Where Do Moral Questions Stop?

[seer]

You are the one claiming the "Bible says," or "my religion says." That is extremely unreliable.

Do you know how silly this sounds Tinker? If you are correct I have no choice but to believe these things. My brain chemicals determine that I believe exactly this.

[The Thinker]

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

I can validate it logically. I've said over and over that the only logical way to look at consciousness and rationality is to understand that thoughts are caused by something. If there is no caused to them, then your thoughts would literally be spontaneous fluctuations that happen for no reason. And that would make your thoughts less reliable.

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.

We know enough about physics and neuroscience to justify my view that brain causes mind. That's why it is the dominant view in the respective fields. You on the other hand have no evidence at all backing up your view, nor even a logical explanation.

But it does NOTHING.

So? Makes no difference. The dualism that you hold to is completely unjustifiable, logically and evidentially. You are simply ignoring the severe problems you face. You either have to concede my view, or you have to claim consciousness is totally uncaused and therefore random (which would make it irrational). There is no good option for you.



I

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

God, demons, angels, ghosts, religion. Many things.

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...

I don't have the double standard, you do. You claim I cannot justify my view logically when I can. And you cannot justify yours, and yet you claim that this somehow doesn't show your view is illogical.

[The Thinker]

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.

Your question makes no sense. The mere fact that sometimes we act without being aware disproves your view. Period. Some behavior is reflexive, like when you recoil after touching something hot, or duck when someone throws an object at you. Prove brain activity and act were simultaneous with a reference and quote from the source.

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

Because by affecting physical matter it is adding energy to the universe, and that extra energy would be measurable - and that would violate the law of conservation. That's why we know there is no ghost in the machine.

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.

You just haven't done enough research into the science. Mele rejects the ghost in the machine myth, as do almost all neuroscientists in the field because the evidence overwhelmingly disproves that.

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.

It's irrelevant because the B-theory is compatible with both views.

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?

The whole freakin' point of the B-theory is that "now" is as subject to time, as "here" is as subjective to place. has that video not taught you anything? Jeez.

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?

So your goal here is to keep digging in the whole you're in? Let me use an analogy. How is it that you can watch a movie in sequential order even though the beginning, middle and end of the movie already exist? That would be impossible if you were correct.

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

Something physical before it, if it has a cause at all. If there is no time before the big bang, it needs no cause. You really, really are ignorant of the B-theory of time aren't you? I highly suggest that you watch that video several more times. Your ignorance here is getting annoying.

[The Thinker]

Do you know how silly this sounds Tinker? If you are correct I have no choice but to believe these things. My brain chemicals determine that I believe exactly this.

Makes no difference. I'm trying to be the cause that makes you change your mind, but you are extremely stubborn.

[seer]

Makes no difference. I'm trying to be the cause that makes you change your mind, but you are extremely stubborn.

But that does not make sense Thinker. I have no choice in what my brain chemicals dictate that I think or believe, just as you have no choice in what your brain chemicals dictate that you believe or think. If you are right then the only question is, whose brain chemicals are correct - and how could we know?

It's irrelevant because the B-theory is compatible with both views.

No it is not. Is the flow of time real or only apparent/an illusion.

The whole freakin' point of the B-theory is that "now" is as subject to time, as "here" is as subjective to place

So your goal here is to keep digging in the whole you're in? Let me use an analogy. How is it that you can watch a movie in sequential order even though the beginning, middle and end of the movie already exist? That would be impossible if you were correct.

Again that makes no sense when applying it to the whole universe. It would not matter where I was in the time line, or my subjective view of it. You still have all matter and energy in full entropy and not in full entropy. Take all subjective minds out of the picture and you still are left with this contradiction.

Something physical before it, if it has a cause at all.

Why does it have to be physical?

If there is no time before the big bang, it needs no cause. You really, really are ignorant of the B-theory of time aren't you? I highly suggest that you watch that video several more times. Your ignorance here is getting annoying.

Again, if men like Sean Carroll really do buy into the B-Theory then why are they still spending so much time and effort trying to find out what caused this universe? Why not just point to the B-Theory and call it a day?

[The Thinker]

But that does not make sense Thinker. I have no choice in what my brain chemicals dictate that I think or believe, just as you have no choice in what your brain chemicals dictate that you believe or think. If you are right then the only question is, whose brain chemicals are correct - and how could we know?

