Where Do Moral Questions Stop?

[The Thinker]

Once again Thinker, I'm not saying that the brain can not choose a a red shirt, I asked for a coherent why brain chemicals would choose red over green. Did my brain chemical prefer red one day and green another?

As I just wrote, it could be as simple as your brain got a release of dopamine when you received something red and now associates red things with pleasure. If you already concede that a brain can choose things without conscious deliberation, then you've already conceded your point.

Again, like the Libet study there is quite lag from when the brain activates (encodes the outcome) and when the act is completed. And the act is not completed until there is consciousness awareness. But why would we need conscious awareness before the act is completed. Why is conscious awareness even needed, why is there a lag time? Why don't we complete the act before awareness?

The lag time between when the brain encodes the outcome to the actual act actually works in my favor because it supports my view that our decisions are made by our brains before we're consciously aware of them. On your view, it would have to be the case that consciousness by itself causes the brain to make a choice. That view is simply ruled out by empirical evidence like the one I provided. So your view is simply false. And we don't make all of our decisions consciously. We've already discussed that. Many decisions you make are made without any conscious awareness.

Like I said, I only KNOW (for certain) what I experienced. And I have zero reason to doubt it.

And you have provided zero evidence for it and thus zero reason for me to believe it. You must be aware that we human beings experience many illusions.

The B theory of time does not necessarily show that the universe is past infinite. And do you really believe that in this universe you simultaneously are both alive and dead? In your mothers womb and not in your mother's womb? And if the past present and future are equally "real" then why don't I have memories/knowledge of the future as well as the past?

The B-theory of time doesn't need to show that the universe is past infinite in order to show that it is eternal. That is the whole point. There could be a finite past, or an infinite past, and the universe is still eternal because every moment in time already exists. Under the B-theory, I am not simultaneously dead and alive. My life would exist as a world line, and at no single reference frame would I be dead and alive. The B-theory of time is completely self-consistent. And regarding your last question, it's because of the second law of thermodynamics.

And why are physicists like Alexander Vilenkin still searching for what caused this universe?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXCQelhKJ7A

Because our universe might have a cause, or it might not. It depends on whether time exists before the big bang. If there is no time before the big bang, there cannot be a cause, because there would be no time for a cause to happen. But none of this is relevant to the fact that the universe is eternal as a whole. An eternal universe can never be created by a god.

[seer]

It's not nonsense. [/I]Now if you say that I can't know for sure whether my belief in A is true you'd will be violating your claim that "I never asked you to demonstrate with 100% certainty."

No Thinker I asked you to demonstrate it logically. Using the rules of deductive logic.

Basically determinism is the only way beliefs can make sense because beliefs must be caused by something. If your beliefs are uncaused, then there is no way that the evidence of things that are true can have any kind of causal effect on your thinking. And thus uncaused beliefs wouldn't be reliable, caused beliefs would. Determinism or non-LFW is the only coherent view but it's counter-intuitive, like many complex things in the world.

How does that follow since you could be just as well be determined to believe that false things are true.

LFW makes many claims on thoughts because it says your thoughts could have been otherwise if you were put through the same exact situation with all the atoms in the universe the same exact way multiple times. And it says your thoughts are not caused by antecedent brain activity or causes. Given how you admitted that you cannot have a thought, about a thought, before you have the thought, there is no way for you to choose X over Y, because you cannot choose your thoughts. Your whole view here is false and incoherent. If you disagree with this, make a coherent case for how you can choose what your next thought is before you have it.

No that is not exactly what I said. I said that thoughts can present me with options, then I can choose from the options. I can direct the thoughts, or accept or reject. The mind is emergent from the brain, but I don't necessarily, as a Christian and dualist, believe that those are the only players in this picture since I believe that human beings have a rational spirit. That is the "I" in the picture. When competing desires present themselves it is the "I" that judges and chooses.

Well once you concede that chemicals and atoms in your brain can make choices without the process of rational deliberation, you've essentially conceded your whole point of view. Why your brain chemicals choose red over green could be as simple as you having received something red in the past that made you feel good, which released in your brain, and now your brain prefers red things over green things.

But that is not a rational reason, it is an arbitrary reason. So once again, rationality is out the window. See, I know logically why I did choose read, there is a logical chain of reasoning that I can follow backward.

