Where Do Moral Questions Stop?

[Tassman]

Yes Tass but what is retribution futile? Because: But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment.

This is not Dawkins argument. His argument concerns the fact that violent or antisocial behavior is contrary to what we have evolved to be, namely a social species living together in community. And where anti-social behaviour exists, it requires appropriate action to modify or eliminate it, usually of a social modification program. Retribution is not the way to go is his argument.

Because we are not really responsible for our behaviour, our behaviour is mechanistic.

But the idea of blame and responsibility in your/his world view is still a FICTION.

Yes, personal experience, and on Revelation. If it doesn't then there is also no freedom of thought. You are determined to believe what you do - true or not. All rationality, in my view, would be lost.

Your personal experience is the illusion of having free will and acting on the basis of feeling as though we have free-will. How can it be otherwise in a causally determined universe? This is the rational position, not your faith-based beliefs which are based upon what you want to believe rather than upon substantive evidence. As for "Revelation", this is a belief system unsupported by a shred of credible evidence.

Of course you have to ask if determinism is true in what sense are you free? In any given situation could you have chosen to do otherwise? The Compatibilists would suggest that you are free to act on your desires or inclinations - but then again so is a dog.

We have the illusion of freedom and act accordingly and effectively, so does a chimpanzee choosing a banana or a dog choosing to dig up a bone...or any other creature confronted by decisions to be made.

[seer]

Responsible if "not in actuality?" Really? Good, you are making my point. So moral responsibility is like free will - an illusion.

Just so we are clear - you agree with Dawkins that moral responsibility is no more than a useful fiction.

Your personal experience is the illusion of having free will and acting on the basis of feeling as though we have free-will. How can it be otherwise in a causally determined universe? This is the rational position, not your faith-based beliefs which are based upon what you want to believe rather than upon substantive evidence. As for "Revelation", this is a belief system unsupported by a shred of credible evidence.

Tass, do you believe the above because it is true or because you were determined to? Perhaps you were determined to believe that false things are true, how would you know?

[seer]

Yes, so you are saying that the brain is nothing more than its mental states. In what sense are you differentiating the two, the mental states from the brain?

Jim your inclinations are correct. Compatibilism is nonsense, it is nonsense when the atheist uses it, or when the Calvinist uses it. Just think of the two key words involved: Free and determined. It makes no sense. At least on this subject Tass has the courage of his convictions - that free will is an illusion.

[Psychic Missile]

Of course you have to ask if determinism is true in what sense are you free? In any given situation could you have chosen to do otherwise? The Compatibilists would suggest that you are free to act on your desires or inclinations - but then again so is a dog.

I don't see how free will can exist with determinism and I found no fault in that Dawkins quote, even if it was out of context. I was just confused about how Jichard was referring to compatibilist free will and how I remembered compatibilist free will.

[The Thinker]

Yes, personal experience, and on Revelation. If it doesn't then there is also no freedom of thought. You are determined to believe what you do - true or not. All rationality, in my view, would be lost.

But someone mentally ill would think that their thoughts are all "free" but their thinking would be the result of a brain tumor or brain damage. Also, if I implanted a device in your brain to control your thoughts without your knowledge, from your subjective perspective it would seem as if the thoughts were your own, but I would be creating them. How would personal experience be able to tell the two apart?

What revelation? How does this show free will exists?

Do you have any scientific evidence?

[seer]

But someone mentally ill would think that their thoughts are all "free" but their thinking would be the result of a brain tumor or brain damage. Also, if I implanted a device in your brain to control your thoughts without your knowledge, from your subjective perspective it would seem as if the thoughts were your own, but I would be creating them. How would personal experience be able to tell the two apart?

True, but I have no good reason to doubt my freedom of thought (do you doubt that you have freedom of thought?). Along with the fact that if such freedom does not exist the down side is too horrible - loss of rationality and moral responsibility.