It does make sense, you just don't understand determinism and you're conflating it with fatalism, an elementary mistake. All of our beliefs are due to causes - something going on in our brain that is usually the result of input from sense data. We can know who is correct when we compare the belief against the evidence and against logic.

No it is not. Is the flow of time real or only apparent/an illusion.

It is not a matter of whether the arrow of time is real or not real, it is a matter of whether it is intrinsic or not.

Again that makes no sense when applying it to the whole universe. It would not matter where I was in the time line, or my subjective view of it. You still have all matter and energy in full entropy and not in full entropy. Take all subjective minds out of the picture and you still are left with this contradiction.

It absolutely matters where you are in spacetime. Full entropy and low entropy would occupy different sections of the block universe, just like different events in a movie occupy different sections of the DVD. Are you really unable to understand this simply? Would you do me a favor and just learn the science?

Why does it have to be physical?

Because that's the only thing that makes coherent sense.

Again, if men like Sean Carroll really do buy into the B-Theory then why are they still spending so much time and effort trying to find out what caused this universe? Why not just point to the B-Theory and call it a day?

Because you don't understand the B-theory. Trying to find the cause of the universe on the B-theory is no different from trying to find the cause of something within the universe. It's just looking for a prior event of something which can explain more about the universe (or multiverse if one exists). The B-theory simply means the universe never began to exist in the tensed or A-theory sense of the term. That means every moment in time exists at different parts of the spacetime block, and that makes it impossible for god to have created the universe. That's why theism is nonsense. I challenge you to give me a coherent way god could have created the universe on the B-theory.

[seer]

It does make sense, you just don't understand determinism and you're conflating it with fatalism, an elementary mistake. All of our beliefs are due to causes - something going on in our brain that is usually the result of input from sense data. We can know who is correct when we compare the belief against the evidence and against logic.

Except as we have seen you can not logically demonstrate that because you are determined to believe that A is true, that A is actually true. Therefore it begs the question, how do you know that you are processing the evidence correctly, or understanding the evidence correctly. Or even if it is good evidence, or evidence at all. So again, if you are correct you are in reality trying to convince my non-rational brain chemicals to change their position, or agree with you.

It is not a matter of whether the arrow of time is real or not real, it is a matter of whether it is intrinsic or not.

Yes, it makes a great deal of difference. If there is no real arrow of time then how is entropy even possible. Can you please explain?

It absolutely matters where you are in spacetime. Full entropy and low entropy would occupy different sections of the block universe, just like different events in a movie occupy different sections of the DVD. Are you really unable to understand this simply? Would you do me a favor and just learn the science?

No Thinker they would not occupy different sections of space time - all of matter and energy is all of matter and energy. In the block universe the matter and energy of yesterday is the matter and energy of tomorrow, it is not different matter and energy. The whole movie is present at one moment, the beginning, the middle and the end. They are all equally real and present. This is a clear contradiction. And since there is no real arrow of time, time is static, so that doesn't help you.

Because that's the only thing that makes coherent sense.

Perhaps, based on our limited and finite understanding.

Because you don't understand the B-theory. Trying to find the cause of the universe on the B-theory is no different from trying to find the cause of something within the universe. It's just looking for a prior event of something which can explain more about the universe (or multiverse if one exists). The B-theory simply means the universe never began to exist in the tensed or A-theory sense of the term. That means every moment in time exists at different parts of the spacetime block, and that makes it impossible for god to have created the universe. That's why theism is nonsense. I challenge you to give me a coherent way god could have created the universe on the B-theory.

Again, you said: If there is no time before the big bang, it needs no cause. So why haven't men like Carroll accepted that? Why are they looking for a prior event? And if this prior event can cause the universe why couldn't God?

[The Thinker]

Except as we have seen you can not logically demonstrate that because you are determined to believe that A is true, that A is actually true. Therefore it begs the question, how do you know that you are processing the evidence correctly, or understanding the evidence correctly. Or even if it is good evidence, or evidence at all. So again, if you are correct you are in reality trying to convince my non-rational brain chemicals to change their position, or agree with you.

