Where Do Moral Questions Stop?

[seer]

Dennett is a compatibilist. The link to his quote starts out, "While [Dennett] himself is a confirmed compatibilist, even a determinist". This is more misrepresentation and quote mining from you. Dennett makes a case for compatibilistic free will, not libertarian free will, and nothing you quoted shows that libertarian free will is coherent.

I did not say that Dennett held to LFW, but he did write a whole chapter "Giving libertarians what they say they want." And it is not a bad argument, though it probably would not satisfy all libertarian. So I don't think it would reject all arguments for LFW as incoherent.

While he himself is a confirmed compatibilist, even a determinist, in "On Giving Libertarians What They Say They Want," Chapter 15 of his 1978 book Brainstorms, Daniel Dennett articulated the case for a two-stage model of free will better than any libertarianhttp://www.informationphilosopher.co...phers/dennett/

Thank you for finally getting the links correctly. There are many views naturalism can accommodate: emergentism or reductionism. Either way, consciousness is caused by the brain, as you agreed before.

No, there is zero evidence for how/why consciousness rose from non-conscious sources. That is Harris' whole point. That is why he said that emergence was akin to a miracle.

[seer]

You face numerous problems. For one thing, your explanation is not even compatible with your own view that "the brain causes the mind." Conscious deliberation is the mind, which you agreed is caused by the brain. So following the logic, your own view would have to deduce to the brain choose red, and not your thoughts somehow existing independently of your brain (which would contradict your own view). So you definitely did not "follow the logic".

The only question is do conscious thoughts play a casual role. Like I said in the past, I do believe that the have a looping effect. Dennett (see the link in my last post) certainly believes that they have a real effect. And I would remind you Thinker that you have not given rational reason for why chemicals chose red. Or why chemicals would even care what color shirt I picked. You just assert that they did.

Second, your conscious deliberation must be caused by something, or else it is just a random spontaneous fluctuation of nonsense. If it is caused by something, whatever caused it must have a cause, unless you want to claim it began to exist without a cause (which you'd must in order to claim they weren't determined). If all events "that lead up to my physically reaching out and grabbing the shirt" have a cause then well - you guessed it - you have determinism.

Then again in your view conscious deliberation plays no real role. Which would counter what men like Dennett are saying.

[The Thinker]

I did not say that Dennett held to LFW, but he did write a whole chapter "Giving libertarians what they say they want." And it is not a bad argument, though it probably would not satisfy all libertarian. So I don't think it would reject all arguments for LFW as incoherent.

Absolutely nothing in that link that you quoted makes libertarian free will coherent. Dennett's free will is compatibilistic free will. I want you in your own words to make a positive argument for libertarian free will or admit that you cannot.

No, there is zero evidence for how/why consciousness rose from non-conscious sources. That is Harris' whole point. That is why he said that emergence was akin to a miracle.

We have plenty of evidence that consciousness arises from non-consciousness (see below). Emergence is not akin to a miracle, even if that's what Harris believes. Harris is a strict reductionist as far as I can tell, but this is not a view many in science. Emergent phenomena is absolutely nothing like a miracle. A miracle is a violation of the laws of physics, according to the traditional definition. Emergentism is perfectly compatible with physics law.

Evidence that consciousness arises from non-consciousness:

1)The evolution of species demonstrates that development of brain correlates to mental development


2) Brain growth in individual organisms:


3) Brain damage destroys mental capacities:


4) EEG and similar mechanisms used in experiments and measurements on the brain indicate a correspondence between brain activity and mental activity:


5) The effects of drugs have clear physical >>> mental causation
Daniel Dennett superbly opines:

It continues to amaze me how attractive this position still is to many people. I would have thought a historical perspective alone would make this view seem ludicrous: over the centuries, every other phenomenon of initially "supernatural" mysteriousness has succumbed to an uncontroversial explanation within the commodious folds of physical science... The "miracles" of life itself, and of reproduction, are now analyzed into the well-known intricacies of molecular biology. Why should consciousness be any exception? Why should the brain be the only complex physical object in the universe to have an interface with another realm of being? Besides, the notorious problems with the supposed transactions at that dualistic interface are as good as a reductio ad absurdum of the view. The phenomena of consciousness are an admittedly dazzling lot, but I suspect that dualism would never be seriously considered if there weren't such a strong undercurrent of desire to protect the mind from science, by supposing it composed of a stuff that is in principle uninvestigatable by the methods of the physical sciences.