What revelation? How does this show free will exists?

Since I believe in the Soul, I'm a dualist. So at least we are not governed completely by the mechanistic laws of nature. If you take the ghost out of the machine, all that is left is machine.

Do you have any scientific evidence?

Why would I need that?

[The Thinker]

True, but I have no good reason to doubt my freedom of thought (do you doubt that you have freedom of thought?). Along with the fact that if such freedom does not exist the down side is too horrible - loss of rationality and moral responsibility.

Have you seriously done a fair amount of research in the field? You seem to be basing your view entirely on intuition and faith.

Also there is no loss of rationality if there is no free will. That is a non-sequitor.

Since I believe in the Soul, I'm a dualist. So at least we are not governed completely by the mechanistic laws of nature. If you take the ghost out of the machine, all that is left is machine.

Yeah, but is that belief based on evidence, or faith? It seems to me that all you've got is an appeal to consequences, which is an informal logical fallacy.

Why would I need that?

Because if your soul interacts with your physical body that is something open to science. So where in the laws of physics does it describe the soul's interaction with your body, and where is the experimental evidence showing this? I am hoping that you aren't just basing your view on faith, but I see no reason to think otherwise right now.

[seer]

Have you seriously done a fair amount of research in the field? You seem to be basing your view entirely on intuition and faith.

Really? Do I need "research" to know that I'm self-aware too? So Thinker do you doubt that you have freedom of thought? That everything you think or believe is predetermined - whether true or not?

Also there is no loss of rationality if there is no free will. That is a non-sequitor.

So if you are determined to believe what you believe, how do you know when you are determined to believe something false rather than true?

Yeah, but is that belief based on evidence, or faith? It seems to me that all you've got is an appeal to consequences, which is an informal logical fallacy.

Consequences are part of the problem, yes. And again, I have no good reason to doubt my experience when it comes to freedom of the will, or that I'm self aware, or that what goes on in my mind actually corresponds to the external world - the latter, BTW, can not be demonstrated logically (deductively) as we discussed in the past.

Because if your soul interacts with your physical body that is something open to science. So where in the laws of physics does it describe the soul's interaction with your body, and where is the experimental evidence showing this? I am hoping that you aren't just basing your view on faith, but I see no reason to think otherwise right now.

Why should I believe that all phenomenon is open to science? That sounds like a faith position to me.

[Jichard]

Then who or what are you apart from the informational input?

I answered: "The agent is made up of the brain's mental states."

No informed naturalist thinks we are just informational inputs. That would be analogous saying two computers are identical just because you give them the same information inputs (ex: the same keystrokes on a keyboard).

Then what are you if not the sensory input/information?

I answered: "The agent is made up of the brain's mental states."

Not all brain states are sensory input.

What is it then, that does the determining?

There is no single thing that does the determining, unless you're talking about the sum total of all the prior states. I don't need to claim that one particular aspect of that sum total, acts as the sole-determining cause for the effect. Instead, I can point to a number of things in the sum total, where each of those things has a causal influence on the effect.

How are you defining "I"?

I answered: "The agent is made up of the brain's mental states."

But I don't think that any two people can be said to have the same information. That would be tantamount to saying that two different people have the same exact/matching brains.

It wouldn't. I said:

"two people can have the same sensory information and choose to do two different things."

Sensory information is not the only form of information brains have access to. So two brains with the same sensory information would not necessarily be identical brains.

In that case they would process the information in exactly the same way and come up with the same choices of action in any given situation, unless that which we call "I", i.e. the self, or the brain itself if you will, is something distinct from the information.

I have no idea what you're saying here.

No I don't think that I am conflating the two, but there is still a chain of cause and effect there.

And I think you're conflating the two.

Where in the brain are you suggesting that the causal chain ends and agency takes over?