And as we've seen no one can logically demonstrate that what they believe is actually true with 100% certainty. There is always the chance that our belief is wrong, no matter what view you hold to. So your question is completely absurd and it is something your own view cannot even justify. In fact, it is even worse for you because on LFW your will cannot be caused, because if it is, then it is not free. But if it is not caused, then there is no reason to believe that evidence of the truth of something had any effect on it. Whereas in my view, the evidence of something being true, like for example sense data that there is a hole in the middle of the road in front of me, causally determines by belief that there is a hole in the middle of the road in front of me. That's the only way belief makes any coherent sense - by it being caused by something.

Yes, it makes a great deal of difference. If there is no real arrow of time then how is entropy even possible. Can you please explain?

You seem totally confused here, as usual. On Carroll's view the arrow of time is dependent on entropy increasing. The arrow of time is defined as the direction entropy increases. It doesn't exist independently of this. I personally think this makes sense.

No Thinker they would not occupy different sections of space time - all of matter and energy is all of matter and energy. In the block universe the matter and energy of yesterday is the matter and energy of tomorrow, it is not different matter and energy. The whole movie is present at one moment, the beginning, the middle and the end. They are all equally real and present. This is a clear contradiction. And since there is no real arrow of time, time is static, so that doesn't help you.

seer, you are so utterly ignorant of the science here that I am losing patients with you. Rather than explain the same simple concept over and over again to you, that even a middle school kid could understand, I will try to ask you a question. How is it that you can watch a movie on a DVD is the whole movie exists at the same time? This should be impossible if you're right. So explain.

Perhaps, based on our limited and finite understanding.

Yeah, and believing in an incoherent god who we cannot fully grasp with our puny "limited" intellects (which god supposedly also designed) makes even less sense.

Again, you said: If there is no time before the big bang, it needs no cause. So why haven't men like Carroll accepted that? Why are they looking for a prior event? And if this prior event can cause the universe why couldn't God?

The reason why is that physics is hinting at there being a multiverse, which would mean there likely are prior events to our universe. That's why many cosmologists and physicists like Carroll are looking into this. The B-theory of time simply means it all exists, every universe, every moment in time, perhaps to an infinite past and infinite future. And if this prior even can cause the universe, it will be a cause that is material and temporal, as all other causes are. God is supposed to be a timeless being. A timeless mind is by definition, non-functional. Without time it is impossible to create anything. That's why god makes no sense.

[seer]

And as we've seen no one can logically demonstrate that what they believe is actually true with 100% certainty. There is always the chance that our belief is wrong, no matter what view you hold to. So your question is completely absurd and it is something your own view cannot even justify.

But that is not the point Thinker, the point is you keep bring up the logic thing when you can not justify your beliefs logically.

Whereas in my view, the evidence of something being true, like for example sense data that there is a hole in the middle of the road in front of me, causally determines by belief that there is a hole in the middle of the road in front of me. That's the only way belief makes any coherent sense - by it being caused by something.

But belief is a conscious thing, and conscious things have no causal relevance in your view, as we have been told by you time and time again. So belief never enters the causal chain.

You seem totally confused here, as usual. On Carroll's view the arrow of time is dependent on entropy increasing. The arrow of time is defined as the direction entropy increases. It doesn't exist independently of this. I personally think this makes sense.

BUT THERE IS NO ACTUAL ARROW OF TIME ! It is only apparent, or an illusion. So again, how can there be entropy without a real flow or arrow of time?

How is it that you can watch a movie on a DVD is the whole movie exists at the same time? This should be impossible if you're right. So explain.

Because Thinker, in your world there is no actual flow of time. Time is static, the beginning of the movie exists with the end of the movie. They coexist at the same moment. Like I asked - if there were no minds in the world would matter and energy be at low entropy or high entropy?

Yeah, and believing in an incoherent god who we cannot fully grasp with our puny "limited" intellects (which god supposedly also designed) makes even less sense.

How unoriginal...

The reason why is that physics is hinting at there being a multiverse, which would mean there likely are prior events to our universe. That's why many cosmologists and physicists like Carroll are looking into this. The B-theory of time simply means it all exists, every universe, every moment in time, perhaps to an infinite past and infinite future. And if this prior even can cause the universe, it will be a cause that is material and temporal, as all other causes are. God is supposed to be a timeless being. A timeless mind is by definition, non-functional. Without time it is impossible to create anything. That's why god makes no sense.