[seer]

The lag time between when the brain encodes the outcome to the actual act actually works in my favor because it supports my view that our decisions are made by our brains before we're consciously aware of them. On your view, it would have to be the case that consciousness by itself causes the brain to make a choice. That view is simply ruled out by empirical evidence like the one I provided. So your view is simply false. And we don't make all of our decisions consciously. We've already discussed that. Many decisions you make are made without any conscious awareness.

Then answer the questions, why is awareness even necessary? And why isn't the act completed until awareness present? Why in the Libet study does it take - .250 of awareness time before we actually act? -.500 after the brain made the decision. Especially in light of the studies that Mele referenced using a "go signal" test - were the lag time time was no more than .-140 and often happened instantly.

And you have provided zero evidence for it and thus zero reason for me to believe it. You must be aware that we human beings experience many illusions.

I have never been given to delusions, and since I know what I experienced it would be on you to demonstrate that I was under a delusion. I didn't said that I could prove it to you any more than I could prove that I had a cup of tea yesterday morning. That does change the reality of what I saw.

The B-theory of time doesn't need to show that the universe is past infinite in order to show that it is eternal. That is the whole point. There could be a finite past, or an infinite past, and the universe is still eternal because every moment in time already exists. Under the B-theory, I am not simultaneously dead and alive. My life would exist as a world line, and at no single reference frame would I be dead and alive.

I have no idea what this means. In this universe you are not equally occupying all time frames?

The B-theory of time is completely self-consistent. And regarding your last question, it's because of the second law of thermodynamics.

How is the second law of thermodynamics even relevant since there is no real arrow of time. You need an arrow of time for the second law to even work. And as Carroll said the universe is moving to high entropy where there is empty space (no more stars or planets) - but if the B-Theory of time is true we are already there and not there.

Because our universe might have a cause, or it might not. It depends on whether time exists before the big bang. If there is no time before the big bang, there cannot be a cause, because there would be no time for a cause to happen. But none of this is relevant to the fact that the universe is eternal as a whole. An eternal universe can never be created by a god.

If our universe had a cause then it is not past eternal. And that is the exact language Vilenkin uses, and in his debate with Craig, I don't remember Carroll making the argument about time that you are making. I wonder why if it such a slam dunk!

[The Thinker]

No Thinker I asked you to demonstrate it logically. Using the rules of deductive logic.

We already covered this. No one can demonstrate logically that there beliefs are 100% correct. You cannot do this. I gave you a coherent example of how true belief would work in a determined universe. It is the only way true belief can work. I'll show it to you. Answer me this: do your beliefs have causes, yes or no?

How does that follow since you could be just as well be determined to believe that false things are true.

That doesn't imply that all my beliefs will be false.

No that is not exactly what I said. I said that thoughts can present me with options, then I can choose from the options. I can direct the thoughts, or accept or reject. The mind is emergent from the brain, but I don't necessarily, as a Christian and dualist, believe that those are the only players in this picture since I believe that human beings have a rational spirit. That is the "I" in the picture. When competing desires present themselves it is the "I" that judges and chooses.

That view is totally incoherent and falsified by scientific evidence. If to choose something is a thought itself, and you cannot have a thought, about a thought, before you have the thought, then it is logically impossible for "you" to choose from an option. The choice appears in your consciousness and you have no conscious control over it. That would also mean that you cannot direct your thoughts, or accept or reject. Our results identify, for the first time, a candidate unconscious precursor of the decision to inhibit action.

Verdict: The dualistic view is incoherent and falsified by scientific evidence. That's why even many Christians reject it today. I don't understand how you can keep believing in something after I've shown it to be false multiple ways over and over again. I guess that's why Christianity is based on faith.

But that is not a rational reason, it is an arbitrary reason. So once again, rationality is out the window. See, I know logically why I did choose read, there is a logical chain of reasoning that I can follow backward.

The whole point was to give you an example how a decision was made that did not involve rational deliberation at all. And I gave you that and once you concede that atoms can cause a decision to be made, you've essentially conceded the point. And I've already given you empirical evidence that rational decision making is caused by the brain before we are consciously aware of it. You have provided nothing even close to the level of evidence I have provided to support your view. So now you're changing the subject or moving the goal posts. Do you expect anyone to take you serious on this forum? I mean seriously. When several people accuse you of doing the same thing, it indicates something. It seems that you are committed to defending your faith-based view at all costs and will be dishonest in order to do so. I thought Christians were supposed to be above such tactics.

