Where Do Moral Questions Stop?

[The Thinker]

Humm, I guess Chalmers must have never heard of these things! In any case I'm in good company. Don't you think? BTW Thinker, you never gave me a rational reason why brain chemicals chose a red shirt over the other options.

He might not have ever heard of them. He probably does not know enough about physics to make his point. So you're not in good company. You haven't yet shown how LFW is coherent. This is absolutely critical for your view.

And you never answered my question here regarding the choosing scenario: If I give a dog two bowls, one black and one white, and the dog chooses the white bowl, are you saying that the dog made the decision due to rational conscious decision making? If not, why not? If so, why so?

[seer]

He's not giving you what you want even if his claims were true because it is not a person's consciousness operating independently of their physical body that makes the choice. Secondly, randomness doesn't make libertarian free will anymore plausible. If we're indetermined that means our thoughts are just random according to a probabilistic mathematical calculation. There is no room for free will, as Sean Carroll says.

Well according to the link I believe he is saying that we do have real choices, that we are not determined to one choice over another.

Faith? No. Just several thousand years of evidence showing that all explanations of the world turn out to be natural and not a single supernatural explanation ever. It's like if there were two horses and one wins every single race it's been in, and the other loses every single race it's been in, it take no faith betting on the horse that always won.

Yes you have probability on your side, that however is not necessarily lead to truth.

He's an atheist. What matters is what evidence people have. And Chalmers does not have evidence that there is anything physical being controlled by the mental.

He does however deny that materialism can account for consciousness, and he had no problem with D-type dualism. He does believe that there is a "natural" explanation, but that we have to redefine natural - whatever that means.

[seer]

He might not have ever heard of them. He probably does not know enough about physics to make his point. So you're not in good company. You haven't yet shown how LFW is coherent. This is absolutely critical for your view.

Have you ever read Chalmers? I suspects he understands physics quite well.

And you never answered my question here regarding the choosing scenario: If I give a dog two bowls, one black and one white, and the dog chooses the white bowl, are you saying that the dog made the decision due to rational conscious decision making? If not, why not? If so, why so?

No, the dog did not. As far as I know dogs do not think in complex languages, use logical deductions, nor can they foresee possible consequences of their behavior. And again you have avoided my question:give me a rational reason why brain chemicals chose a red shirt over the other options.

[The Thinker]

Well according to the link I believe he is saying that we do have real choices, that we are not determined to one choice over another.

He's saying there is randomness in what governs us. This has nothing to do with freely willed choices in the libertarian sense. It seems to me that if you agree with Dennett, than you're just a compatibilist.

Yes you have probability on your side, that however is not necessarily lead to truth.

I have several thousand years of my view always being shown to be right whenever something is explained, and you have several thousand years of your view always being shown to be wrong whenever something is explained, and you have the nerve to claim my position is faith based. Wow.

He does however deny that materialism can account for consciousness, and he had no problem with D-type dualism. He does believe that there is a "natural" explanation, but that we have to redefine natural - whatever that means.

OK fine. We atheists don't all think alike.

[The Thinker]

Have you ever read Chalmers? I suspects he understands physics quite well.

I've seen his lectures. If his view is based on the "standard formulation" of quantum mechanics, which is the Copenhagen view, then his views should not be taken seriously because few pioneers in QM take the Copenhagen view seriously anymore. Many physicists say it isn't even coherent, just like the LFW view isn't.

No, the dog did not. As far as I know dogs do not think in complex languages, use logical deductions, nor can they foresee possible consequences of their behavior. And again you have avoided my question:give me a rational reason why brain chemicals chose a red shirt over the other options.

So if dogs do not think in complex languages, use logical deductions, or foresee possible consequences of their behavior, then how did the dog's brain choose one vs the other?

[seer]

He's saying there is randomness in what governs us. This has nothing to do with freely willed choices in the libertarian sense. It seems to me that if you agree with Dennett, than you're just a compatibilist.

"The model of decision making I am proposing, has the following feature: when we are faced with an important decision, a consideration-generator whose output is to some degree undetermined produces a series of considerations, some of which may of course be immediately rejected as irrelevant by the agent (consciously or unconsciously). Those considerations that are selected by the agent as having a more than negligible bearing on the decision then figure in a reasoning process, and if the agent is in the main reasonable, those considerations ultimately serve as predictors and explicators of the agent's final decision."

"This result is not just what the libertarian is looking for, but it is a useful result nevertheless. It shows that we can indeed install indeterminism in the internal causal chains affecting human behavior at the macroscopic level while preserving the intelligibility of practical deliberation that the libertarian requires. We may have good reasons from other quarters for embracing determinism, but we need not fear that macroscopic indeterminism in human behavior would of necessity rob our lives of intelligibility by producing chaos."

It seems to me that he is saying that we are not determined to select one thing over another.

I have several thousand years of my view always being shown to be right whenever something is explained, and you have several thousand years of your view always being shown to be wrong whenever something is explained, and you have the nerve to claim my position is faith based. Wow.

What are you taking about? Have you personally inspected every miraculous claim? A year ago I experienced something that defies natural explanation. I mean I agree with live in an intelligible, ordered universe, that makes sense since it was created by a rational God.

OK fine. We atheists don't all think alike.

OK, that is fair.

[The Thinker]

It seems to me that he is saying that we are not determined to select one thing over another.

Yes because he's talking about indeterminism. But indeterminism does not make LFW any more plausible because we'd simply be random instead of determined. Still the will is not having any causal influence at all. You have yet to make a coherent case for LFW.

What are you taking about? Have you personally inspected every miraculous claim? A year ago I experienced something that defies natural explanation. I mean I agree with live in an intelligible, ordered universe, that makes sense since it was created by a rational God.

