemicals - nothing else.

Yes it is, I'll prove it to you by declaring that you cannot make a coherent argument showing it is true. Can you meet this challenge?

Then we are at an impasse since you have not justified knowledge on any level.

[The Thinker]

Then most of mankind is deluded about this. So the forces of nature have once again deceived us - what else did they deceive us about?

Yes, most of mankind is deluded about this, as they are with god. That's because most people like you base your views on intuition, subjective experience, and well, faith.

First, as Mele discussed in his talk you are generalizing too much concerning the "scientific evidence" - and he gave good reasons for that. Second, if I didn't consciously reason and choose the red shirt I picked from a number of options this morning then what did? Brain chemicals? Why did they choose red for me instead of green?

Prove Mele has good reasons by actually listing them. I don't think he has good reasons and I highly doubt you've researched them.


Second, "you" are your brain. When "you" choose, it's your "brain" that chose. There is no "you" that is separate from your brain or that has any causal effect on your brain. That is just pure antiquated fantasy.

Wait, so thoughts (true thoughts) have a causal effect? Since when? Brain chemicals don't care about "truth." What are you talking about?

No, the truth of the matter would be the sense data my brain interprets.

But rationality is not a function of brain chemicals, and brain chemicals run the whole show. If our thoughts have no causal effect then we are left with non-rational chemicals - nothing else.

Rationality is not a function of the individual components of the brain, just like flight is not a function of the individual components of a plane. You seem to be willfully ignorant here. Anything you do that is rational is caused by the brain, so the brain is the decider.

Then we are at an impasse since you have not justified knowledge on any level.

I asked you to make a coherent argument showing that libertarian free will is true. Just as I predicted, you can't do it. Your view is incoherent and faith based and I've shown that to you several times already.

[JimL]

Then most of mankind is deluded about this. So the forces of nature have once again deceived us - what else did they deceive us about?



First, as Mele discussed in his talk you are generalizing too much concerning the "scientific evidence" - and he gave good reasons for that. Second, if I didn't consciously reason and choose the red shirt I picked from a number of options this morning then what did? Brain chemicals? Why did they choose red for me instead of green?




Wait, so thoughts (true thoughts) have a causal effect? Since when? Brain chemicals don't care about "truth." What are you talking about?




But rationality is not a function of brain chemicals, and brain chemicals run the whole show. If our thoughts have no causal effect then we are left with non-rational chemicals - nothing else.




Then we are at an impasse since you have not justified knowledge on any level.

The argument is not that you do not reason or that you do not choose or make decisions, the argument is that the you who does this is your brain, not a ghost residing inside your body. What difference does it make if the process of reasoning, making rational decisions, is done consciously or unconsciously? Consciousness is not a mind that thinks and makes decisions, consciousness itself is merely an awareness. What you need to explain is by what mechanism it is that your ghost makes decisions. Does your ghost have a brain of its own by which it interprets the electro-chemical activity of the physical brain? If so what possible need has it of a physical brain? You need a coherent explanation for how that would work because merely asserting it in the face of evidence to the contrary is useless if you wish to convince anyone.
I know, you don't care if you convince anyone, and you won't convince anyone either with that kind of empty argument, with mere assertions of "it seems that way to me, I want liberterian free will to be true, therefore it is true." If you believe you are a spirit, then define the spirit and how it functions, how it thinks in its own right, what need it has of a physical brain and how does it interact with the physical brain. If you don't have a plausible explanation for these things, then you are just fighting with windmills.

[Tassman]

Except if I am wrong you are no more than a sock puppet to antecedent, non-rational, biological processes. But you don't believe that, you actually believe that you are rational. So your very behavior undermines your theory. And why should anyone believe a sock puppet that has no control over what it thinks, believes or spits out?

ARE your brain. There is no "YOU" that is separate from it or that has any causal effect on your brain any more than there is for our fellow primates. The human animal is not unique, just more intelligent than other animals. There is no reason to think that either us or them possess an immaterial soul separate from the material body.