[The Thinker]

Then answer the questions, why is awareness even necessary? And why isn't the act completed until awareness present? Why in the Libet study does it take - .250 of awareness time before we actually act? -.500 after the brain made the decision. Especially in light of the studies that Mele referenced using a "go signal" test - were the lag time time was no more than .-140 and often happened instantly.

So basically, you want me to answer all your questions, but you get to say "I don't know" whenever I ask you one, and you think that your view is still coherent even though you cannot answer the most simple questions on it? Wow. Are you employing a double standard?

Consciousness doesn't appear to be necessary, but philosophical zombies don't also seem to be physically possible. Once you have a complex, evolved functioning brain, consciousness seems to be a byproduct of it, like steam from boiling water. Also, acts are not always done with awareness present. We already covered that and yet you keep bringing it up because you're getting desperate.

Regarding go-signal tests, according to Wiki:

So I'm not sure how this supports your view.

I have never been given to delusions, and since I know what I experienced it would be on you to demonstrate that I was under a delusion. I didn't said that I could prove it to you any more than I could prove that I had a cup of tea yesterday morning. That does change the reality of what I saw.

Sorry buddy, the burden of proof is always on the person making the positive claim. And all you have is a claim. So why shouldn't we all believe the claims made by Hindus and Muslims? Aren't their claims just as legitimate as yours? If not, you have to outline a criterion for the veracity of miracle claims. Is that something you're totally incapable of?

Consider it a challenge.

I have no idea what this means. In this universe you are not equally occupying all time frames?

No. I suggest learning more about the B-theory of time.

How is the second law of thermodynamics even relevant since there is no real arrow of time. You need an arrow of time for the second law to even work.

Did you even watch the video in the link? The arrow of time is because of the second law of thermodynamics. The arrow of time is defined by the direction entropy increases.

And as Carroll said the universe is moving to high entropy where there is empty space (no more stars or planets) - but if the B-Theory of time is true we are already there and not there.

Wow. This can only be explained by your amazing ignorance.

If our universe had a cause then it is not past eternal. And that is the exact language Vilenkin uses, and in his debate with Craig, I don't remember Carroll making the argument about time that you are making. I wonder why if it such a slam dunk!

Your first sentence makes no sense. Our universe can have a cause and be past eternal, by there being an infinite series of events prior to the big bang. The universe is eternal regardless of whether there is an infinite series of past events or a finite series. Please learn some basic science. Carroll didn't make a case for the B-theory of time in his debate with Craig, but I think he should have, since it is a knock down argument against the kalam cosmological argument. Carroll mentions he holds to the B-theory on this blog.

[seer]

We already covered this. No one can demonstrate logically that there beliefs are 100% correct. You cannot do this. I gave you a coherent example of how true belief would work in a determined universe. It is the only way true belief can work. I'll show it to you. Answer me this: do your beliefs have causes, yes or no?

But I'm not asking you to prove that your beliefs are 100% correct. I'm asking you to make a logical case for your position. If you can't then your position is not logically coherent.

That doesn't imply that all my beliefs will be false.

I didn't say they would, the question is - how would you know? Especially since you removed rational deliberation from the process.

Verdict: The dualistic view is incoherent and falsified by scientific evidence. That's why even many Christians reject it today. I don't understand how you can keep believing in something after I've shown it to be false multiple ways over and over again. I guess that's why Christianity is based on faith.

Yes, as a Christian I do give a lot of weight to Revelation, and the fact that science is always in flux. Yes certain studies may lead one to accept your position (Al Mele doesn't think so BTW and made a good case) but who knows what science will say tomorrow. What variables or new information will come to light? Along with the fact that as a Christian I don't believe that everything can be reduced to the material.

The whole point was to give you an example how a decision was made that did not involve rational deliberation at all. And I gave you that and once you concede that atoms can cause a decision to be made, you've essentially conceded the point. And I've already given you empirical evidence that rational decision making is caused by the brain before we are consciously aware of it. You have provided nothing even close to the level of evidence I have provided to support your view. So now you're changing the subject or moving the goal posts. Do you expect anyone to take you serious on this forum? I mean seriously. When several people accuse you of doing the same thing, it indicates something. It seems that you are committed to defending your faith-based view at all costs and will be dishonest in order to do so. I thought Christians were supposed to be above such tactics.

