Where Do Moral Questions Stop?

[Jichard]

So you agree with Thinker's epiphenomenalism?

I never said I agree with epiphenomenalism. In fact, said otherwise:

"n 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."

But that doesn't necessarily place me in disagremment with Thinker, as I explained:

"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."

I made this all very clear. But, as usual, you're unable to fairly represent the views of other people.

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.

seer, are they talking about consciousness as you mean it (some non-natural, things that is not a natural process of the brain) or do they mean consciousness in the sense that naturalists like I mean it? Because that will be relevant to whethr they think consciousness has a causal role, as I already explained.

And given your track-record of willfully misrepresenting other people, I don't take seriously your claims about what they said.

[seer]

Jichard, I'm requesting that you stay out of any thread that I start. Try and be a gentleman and honor this request.

[seer]

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

Well sure, then tell us how and why consciousness rose from non-consciousness?

AND HERE:OR:

Tass, I have told you more than once that Harris is an atheist, and holds to that worldview. And that he does believe that there is probably a natural explanation for consciousness (that was in my quote) - but that does not change what he said, that claiming that consciousness is an emergent property is akin to a miracle and that there is presently no good natural explanation for consciousness.

[Tassman]

Well sure, then tell us how and why consciousness rose from non-consciousness?

everynever fare well.

Tass, I have told you more than once that Harris is an atheist, and holds to that worldview. And that he does believe that there is probably a natural explanation for consciousness (that was in my quote) - but that does not change what he said, that claiming that consciousness is an emergent property is akin to a miracle and that there is presently no good natural explanation for consciousness.

Putting your own personal spin on the tentative conclusions

Jichard, I'm requesting that you stay out of any thread that I start. Try and be a gentleman and honor this request.

Personally, I think Jichard has a lot of worthwhile stuff to contribute, but I guess that's your problem.

[seer]

Putting your own personal spin on the tentative conclusions

Tass, I did not put a spin on anything.

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. even in principle.

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

Personally, I think Jichard has a lot of worthwhile stuff to contribute, but I guess that's your problem.

Of course you do, as long as he is attacking me it is worthwhile.

[The Thinker]

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.

Then you don't even agree with yourself:

Yes, I believe the brain causes the mind,

Consistency has never been your strong point. You claim you believe in LFW, even though it's been repeatedly shown to be incoherent to you. I dare you to make a coherent positive argument for it.

To quote Sam Harris again:

And this is supposed to mean what exactly? Your link doesn't even work. Try again. Harris is not an eliminative materialist. Nor does he think consciousness is anything supernatural or paranormal.

[The Thinker]

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

Demonstrate to me it plays a causal role by citing some actual evidence for it. Consciousness is not a driving factor because "the brain causes the mind" - your own words. How many times can be be inconsistent?

[seer]

Consistency has never been your strong point. You claim you believe in LFW, even though it's been repeatedly shown to be incoherent to you. I dare you to make a coherent positive argument for it.

I quoted Dan Dennett recently, he certainly does not believe that LFW is incoherent.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post260426

And this is supposed to mean what exactly? Your link doesn't even work. Try again. Harris is not an eliminative materialist. Nor does he think consciousness is anything supernatural or paranormal.

Correct, as an atheist he of course would like to see a natural explanation, but to date there isn't one, and there may not be a natural explanation.


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

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/t...nsciousness-ii

[seer]

Demonstrate to me it plays a causal role by citing some actual evidence for it. Consciousness is not a driving factor because "the brain causes the mind" - your own words. How many times can be be inconsistent?

Again, I can show how my reasoning lead me to choose a red shirt this morning. I can follow the logic that lead up to my physically reaching out and grabbing the shirt. If my conscious deliberation did not cause this then what did? Chemicals? Why did they choose red?

[Tassman]

Tass, I did not put a spin on anything.

Of course you do, as long as he is attacking me it is worthwhile.

[Tassman]

Again, I can show how my reasoning lead me to choose a red shirt this morning. I can follow the logic that lead up to my physically reaching out and grabbing the shirt. If my conscious deliberation did not cause this then what did? Chemicals? Why did they choose red?

Is the reasoning of a chimpanzee leading to it to choose one particular banana off a tree in preference to another the result of conscious deliberation too...Is there a difference in principle between the two acts of choice? What, if any, is the difference?

[seer]

That is false Tass, yes I have my own take away on it, but why should I not have my own opinion. I never claimed that Harris did - I HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT HE WOULD NOT AGREE WITH ME. But the fact remains that there is no natural explanation for how/why consciousness rose from non-consciousness - and Harris himself says that the idea that it emerged was akin to a miracle - his words not mine.

[seer]

Is the reasoning of a chimpanzee leading to it to choose one particular banana off a tree in preference to another the result of conscious deliberation too...Is there a difference in principle between the two acts of choice? What, if any, is the difference?

Then I have to ask, is this the free will that Jichard is speaking of? Then how is it free?

[The Thinker]

I quoted Dan Dennett recently, he certainly does not believe that LFW is incoherent.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post260426

Dennett is a compatibilist. The link to his quote starts out, "While [Dennett] himself is a confirmed compatibilist, even a determinist". This is more misrepresentation and quote mining from you. Dennett makes a case for compatibilistic free will, not libertarian free will, and nothing you quoted shows that libertarian free will is coherent.

Try again.

Correct, as an atheist he of course would like to see a natural explanation, but to date there isn't one, and there may not be a natural explanation.


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

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/t...nsciousness-ii

Thank you for finally getting the links correctly. There are many views naturalism can accommodate: emergentism or reductionism. Either way, consciousness is caused by the brain, as you agreed before.

[The Thinker]

Again, I can show how my reasoning lead me to choose a red shirt this morning. I can follow the logic that lead up to my physically reaching out and grabbing the shirt. If my conscious deliberation did not cause this then what did? Chemicals? Why did they choose red?

You face numerous problems. For one thing, your explanation is not even compatible with your own view that "the brain causes the mind." Conscious deliberation is the mind, which you agreed is caused by the brain. So following the logic, your own view would have to deduce to the brain choose red, and not your thoughts somehow existing independently of your brain (which would contradict your own view). So you definitely did not "follow the logic".

Second, your conscious deliberation must be caused by something, or else it is just a random spontaneous fluctuation of nonsense. If it is caused by something, whatever caused it must have a cause, unless you want to claim it began to exist without a cause (which you'd must in order to claim they weren't determined). If all events "that lead up to my physically reaching out and grabbing the shirt" have a cause then well - you guessed it - you have determinism.