Originally posted by seer
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Where Do Moral Questions Stop?
Collapse
X
-
Blog: Atheism and the City
If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.
-
Originally posted by seer View PostSo which one is yours?
See none of this works, because on other days I would choose green over red and so fourth. And I have logical reasons for doing so, I can follow the reasoning in my conscious mind. Now I don't know how my conscious choices effected or directed the physical brain, I just know that at the end of the reasoning process I physically picked the red shirt based on rational deliberation.
You on the other hand remove rational conscious deliberation from the picture as having any effect in the choice. So I can not tell you how my deliberations actually caused the choice, and you can not tell me why brain chemicals picked red over green. What I do know is that conscious logical reasoning and deliberation play a causal role in my model, but do not in yours.
I don't need to know why your brain chose red over blue, in order to know that it chose red over blue. If your decisions are made in the brain and I can predict it before you are even consciously aware of it, then this is empirical evidence showing your consciousness is not what makes the decision, it is your brain that does before you are consciously aware of it. All the good empirical evidence shows this in 35 years of testing.
I'm just making the point that we all have faith positions, ones that we readily accept. With out logical justifications.
No Thinker, it is not caricature. Show me where my point was not circular. And the fact is you can not logically go from being determined to believing that A is true to A being actually true. You can not logically justify it - yet you claim that you have logic on your side! And on top of this you have no control over what you accept as evidence or how you process evidence or the conclusions you come to. Faith, and faith, and faith... Own it.
1. the brain decides what reality is,
2. then decides what conforms to reality.
3. That is a vicious circle.
On my view:
1. The brain gets information from the senses to process memories and thoughts.
2. When they are processed accurately (in accord with fact or reality), the sense data is the causal factor that shapes my brain processing, and my thoughts about the world are the result of that.
3. We can know our beliefs are accurate when they are tested against evidence (e.g. this is what science does).
Asking whether you can logically show that "being determined to believing that A is true to A being actually true" is the wrong question. On my view my belief that A is true could be caused by the sense data I get about A, my brain processing it, and my ability to test A against the evidence. I could be right about A, or wrong -- it is actually impossible to logically demonstrate that every belief or any belief is 100% true. Libertarianism cannot even show that, see below. What we can do, is compare our beliefs to the evidence, and doing that, my view has both logic and evidence backing it up, yours has none.
On the libertarian view, you cannot logically go from "freely" believing that A is true to A being actually true, because on libertarian free will thoughts cannot have causes, because if they did they'd be determined. That's one reason why your whole view is incoherent. So why do you think the libertarian view somehow is better?Blog: Atheism and the City
If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
But we've already established that your views here are incoherent. You just said a few comments ago, "I believe the brain causes the mind". If that's true, then mind doesn't cause the brain. But in order to claim that your "conscious choices effected or directed the physical brain", the mind causing brain would have to be the case. So your views aren't coherent. Second of all, on the epiphenomial view, you decision could be the result of a rational deliberation, but a rational deliberation that was all going on inside your brain, of which you were not consciously aware of.
I don't need to know why your brain chose red over blue, in order to know that it chose red over blue. If your decisions are made in the brain and I can predict it before you are even consciously aware of it, then this is empirical evidence showing your consciousness is not what makes the decision, it is your brain that does before you are consciously aware of it. All the good empirical evidence shows this in 35 years of testing.
My position on brain here is not a faith position. It is demonstrated logically and evidentially. You have neither of those two things. What you're trying to unfairly do, is claim that because we cannot be 100% sure we're not living in a computer simulation, therefore every claim is equally valid, including your faith claim about libertarian free will. That's total utter nonsense, and you've tried this before on morality. It's what we atheists call.
It is a caricature. Here's your claim about my views:
1. the brain decides what reality is,
2. then decides what conforms to reality.
3. That is a vicious circle.
On my view:
1. The brain gets information from the senses to process memories and thoughts.
2. When they are processed accurately (in accord with fact or reality), the sense data is the causal factor that shapes my brain processing, and my thoughts about the world are the result of that.