I never moved the goal posts, I never said or even hinted that brain chemicals could not cause you to have true beliefs. Only that you have removed rational deliberation from the process, you already agreed that brain chemicals are non-rational. And having removed rational deliberation that we are not informed by the rules of logic and reasoning but are at the mercy of processes that we have no control over - whether they cause true beliefs or not.

[seer]

So basically, you want me to answer all your questions, but you get to say "I don't know" whenever I ask you one, and you think that your view is still coherent even though you cannot answer the most simple questions on it? Wow. Are you employing a double standard?

No Thinker, look how far back I asked you this question about timing. And you are free to say I don't know.

Consciousness doesn't appear to be necessary, but philosophical zombies don't also seem to be physically possible. Once you have a complex, evolved functioning brain, consciousness seems to be a byproduct of it, like steam from boiling water. Also, acts are not always done with awareness present. We already covered that and yet you keep bringing it up because you're getting desperate.

Yes doesn't "appear" - yet it more than interesting that the act is not completed until well into the the awareness stage

Regarding go-signal tests, according to Wiki:



So I'm not sure how this supports your view.

I'm not sure if your link contains the study Mele referenced, I would have to go back and listen to the lecture again. One thing is clear in your link, none of this is written in stone. There are a lot of opinions of what is actually going on.

Did you even watch the video in the link? The arrow of time is because of the second law of thermodynamics. The arrow of time is defined by the direction entropy increases.

Yes, the arrow of time fits nice in the A Theory of time. The arrow of time is the "one-way direction" or "asymmetry" of time. How is there a one way direction of time with B Theory? If the flow of time really is an illusion?

Wow. This can only be explained by your amazing ignorance.

That is a non-answer. If the past present and future all exist equally in this universe then the universe is both in high entropy and not in high entropy. If the flow of time really is an illusion. And that is incoherent

Your first sentence makes no sense. Our universe can have a cause and be past eternal, by there being an infinite series of events prior to the big bang.

Yes, if you like infinite regression. But we have no actual evidence of these prior events.

The universe is eternal regardless of whether there is an infinite series of past events or a finite series. Please learn some basic science. Carroll didn't make a case for the B-theory of time in his debate with Craig, but I think he should have, since it is a knock down argument against the kalam cosmological argument. Carroll mentions he holds to the B-theory on this blog.

Perhaps Carroll is not completely sure about the B-Theory of time, perhaps that is why he didn't use it.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/.../is-time-real/

[The Thinker]

But I'm not asking you to prove that your beliefs are 100% correct. I'm asking you to make a logical case for your position. If you can't then your position is not logically coherent.

Woa. Are you kidding me? Prove to me you're not applying a double standard. I've asked you 10 times to make a coherent case for LFW and you have never done so. Your response is that you don't know how it works. But now you're saying that if I can't make a logical case it shows my position is incoherent. Doesn't that standard apply to you too?

I didn't say they would, the question is - how would you know? Especially since you removed rational deliberation from the process.

Rational deliberation is part of the process, but that process has to be cause by something. If it has no cause, why would I think it is rational?

Yes, as a Christian I do give a lot of weight to Revelation, and the fact that science is always in flux. Yes certain studies may lead one to accept your position (Al Mele doesn't think so BTW and made a good case) but who knows what science will say tomorrow. What variables or new information will come to light? Along with the fact that as a Christian I don't believe that everything can be reduced to the material.

You mean your beliefs are based on faith. And by faith we mean belief in something despite good evidence to the contrary. If that's the price one has to pay for being a Christian, count me out. Mele believes consciousness is caused by brain states. I know. I asked him personally earlier this year. He's a compatiblist who is agnostic on whether LFW is possible, but he's an outlier in the field. He's also funded by the Templeton foundation which gave him millions. It doesn't matter whether you believe everything can be reduced to the material. Pure logic can refute LFW. So even if there is a soul, LFW is logically incoherent. I'm asking you to make a logical case for your position. If you can't then your position is not logically coherent.

I never moved the goal posts, I never said or even hinted that brain chemicals could not cause you to have true beliefs. Only that you have removed rational deliberation from the process, you already agreed that brain chemicals are non-rational. And having removed rational deliberation that we are not informed by the rules of logic and reasoning but are at the mercy of processes that we have no control over - whether they cause true beliefs or not.

