Where Do Moral Questions Stop?

[The Thinker]

So you agree that thoughts are not physical?

I'm agnostic on the ontological status of thoughts in terms of physical/non-physical. What I am not agnostic on, is that brain always causes mind.

[The Thinker]

So which one is yours?

I'm agnostic on the two different views. They each make good points. The one thing I am not agnostic on is that libertarian free will is totally incoherent, doesn't have a shred of good evidence backing it up, and is therefore totally false. It is a 100% faith and intuition based belief.

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.

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.

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.

That would be impossible under your view because you just said "I believe the brain causes the mind". Now you're changing your views. So what is it?

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.

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 "Going nuclear."

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.

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?

[seer]

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.

Yes, 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.

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.

First, if you watched the Mele lecture there are good reason why you can not take these specific studies and generalize to all decision makes processes. Especially concerning a longer deliberation process. 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[Tassman]

Yes, 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.

I 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.

[seer]

I 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?

[JimL]

I 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.

Consciousness in and of itself has nothing to do with rationality either. Consciousness is merely an awareness. So if rational conclusions aren't the product of information processing filtered through the unconscious functioning of the physical brain, and they are not the product of consciousness in and of itself, then what exactly are they the product of. Define the nature of your immaterial rational agent and how it functions as a rational thinking thing in and of itself? We have given you an idea as to how the physical brain does this, how it makes choices unconsciously, you have given us in return no idea's as to how your immaterial ghost can do anything at all.

[Tassman]

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?

feelthinks it's acting freely, and it does get to eat its banana after all, but it's not in actuality.

[seer]

feelthinks it's acting freely, and it does get to eat its banana after all, but it's not in actuality.

So 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?

[Tassman]

So 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?

[seer]

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.

[The Thinker]

Yes, 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.

The whole view you have is incoherent: If brain causes mind, mind cannot cause brain.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[The Thinker]

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.

How many times are you going to continue to make the fallacy of division?

[seer]

The whole view you have is incoherent: If brain causes mind, mind cannot cause brain.

I'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/

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

True beliefs correspond to correct interpretations and processing of sense data.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

How many times are you going to continue to make the fallacy of division?

It is not a fallacy of division Thinker - you already agree that conscious thoughts and deliberations play NO ROLE in the process. Where is the division? What is left but brain chemicals - no matter how complicated?

[The Thinker]

I'm not saying that the mind causes the brain, only that conscious thoughts and rationality have a causal role, influence.

That's once again totally incoherent. Conscious thoughts are the mind.

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/

Quote me the line from that link that shows your point. I doubt you've even read it.

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?

Conscious awareness is clearly not necessary for completing a task. People can sleep walk without being consciously aware. We talk, walk, and do plenty of things without consciously controlling our every move. In fact, conscious awareness of certain tasks tends to make us perform worse - such as when we get stage fright.

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.

What 'fact' demonstrates this? Your view is totally incoherent, as demonstrated once again by your first sentence above. Go ahead and make a positive argument for libertarian free will that is coherent. I dare you.

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.

Yes, you are asking for 100% certainty when you say "A is actually true." You can always say, "Oh, but how would you know if you aren't being deceived? Answer that Mr. Thinker!" No one can know that the external world they perceive is 100% accurate or real. That is just a standard no one can meet.

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.

No, it makes total sense. True beliefs correspond to correct interpretations and processing of sense data. If you think that is incoherent, please show how. We can never know with 100% certainty whether our beliefs correspond to correct interpretations and processing of sense data, but the fact of the matter is, is that true beliefs correspond to correct interpretations and processing of sense data. That is just a fact.

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.

No I don't. My view is not internally incoherent like yours is. Let's say A = people cannot fly by flapping their arms like birds. I see a person jump off a cliff and flap their arms and fall to their death. I see another person jump off a cliff and flap their arms and fall to their death. Then I see yet another person jump off a cliff and flap their arms and fall to their death. I get all this data from my senses of sight and sound and my brain processes that data with all of my experiences of gravity throughout my life and I am determined to conclude that people cannot fly by flapping their arms like birds. The sights and sounds of several people jumping off a cliff and flapping their arms and falling to their death determined my brain to believe that A = people cannot fly by flapping their arms like birds. Now if you say that I can't know for sure whether my belief in A is true you will be violating your claim that "I never asked you to demonstrate with 100% certainty."

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...

So, we're going to make the fallacy of division, what is it, 10 times now? I lost count. Your view is incoherent, and I'll remind you one more time:

Seer:

(1) I'm not saying that the mind causes the brain
(2) conscious thoughts and rationality have a causal role

Totally incoherent.