3. We can know our beliefs are accurate when they are tested against evidence (e.g. this is what science does).
Asking whether you can logically show that "being determined to believing that A is true to A being actually true" is the wrong question. On my view my belief that A is true could be caused by the sense data I get about A, my brain processing it, and my ability to test A against the evidence. I could be right about A, or wrong -- it is actually impossible to logically demonstrate that every belief or any belief is 100% true. Libertarianism cannot even show that, see below. What we can do, is compare our beliefs to the evidence, and doing that, my view has both logic and evidence backing it up, yours has none.
On the libertarian view, you cannot logically go from "freely" believing that A is true to A being actually true, because on libertarian free will thoughts cannot have causes, because if they did they'd be determined. That's one reason why your whole view is incoherent. So why do you think the libertarian view somehow is better?Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostYes, I believe the brain causes the mind, but I did not agree that thoughts have no looping influence in the process, even if I don't know how that happens. And I'm not sure what rational deliberations you are speaking of? Brain chemicals undertstand the laws of logic? What does that look like - make a coherent argument.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostI believe The Thinker has made a coherent argument about this many times. It's YOU who has yet to make a coherent argument for libertarian free-will.
No Tass, my goal is not to make a "coherent" argument per-se for LFW, but to show that logic and rationality in any traditional sense is lost if epiphenomenalism is correct. Thoughts, applying the laws of logic and reason, weighing evidence, rational deliberations, etc... are in the realm of the conscious mind - but if Thinker is correct then these very basic reasoning skills play NO ROLE in the process, do nothing, cause nothing, amount to nothing. Are you willing to give that up Tass for your materialism?Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostI don't know for sure and I did give you a link with scientists working on it, but you have no idea why my brain chemicals chose a red shirt over a green, especially in light of the fact that brain chemicals are non-rational, and could care less what shirt I picked.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostNo Tass, my goal is not to make a "coherent" argument per-se for LFW, but to show that logic and rationality in any traditional sense is lost if epiphenomenalism is correct. Thoughts, applying the laws of logic and reason, weighing evidence, rational deliberations, etc... are in the realm of the conscious mind - but if Thinker is correct then these very basic reasoning skills play NO ROLE in the process, do nothing, cause nothing, amount to nothing. Are you willing to give that up Tass for your materialism?Last edited by Tassman; 10-24-2015, 08:39 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View Postfeelthinks it's acting freely, and it does get to eat its banana after all, but it's not in actuality.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostSo you are making my point, our conscious deliberations play no role. Your conscious rationality is meaningless. So what is left - chemicals, non-rational chemicals. Tell me Tass, how do non-rational chemicals that care nothing for logic, truth, or weighing evidence, somehow magically produce them?
Comment
-
This is an utter nonsense Tass, no one has countered the fact that if our conscious rational deliberations do not play a causal role in the process then all we are left with are non-rational chemicals. Chemicals that care nothing for logic, truth, or weighing evidence, or even survival. Conscious rationality is meaningless, that is what you are left with.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostYes, I believe the brain causes the mind, but I did not agree that thoughts have no looping influence in the process, even if I don't know how that happens. And I'm not sure what rational deliberations you are speaking of? Brain chemicals undertstand the laws of logic? What does that look like - make a coherent argument.
And there is good reason to not believe that the brain actually made a decision before the conscious mind was involved. This is clearly seen in the Libet studies where the timing has been replicated. And it goes like this at -.550 sec the brain is said to "decide" at around -.225 we become aware of a possible choice and at 0 the choice is made. This way too long, on normal "go signals" the gap from brain activity until act is more like -140 sec, and some times it is instant. So the conscious mind is involved for .225 sec before the decision is made. So the question is would the same decision or any decision at all be made with out the help of the conscious mind?
Listen I understand that atheists don't like being call on their faith position, but it is a fact - and I'm not just speaking of this.
This makes no sense Thinker, you are just going deeper into the rabbit hole, and you will get your fluffy white tail dirty. I asked you to logically connect the two - you can not. And that means for what your brain considers evidence or not. It is all colored - from top to bottom with NO LOGICAL justification.