You did move the goal posts. Rational deliberation always takes place in the brain. Without the brain, your mind is as good as dead. All thoughts are the result of things going on in your brain. All the evidence shows that this is true and I've even provided you empirical evidence that abstract thinking is caused by the brain before we are even conscious of it. What more do you need? Individual atoms don't need to be "rational" in order for trillions of atoms in your brain to function in such a way that they allow you to take in information, and make rational decisions. We've covered the fallacy of division 20 times and yet you're still stuck on it. Your beliefs have been utterly refuted and the only thing you have is faith. That's literally it. That's why few experts in the fields take your view seriously.

[The Thinker]

No Thinker, look how far back I asked you this question about timing. And you are free to say I don't know.

What the hell are you talking about? You have not demonstrated that this evidence supports your view. As far as I can tell it supports mine.

Yes doesn't "appear" - yet it more than interesting that the act is not completed until well into the the awareness stage

That's not always true. You are aware of that right? A single incidence of people doing things unconsciously would disprove your whole view that a ghost in the machine is the driving factor in our behavior. That view is utterly false. For one thing it violates the conservation of energy.

I'm not sure if your link contains the study Mele referenced, I would have to go back and listen to the lecture again. One thing is clear in your link, none of this is written in stone. There are a lot of opinions of what is actually going on.

OK, so when I provide a source, it's not written in stone, and yet when you provide one it settles the issue right? I hope you're not applying a double standard.

Yes, the arrow of time fits nice in the A Theory of time. The arrow of time is the "one-way direction" or "asymmetry" of time. How is there a one way direction of time with B Theory? If the flow of time really is an illusion?

I'm tempted to call out your ignorance again, because it is very obvious that you have little understanding of the science here. The arrow of time defined as the direction entropy increases is irrelevant to the A vs B theory. Both are compatible with it. On the B-theory, every moment of time exists, so there is no need for flow so long as each time slice of the universe has a different level of entropy.

That is a non-answer. If the past present and future all exist equally in this universe then the universe is both in high entropy and not in high entropy. If the flow of time really is an illusion. And that is incoherent

There is a saying, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Seriously, you really don't understand the B-theory. Watch that video I linked you to again. On the B-theory the entire history of the universe all exists but at different parts of spacetime. It's just like a DVD where the entire history of the movie all exists, but the beginning part of the movie is in the beginning of the DVD and the end of the movie is at the end of the DVD. They don't all exist in the same location. It's no different from saying that Boston doesn't exist where New York is. Different moments of time exist in different parts of spacetime. Please don't confirm for me that you are willfully ignorant on this as you were with other things.

Yes, if you like infinite regression. But we have no actual evidence of these prior events.

It's irrelevant. The B-theory shows that the universe is eternal regardless of whether its past is finite or infinite. No god can ever create an eternal universe.

Perhaps Carroll is not completely sure about the B-Theory of time, perhaps that is why he didn't use it.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/.../is-time-real/

That video has nothing to do with the B vs A theory. It has to do with whether time is fundamental or emergent. This is more misrepresentation or just plain old ignorance on your part as you did with Harris and Dennett that the other folks called you out on here.

[seer]

Woa. Are you kidding me? Prove to me you're not applying a double standard. I've asked you 10 times to make a coherent case for LFW and you have never done so. Your response is that you don't know how it works. But now you're saying that if I can't make a logical case it shows my position is incoherent. Doesn't that standard apply to you too?

No you are missing the point, I'm just proving that you also believe in things that can not be justified logically. Like the above, or that what goes on in your head corresponds to reality - like I mentioned earlier.

Rational deliberation is part of the process, but that process has to be cause by something. If it has no cause, why would I think it is rational?

No, rational deliberation is not part of the process in your model. These conscious deliberations are no more than steam (your words) - they don't accomplish anything.

You mean your beliefs are based on faith. And by faith we mean belief in something despite good evidence to the contrary. If that's the price one has to pay for being a Christian, count me out. Mele believes consciousness is caused by brain states. I know. I asked him personally earlier this year. He's a compatiblist who is agnostic on whether LFW is possible, but he's an outlier in the field. He's also funded by the Templeton foundation which gave him millions. It doesn't matter whether you believe everything can be reduced to the material. Pure logic can refute LFW. So even if there is a soul, LFW is logically incoherent. I'm asking you to make a logical case for your position. If you can't then your position is not logically coherent.