A "claim" means almost nothing in terms of an explanation. Your experience is no more veridical than the ones my Muslim and Hindu friends claimed they had growing up, or the claims of people abducted by UFOs. And you missed the mark. I'm talking about when things are explained. They always have a natural explanation. An experience that "defies natural explanation" is not an explanation of anything.

[seer]

Yes because he's talking about indeterminism. But indeterminism does not make LFW any more plausible because we'd simply be random instead of determined. Still the will is not having any causal influence at all. You have yet to make a coherent case for LFW.

Like I said Thinker, I don't know how all this works. But again you have not offered a coherent reason for why my brain chemicals chose a red shirt over the other options.

A "claim" means almost nothing in terms of an explanation. Your experience is no more veridical than the ones my Muslim and Hindu friends claimed they had growing up, or the claims of people abducted by UFOs. And you missed the mark. I'm talking about when things are explained. They always have a natural explanation. An experience that "defies natural explanation" is not an explanation of anything.

Except it is a fact, as true as any other fact. And of course we have natural explanations for most things, that is what one would expect from a rational Creator. An intelligible universe, which makes science possible.

[seer]

So if dogs do not think in complex languages, use logical deductions, or foresee possible consequences of their behavior, then how did the dog's brain choose one vs the other?

Instinct: an innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli.

[The Thinker]

Like I said Thinker, I don't know how all this works. But again you have not offered a coherent reason for why my brain chemicals chose a red shirt over the other options.

The problem you face is much bigger than you not knowing how LFW works. The problem you face is that it is totally incoherent. Any attempt to explain it is going to get you into a coherency problem.

There's nothing incoherent about my view. Not all decisions we make involve rational deliberation, sometimes they are the spur of the moment. In that case, what caused the decision on your view? I see no explanation for that. Are you saying that sometimes rational deliberation in consciousness causes the brain to do things, and sometimes not? That would have to be the case since not all of our decisions involve rational deliberation. In cases when it doesn't, what causes the decision? The brain? If it's the brain then your view faces the same alleged problem you think I face.

Except it is a fact, as true as any other fact. And of course we have natural explanations for most things, that is what one would expect from a rational Creator. An intelligible universe, which makes science possible.

No. It is not a fact. If that's the case you'd be admitting that the supernatural or spiritual claims made by Hindus and Muslims and the paranormal claims made by people who say they've seen UFOs or had been abducted by aliens "is a fact, as true as any other fact."

[seer]

There's nothing incoherent about my view. Not all decisions we make involve rational deliberation, sometimes they are the spur of the moment. In that case, what caused the decision on your view? I see no explanation for that. Are you saying that sometimes rational deliberation in consciousness causes the brain to do things, and sometimes not? That would have to be the case since not all of our decisions involve rational deliberation. In cases when it doesn't, what causes the decision? The brain? If it's the brain then your view faces the same alleged problem you think I face.

That is not what I asked Thinker, make a coherent argument for why my brain chemicals chose the red shirt over the other options? Do chemicals prefer the color red? Did they make a totally arbitrary choice? What?

No. It is not a fact. If that's the case you'd be admitting that the supernatural or spiritual claims made by Hindus and Muslims and the paranormal claims made by people who say they've seen UFOs or had been abducted by aliens "is a fact, as true as any other fact."

But I know without question that it is a fact, I have no idea about these other claims, I did not witness them.

[The Thinker]

Instinct: an innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli.

There is no instinct to pick one man made object vs another because dogs did not have man made objects in their natural environment. Dogs are actually quite intelligent and capable of pretty smart identification and can identify objects with human words and can learn new words quickly. See this video:

How do you explain that based on "an innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli"? It seems to me that instinct cannot explain this.

[The Thinker]

That is not what I asked Thinker, make a coherent argument for why my brain chemicals chose the red shirt over the other options? Do chemicals prefer the color red? Did they make a totally arbitrary choice? What?

You didn't answer a single one of my questions. They show how your view is even more incoherent. How are decisions made by you when they are not the result of conscious rational deliberation?

But I know without question that it is a fact, I have no idea about these other claims, I did not witness them.

I did not witness your claim either, and therefore it is not an explanation for anything. It is your delusion. If I grant your claim, I have to grant all the other contradictory claims.

All explanations we have are natural. Not a single one is supernatural.

[seer]

You didn't answer a single one of my questions. They show how your view is even more incoherent. How are decisions made by you when they are not the result of conscious rational deliberation?

Thinker - how far back have I asked this same question? I believe and have stated that my choices are made by rational conscious deliberations (for the most part). Do I know how that all works, no, but if that is not the case then what are we left with? Chemicals that prefer the color red today or the color green tomorrow? Really Thinker? How is that coherent?

I did not witness your claim either, and therefore it is not an explanation for anything. It is your delusion. If I grant your claim, I have to grant all the other contradictory claims.

But it wasn't a delusion, and was witnessed by a passerby. So your unbelief does not change fact.

All explanations we have are natural. Not a single one is supernatural.

What do you mean by all? All phenomenon have natural explanation?

[seer]

There is no instinct to pick one man made object vs another because dogs did not have man made objects in their natural environment. Dogs are actually quite intelligent and capable of pretty smart identification and can identify objects with human words and can learn new words quickly. See this video:

How do you explain that based on "an innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli"? It seems to me that instinct cannot explain this.

Yes, I have owned dogs all my life, they are smart, monkeys are smart. How do they reason, if they reason? I have no idea, I can't get into their head. And instinct may be more complicated than we know. I really only know how I reason.