How do you know that time does not exist with God? Perhaps God is "eternal" (for lack of a better word) because He embodies your B-Theory of time.

[The Thinker]

But that is not the point Thinker, the point is you keep bring up the logic thing when you can not justify your beliefs logically.

I've been telling you over and over again that the only logical way belief can be connected to truth is if it is caused by something. That justifies my beliefs logically because I can appeal to cause and effect, whereas you cannot, because once you concede that beliefs are caused, they are no longer free.

But belief is a conscious thing, and conscious things have no causal relevance in your view, as we have been told by you time and time again. So belief never enters the causal chain.

Belief does enter the causal chain by being caused by physical things. The effect is part of the causal chain, it is the last part.

BUT THERE IS NO ACTUAL ARROW OF TIME ! It is only apparent, or an illusion. So again, how can there be entropy without a real flow or arrow of time?

There is an arrow of time. It is the direction entropy increases. It is not an illusion, it just isn't intrinsic. There is no need for a flow due to how the B-theory explains time, which I've already linked you a tutorial on. Please do me a favor and learn a little science. Dealing with you is like dealing with a child here. I don't want to have to explain the basics to you like your teacher.

Because Thinker, in your world there is no actual flow of time. Time is static, the beginning of the movie exists with the end of the movie. They coexist at the same moment. Like I asked - if there were no minds in the world would matter and energy be at low entropy or high entropy?

You didn't answer the question. If the beginning and end of the movie exist at the same moment how is it that each moment in the movie is in a different part of the DVD?

How unoriginal...

Ha!

How do you know that time does not exist with God? Perhaps God is "eternal" (for lack of a better word) because He embodies your B-Theory of time.

Then god would be physical and temporal, which is the exact opposite from the traditional notion of god, and wreaks of ad hoc-ness. Once you concede an eternal universe, you're conceding that god is superfluous.

[seer]

I've been telling you over and over again that the only logical way belief can be connected to truth is if it is caused by something. That justifies my beliefs logically because I can appeal to cause and effect, whereas you cannot, because once you concede that beliefs are caused, they are no longer free.

Actually no you can't justify your beliefs logically, that is the point: again logically go from being determined to believing that A is true, to A being actually being true. You haven't been able to square that circle, and you know it. So then you jump to empirical justification, fine, we can get into empiricism later, but that is not logical justification.

Belief does enter the causal chain by being caused by physical things. The effect is part of the causal chain, it is the last part.

But a belief is like the steam off the engine, it DOESN'T do anything - your words not mine. So how is it relevant? What does it do or cause? You are not making sense.

There is an arrow of time. It is the direction entropy increases. It is not an illusion, it just isn't intrinsic. There is no need for a flow due to how the B-theory explains time, which I've already linked you a tutorial on. Please do me a favor and learn a little science. Dealing with you is like dealing with a child here. I don't want to have to explain the basics to you like your teacher.

First you say there is an arrow or time (which is the flow of time) - that it is not an illusion, then you say there is no need of a flow of time. And your tutorial was just as irrational.

You didn't answer the question. If the beginning and end of the movie exist at the same moment how is it that each moment in the movie is in a different part of the DVD?

You are avoiding the question Thinker, by adding "minds" (viewers) to the picture. So again, if there were no minds in the world would matter and energy be at low entropy or high entropy? Why is that so hard to answer?

Then god would be physical and temporal, which is the exact opposite from the traditional notion of god, and wreaks of ad hoc-ness. Once you concede an eternal universe, you're conceding that god is superfluous.

Would your timeless multiverse be temporal? Well not really, the only difference in the end would be the physical quality. And I'm not conceding an eternal universe.

[The Thinker]

Actually no you can't justify your beliefs logically, that is the point: again logically go from being determined to believing that A is true, to A being actually being true. You haven't been able to square that circle, and you know it. So then you jump to empirical justification, fine, we can get into empiricism later, but that is not logical justification.

The logic is very simple. On my view, beliefs have causes. My belief that people cannot fly by flapping their arms like birds, was caused by seeing 3 people fall to their deaths after jumping off a cliff and flapping their arms like birds. It is fully logical and coherent. And as a reminder, you cannot ask for 100% certainty, because no one can do that.