Right yet Mele does not think that LFW is incoherent. And I hold to LFW by experience - I can choose to pick up that pen right now or not pick that pen right now. I'm the decider. I never claim to be able to justify it logically - just like you can not justify everything you believe to be true logically.

You did move the goal posts. Rational deliberation always takes place in the brain. Without the brain, your mind is as good as dead. All thoughts are the result of things going on in your brain. All the evidence shows that this is true and I've even provided you empirical evidence that abstract thinking is caused by the brain before we are even conscious of it. What more do you need? Individual atoms don't need to be "rational" in order for trillions of atoms in your brain to function in such a way that they allow you to take in information, and make rational decisions. We've covered the fallacy of division 20 times and yet you're still stuck on it. Your beliefs have been utterly refuted and the only thing you have is faith. That's literally it. That's why few experts in the fields take your view seriously.

No Thinker, again, I'm not wed to materialistic considerations or what science can prove or disprove. And as we all know science can be wrong.

[seer]

What the hell are you talking about? You have not demonstrated that this evidence supports your view. As far as I can tell it supports mine.

I'm only bring up the point that in the new study you linked and with the other studies like the Libet study we do not act until we have become aware. But this makes no sense - why should that be? Why don't we act as soon as the brain decides. Why does consciousness even come into the picture. I mean you would agree that all this could happen without consciousness - correct? One wonders why such a non-essential feature like self-awareness was even selected for.

That's not always true. You are aware of that right? A single incidence of people doing things unconsciously would disprove your whole view that a ghost in the machine is the driving factor in our behavior. That view is utterly false. For one thing it violates the conservation of energy.

If the soul is immaterial then I don't see how it violates a physical law. And it doesn't have to be either or, somethings like breathing could be automatic, while other things could be the result of conscious deliberations.

OK, so when I provide a source, it's not written in stone, and yet when you provide one it settles the issue right? I hope you're not applying a double standard.

I never claimed that anything was written in stone - you are the one claiming that "science says."

I'm tempted to call out your ignorance again, because it is very obvious that you have little understanding of the science here. The arrow of time defined as the direction entropy increases is irrelevant to the A vs B theory. Both are compatible with it. On the B-theory, every moment of time exists, so there is no need for flow so long as each time slice of the universe has a different level of entropy.

If every moment of times exists then the moment of time when the universe reached maximum entropy exists. And according to Sean Carroll the flow of time is only APPARENT. Not actual. So the universe is equally in maximum entropy and not in maximum entropy.

There is a saying, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Seriously, you really don't understand the B-theory. Watch that video I linked you to again. On the B-theory the entire history of the universe all exists but at different parts of spacetime. It's just like a DVD where the entire history of the movie all exists, but the beginning part of the movie is in the beginning of the DVD and the end of the movie is at the end of the DVD. They don't all exist in the same location. It's no different from saying that Boston doesn't exist where New York is. Different moments of time exist in different parts of spacetime. Please don't confirm for me that you are willfully ignorant on this as you were with other things.

But when we speak of whether the universe is presently in full entropy or not in presently in full entropy we are speaking of all of spacetime, not parts of spacetime. In other words where in the universe is the universe in full entropy.

It's irrelevant. The B-theory shows that the universe is eternal regardless of whether its past is finite or infinite. No god can ever create an eternal universe.

That makes no sense, why is Sean Carroll working so hard to find out what created this universe or how it was created? How is it eternal if there was a creation event?

[The Thinker]

No you are missing the point, I'm just proving that you also believe in things that can not be justified logically. Like the above, or that what goes on in your head corresponds to reality - like I mentioned earlier.

No I'm sorry there is no comparison. There is nothing incoherent about my view, there is something incoherent about your view. You've already conceded that our brains cause mind and that our brains can make us make decisions without involving any rational deliberation. And I've already empirically proved that brain causes mind in abstract thinking. Now you're just in a state of denial.

Second of all, you are not "just proving that you also believe in things that can not be justified logically." You are trying to apply a double standard to me that you are not applying to yourself. If my view is incoherent, than yours is too. You cannot say mine is but yours isn't.

No, rational deliberation is not part of the process in your model. These conscious deliberations are no more than steam (your words) - they don't accomplish anything.

You are confused. Conscious deliberation doesn't have to be a part of the cause in order to be part of the process.

