Where Do Moral Questions Stop?

[seer]

Claiming that you "had a number of different possibilities to choose from" is presupposing libertarian free will, which is the very thing that you are trying to show. You cannot assume the thing you're trying to show! You do not consciously choose what your thoughts are. It is logically impossible to do so. Your whole reply to be is incoherent. I could throw out all the scientific evidence I have against libertarian free will (LFW) and I could still destroy it on the basis of pure logic. Face it Seer, just like with your views on morality, your belief in free will comes down to something totally incoherent. Complain all you want about the Jihadist, it's not an argument. That's like a creationist saying, "If evolution is true, I'm related to monkeys. I don't want to believe that, therefore evolution is false."

Thinker, don't you see that you are cutting off the branch that you are sitting on? If your epiphenomenalism is correct then rationality is out the window. Everything you wrote above, you wrote, not because it is true, but because you were determined to - true or not. If our thoughts and deliberations play no causal role in the process then it is all nonsense - including your scientific evidence. You can't logically have it both ways.

[The Thinker]

Thinker, don't you see that you are cutting off the branch that you are sitting on? If your epiphenomenalism is correct then rationality is out the window. Everything you wrote above, you wrote, not because it is true, but because you were determined to - true or not. If our thoughts and deliberations play no causal role in the process then it is all nonsense - including your scientific evidence. You can't logically have it both ways.

That is complete nonsense. You're trying to say that a view that is technically incoherent (which you have not refuted at all) is the only way to make our will to be coherent and rational. I mean, I cannot believe you don't see this. There is nothing about humans being physically determined that logically leads to rationality going out the window. Nothing. We are evolved biological organisms. Our brains are the product of 3.5 billion years of evolution, during which time, we evolved to rationally respond to our environment, because our very survival depended on it. This is called adapting to the environment. You have not offered an alternative solution that makes sense. You have not refuted the incoherency of libertarian free will or provided any evidence. Just like with morality, you're basically resting your view on faith. That's all you got. And I suppose future debates we'll have will lead to the same thing. You have not refuted the scientific evidence I showed you. You have not explained how animals can think and rationally respond to their environment. You have done nothing but make claims on faith and appeal to consequence and ignorance. There is a reason why the majority if philosophers and neuroscientists agree with me and not you. My views make sense and are backed up by actual evidence. Your view is incoherent and backed up by faith.

[Tassman]

And if Thinker, and now Jim, are correct in their epiphenomenalism then our conscious thoughts and reasoning play no causal role in our mental processes or decisions. Not only is moral responsibility lost so is rationality.

You do not believe things because they are true, you believe them because you were determined to - true or not. And epiphenomenalism seems to gaining ground in the scientific community.

Things are instinctively true for us as rational social animals that have adapted to the environment over millions of years; this is what natural selection is all about.

Are you willing to give up rationality as well as moral responsibility Tass?

[seer]

That is complete nonsense. You're trying to say that a view that is technically incoherent (which you have not refuted at all) is the only way to make our will to be coherent and rational. I mean, I cannot believe you don't see this. There is nothing about humans being physically determined that logically leads to rationality going out the window. Nothing.

I will ask again Thinker, do you believe things because they are true or because you were determined too? When I say that all rationality is lost, I'm saying that our reasoning, deliberations and conclusions - play no role in the process. Our thinking/thoughts have no causal effect on the process - that is epiphenomenalism, and that is what you are advocating. And I'm not saying that we don't survive - a house fly can survive without complex thoughts or rationally working through a problem, but that concepts like logically working through a problem or reasoning through to a conclusion are nonsensical if you are correct. These thoughts and deliberations play NO ROLE in the process. Like Huxley said - our thoughts are like the steam from a steam engine - does nothing to help the engine run, meaningless.

[seer]

So you agree that our thoughts and deliberations are meaningless. Like Jim and Thinker?

[The Thinker]

I will ask again Thinker, do you believe things because they are true or because you were determined too?

False dichotomy. Explain to me why it is logically impossible to be determined to believe something because it is true.



And deal with the challenges you face. So far you've offered absolutely nothing besides your own naive intuition as the basis for LFW.

[seer]

False dichotomy. Explain to me why it is logically impossible to be determined to believe something because it is true.

Thinker how do you know if something is true? You come to those conclusions by reasoning and logic. Agreed? But how is reasoning and logic (i.e. thinking through a problem) meaningful or helpful if thought has no influence on the process? And if your epiphenomenalism is correct then your thoughts are meaningless to the process of reasoning - they play no role in the process. And I would like to see you go from being determined to believe A, to therefore A is true.