[Tassman]

Then most of mankind is deluded about this. So the forces of nature have once again deceived us - what else did they deceive us about?

Wait, so thoughts (true thoughts) have a causal effect? Since when? Brain chemicals don't care about "truth." What are you talking about?

Once again from David Eagleman:

[seer]

Yes, most of mankind is deluded about this, as they are with god. That's because most people like you base your views on intuition, subjective experience, and well, faith.

You are joking right? We have no control over what we believe Thinker if you are correct. We don't base our views on anything - the brain chemicals do that for us. This is really idiotic.

Second, "you" are your brain. When "you" choose, it's your "brain" that chose. There is no "you" that is separate from your brain or that has any causal effect on your brain. That is just pure antiquated fantasy.

Well you already agreed that the brain processes are not the same thing as conscious thoughts. So you are a dualist. Correct?

No, the truth of the matter would be the sense data my brain interprets.

And you haven't presented a deductive argument yet. Since it is obvious that our brain chemicals can and do deceive us how do you logically go from being determined to believing A is true to A actually being true. Bridge that gap with a syllogism or admit that your position is not logical.

Rationality is not a function of the individual components of the brain, just like flight is not a function of the individual components of a plane. You seem to be willfully ignorant here. Anything you do that is rational is caused by the brain, so the brain is the decider.

Nonsense - the components of a plane all have a physical role in the process - what physical role do our thoughts have - BE SPECIFIC PLEASE.

I asked you to make a coherent argument showing that libertarian free will is true. Just as I predicted, you can't do it. Your view is incoherent and faith based and I've shown that to you several times already.

And your position would be just as incoherent since you can not logically bridge the gap from being determined to believing that A is true to A actually being true.

[seer]

What does interplay mean Tass? Do our conscious thoughts play a causal role in the process? That is something Thinker has denied.

[The Thinker]

Does your ghost have a brain of its own by which it interprets the electro-chemical activity of the physical brain? If so what possible need has it of a physical brain? You need a coherent explanation for how that would work because merely asserting it in the face of evidence to the contrary is useless if you wish to convince anyone.

Seer's view would allow us to have no brain and still be conscious and able to think. In fact, we would just be skin and bones and do the same things we can do.

[The Thinker]

You are joking right? We have no control over what we believe Thinker if you are correct. We don't base our views on anything - the brain chemicals do that for us. This is really idiotic.

Wait, basing your views on intuition, subjective experience, and faith is not idiotic?

Well you already agreed that the brain processes are not the same thing as conscious thoughts. So you are a dualist. Correct?

There are many kinds of dualism. There is cartesian dulaism, which is what you hold. And then there is property dualism, which would be compatible with epiphenominalism. I'm open to that, but again, the brain is what's causing all thoughts.

And you haven't presented a deductive argument yet. Since it is obvious that our brain chemicals can and do deceive us how do you logically go from being determined to believing A is true to A actually being true. Bridge that gap with a syllogism or admit that your position is not logical.

So basically, you want me to answer all of your questions, and yet, you won't answer any of mine. I asked you several things:

1. What your scientific evidence that mind or soul causes the physical brain? This violates quantum field theory, which is our best tested scientific theory.
2. List a chronological order of events whenever a person makes a "freely" willed decision from first to last.
3. Explain whether you believe things begin to exist without a cause.

Why don't you try and answer these questions, at least number 2. In order to test whether A is true, it is either logically so, or evidentially so. That's how you know. Given "free will" how is it that our souls deceive us? What would make a soul deceive?

Nonsense - the components of a plane all have a physical role in the process - what physical role do our thoughts have - BE SPECIFIC PLEASE.

You're totally mistaken here and fail to understand the analogy. The components of the plane are analogous to the components of your brain, not your thoughts. Flight would be analogous to consciousness or rationality. You're utterly lost here.

And your position would be just as incoherent since you can not logically bridge the gap from being determined to believing that A is true to A actually being true.

Still noticed you cannot make a coherent argument that your view is true. Face it seer, LFW is incoherent. You're just being a typical dishonest internet apologist now.