Where Do Moral Questions Stop?

[seer]

Of course it does, because morality only makes sense with sentient beings, therefore it logically entails that the more sensitive a being is the more of a moral concern. There is no morality concerning rocks.

Thinker, I'm not sure what you are thinking here - but this is non sequitur, please show, logically how the conclusion follows from the premise. Lay out your syllogism.

Yes you are. It is obvious to anyone reading your comments who is familiar with the subject matter. You explain what time is under the B-theory and tell me what the difference between it and the A theory is.

I already gave a definition of the A Theory of by the man that coined the term. And it included the one way direction of time, past, present and future. You did not seem to like that. The B-Theory is just what I said in my last post-past, present and future exist together,there is no flow of time - time is static. So if this is the case in what sense is time ever differentiated?

You're forgetting that the causal determined process involves beings that are evolved to rationally respond to their environment. You seem to think that what is true or rational has no effect on the system or is never a part of the causal chain, as if the causal chain is total and utter randomness. That is not true at all. It is patternistic. Even animals have basic rationality, and since they do not have souls on your view, how can you explain their behavior. And again, you're making the fallacy of division for the 30th time here. When will you ever learn?

So coherently explain your point of view or else live up to your own standards and admit that you can't.

That is not the point, the point being that rational deliberation, and things like the abstract laws of logic,never enter into your model. Nor can they. Sure a fly may be predetermined to escape a swat - but this is no more rational than a rock rolling down a hill. And no less determined.

Rationality:Rationality is the use of logical reasoning in the areas of discourse and problem-solving.

Do you disagree with the definition? How could it possibly fit your model?

[The Thinker]

Thinker, I'm not sure what you are thinking here - but this is non sequitur, please show, logically how the conclusion follows from the premise. Lay out your syllogism.

How is this a non sequitor? Simply saying that it is does not demonstrate that.

I already gave a definition of the A Theory of by the man that coined the term. And it included the one way direction of time, past, present and future. You did not seem to like that. The B-Theory is just what I said in my last post-past, present and future exist together,there is no flow of time - time is static. So if this is the case in what sense is time ever differentiated?

Your last question means you don't understand what time is on the B-theory. So tell me how is it different from the A-theory, and tell me what B-theorists mean when they say "time". You should be able to answer this easy since you apparently know more about it than I do. But if you can't, admit you cannot.

That is not the point, the point being that rational deliberation, and things like the abstract laws of logic,never enter into your model. Nor can they. Sure a fly may be predetermined to escape a swat - but this is no more rational than a rock rolling down a hill. And no less determined.

Rationality:Rationality is the use of logical reasoning in the areas of discourse and problem-solving.

Do you disagree with the definition? How could it possibly fit your model?

No it is not besides the point. Explain how abstract laws of logic have a causal impact on thinking, and how sometimes people think logically and sometimes they don't. If abstract laws of logic have a causal influence, why do they sometimes cause and sometimes do not cause? What is the ontological status of laws of logic? Do they exist independently of brains or minds? You're making your claims even less plausible until you can answer this.

And also, you still haven't coherently explained your point of view. So live up to your own standards and admit that you can't. Your position isn't any more coherent right now.

[Tassman]

Tass, how many times have you told me that we are just as determined as an ape?

No, what I've said is that the decision-making process is, in principle, the same between humans and the other apes. And I've repeatedly said that if you disagree with this view to elucidate just what you think the difference is. Still waiting!

So I will ask again, do believe that the ISIS fighters could break the causal chain and not slaughter all those innocent people in Paris? It is a yes or no.

No-one can break the causal chain of determinism because that would require the existence of 'libertarian free-will' and this is a logical impossibility, as has been explained to you over and over and over again by many people. If you insist in positing libertarian free-will for humans please explain how this can be logically coherent in a demonstrably determined universe. Just saying "God made a miracle" is not sufficient.

seer, you snipped the above exchange previously. Please give me the courtesy of a response.

[Tassman]

Again Tass, it does matter what you call it, we are still completely determined in your world. Yes when one chimp kills another chimp his mental state is a part of the causal chain, and it had a role in what happened - the death of another chimp. But so what? We still have no control or moral responsibility. BTW - why should I care what you find logical or not? You have no control over that either, it is just what you were determined to believe - true or not.