You're falsely presuming that agency precludes there being a causal chain. That is not the case. Agency is apart of the causal chain and agency presupposes causation occurring. After all, if an agent's mental states don't, in part, cause what the agent does and things, then there's no agency in play. And agents use causal interactions to learn the information those agents use to make informed choices.

I'm not following the logic though. Why, with regards to cause and effect, is the relationship between the parts and the whole any different than the relationship between distinct parts?

Because a part occurs at the same time as the whole which it is apart of. And since causes must occur before their effects, that means parts are not the cause of the whole which they are apart of.

There is sill a chain of cause and effect going on within the brain as it processes information. Where, before a choice is made, does that process end? And what is the agent doing in the meantime?

You're presuming that agency requires there being a break in the causal chain. That's a false, libertarian assumption. Free will presupposes causation, as opposed to conflicting with it.

What determines it then?

Addressed above:

There is no single thing that does the determining, unless you're talking about the sum total of all the prior states. I don't need to point to one thing that is the sole cause. Instead, I can point to a number of things, each of which have a causal influence.

Not a fair analogy, I don't think. I'm not saying that the brains shape determines the brain. I'm saying the brain information determines the brain, determines the brains choices. If determinism is true that is!

It is a fair analogy, since the brain shape is a part / aspect of the brain, just as the brain's informaton is a part / aspect of the brain. And parts / aspects do not causally determine the whole they are apart of, since parts occur at the same time as the whole they are apart of, and causes need to occur before their effects. Also, determinism does not imply that the brain information determines the brain. Instead, determinism states that the sum total of the prior states causally determines the subsequent state. Since that sum total includes more that just the brain's information, then it would not be the case that the brain's information alone determines the brain's subsequent states.

Exactly. But its not like one brain state suddenly becomes free to decide, the decision/choice made is determined by the ultimate effect of the causal chain leading up to it. No?

You're presupposing a libertarian account of free will, where free will precludes causation. That's not the account of free will under discussion here, and it's not even a coherent account of free will, since free will requires causation. Furthermore, on a libertarian account, one does not choose to do something do to having different information, reasoning differently, etc. or anything else one would assosciate with rational choice. After all, the libertarian wants people someone to make different choices, even when all those aspects ae kept the same. Instead, on the libertarian account, one makes a different choice due to just randomness. And that's anti-thetical to free will and decision-making.

I'm not getting the reasoning here. why do you say that the parts and their whole are not causally related?

Part occur at the same time as the whole they are apart of. And since causes must occur before their effects, that means parts cannot be a cause of the whole. So instead of parts being causally related to the whole, they are instead constitutively related to the whole.

Yes, so you are saying that the brain is nothing more than its mental states. In what sense are you differentiating the two, the mental states from the brain?

The same way I differentiate an apple's shape from the apple: that apple's shape is a facet or feature of the apple, just as a brain's mental states are a facet or feature of the brain.

[Tassman]

Responsible if "not in actuality?" Really? Good, you are making my point. So moral responsibility is like free will - an illusion.

have

Just so we are clear - you agree with Dawkins that moral responsibility is no more than a useful fiction.

Tass, do you believe the above because it is true or because you were determined to? Perhaps you were determined to believe that false things are true, how would you know?

feeling

True, but I have no good reason to doubt my freedom of thought (do you doubt that you have freedom of thought?). Along with the fact that if such freedom does not exist the down side is too horrible - loss of rationality and moral responsibility.

You have every reason to doubt your "freedom of thought" given that it can be nothing more than an illusion. You cannot answer how this arose in a determined universe other than claiming god-did-it, for which there is no credible evidence.

Since I believe in the Soul, I'm a dualist. So at least we are not governed completely by the mechanistic laws of nature.

You're a dualist for no good reason. There's no substantive evidence of souls; why should anyone take this notion seriously?

If you take the ghost out of the machine, all that is left is machine.

Yes, a conscious, intelligent machine...why is this such a problem for you?

