Where Do Moral Questions Stop?

[Tassman]

But Thinker, Jim L (as far as I can tell) and Tass all hold to epiphenomenalism. That "deliberations, beliefs, and desires are causally irrelevant to action" I have been arguing just the opposite.

You have not been arguing anything, this has been the problem You've merely been asserting the existence of libertarian free will without any supporting evidence. In short, a faith belief!

[Tassman]

What parts? There are only electro-chemical interactions running through meat.

[JimL]

But Thinker, Jim L (as far as I can tell) and Tass all hold to epiphenomenalism. That "deliberations, beliefs, and desires are causally irrelevant to action" I have been arguing just the opposite.

No, thats where I'm thinking you've got it wrong seer. Deliberations, beliefs and desires are causally relevant, but deliberations, beliefs, and desires have antecedent causes.

[seer]

You have not been arguing anything, this has been the problem You've merely been asserting the existence of libertarian free will without any supporting evidence. In short, a faith belief!

No, I have arguing that conscious thoughts and deliberations play a causal role, something that you, Thinker, and Jim L seem to deny. But it seems that Jichard agrees with me.

[seer]

No, thats where I'm thinking you've got it wrong seer. Deliberations, beliefs and desires are causally relevant, but deliberations, beliefs, and desires have antecedent causes.

No, Thinker has been arguing the the opposite. If the brain makes these decisions before we are aware of them, liked you claimed, how is the conscious awareness of these decisions causally relevant. What do they cause?

[seer]

Again, how does this tell us why/how brain chemicals that are non-rational, don't care about logic, reasoning, weighing evidence, rational deliberation give rise to these things? Crying fallacy of division does not give us an answer.

[The Thinker]

Again, how does this tell us why/how brain chemicals that are non-rational, don't care about logic, reasoning, weighing evidence, rational deliberation give rise to these things? Crying fallacy of division does not give us an answer.

Making the fallacy of division over and over again when you've been called out on it is quite dishonest, and it shows that you are not a person trying to seek truth. You're just reiterating your talking points over and over again, to save face, because your view has been shown to be absurd, just like it was with your views on morality. As far as how/why, I don't exactly know. Our ability to be rational is the product of 3.8 billion years of evolution, during which time intelligence gave our ancestors an evolutionary advantage. But - my ignorance of the hard problem of consciousness does not in any way allow your pseudoscience a possibility. We know for a fact that brain always causes mind and never the other way around, we just don't know everything about how the brain causes mind, but we know that it does. And we know logically that libertarian free will is totally incoherent. So your view is not even possible.

[The Thinker]

What? But the actual conscious stage fright, plays no causal role - correct?

No!!! The actual "consciousness" of stage fright is all in the brain. Because remember, "the brain causes the mind" -- your words.

[seer]

No!!! The actual "consciousness" of stage fright is all in the brain. Because remember, "the brain causes the mind" -- your words.

OK, so the consciousness of stage fright is meaningless. You seemed to suggest otherwise: In fact, conscious awareness of certain tasks tends to make us perform worse - such as when we get stage fright.

That the conscious awareness played a causal role - to make us perform worse.

[seer]

Making the fallacy of division over and over again when you've been called out on it is quite dishonest, and it shows that you are not a person trying to seek truth. You're just reiterating your talking points over and over again, to save face, because your view has been shown to be absurd, just like it was with your views on morality. As far as how/why, I don't exactly know. Our ability to be rational is the product of 3.8 billion years of evolution, during which time intelligence gave our ancestors an evolutionary advantage. But - my ignorance of the hard problem of consciousness does not in any way allow your pseudoscience a possibility. We know for a fact that brain always causes mind and never the other way around, we just don't know everything about how the brain causes mind, but we know that it does. And we know logically that libertarian free will is totally incoherent. So your view is not even possible.

No Thinker, you can not tell us how/why brain chemicals that are non-rational, don't care about logic, reasoning, weighing evidence, rational deliberation give rise to these things. Or how non-conscious forces could give rise to consciousness - even in principle. To play the fallacy of division card tells us nothing. This is true especially in light of your epiphenomenalism where rational deliberation and consciousness are not necessary - FOR ANYTHING.

[Tassman]

No, I have arguing that conscious thoughts and deliberations play a causal role, something that you, Thinker, and Jim L seem to deny. But it seems that Jichard agrees with me.

You have NOT been arguing that, you've been asserting it without any evidence to support your claim. You have yet to explain how libertarian free will can exist in a causally determined universe. Waiting!!

[Tassman]

No Thinker, you can not tell us how/why brain chemicals that are non-rational, don't care about logic, reasoning, weighing evidence, rational deliberation give rise to these things. Or how non-conscious forces could give rise to consciousness - even in principle. To play the fallacy of division card tells us nothing. This is true especially in light of your epiphenomenalism where rational deliberation and consciousness are not necessary - FOR ANYTHING.

Its' obvious, 'god-did-it'. Clearly you're not going to settle for anything less than this, regardless of the facts.

[seer]

You have NOT been arguing that, you've been asserting it without any evidence to support your claim. You have yet to explain how libertarian free will can exist in a causally determined universe. Waiting!!

What? I have said little about LFW, mostly when others bring it up. I have mostly been arguing with Thinker that our rational thoughts and deliberations having a causal role in the process. It is an argument for or against epiphenomenalism.

[seer]

Its' obvious, 'god-did-it'. Clearly you're not going to settle for anything less than this, regardless of the facts.

Yes so you take it by faith that nature magically did these things... OK...

[The Thinker]

OK, so the consciousness of stage fright is meaningless. You seemed to suggest otherwise: In fact, conscious awareness of certain tasks tends to make us perform worse - such as when we get stage fright.

That the conscious awareness played a causal role - to make us perform worse.

Consciousness is all in the brain seer, that's been my view from the get-go. The consciousness of stage-fright is caused by sense data going into the brain and the brain processes that data which results in the experience of being in front of people. It is the brain processing that is always the proximate cause of behavior, since "brain causes mind" consciousness itself cannot cause anything. So there is no contradiction on my part.