Where Do Moral Questions Stop?

[Jichard]

c

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?

Because consciousn awareness is a state of the brain, and thus can have causal effects just like any other state of the brain.

[seer]

Heavens no, I don't agree with you. You think consciousness is some magical, non-natural thing that plays a causal role in the natural world. Hence your substance dualism. Since that's what you mean by consciousness, I don't agree with you when you claim that "conscious thoughts and deliberations play a causal role". In contrast, I take consciousness to be a natural thing that plays a causal role in the world, just like other natural things, such as rocks. So you don't actually agree with me, until you drop your substance dualism and admit that consciousness is a natural phenomenon.

Thinker, Jim, and Tassman likely disagree with you, because when you talk about consciousness, you're talking about some magical, non-natural thing, that you think causally influences that brain. Thinker, Jim and Tassman are unlikely to agree with you that such a thing has causal effects. However, if you were to accept that consciousness is a natural state had by the brain, then I think they'd be much more willing to agree that consciousness has effects, since they're likely open to the brain's states having causal effects.

So you agree with Thinker's epiphenomenalism? And no they all agree that decisions are made before we have conscious awareness, hence consciousness plays no casual role. Thinker even posted a number of studies supposedly demonstrating this.

[Tassman]

More nonsense, We do know why and how non-car materials give rise to a car. It is called intelligent design. Crying fallacy tells us nothing about how non-conscious, not-rational forces gave rise to consciousness and rationality. Gave rise to things not inherent to their nature. There is no quality in the car parts or the car as a whole that is not intrinsic to their nature.

So you agree with Thinker's epiphenomenalism? And no they all agree that decisions are made before we have conscious awareness, hence consciousness plays no casual role. Thinker even posted a number of studies supposedly demonstrating this.

[Tassman]

By they way: you're a dishonest quote-miner. This is because, for example, you previously quote-mined David Chalmers, even though Chalmers is a naturalist who offers an account of how consciousness would arise from non-conscious parts. Of course, you leave this out in your dishonest quote-mines of Chalmers, so you can pretend that no such account exists.

This highly selective quote mining is a bad habit of seer's. He's done it before with the likes of physicist Alexander Vllenkin and neurologist Sam Harris in a dishonest attempt to support his theism, whilst blithely ignoring that the fact that the authors of the quotes are naturalists and provide natural explanations for the phenomena they're describing. Doubly dishonest in that seer frequently derides science.

[seer]

This highly selective quote mining is a bad habit of seer's. He's done it before with the likes of physicist Alexander Vllenkin and neurologist Sam Harris in a dishonest attempt to support his theism, whilst blithely ignoring that the fact that the authors of the quotes are naturalists and provide natural explanations for the phenomena they're describing. Doubly dishonest in that seer frequently derides science.

That is a lie Tass, take Harris:

Most scientists are confident that consciousness emerges from unconscious complexity. We have compelling reasons for believing this, because the only signs of consciousness we see in the universe are found in evolved organisms like ourselves. .
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/t...-consciousness

There you have his own words. And as far as Vilenkin I linked his lecture a number of times where he clearly says that his inflation theory/multiverse is not past eternal. That it too needs a beginning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXCQelhKJ7A

Stop lying about me Tass or stay out of my threads.

[seer]

The question is do conscious thought or deliberation play a casual role. According to you and Thinker - no - the brain makes the decision before we are aware. Our conscious awareness plays no role. It does nothing. To quote Thinker:It is the brain processing that is always the proximate cause of behavior, since "brain causes mind" consciousness itself cannot cause anything

[Jichard]

That is a lie Tass, take Harris:

Not a lie at all. For example, as I noted, you previously quote-mined David Chalmers, even though Chalmers is a naturalist who offers an account of how consciousness would arise from non-conscious parts. Chalmers account involves the use of psychophysical laws linking phenomenal properties to various materialist properties such as functional properties. He combines that with a double-aspect view of information. Of course, you leave Chalmers's account out in your dishonest quote-mines of Chalmers, so you can pretend that no such account exists. You instead just go to quote-mining him and Harris, so that you can pretend no such account has been given.