Daniel C. Dennett, "Consciousness in Human and Robot Minds,"

Again, as the great Michael Tooley puts it:
(1) When an individual's brain is directly stimulated and put into a certain physical state, this causes the person to have a corresponding experience.
(2) Certain injuries to the brain make it impossible for a person to have any mental states at all.
(3) Other injuries to the brain destroy various mental capacities. Which capacity is destroyed is tied directly to the particular region of the brain that was damaged.
(4) When we examine the mental capacities of animals, they become more complex as their brains become more complex.
(5) Within any given species, the development of mental capacities is correlated with the development of neurons in the brain
Michael Tooley, "Opening Statement" in William Lane Craig and Michael Tooley debate, "Does God Exist?"

[seer]

Absolutely nothing in that link that you quoted makes libertarian free will coherent. Dennett's free will is compatibilistic free will. I want you in your own words to make a positive argument for libertarian free will or admit that you cannot.

Excuse me, then why did he write a chapter saying giving "Giving libertarians what they say they want?" And I even quoted from that chapter and gave you a link.

We have plenty of evidence that consciousness arises from non-consciousness (see below). Emergence is not akin to a miracle, even if that's what Harris believes. Harris is a strict reductionist as far as I can tell, but this is not a view many in science. Emergent phenomena is absolutely nothing like a miracle. A miracle is a violation of the laws of physics, according to the traditional definition. Emergentism is perfectly compatible with physics law.

That was not Harris' point. He of course would agree that consciousness is related to the brain. But the why and how is in question:

how it could emerge from unconscious processes, even in principle.

And David Chalmers states:

Consciousness fits uneasily into our conception of the natural world. On the most common conception of nature, the natural world is the physical world. But on the most common conception of consciousness, it is not easy to see how it could be part of the physical world. So it seems that to find a place for consciousness within the natural order, we must either revise our conception of consciousness, or revise our conception of nature.

[The Thinker]

The only question is do conscious thoughts play a casual role. Like I said in the past, I do believe that the have a looping effect. Dennett (see the link in my last post) certainly believes that they have a real effect. And I would remind you Thinker that you have not given rational reason for why chemicals chose red. Or why chemicals would even care what color shirt I picked. You just assert that they did.

I've already provided you evidence of our brains making decisions for us. If you need to see them again, see this link here. We've got plenty of evidence that brain causes mind in decision making and it is not conscious thoughts. That's because consciousness is caused by the brain. So you're on the hook for providing empirical evidence for your views.

And you have to explain to me this. If I give a dog two bowls, one black and one white, and the dog chooses the white bowl, are you saying that the dog made the decision due to rational conscious decision making? If not, why not?

Then again in your view conscious deliberation plays no real role. Which would counter what men like Dennett are saying.

That doesn't mean much to me. Especially since that quote from Dennett is from 1978, which was even before the Libet experiment in 1983, and we've learn a lot more about the brain and physics since then. Quantum indeterminacy in no way makes libertarian free will, or even compatibilistic free will any more plausible. An agent would not have any control what thoughts randomly pop into their mind. Also, since many people, theists and atheist alike, think that quantum indeterminacy allows for libertarian free will to take place, this is a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics and the way probability works in it. On his blog, Carroll explains:

[I]

[seer]

That doesn't mean much to me. Especially since that quote from Dennett is from 1978, which was even before the Libet experiment in 1983, and we've learn a lot more about the brain and physics since then. Quantum indeterminacy in no way makes libertarian free will, or even compatibilistic free will any more plausible. An agent would not have any control what thoughts randomly pop into their mind. Also, since many people, theists and atheist alike, think that quantum indeterminacy allows for libertarian free will to take place, this is a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics and the way probability works in it.