[The Thinker]

Thinker how do you know if something is true? You come to those conclusions by reasoning and logic. Agreed? But how is reasoning and logic (i.e. thinking through a problem) meaningful or helpful if thought has no influence on the process? And if your epiphenomenalism is correct then your thoughts are meaningless to the process of reasoning - they play no role in the process. And I would like to see you go from being determined to believe A, to therefore A is true.

Since I've established that libertarian free will is incoherent you have no point. Once LFW goes, my view becomes the default choice, even if, I can't answer every single question. So you can complain all you want, but as with morality, all you have is a totally incoherent view you're offering us. I suspect you are not truly looking for answers. You are going to hold your beliefs on faith no matter what, because you don't care about evidence. Your view here is faith based.

As to your first question, consciousness is meaningful even if it has no causal effect. You seem to be presupposing it must. I see no reason to believe that, but I can understand your point. When I was studying free will years ago I had the same reactions as you do. Science challenges our basic intuitions. That's why you cannot rely on intuition to base your beliefs on. As to your second question, yes, consciousness plays no causal role in the process. Consciousness is the result of brain states. As to your last sentence, unless you're willing to defend the position that things begin to exist with no cause in the universe, which you must in order to even have a point, you will come to realize that everything in our universe has a cause, and as such, determinism prevails.*



*By the way, if somehow the universe is indeterministic, that still does not open the door to free will. Physicist Sean Carroll explains:

"[I]violating

[seer]

As to your first question, consciousness is meaningful even if it has no causal effect. You seem to be presupposing it must. I see no reason to believe that, but I can understand your point. When I was studying free will years ago I had the same reactions as you do. Science challenges our basic intuitions. That's why you cannot rely on intuition to base your beliefs on. As to your second question, yes, consciousness plays no causal role in the process. Consciousness is the result of brain states. As to your last sentence, unless you're willing to defend the position that things begin to exist with no cause in the universe, which you must in order to even have a point, you will come to realize that everything in our universe has a cause, and as such, determinism prevails.*

And this is your faith position Thinker - you still want to believe that you are rational, that you actually hold true beliefs arrived at through logical deliberations. But your beliefs preclude that. Your conscious thoughts play no effective role in coming to any decision. You want me to believe that the above is true - but why? Based on what? Certainly not based on our conscious reasoning powers. Then what? So again I will ask: how do you go from being determined to believe that A is true, to therefore A is true. It is a logical gap Thinker that you will not be able to bridge. Yet in spite of this you really think that what you believe (say about determinism) it true. In other words your behavior in these debates belies your philosophy. And BTW - I'm not having a "reaction" I was a Calvinist and a complete determinist 25 years ago.

[JimL]

Jim, what assumptions? That chemicals don't care what color shirt I choose?

If you care, then your brain cares, you are your brain.

You also know that it undermines rationality? Our rational decisions are generally made by thinking them through, figuring out the best options then making a choice or acting. If you are correct all this thinking and our thoughts, are immaterial - they play no effective part in the process. So back to what I said earlier - you do not believe things because they are true, you believe them because you were determined to - true or not.

Seer, you don't believe things because they are true either, thats why its called belief. You believe things based on the information, or lack thereof that you possess. Rational decisions or beliefs are based upon information whether the process is a conscious free willed one, or an unconscious and determined one. Your brain contains all the information that you have access to in making a decision and it functions all by itself because your brain is you. The only difference is that you aren't conscious of the decisions that "YOU" make until after "YOU" make them.

Jim if thoughts have a casual role then my case is made, to a degree.

How so? You keep assuming that thoughts are something that exist apart from the brain, apparently within the brain of the ghost. What you should ask yourself is how does the ghosts brain work, where does its thoughts reside, and if it has a brain, what need has it of a physical brain as well? So far you have ignored and failed to answer that question. Do you have a logical response to that?

And I don't have to know how this all works to see that chemicals don't decide anything, don't care about anything. They are chemicals.

Well, if you are going to argue the point, if you are going to argue that the physical brain does not and can not make decisions, then you need to define in a logical way what it is that does make decisions and how the process differs. If you have no logical explanation underlying your position, then there is no reason whatsoever to take you seriously. How does your ghost think? Does it have a brain of its own? Where do its thoughts reside, in its brain, or do they flutter about in space? And if it has a brain, what need has it of a physical brain as well? Define the ghost in and of itself, absent the physical body? To be honest, I don't think that you have really thought any of this through because if you did you would see that there is really no logic behind the idea of a ghost in the machine.