And as far as Vilenkin I linked his lecture a number of times where he clearly says that his inflation theory/multiverse is not past eternal. That it too needs a beginning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXCQelhKJ7A

A number of people have already dealt with your misrepresentations of Vilenkin and Carroll. For example:

No Tass, no model we have get us to an eternal past. And Craig did not misrepresent Vilenkin, Craig wrote him and here is part of Vilenkin's response (the rest is in the link).

Why are you making false claims, again, in the service of your theology? There are at least 17 eternal models of the universe. Sean Carroll's addressed this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0qKZqPy9T8

And in Craig's debate with Sean Carroll, Sean pretty much concedes that none of the models for an eternal past work.

He does no such thing. In fact, quite the reverse. He states that there are at least 17 plausible models of a past-infinite universe.

No, a workable model is one which accounts for the available data, makes testable and useful predictions, and is not self-contradictory. If you want to define a "workable model" as being the model which actually corresponds to reality, then there are absolutely no "workable models" in science.

I don't believe claims that the past is finite, either. Whether or not I believe a model is irrelevant to whether or not that model is workable. So, no, I would not disagree with Carroll, here. I rather agree with him when he says that there are numerous workable models which present a past-infinite universe. As I have said several times, in this thread.

Once again, you are patently wrong, here.

You provided the link, in fact, where Vilenkin made this statement. So, it should look familiar to you:

Jaume Garriga and I are now exploring a picture of the multiverse where the BGV theorem may not apply. In bubbles of negative vacuum energy, expansion is followed by cocntraction, and it is usually assumed that this ends in a big crunch singularity. However, it is conceivable (and many people think likely) that singularities will be resolved in the theory of quantum gravity, so the internal collapse of the bubbles will be followed by an expansion. In this scenario, a typical worldline will go through a succession of expanding and contracting regions, and it is not at all clear that the BGV assumption (expansion on average) will be satisfied.

So, are you claiming that Alexander Vilenkin would be exploring a past-infinite model of the cosmos even though he doesn't think the model is "workable?"

Furthermore, you are certainly taking Vilenkin's YouTube lecture out of context, as you keep claiming that Vilenkin refutes all past-infinite models of the universe. This is certainly not the case. In that lecture, he describes three very generic classes into which some past-infinite models fall: Eternal Inflation, Cyclic Evolution, and Static Seed. He does name a few specific models which are typical of these classes, but he most certainly does not discuss all possible past-infinite models. There are models of the universe which do not belong to any of these three classes, but which do explore a past-infinite timeline. In fact, Vilenkin named three such models in his e-mail to Lawrence Krauss from the above link: Carroll-Chen, Aguirre-Gratton, and the aforementioned model which Vilenkin is exploring with Jaime Garriga. Vilenkin does not discuss any of these models in that lecture.

The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem only applies if two assumptions are satisfied. First, space-time has to behave classically at quantum scales. Secondly, space-time has to be expanding, on average, over the whole of its history. Models which violate either or both of these assumptions are not discussed at all by Vilenkin's lecture.

Carroll and Guth have not said anything which contradicts the Big Bang Theory. Once again, the Big Bang Theory does not make the claim that the universe has a past-finite history.

[...]

You do understand that Vilenkin is a Naturalist, right? He does not believe that the supernatural exists any more than Carroll does.

Yes. Once again, Vilenkin self-identifies as a Naturalist. He has argued against the idea of God in his popular work, like his book Many Worlds In One, which I mentioned earlier. He has publicly stated that he doesn't believe there is enough evidence of a personal god to be convincing, and that the idea of an impersonal god simply seems an extraneous attempt to rename natural law.

Please stop misrepresenting Vilenkin, seer.

Stop lying about me Tass or stay out of my threads.

Translation: stop pointing out my dishonest quote-mines of various sources.