Right yet Mele does not think that LFW is incoherent. And I hold to LFW by experience - I can choose to pick up that pen right now or not pick that pen right now. I'm the decider. I never claim to be able to justify it logically - just like you can not justify everything you believe to be true logically.

NO ONE can justify that everything they believe is true logically. That is a ridiculous claim and we already been over this 10 times. I don't care what Mele thinks. LFW is incoherent and I've shown you several times. It is not a matter of simply not knowing how it works. It is a matter that it is incoherent. You choosing to do something is just like the people who choose to do the things they did in all the neuroscientific tests I showed you where their brains decided for them before they were consciously aware of them. So your subjective experience is not evidence in favor of LFW. Neuroscience can actually show that even under determinism you'd still experience this illusion.

No Thinker, again, I'm not wed to materialistic considerations or what science can prove or disprove. And as we all know science can be wrong.

That's irrelevant. Pure logic can disprove your beliefs. If science can be wrong, I'm pretty sure you know religion can be really wrong. So it is absurd that you put your faith in religion over science. No one needs to take you or your metaphysical beliefs seriously because you can't even logically justify then, nor can you provide any evidence for them.

[The Thinker]

I'm only bring up the point that in the new study you linked and with the other studies like the Libet study we do not act until we have become aware. But this makes no sense - why should that be? Why don't we act as soon as the brain decides. Why does consciousness even come into the picture. I mean you would agree that all this could happen without consciousness - correct? One wonders why such a non-essential feature like self-awareness was even selected for.

Because it takes time for the motor neurons to send signals to effect the physical muscles and during that time we become consciously aware of what the brain has decided for us. Second of all, you keep ignoring the fact that we do sometimes act without even being consciously aware of it. That would never occur on your view and the fact that it does falsifies it.

If the soul is immaterial then I don't see how it violates a physical law. And it doesn't have to be either or, somethings like breathing could be automatic, while other things could be the result of conscious deliberations.

Wrong. If the soul is immaterial but it affects physical matter such that that matter could not move without it, that would be a violation of the law of conservation.

I never claimed that anything was written in stone - you are the one claiming that "science says."

You are the one claiming the "Bible says," or "my religion says." That is extremely unreliable. The amount of evidence we have here is overwhelming. That's why the consensus is brain causes mind and the ghosting in the machine myth is not taken seriously. Even Mele rejects that view.

If every moment of times exists then the moment of time when the universe reached maximum entropy exists. And according to Sean Carroll the flow of time is only APPARENT. Not actual. So the universe is equally in maximum entropy and not in maximum entropy.

Still having trouble learning the science are we? Look, I know the science involved here, and I know the B-theory is completely consistent and you're not fooling anyone. Carroll thinks the arrow of time is dependent on the direction entropy increases. He doesn't think time directionality is intrinsic. But so what? That's irrelevant. On the B-theory the actual universe is different in different areas of spacetime. One part is low entropy, another part is high entropy. They are not low and high in the same place. That's why there is no contradiction.

But when we speak of whether the universe is presently in full entropy or not in presently in full entropy we are speaking of all of spacetime, not parts of spacetime. In other words where in the universe is the universe in full entropy.

Towards the end about 10^100 years from now. When we speak of the universe in full or not in full entropy it is subjectively based on when you are in spacetime. It's just like saying Boston is north from NYC, but south from Portland ME. Are you really this incapable of understanding something like spacetime that we've known for 110 years or are you just so desperate for finding a problem that you're willing to keep digging your hole?

That makes no sense, why is Sean Carroll working so hard to find out what created this universe or how it was created? How is it eternal if there was a creation event?

WOW. I'm seriously feeling sorry for you. You are UTTERLY incapable of understanding special relativity or spacetime or the B-theory. Carroll and others are not talking about a creation in the A-theory sense of time, they are talking about "creation" in the B-theory sense of time whereby the big bang is preceded by a moment, in the same way that your birth was preceded by a moment, but all those moments exist. They are just using the word "creation" colloquially, not biblically. In such a universe, god cannot create a universe because its eternal.

[seer]

No I'm sorry there is no comparison. There is nothing incoherent about my view, there is something incoherent about your view. You've already conceded that our brains cause mind and that our brains can make us make decisions without involving any rational deliberation. And I've already empirically proved that brain causes mind in abstract thinking. Now you're just in a state of denial.

That does not make sense, you can not validate your view logically so how do you know it is coherent? Based on what?