[seer]

How is this a non sequitor? Simply saying that it is does not demonstrate that.

Then you demonstrate how just because we may be more sensitive that it necessarily follows that we should be more morally concerned. Please lay out your syllogism, or admit that it is no more than a personal opinion. And I'm not saying that it is a bad opinion, but it is an opinion nonetheless.

Your last question means you don't understand what time is on the B-theory. So tell me how is it different from the A-theory, and tell me what B-theorists mean when they say "time". You should be able to answer this easy since you apparently know more about it than I do. But if you can't, admit you cannot.

I have no idea what everyone one means by either B-Theory or A-Theory - you did not even agree with the definition of A-Theory by the man who coined the term.

Here is a definition I found on line, and the definition I have been using: The B-theory of time is the name given to one of two positions regarding philosophy of time. B-theorists argue that the flow of time is an illusion, that the past, present and future are equally real, and that time is tenseless. This would mean that temporal becoming is not an objective feature of reality.

Which means that time is static. So can we agree and move on? Again, if this is the case in what sense is time ever differentiated?

No it is not besides the point. Explain how abstract laws of logic have a causal impact on thinking, and how sometimes people think logically and sometimes they don't. If abstract laws of logic have a causal influence, why do they sometimes cause and sometimes do not cause? What is the ontological status of laws of logic? Do they exist independently of brains or minds? You're making your claims even less plausible until you can answer this.

So you agree that the laws of logic, rational deliberation, abstract beliefs, etc... play no role in the process. Thanks for making my case. It also means that you have NO idea if anything you just wrote is true. You just spit out what your physical brain determined that you spit out - true or not.

[seer]

Again, when one "tribe" of males chimps slaughters the males in another group and takes their females and territory - how are they moral responsible? And how can any creature be morally responsible if they have no control over their actions? If they are determined? Please explain.

[The Thinker]

Then you demonstrate how just because we may be more sensitive that it necessarily follows that we should be more morally concerned. Please lay out your syllogism, or admit that it is no more than a personal opinion. And I'm not saying that it is a bad opinion, but it is an opinion nonetheless.

Woa, I have to justify my views logically in syllogisms but you are totally exempt from doing the same with your views? Why the double standard? I have not heard a single coherent argument or explanation of your LFW + dualism view.

I have no idea what everyone one means by either B-Theory or A-Theory - you did not even agree with the definition of A-Theory by the man who coined the term.

Here is a definition I found on line, and the definition I have been using: The B-theory of time is the name given to one of two positions regarding philosophy of time. B-theorists argue that the flow of time is an illusion, that the past, present and future are equally real, and that time is tenseless. This would mean that temporal becoming is not an objective feature of reality.

Which means that time is static. So can we agree and move on? Again, if this is the case in what sense is time ever differentiated?

That's not an explanation. So you basically don't know the difference. Thanks for making my case.

So you agree that the laws of logic, rational deliberation, abstract beliefs, etc... play no role in the process. Thanks for making my case. It also means that you have NO idea if anything you just wrote is true. You just spit out what your physical brain determined that you spit out - true or not.

I didn't say that. All I did was ask YOU how to explain your own view. Is that asking too much? I still have not heard a coherent argument or explanation of your LFW + dualism view. And according to your own standard, it is therefore incoherent.

[seer]

Woa, I have to justify my views logically in syllogisms but you are totally exempt from doing the same with your views? Why the double standard? I have not heard a single coherent argument or explanation of your LFW + dualism view.

Really Thinker, this is what you are going to resort to? I mean you are the one who claimed that your position on this matter was "logical." Well you are correct words have meaning, if your position really is logical as opposed to personal opinion then you should be able to demonstrate it logically i.e. deductively - that one necessarily follows from the other. And remember Thinker I have been the one all along who has been saying that we all believe things that can not be logically justified. So I have no problem with your opinion on this matter, only the claim that your position is logical - i.e. that one necessarily follows the other.

That's not an explanation. So you basically don't know the difference. Thanks for making my case.

I have already explained - in the B-Theory time is tenseless, static, in the A-Theory time flows in one direction, and is tensed (at least the that what the man who coined the term said). You know Thinker you are only stalling.

I didn't say that. All I did was ask YOU how to explain your own view. Is that asking too much? I still have not heard a coherent argument or explanation of your LFW + dualism view. And according to your own standard, it is therefore incoherent.