[Tassman]

So you agree that our thoughts and deliberations are meaningless. Like Jim and Thinker?

against such a belief.

Nor can you explain how we differ from our fellow primates regarding free-will. They also make decisions and their lives clearly have meaning within their own framework of reference, just as ours do. So essentially we're the same sort of mammals as our simian cousins, not the specially favoured creatures of God which you claim and it's pathetic self-aggrandisement to think we are.

[seer]

If you care, then your brain cares, you are your brain.

But my caring, my thoughts, play no in the process. My conscious thoughts are meaningless. So again we are back to chemicals deciding what shirt I should wear. And chemicals don't "care" they are chemicals for goodness sake.

Seer, you don't believe things because they are true either, thats why its called belief. You believe things based on the information, or lack thereof that you possess. Rational decisions or beliefs are based upon information whether the process is a conscious free willed one, or an unconscious and determined one. Your brain contains all the information that you have access to in making a decision and it functions all by itself because your brain is you. The only difference is that you aren't conscious of the decisions that "YOU" make until after "YOU" make them.

No Jim, I believe things because I consciously work through problems using logic and reasoning. You do not - your beliefs are dictated to you by chemicals. They may be right, but they are not gained by rational means (i.e. thinking through) - but by the non-rational electro-chemical interaction.

How so? You keep assuming that thoughts are something that exist apart from the brain, apparently within the brain of the ghost. What you should ask yourself is how does the ghosts brain work, where does its thoughts reside, and if it has a brain, what need has it of a physical brain as well? So far you have ignored and failed to answer that question. Do you have a logical response to that?


Well, if you are going to argue the point, if you are going to argue that the physical brain does not and can not make decisions, then you need to define in a logical way what it is that does make decisions and how the process differs. If you have no logical explanation underlying your position, then there is no reason whatsoever to take you seriously. How does your ghost think? Does it have a brain of its own? Where do its thoughts reside, in its brain, or do they flutter about in space? And if it has a brain, what need has it of a physical brain as well? Define the ghost in and of itself, absent the physical body? To be honest, I don't think that you have really thought any of this through because if you did you would see that there is really no logic behind the idea of a ghost in the machine.

Are you joking Jim? Look, if you are correct you were determined to say the above. But why should we believe that it is true? How do you go from being determined to believe that A is true to therefore A is true. The thing is you have given up freedom of the will and moral responsibility - they are just illusions. Well if that is the case so is your rationality - it, in this model, is just as much an illusion. But you atheists do not want to give that one up.

[seer]

Then Tass, you do not understand what is being said here, what epiphenomenalism is. Thoughts and deliberations play no causal role in the decision making process.

Epiphenomenalism is a position in the philosophy of mind according to which mental states or events are caused by physical states or events in the brain but do not themselves cause anything. It seems as if our mental life affects our body, and, via our body, the physical world surrounding us: it seems that sharp pains make us wince, it seems that fear makes our heart beat faster, it seems that remembering an embarrassing situation makes us blush and it seems that the perception of an old friend makes us smile. In reality, however, these sequences are the result of causal processes at an underlying physical level: what makes us wince is not the pain, but the neurophysiological process which causes the pain; what makes our heart beat faster is not fear, but the state of our nervous system which causes the fear etc. .

Your rationality Tass, would be just as much an illusion as our free will and moral responsibility.

[The Thinker]

And this is your faith position Thinker - you still want to believe that you are rational, that you actually hold true beliefs arrived at through logical deliberations. But your beliefs preclude that. Your conscious thoughts play no effective role in coming to any decision. You want me to believe that the above is true - but why? Based on what? Certainly not based on our conscious reasoning powers. Then what? So again I will ask: how do you go from being determined to believe that A is true, to therefore A is true. It is a logical gap Thinker that you will not be able to bridge. Yet in spite of this you really think that what you believe (say about determinism) it true. In other words your behavior in these debates belies your philosophy. And BTW - I'm not having a "reaction" I was a Calvinist and a complete determinist 25 years ago.

Being determined does not in any way logically preclude rationality and you have not shown any good reason to think so. On the contrary, everything in the universe has a cause. Do you disagree? You would have to in order to believe in LFW. If free thoughts have no cause, how are they rational? You simply aren't grappling with the problems of your view and you want to me accept an incoherent view as an alternative to mine. I've offered many challenges to LFW: (1) it is logically incoherent, and (2) science disproves it.