Second of all, you are not "just proving that you also believe in things that can not be justified logically." You are trying to apply a double standard to me that you are not applying to yourself. If my view is incoherent, than yours is too. You cannot say mine is but yours isn't.

I'm saying that you are assuming way to much, and one of those things is that all phenomenon is open to science, or that we know enough to even make these sweeping claim about the mind. Even in your own Wiki link there were dissenters about the conclusions of the studies in question.

You are confused. Conscious deliberation doesn't have to be a part of the cause in order to be part of the process.

But it does NOTHING.

NO ONE can justify that everything they believe is true logically. That is a ridiculous claim and we already been over this 10 times. I don't care what Mele thinks. LFW is incoherent and I've shown you several times. It is not a matter of simply not knowing how it works. It is a matter that it is incoherent. You choosing to do something is just like the people who choose to do the things they did in all the neuroscientific tests I showed you where their brains decided for them before they were consciously aware of them. So your subjective experience is not evidence in favor of LFW. Neuroscience can actually show that even under determinism you'd still experience this illusion.

I get it, so nature deceived me into believing that I have free will. I wonder what it has deceived you and others about.

That's irrelevant. Pure logic can disprove your beliefs. If science can be wrong, I'm pretty sure you know religion can be really wrong. So it is absurd that you put your faith in religion over science. No one needs to take you or your metaphysical beliefs seriously because you can't even logically justify then, nor can you provide any evidence for them.

Logic again! When you can not justify your own beliefs logically! Who really has the double standard!

I'm done, you may have the last word on this topic...

[seer]

Because it takes time for the motor neurons to send signals to effect the physical muscles and during that time we become consciously aware of what the brain has decided for us. Second of all, you keep ignoring the fact that we do sometimes act without even being consciously aware of it. That would never occur on your view and the fact that it does falsifies it.

This makes no sense, if we act sometimes without being aware, then why not all the time? Why do some acts require that we act only after we are aware? And that was the point Mele was making, it does not normally take that long. If someone throws a ball at my head my reaction is near instant - there is little lag between the brain's decision to act and the act - it certainly does not take -.500 sec. And his reference with the go signal studies were the lag time was .-140 sec, and actually in some cases it was instant. Brain activity and act were simultaneous.

Wrong. If the soul is immaterial but it affects physical matter such that that matter could not move without it, that would be a violation of the law of conservation.

Why? How does the immaterial violate the law of conservation?

You are the one claiming the "Bible says," or "my religion says." That is extremely unreliable. The amount of evidence we have here is overwhelming. That's why the consensus is brain causes mind and the ghosting in the machine myth is not taken seriously. Even Mele rejects that view.

Yes but Mele does not reject LFW, and the science is not overwhelming, even in your link there were detractors. Mele being one of them.

Still having trouble learning the science are we? Look, I know the science involved here, and I know the B-theory is completely consistent and you're not fooling anyone. Carroll thinks the arrow of time is dependent on the direction entropy increases. He doesn't think time directionality is intrinsic. But so what? That's irrelevant.

Nonsense, you can not have it both ways. Either the arrow of time is real or it is not real - if it is only APPARENT as Carroll said then it is not real.

Towards the end about 10^100 years from now. When we speak of the universe in full or not in full entropy it is subjectively based on when you are in spacetime. It's just like saying Boston is north from NYC, but south from Portland ME. Are you really this incapable of understanding something like spacetime that we've known for 110 years or are you just so desperate for finding a problem that you're willing to keep digging your hole.

But there is no 10^100 years from now, there is only now - wasn't it Brian Greene in your link who called it the eternal now?

On the B-theory the actual universe is different in different areas of spacetime. One part is low entropy, another part is high entropy. They are not low and high in the same place. That's why there is no contradiction.

More nonsense, we are speaking of the whole universe, all of matter and energy (not little parts here or there). How could the whole universe be both in full entropy and not in full entropy if the future ALREADY EXISTS?

WOW. I'm seriously feeling sorry for you. You are UTTERLY incapable of understanding special relativity or spacetime or the B-theory. Carroll and others are not talking about a creation in the A-theory sense of time, they are talking about "creation" in the B-theory sense of time whereby the big bang is preceded by a moment, in the same way that your birth was preceded by a moment, but all those moments exist. They are just using the word "creation" colloquially, not biblically. In such a universe, god cannot create a universe because its eternal.

So what created this universe? What cause the big bang?