Does Chalmers mean much to you? He does not reject type-D dualism (interactionism)

As I see things, the best options for a nonreductionist are type-D dualism, type-E dualism,
or type-F monism: that is, interactionism, epiphenomenalism, or panprotopsychism. If we acknowledge
the epistemic gap between the physical and the phenomenal, and we rule out primitive
identities and strong necessities, then we are led to a disjunction of these three views. Each of
the views has at least some promise, and none have clear fatal flaws. For my part, I give some
credence to each of them. I think that in some ways the type-F view is the most appealing, but this
sense is largely grounded in aesthetic considerations whose force is unclear.

Type-D dualism holds that microphysics is not causally closed, and that phenomenal properties
play a causal role in affecting the physical world.24 On this view, usually known as interactionism,
physical states will cause phenomenal states, and phenomenal states cause physical states. The
corresponding psychophysical laws will run in both directions

http://consc.net/papers/nature.pdf

[The Thinker]

Excuse me, then why did he write a chapter saying giving "Giving libertarians what they say they want?" And I even quoted from that chapter and gave you a link.

Are you unable to read? He's makinga case for compatibilistic free will (CFW) and trying to argue that libertarians should accept it as being sufficient enough to accept because traditionally, libertarians do not accept CFW. He says nothing about making a case for actual libertarian free will.

That was not Harris' point. He of course would agree that consciousness is related to the brain. But the why and how is in question:

So what? I gave you tons of evidence it comes from the physical brain. The how question is what scientists are working on, and their are Nobel prizes waiting for those who figure it out. A religious view would make us close all the research facilities since according to them it's a miracle. God did it! That hinders our intellectual progress, which is why theism has the tendency to retard knowledge.

And David Chalmers states:

Well, 61.3% of philosophers of mind choose physicalism over non-physicalism. So I think they're onto something:

Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism?

Accept or lean toward: physicalism 117 / 191 (61.3%)
Accept or lean toward: non-physicalism 42 / 191 (22.0%)
Other 32 / 191 (16.8%)

[seer]

Are you unable to read? He's makinga case for compatibilistic free will (CFW) and trying to argue that libertarians should accept it as being sufficient enough to accept because traditionally, libertarians do not accept CFW. He says nothing about making a case for actual libertarian free will.

Yes, but if he is giving us what we want then he has made the case.

So what? I gave you tons of evidence it comes from the physical brain. The how question is what scientists are working on, and their are Nobel prizes waiting for those who figure it out. A religious view would make us close all the research facilities since according to them it's a miracle. God did it! That hinders our intellectual progress, which is why theism has the tendency to retard knowledge.

Yes, I'm sure that they have faith that they can solve it.

Well, 61.3% of philosophers of mind choose physicalism over non-physicalism. So I think they're onto something:

Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism?

Accept or lean toward: physicalism 117 / 191 (61.3%)
Accept or lean toward: non-physicalism 42 / 191 (22.0%)
Other 32 / 191 (16.8%)

Of course I would expect atheists to generally follow the party line, which makes Chalmers so much more refreshing - and thinking outside of the box.

[The Thinker]

Does Chalmers mean much to you? He does not reject type-D dualism (interactionism)

Not when it comes to claims of physics. When it comes to physics I take the arguments of physicists better. Dulaistic interactionism has tons of problems and has pretty much been refuted by modern physics and neuroscience. First, any possible indeterminacy in QM does zilch for making the case for any kind of free will more plausible or coherent. Second, dualistic interactionism not only violates the conservation of energy, there is a huge problem of the actual interaction, which no one can explain, and any explanation violates the laws of physics.

Read here for a summary of the problems with this view: Objections to Dualism Motivated by Scientific Considerations

This one is nice:

To suppose that non-physical minds can move bodies is like supposing that imaginary locomotives can pull real boxcars.

Consciousness does not collapse the wave function. Here's a quote from an actual physicist David Simmons-Duffin on what really collapses the wave function:

Decoherence occurs whenever a quantum mechanical system interacts with another system with a large number of degrees of freedom (like a human, or a house cat, or a chair). It has absolutely nothing to do with consciousness, and can be described rigorously from the Schrodinger equation without any extra axioms.