So I have a question for you. Do you acknowledge that your view is incoherent or not, regardless of what my views are? If no, then why? And I don't want to hear something about my views, I want you to make your own positive argument refuting the incoherency of you views.

How do you go from being determined to believe that A is true, to therefore A is true?

In order for me to believe A is true it has to be caused by something. If my belief is correct, it is caused by the evidence I receive from my senses. One rock plus another rock leaves me with two rocks. Believing this is caused by my sense data. Sometimes we're wrong about things, in that case our brains do not process the data correctly. How can we tell if our beliefs are true? By comparing it to the evidence or the logic. Evidence will be gained by our sense data, and logic will be gained via brain processes that performs reasoning. Don't think the atoms in the brain can do that? Here's empirical evidence that we can predict "free" choices from abstract intentions doing mathematical calculations, which I'm sure you accept is performing logic.

Highlights:

• Researchers are able to show that the outcome of a free decision to either add or subtract numbers can already be decoded from neural activity in medial prefrontal and parietal cortex 4 seconds before the participant reports they are consciously making their choice.

• Previous findings have been mostly restricted to simple motor choices.

• In the current study, participants were not cued to make decisions at specific points in time but were allowed to make decisions spontaneously. By asking participants to report when they first consciously decided, we could investigate what happened in the brain before the decisions were consciously made. We found that both medial frontopolar cortex and posterior cingulate/precuneus started to encode the specific outcome of the abstract decisions even before they entered conscious awareness. Our results suggest that, in addition to the representation of conscious abstract decisions, the medial frontopolar cortex was also involved in the unconscious preparation of abstract decisions.

So I've provided you logical and empirical evidence to support my views. What evidence have you given me?: absolutely nothing.

[seer]

How do you go from being determined to believe that A is true, to therefore A is true?

In order for me to believe A is true it has to be caused by something. If my belief is correct, it is caused by the evidence I receive from my senses. One rock plus another rock leaves me with two rocks. Believing this is caused by my sense data. Sometimes we're wrong about things, in that case our brains do not process the data correctly. How can we tell if our beliefs are true? By comparing it to the evidence or the logic. Evidence will be gained by our sense data, and logic will be gained via brain processes that performs reasoning. Don't think the atoms in the brain can do that?

Now that is incoherent Thinker since your thoughts play no role in the process, logic and reasoning play no part. Your brain states alone tell you what is evidence, what is logical, and how you reason. But chemical are not logical, and they are non-rational. Again, I'm not saying that you never get things right, I'm saying that you can never know if you got things right or wrong. As long as you remove thoughts as being influential.

Being determined does not in any way logically preclude rationality and you have not shown any good reason to think so. On the contrary, everything in the universe has a cause. Do you disagree? You would have to in order to believe in LFW. If free thoughts have no cause, how are they rational? You simply aren't grappling with the problems of your view and you want to me accept an incoherent view as an alternative to mine. I've offered many challenges to LFW: (1) it is logically incoherent, and (2) science disproves it.

So I have a question for you. Do you acknowledge that your view is incoherent or not, regardless of what my views are? If no, then why? And I don't want to hear something about my views, I want you to make your own positive argument refuting the incoherency of you views.

Again, all I am saying at this time is that my thoughts have influence in the process. I gave you examples of this. If not, we are the slaves of biological processes that are neither logical and are non-rational.

In the current study, participants were not cued to make decisions at specific points in time but were allowed to make decisions spontaneously. By asking participants to report when they first consciously decided, we could investigate what happened in the brain before the decisions were consciously made. We found that both medial frontopolar cortex and posterior cingulate/precuneus started to encode the specific outcome of the abstract decisions even before they entered conscious awareness. Our results suggest that, in addition to the representation of conscious abstract decisions, the medial frontopolar cortex was also involved in the unconscious preparation of abstract decisions.

So the researchers were determined by biological processes to come to these conclusions? Correct?

And BTW your studies are limited at best.

The other studies described below have only just begun to shed light on the role that consciousness plays in actions and it is too early to draw very strong conclusions about certain kinds of "free will". . Scientists have also only so far studied extremely simple behaviors (e.g. moving a finger).[18] Adina Roskies points out five areas of neuroscientific research: 1.) action initiation, 2.) intention, 3). decision, 4.) Inhibition and control, and 5.) the phenomenology of agency, and for each of these areas Roskies concludes that the science may be developing our understanding of volition or "will," but it yet offers nothing for developing the "free" part of the "free will" discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuros...tific_research