[seer]

have

No Tass, my point was that moral responsibility is a fiction if you or Dawkins are correct. And you agreed in that we are responsible if "not in actuality?

feeling

Tass how many times do I have to go over this? I'm not limited to your materialistic view of humankind or the universe. BTW - doesn't quantum mechanics tell us that the universe is indeterministic rather than deterministic?

You have every reason to doubt your "freedom of thought" given that it can be nothing more than an illusion. You cannot answer how this arose in a determined universe other than claiming god-did-it, for which there is no credible evidence.

So Tass, you were determined to believe the above - whether true or not correct?

You're a dualist for no good reason. There's no substantive evidence of souls; why should anyone take this notion seriously?


Yes, a conscious, intelligent machine...why is this such a problem for you?

So Tass, you were determined to believe the above - whether true or not correct?

[firstfloor]

Even if the universe is deterministic and the choices you make are inevitable you cannot do anything else except make your own choices and therefore it is reasonable to examine you on the choices you make. If you were a murderer, for example, it would be reasonable to hold you to account even if all that is happening is that one set of pre-determined choices is being used to enforce a pre-determined rule on a pre-determined criminal act. The pre-determined system is pre-determined to act in this way and it is pre-determined that the system thinks of these actions as having moral attributes.

Note that, a system that evolves in this way cannot predict its own future because the future is continuously calculated by the system itself. Therefore any choice, even if it is inevitable according to the rules of the computation will always feel as if it is not. And because it seems that you always make your own decisions, other people are entitled using their own decisions to examine yours.

However, I doubt very much that the act of you spilling your coffee is somehow encoded on the early universe as it would need to be if the future was entirely determined. Nature does not have that much resolution; the smallest detail of it being the quanta. Consequently, new possible futures are continually added even in a deterministic Universe.

[The Thinker]

Really? Do I need "research" to know that I'm self-aware too? So Thinker do you doubt that you have freedom of thought? That everything you think or believe is predetermined - whether true or not?

Um yes, unless you want to be a person who bases their views on faith. You already acknowledged that if I implanted a device in your brain without your knowledge that you would not be able to tell the difference between that and not having the device from your subjective perspective. That means your subjective perspective of free will is not able to determine whether your will is free or not. You need more evidence. What testable predictions does belief in free will make?

So if you are determined to believe what you believe, how do you know when you are determined to believe something false rather than true?

By your ability to compare it with the evidence and logic. Same thing under "free" will.

Consequences are part of the problem, yes. And again, I have no good reason to doubt my experience when it comes to freedom of the will, or that I'm self aware, or that what goes on in my mind actually corresponds to the external world - the latter, BTW, can not be demonstrated logically (deductively) as we discussed in the past.

The issue is not whether you are self aware, or that your views don't correspond to the external world, the issue is whether your will is "free." This is a completely separate issue. So please answer for me, is the will the same thing as the soul, or are they different? And what is the chronological order of events when a person makes a freely willed decision? What happens first, second, third, and then last?

Why should I believe that all phenomenon is open to science? That sounds like a faith position to me.

You don't have to in this discussion. You just have to recognize the fact that anything that interacts with the physical world is in the domain of science. So what is your scientific evidence for a soul and for free will? Seems to me that you'd rather just believe on faith.

[seer]

Um yes, unless you want to be a person who bases their views on faith. You already acknowledged that if I implanted a device in your brain without your knowledge that you would not be able to tell the difference between that and not having the device from your subjective perspective. That means your subjective perspective of free will is not able to determine whether your will is free or not. You need more evidence. What testable predictions does belief in free will make?

Thinker, I have no idea what testable predictions are needed or would be needed. What else do we have besides personal experience? I can not prove scientifically that what goes on in my mind correspond to reality, I could be a brain in a vat - as you could be. So until there is a clear defeater I see no good reason to doubt that my choices are free, at least to a high degree, or to doubt that my mind does actually grasp reality.