Then make up your mind, do things like the abstract laws of logic, rational deliberation, abstract beliefs, etc... play a causal role in your view?

[The Thinker]

Really Thinker, this is what you are going to resort to? I mean you are the one who claimed that your position on this matter was "logical." Well you are correct words have meaning, if your position really is logical as opposed to personal opinion then you should be able to demonstrate it logically i.e. deductively - that one necessarily follows from the other. And remember Thinker I have been the one all along who has been saying that we all believe things that can not be logically justified. So I have no problem with your opinion on this matter, only the claim that your position is logical - i.e. that one necessarily follows the other.

No, you said to me that if I cannot explain my view coherently, then it is incoherent. But you are asserting that your view is coherent, without having made a coherent argument for it. That is a double standard. You are only applying that to me.

I have already explained - in the B-Theory time is tenseless, static, in the A-Theory time flows in one direction, and is tensed (at least the that what the man who coined the term said). You know Thinker you are only stalling.

I'm not stalling anything. I am well researched in this area, and it is obvious you are not because you keep assuming an A-theory of time when analyzing the B-theory of time. Saying that the universe is in low and high entropy at the same "time" on the B-theory exposes that you don't understand the B-theory of time at all. On the B-theory the time is just the difference between slices of the universe in different parts. That's why it's called spacetime. If the universe is at low entropy in the beginning and high entropy at the end, they are in two different locations, just like how the beginning of the movie and end are in two different locations on a DVD, even though they both exist. That's why movies aren't incoherent, and neither is the B-theory.

Then make up your mind, do things like the abstract laws of logic, rational deliberation, abstract beliefs, etc... play a causal role in your view?

I was the one asking you questions - that you did not answer:

1. Explain how abstract laws of logic have a causal impact on thinking, and how sometimes people think logically and sometimes they don't.
2. If abstract laws of logic have a causal influence, why do they sometimes cause and sometimes do not cause?
3. What is the ontological status of laws of logic?
4. Do they exist independently of brains or minds?

Until you can explain that why should anyone accept the view that logic has causal powers?

[seer]

No, you said to me that if I cannot explain my view coherently, then it is incoherent. But you are asserting that your view is coherent, without having made a coherent argument for it. That is a double standard. You are only applying that to me.

No, I don't remember calling your moral view incoherent - can you show me that post? I did say that it was no more than personal opinion, and can not be logically justified. That one does not necessarily follow the other. And again Thinker I have been the one all along who has been saying that we all believe things that can not be logically justified. I'm not holding it against you. We all have deeply held beliefs, this just happens to be one of yours.

On the B-theory the time is just the difference between slices of the universe in different parts. That's why it's called spacetime. If the universe is at low entropy in the beginning and high entropy at the end, they are in two different locations, just like how the beginning of the movie and end are in two different locations on a DVD, even though they both exist. That's why movies aren't incoherent, and neither is the B-theory.

There you go again! How can there be "slices" of time if time is static and tenseless? What is the ACTUAL difference between one slice of time and another? And how can the SAME matter and energy be in two different places at the same time - since time is static. The DVD as a whole is either in low entropy or full entropy, since the DVD contains the totality of matter.

I was the one asking you questions - that you did not answer:

1. Explain how abstract laws of logic have a causal impact on thinking, and how sometimes people think logically and sometimes they don't.
2. If abstract laws of logic have a causal influence, why do they sometimes cause and sometimes do not cause?
3. What is the ontological status of laws of logic?
4. Do they exist independently of brains or minds?

Until you can explain that why should anyone accept the view that logic has causal powers?

Why won't you answer my question: do things like the abstract laws of logic, rational deliberation, abstract beliefs, etc... play a causal role in your view? It is a pretty simple yes or no.

[The Thinker]

No, I don't remember calling your moral view incoherent - can you show me that post? I did say that it was no more than personal opinion, and can not be logically justified. That one does not necessarily follow the other. And again Thinker I have been the one all along who has been saying that we all believe things that can not be logically justified. I'm not holding it against you. We all have deeply held beliefs, this just happens to be one of yours.