[seer]

Not when it comes to claims of physics. When it comes to physics I take the arguments of physicists better. Dulaistic interactionism has tons of problems and has pretty much been refuted by modern physics and neuroscience. First, any possible indeterminacy in QM does zilch for making the case for any kind of free will more plausible or coherent. Second, dualistic interactionism not only violates the conservation of energy, there is a huge problem of the actual interaction, which no one can explain, and any explanation violates the laws of physics.

Read here for a summary of the problems with this view: Objections to Dualism Motivated by Scientific Considerations

This one is nice:

Consciousness does not collapse the wave function. Here's a quote from an actual physicist David Simmons-Duffin on what really collapses the wave function:

Humm, I guess Chalmers must have never heard of these things! In any case I'm in good company. Don't you think? BTW Thinker, you never gave me a rational reason why brain chemicals chose a red shirt over the other options.

[Tassman]

That is false Tass, yes I have my own take away on it, but why should I not have my own opinion. I never claimed that Harris did - I HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT HE WOULD NOT AGREE WITH ME.

If you know that Harris would not agree with your conclusions, why use him at all? That's an unethical misuse of his work. After all, heknow he doesn't share?

But the fact remains that there is no natural explanation for how/why consciousness rose from non-consciousness - and Harris himself says that the idea that it emerged was akin to a miracle - his words not mine.

notno natural explanation for it and that there never will be? Seriously!!!

[Tassman]

Then I have to ask, is this the free will that Jichard is speaking of? Then how is it free?

Just answer the question. Is the reasoning of a chimpanzee that results in it choosing one particular banana off a tree in preference to another the result of the same sort of conscious deliberation that resulted in you choosing to wear a red shirt rather than a green one when you got dressed this morning?

...Is there a difference in principle between the two acts of choice? What, if any, is the difference?

[seer]

If you know that Harris would not agree with your conclusions, why use him at all? That's an unethical misuse of his work. After all, heknow he doesn't share?

Tass, there is no reason why I shouldn't offer an opinion. And I never dishonestly misappropriated him, in the very quotes I used he made it clear that he believed there probably was a natural explanation. That of course doesn't mean there is, or that there ever will be. It may be something beyond the reach of science.

notno natural explanation for it and that there never will be? Seriously!!!

Nope, not what I said at all. But he did say what he said. Consciousness is a mystery with no good scientific explanation - of course atheists like you and Harris do have faith that it will someday be resolved.

[seer]

Just answer the question. Is the reasoning of a chimpanzee that results in it choosing one particular banana off a tree in preference to another the result of the same sort of conscious deliberation that resulted in you choosing to wear a red shirt rather than a green one when you got dressed this morning?

...Is there a difference in principle between the two acts of choice? What, if any, is the difference?

Tass I have no idea how a monkey thinks, what actually goes through his mind, if his thought patterns offer him various choices. Or if his conscious deliberations are anything like mine - mine include complex language, the use of logical rules, the ability to factor in possible consequences, does his?

[The Thinker]

Yes, but if he is giving us what we want then he has made the case.

He's not giving you what you want even if his claims were true because it is not a person's consciousness operating independently of their physical body that makes the choice. Secondly, randomness doesn't make libertarian free will anymore plausible. If we're indetermined that means our thoughts are just random according to a probabilistic mathematical calculation. There is no room for free will, as Sean Carroll says.

Yes, I'm sure that they have faith that they can solve it.

Faith? No. Just several thousand years of evidence showing that all explanations of the world turn out to be natural and not a single supernatural explanation ever. It's like if there were two horses and one wins every single race it's been in, and the other loses every single race it's been in, it takes no faith betting on the horse that always won.

Of course I would expect atheists to generally follow the party line, which makes Chalmers so much more refreshing - and thinking outside of the box.

He's an atheist. What matters is what evidence people have. And Chalmers does not have evidence that there is anything physical being controlled by the mental.