[Tassman]

The question is do conscious thought or deliberation play a casual role. According to you and Thinker - no - the brain makes the decision before we are aware. Our conscious awareness plays no role. It does nothing. To quote Thinker:It is the brain processing that is always the proximate cause of behavior, since "brain causes mind" consciousness itself cannot cause anything

Of course conscious awareness plays a role just not the role you insist on giving it, namely exercising Libertarian Free-will. Conscious awareness is very important in forming the essential character based upon sensory experiences and life history from which the subconscious self determines a course of behaviour. The argument which you continue to misconstrue is that neither the conscious self nor the sub-conscious self function independently, but rather as a totality. There is no essential, conscious "ME" in control, which is what you're arguing for.

[seer]

Of course conscious awareness plays a role just not the role you insist on giving it, namely exercising Libertarian Free-will. Conscious awareness is very important in forming the essential character based upon sensory experiences and life history from which the subconscious self determines a course of behaviour. The argument which you continue to misconstrue is that neither the conscious self nor the sub-conscious self function independently, but rather as a totality. There is no essential, conscious "ME" in control, which is what you're arguing for.

It was Thinker not me that said that consciousness plays no role. And I have no idea what this means:Conscious awareness is very important in forming the essential character. If all the real work is done in the subconscious then there is no need for conscious work.

I mean you do understand what Thinker's Epiphenomenalism entails, correct?

Epiphenomenalism is a position in the philosophy of mind according to which mental states or events are caused by physical states or events in the brain but do not themselves cause anything. It seems as if our mental life affects our body, and, via our body, the physical world surrounding us: it seems that sharp pains make us wince, it seems that fear makes our heart beat faster, it seems that remembering an embarrassing situation makes us blush and it seems that the perception of an old friend makes us smile. In reality, however, these sequences are the result of causal processes at an underlying physical level: what makes us wince is not the pain, but the neurophysiological process which causes the pain; what makes our heart beat faster is not fear, but the state of our nervous system which causes the fear etc..

[The Thinker]

Yes, but you can not show that the fallacy of division would even apply here. That chemicals could do more than chemicals do. What properties do a thousand chemicals have that twenty don't? Especially when it comes to something so foreign to their make up like consciousness.

It's billions, not a thousand. And it is not mere numbers, it is structure and interaction. So long as you accept that "the brain causes the mind" - which you do, you are essentially agreeing with me, while trying to deny it. But hey, consistency has never been your strong point.

[The Thinker]

Yes Thinker but I also made clear that rational deliberation play a real role in the process. And it seems that Jichard and atheist like Dan Dennett agree.

I can't speak for Jichard, but Dennett is a materialist who thinks brain causes mind, and so any rational deliberation would be caused by the brain.

[seer]

I can't speak for Jichard, but Dennett is a materialist who thinks brain causes mind, and so any rational deliberation would be caused by the brain.

Yes but conscious deliberation plays a casual role. Consciousness is a driving factor. You on the other hand said that consciousness plays no role.

[seer]

It's billions, not a thousand. And it is not mere numbers, it is structure and interaction. So long as you accept that "the brain causes the mind" - which you do, you are essentially agreeing with me, while trying to deny it. But hey, consistency has never been your strong point.

Oh goodness no, I don't agree with you. I don't believe there is any materialistic way for consciousness to rise from non-consciousness.

To quote Sam Harris again:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/t...-consciousness

[Tassman]

Oh goodness no, I don't agree with you. I don't believe there is any materialistic way for consciousness to rise from non-consciousness.

Interesting viewpoint, what's your evidence to support this bald assertion of yours?

To quote Sam Harris again:

AND HERE:OR:

[Jichard]

Oh goodness no, I don't agree with you. I don't believe there is any materialistic way for consciousness to rise from non-consciousness.

Apparently you don't understand what you wrote here:

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.

or you're lying. Magnetic fields are a material phenomenon. So on your analogy between magnetic fields and consciousness, consciousness would be a material phenomenon. Claiming the consciousness is consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of the brain, is to treat consciousness as a material phenomenon, just as saying that climate is an emergent phenomenon on the Earth is to treat climate as a material phenomenon.

To quote Sam Harris again:

Please stop your dishonest quote-mines of Sam Harris. He is a naturalist, and he does not support your claim that there isn't any materialistic way for consciousness to rise from non-consciousness.