I'm not talking about my moral viewpoint here. I'm talking about your claim that I cannot logically show how I can be determined to believe X, and X is actually true. I showed that. If you say that "we all believe things that can not be logically justified" than you have to admit that theism is not any more justified than atheism. Do you think that?

There you go again! How can there be "slices" of time if time is static and tenseless? What is the ACTUAL difference between one slice of time and another?

Wow. There you go again failing to learn anything I just told you in the past 2 weeks. I sent you two videos explaining this and you are still as clueless as Donald Trump at a foreign policy conference. Wow. A slice of time is a slice of the block universe. The difference between one and another is distance, inthe same way that one slice of bread is different from another.

And how can the SAME matter and energy be in two different places at the same time - since time is static.

This question shows you haven't learned anything at all in the past 2 weeks even though I've given you 2 educational videos and explained the concept over and over. You are the stupidest person I've encountered in a long time. This is like asking how can your hand and your head be in two different places at the same time when they are the same matter. They are not the same matter, and neither are different parts of the block universe. And if you try to say the universe as a whole is the same matter, like you did, then you'd have to say the body as a whole is the same matter, and so we'd all be incoherent just by existing. This shows your objection to be false.

The DVD as a whole is either in low entropy or full entropy, since the DVD contains the totality of matter.

The DVD is both in low and high entropy, but they are low and high in different places.

Why won't you answer my question: do things like the abstract laws of logic, rational deliberation, abstract beliefs, etc... play a causal role in your view? It is a pretty simple yes or no.

You haven't answered not one of mine and I've done a better job at answering questions than you have. Laws of logic have no ontological status apart from brains or things that can process data. They are not things that exist as platonic forms. Concepts, beliefs, and rational deliberation are all ultimately found in the brain. So they do have causal effect, but they are physical causes. So now answer my questions:

1. Explain how abstract laws of logic have a causal impact on thinking, and how sometimes people think logically and sometimes they don't.
2. If abstract laws of logic have a causal influence, why do they sometimes cause and sometimes do not cause?
3. What is the ontological status of laws of logic?
4. Do they exist independently of brains or minds?

[Tassman]

Tass, how many times have you told me that we are just as determined as an ape?

No, what I've said is that the decision-making process is, in principle, the same between humans and the other apes. And I've repeatedly said that if you disagree with this view to elucidate just what you think the difference is. Still waiting!

So I will ask again, do believe that the ISIS fighters could break the causal chain and not slaughter all those innocent people in Paris? It is a yes or no.

No-one can break the causal chain of determinism because that would require the existence of 'libertarian free-will' and this is a logical impossibility, as has been explained to you over and over and over again by many people. If you insist in positing libertarian free-will for humans please explain how this can be logically coherent in a demonstrably determined universe. Just saying "God made a miracle" is not sufficient. Still waiting!

.

[Tassman]

Again, when one "tribe" of males chimps slaughters the males in another group and takes their females and territory - how are they moral responsible?

And how can any creature be morally responsible if they have no control over their actions? If they are determined? Please explain.

[seer]

I'm not talking about my moral viewpoint here. I'm talking about your claim that I cannot logically show how I can be determined to believe X, and X is actually true. I showed that. If you say that "we all believe things that can not be logically justified" than you have to admit that theism is not any more justified than atheism. Do you think that?

Really Thinker, I wasn't speaking of that at all but your claim about objective values - which you failed to show, you did not make a logical case, you only offered a personal opinion. No Thinker you never did logically answer my question. It was not if you could be determined to believe a truism, but going from being determined to believe that A is true, to A being actually true. You never logically closed that circle.

You haven't answered not one of mine and I've done a better job at answering questions than you have. Laws of logic have no ontological status apart from brains or things that can process data. They are not things that exist as platonic forms. Concepts, beliefs, and rational deliberation are all ultimately found in the brain. So they do have causal effect, but they are physical causes. So now answer my questions:

That is completely irrational. What do chemicals know of the laws of logic?

[seer]

The DVD is both in low and high entropy, but they are low and high in different places.

But that is the point, there are no "different" places, there is only one clump of matter and energy, when the universe was at low entropy that was the totality of matter and energy, when the universe is in full entropy that is the totality of matter and energy. And there are not different times since time is static and tenseless. So if B-Theory is correct and the past exists with the future, both states exist at once - the totality of matter and energy is in low entropy, the totality of matter and energy is in full entropy.