Because in my view it is our conscious rational deliberations using and understanding logical principles that bring us to conclusions. Not mechanical brain chemicals that know or care nothing for the laws of logic or reason.Blog: Atheism and the City
If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostThis is an utter nonsense Tass, no one has countered the fact that if our conscious rational deliberations do not play a causal role in the process then all we are left with are non-rational chemicals. Chemicals that care nothing for logic, truth, or weighing evidence, or even survival. Conscious rationality is meaningless, that is what you are left with.Blog: Atheism and the City
If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Thinker View PostThe whole view you have is incoherent: If brain causes mind, mind cannot cause brain.
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/cogito/
Dude your numbers make no sense. What the hell is -140 sec? Is that 140 seconds? That's over 2 minutes. And please cite the empirical study where you get them from. The Libet experiment has been replicated to greater accuracy many, many times and brain causing mind is always the case.
So basically you show me zero empirical evidence for your views, and you can't even logically demonstrate how libertarian free will is coherent, and I logically show you it isn't and that free will cannot exist, and I cite several scientific studies that back this up, and yet I'm the one whose belief is faith based? Wow. Pure insanity.
You're asking a question that technically no one can demonstrate without even realizing it. No one can logically prove that their belief corresponds to reality with 100 certainty. Newsflash. But I do have an advantage over your view, and that is, on my view, beliefs are caused by sense data and their processing in the brain.
True beliefs correspond to correct interpretations and processing of sense data.
On your view, in order to have free will your thoughts cannot be caused, because if they are they cannot be free. If they're uncaused then they're just totally random, spontaneous fluctuations, and thus we'd have no reason to think they correspond to truth, unless by coincidence. So you face a logical dilemma.
That's another totally incoherent statement since you just said, "I believe the brain causes the mind". You must have an advanced degree in logical inconsistency.Last edited by seer; 10-26-2015, 11:51 AM.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Thinker View PostHow many times are you going to continue to make the fallacy of division?Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostI'm not saying that the mind causes the brain, only that conscious thoughts and rationality have a causal role, influence.
And not that I know how that works. And like I said there are ideas out there that may be able to bridge the gap:
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/cogito/
No, it should have been .140 sec, and Mele references these studies in his lecture. And that doesn't change the fact that in the Libet studies the act is not completed until there is conscious awareness. So my question is, would the act still take place without the conscious awareness, or is conscious awareness necessary for completing the task?
OK, so now you go from holding the logical high ground to scientific studies. The fact is Thinker you do not hold the logical high ground and if you really want to get into empiricism and the rationality of that, feel free.
Thinker I never asked you to demonstrate with 100% certainty. I asked you to make a deductive case that because you are determined to believe that A is true, that A is actually true. You can not, and you know you can not. So you take your position on faith apart from logical justification.
This makes no sense. All sense experience is filtered through the subjective brain. If your brain caused you to believe that a false thing is true, then there is no escape. There is no recourse since your rational deliberations play no role in the process - you are at the mercy of brain chemicals - completely.
And you don't face a logical problem? Then once again: make a deductive case that because you are determined to believe that A is true, that A is actually true.
Yes, I do believe that that our rational thoughts, deliberations, the laws of logic and reason play a real role in the process, you do not. In your world all the work is done by chemicals that care or know nothing of these things...
Seer:
(1) I'm not saying that the mind causes the brain
(2) conscious thoughts and rationality have a causal role
Totally incoherent.Blog: Atheism and the City
If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Sparko, 06-25-2024, 03:03 PM
|
37 responses
184 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 03:12 AM | ||
Started by Cow Poke, 06-20-2024, 10:04 AM
|
27 responses
146 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
06-27-2024, 01:35 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 06-18-2024, 08:18 AM
|
82 responses
477 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Yesterday, 03:48 AM | ||
Started by whag, 06-15-2024, 09:43 AM
|
155 responses
631 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 06:24 AM | ||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
468 responses
2,140 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 06-05-2024, 04:09 AM |
Comment