By your ability to compare it with the evidence and logic. Same thing under "free" will.

No, since you would be determined as to what you consider evidence or how you apply logic. It would effect reasoning all the way down. Perhaps you are determined to believe that you are using evidence and logic but that that belief is false. How would you know? So I will ask again Thinker - do you believe in freedom of thought or not?

The issue is not whether you are self aware, or that your views don't correspond to the external world, the issue is whether your will is "free." This is a completely separate issue. So please answer for me, is the will the same thing as the soul, or are they different? And what is the chronological order of events when a person makes a freely willed decision? What happens first, second, third, and then last?

No Thinker it is clearly along the lines of self-awareness and understanding of the external world. All of them are based on personal experience. You for instance would be willing to believe that your mind does actually grasp external reality even though you could not justify that either scientifically or logically. And I have no idea of the chronological order. I do however believe that the immaterial mind (soul) is an emergent property of the physical brain and does have a lopping effect on the physical brain, and our physical actions. Presently I lean towards Hasker's Emergent Dualism: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3071148?...n_tab_contents

You don't have to in this discussion. You just have to recognize the fact that anything that interacts with the physical world is in the domain of science. So what is your scientific evidence for a soul and for free will? Seems to me that you'd rather just believe on faith.

No because you are assuming that for something to interact with the physical world it must be physical itself. That is your faith position, and one I need not hold.

[The Thinker]

Thinker, I have no idea what testable predictions are needed or would be needed. What else do we have besides personal experience? I can not prove scientifically that what goes on in my mind correspond to reality, I could be a brain in a vat - as you could be. So until there is a clear defeater I see no good reason to doubt that my choices are free, at least to a high degree, or to doubt that my mind does actually grasp reality.

They are needed because we've already established that personal experience cannot establish free will. Free will is different from belief in an external world. The reasons for it make testable claims. If the soul has a causal affect on the physical body, that is scientifically testable. Belief in free will is not a basic belief. It is testable.

No, since you would be determined as to what you consider evidence or how you apply logic. It would effect reasoning all the way down. Perhaps you are determined to believe that you are using evidence and logic but that that belief is false. How would you know? So I will ask again Thinker - do you believe in freedom of thought or not?

This could also occur under a "free will" belief. A Muslim born in Saudi Arabia is determined to believe in Islam because he had no other choice giving his access to information. So "free will" does nothing to save you. And since you cannot choose what thoughts enter your consciousness, there is no way for it to be free. You cannot have a thought about a thought, before you have the thought. You cannot say, "In 30 seconds I'm going to think about ice cream." Second, determinism doesn't preclude rationality. We can be determined to know the truth. And what determines us is the evidence and our reaction to it.

No Thinker it is clearly along the lines of self-awareness and understanding of the external world. All of them are based on personal experience. You for instance would be willing to believe that your mind does actually grasp external reality even though you could not justify that either scientifically or logically. And I have no idea of the chronological order. I do however believe that the immaterial mind (soul) is an emergent property of the physical brain and does have a lopping effect on the physical brain, and our physical actions. Presently I lean towards Hasker's Emergent Dualism: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3071148?...n_tab_contents

As I said before, free will is not a basic belief. It can be tested, and it has to be coherent. It is not in the same category that belief in an external world is. If you can't even explain a chronological order, or give any evidence for free will, why should any one believe you? Most philosophers reject libertarian free will. In fact, a philosopher told me a few months ago that no respectable philosopher does believe in it, and the vast majority of philosophers are either compatibilists or hard incompatibilists.

What "lopping" effect is this? What does that mean? Where is your scientific evidence for it?

No because you are assuming that for something to interact with the physical world it must be physical itself. That is your faith position, and one I need not hold.

Absolutely not. Nothing about this requires a physical cause. The cause can be immaterial, just like a force, or even if it has no properties, if it affects things that are physical, it can be scientifically tested. So, where is your evidence?