But a belief is like the steam off the engine, it DOESN'T do anything - your words not mine. So how is it relevant? What does it do or cause? You are not making sense.

There is no reason why consciousness has to be causal in order for anything to make sense. That might not seem apparent to the lay person like you, but if you study the evidence, consciousness is caused by something, and never causes anything. That's physically impossible given the laws of physics.

First you say there is an arrow or time (which is the flow of time) - that it is not an illusion, then you say there is no need of a flow of time. And your tutorial was just as irrational.

An arrow of time does not require a flow of time. That is your mistake. My tutorial is just too complicated for your limited intellect. You'd rather be ignorant than actually learn because then your beliefs might have to be challenged. Oh horror!

You are avoiding the question Thinker, by adding "minds" (viewers) to the picture. So again, if there were no minds in the world would matter and energy be at low entropy or high entropy? Why is that so hard to answer?

Are you serious? You are the one avoiding the question. I just asked you a direct question and you didn't answer. The DVD doesn't have to be viewed by anyone in order to for my question to be answered. So answer:

If the beginning and end of the movie exist at the same moment how is it that each moment in the movie is in a different part of the DVD?

Would your timeless multiverse be temporal? Well not really, the only difference in the end would be the physical quality. And I'm not conceding an eternal universe.

Define temporal. I know your science and philosophy knowledge is barely high school level. So I doubt you can give me an actual explanation for that that covers more than one possibility. (Remember when I showed how your divine command theory of ethics was incoherent?) Also define eternal. I bet you still don't realize it means multiple things.

[seer]

The logic is very simple. On my view, beliefs have causes. My belief that people cannot fly by flapping their arms like birds, was caused by seeing 3 people fall to their deaths after jumping off a cliff and flapping their arms like birds. It is fully logical and coherent. And as a reminder, you cannot ask for 100% certainty, because no one can do that.

Again Thinker, I never asked for 100% certainty I asked for a case made following logical rules - which you have failed to do. Even your case above is weak, it is based on inductive reasoning, which is an informal fallacy. It is like saying all the swans I have seen are white therefore all swans are white. So logically you are not not on solid ground.

There is no reason why consciousness has to be causal in order for anything to make sense. That might not seem apparent to the lay person like you, but if you study the evidence, consciousness is caused by something, and never causes anything. That's physically impossible given the laws of physics.

What? So a belief does not cause anything then what good is it? Would you do anything different without the belief or consciousness? Why did you even bring in the idea of a belief?

An arrow of time does not require a flow of time. That is your mistake. My tutorial is just too complicated for your limited intellect. You'd rather be ignorant than actually learn because then your beliefs might have to be challenged. Oh horror!

Grow up Thinker, how can you have an arrow of time with ut a flow of time? If there is no flow of time, then you are making my point and time is static. So again how can there be entropy if there is no flow of time?

Are you serious? You are the one avoiding the question. I just asked you a direct question and you didn't answer. The DVD doesn't have to be viewed by anyone in order to for my question to be answered. So answer:

If the beginning and end of the movie exist at the same moment how is it that each moment in the movie is in a different part of the DVD?

Thinker, I can take a silent movie for instance and print every frame and lay them all out in front of me. Seeing the entire movie in one moment. That is closer to the B Theory. That is why I asked you a number of times to remove any observer from the question. It only confuses the issue give our subjective perspective. So again, if there were no minds in the world would matter and energy be at low entropy or high entropy?

Define temporal. I know your science and philosophy knowledge is barely high school level. So I doubt you can give me an actual explanation for that that covers more than one possibility. (Remember when I showed how your divine command theory of ethics was incoherent?) Also define eternal. I bet you still don't realize it means multiple things.

It is obvious that you are in trouble here sine you are resorting to personal attacks. Eternal: without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing (opposed to temporal).

[Tassman]

Again Thinker, I never asked for 100% certainty I asked for a case made following logical rules - which you have failed to do. Even your case above is weak, it is based on inductive reasoning, which is an informal fallacy. It is like saying all the swans I have seen are white therefore all swans are white. So logically you are not not on solid ground.

[37818]

Conclusions drawn by inductive reasoning are not always true though. Where deductive reasoning, when the arguments are sound, the conclusions are without doubt.