Where Do Moral Questions Stop?

[seer]

Who is the “you” that you claim is being influenced by “brain-chemicals?

I will ask again Tass, do you have a choice in what your brain chemicals cause you to do or believe - true or not? And stop playing word games.

...therefore God! Is this what you're saying? Ever hear of 'god-of-the-gaps' seer?

Yes, kind of like the "nature of the gaps" argument. That just because you can answer some questions naturally, that therefore all questions can be answered naturally.

[The Thinker]

Yes we had primitive forms of these things, but in evolutionary time they developed rather quickly and became more complicated and sophisticated from the time period I mentioned on. That is why I said explode.

It wasn't really an explosion. We don't know when language developed but it may go back 300,000 years+ and that was before we were even modern anotomical humans. Art and architecture developed different in different cultures and our oldest records go back about ~40,000 years. And no one thinks it was an overnight sensation. Writing developed ~5000 years ago and developed at least 3 times independently. These were not all at the same time, not even close.

That is correct, and science can not tell you otherwise. Now why is that? If everything is open to scientific investigation?

No one said everything is open to scientific investigation. At least try to not make strawman arguments. I've been saying over and over again that claims about the physical world are in the domain of science. So claiming souls exist and have a causal impact on the physical world is within the domain of science. And for that you need scientific evidence. Are you able to understand this simple concept?

Then tell me Thinker what would we do differently if we had no thoughts? Exactly what causal role do thoughts play - be specific please.

I have no idea. I don't think philosophical zombies are metaphysically possible. But you tell me, what would we do differently if we had no soul?

First, it isn't pseudo-science, and second, I only linked it because you were demanding "evidence." I certainly don't hang my worldview on what science can prove or not.

As I said before, claims about the physical world are in the domain of science. Every worldview makes claims about the physical world. So you're on the hook. But of course you want to avoid having to provide evidence as much as possible so that you can rely on faith, because you don't have good evidence.

And it is the opinion of a great many physicists that the Copenhagen interpretation is correct and remains one of the most commonly taught interpretations. The point is, there are things in this universe that may seen incoherent only because of our severely limited understanding.

The copenhagen interpretation is as far as I can tell unfalsifiable, and that means it may not reach the level of science. We already know consciousness doesn't collapse the wave function, so if you're using that to make a case for the soul, you're evidence is flat out false. The CI interpretation still is the most widely taught so you are right on that, but it is losing popularity with every passing year because it just doesn't make sense according to many prominent scientists.

[Adam]

Looks like an interesting discussion going on here. Guess I'm too late to read through all this thread and get involved.
Even Thinker thinks, Who knew?

[Tassman]

I will ask again Tass, do you have a choice in what your brain chemicals cause you to do or believe - true or not? And stop playing word games.

For the umpteenth time your question assumes, without a shred of credible evidence, that “YOU” are a separate entity from the totality of your brain activity and that “YOU” are capable of exercising libertarian free will.

But, as has been pointed out many times, the reality is that by the time you make your conscious decision the important action has already transpired within your subconscious. This is not separate from “YOU”; it’s a part of you.

Thus, whilst you have the illusion of acting freely, you have very little access to what the actual process is. This is what causal determinism is all about. The same applies to all conscious animals; they’re no different from us in this regard.

Yes, kind of like the "nature of the gaps" argument. That just because you can answer some questions naturally, that therefore all questions can be answered naturally.

Oh touché.

This is nothing like the "nature of the gaps" argument! The difference is that the natural world demonstrably exists, as opposed to the alleged supernatural world, and “gaps” in knowledge of the natural world can be filled by verifiable scientific facts.

[seer]

It wasn't really an explosion. We don't know when language developed but it may go back 300,000 years+ and that was before we were even modern anotomical humans. Art and architecture developed different in different cultures and our oldest records go back about ~40,000 years. And no one thinks it was an overnight sensation. Writing developed ~5000 years ago and developed at least 3 times independently. These were not all at the same time, not even close.

I know primitive cave art and primitive dwelling go back a while. But that is not what I am taking about. And how do you know language goes back that far? The earliest proto-writing fits into my time frame. In any case this was just my opinion, not written in stone.

No one said everything is open to scientific investigation. At least try to not make strawman arguments. I've been saying over and over again that claims about the physical world are in the domain of science. So claiming souls exist and have a causal impact on the physical world is within the domain of science. And for that you need scientific evidence. Are you able to understand this simple concept?

Again, this does not follow. Why would you think that the immaterial would necessarily leave evidence on how it effected the physical? I certainly believe that my will and thoughts influence my behavior.

I have no idea. I don't think philosophical zombies are metaphysically possible. But you tell me, what would we do differently if we had no soul?

But, if like you claim, that thoughts have no causal role in the process then we would be no different without thoughts. Thoughts make no difference in your world, they do in mine.

As I said before, claims about the physical world are in the domain of science. Every worldview makes claims about the physical world. So you're on the hook. But of course you want to avoid having to provide evidence as much as possible so that you can rely on faith, because you don't have good evidence

.

OK, so now it is "good" evidence. The fact is there is research in this area.

The copenhagen interpretation is as far as I can tell unfalsifiable, and that means it may not reach the level of science. We already know consciousness doesn't collapse the wave function, so if you're using that to make a case for the soul, you're evidence is flat out false. The CI interpretation still is the most widely taught so you are right on that, but it is losing popularity with every passing year because it just doesn't make sense according to many prominent scientists.

No Thinker, it is not losing popularity, just about every experiment, like the one I recently posted, is confirming it. And my point is that there are things in the universe that seem incoherent yet are still facts. Not that this proves the possibility of the soul only that we don't know enough to rule it out.

[seer]

Thus, whilst you have the illusion of acting freely, you have very little access to what the actual process is. This is what causal determinism is all about. The same applies to all conscious animals; they’re no different from us in this regard.

Good then you agree that you have no choice in what you believe, or think - true or not.

This is nothing like the "nature of the gaps" argument! The difference is that the natural world demonstrably exists, as opposed to the alleged supernatural world, and “gaps” in knowledge of the natural world can be filled by verifiable scientific facts.

Yes, I agree that you were determined to believe the above - whether it is true or not.

[The Thinker]

I know primitive cave art and primitive dwelling go back a while. But that is not what I am taking about. And how do you know language goes back that far? The earliest proto-writing fits into my time frame. In any case this was just my opinion, not written in stone.

Because of fossil anatomy and genetic sequencing. Neanderthals had the physiological ability to speak, and they had the FoxP2 gene which is critical for speech. That means the gene existed before our split with them about ~340,000 years ago. So it is certainly possible that proto-humans and neanderthals had language. Nothing about your "time frame" amounts to an actual argument.

Again, this does not follow. Why would you think that the immaterial would necessarily leave evidence on how it effected the physical? I certainly believe that my will and thoughts influence my behavior.

You can believe whatever you want, but your belief here is not supported by any good evidence. My view does follow. Anything that affects physical matter would leave physical traces in the physical things it affects, and that would be scientifically testable or observable. For example, if I can move objects with my mind, that can be tested empirically, and scientists would be able to examine the atoms and forces in the object I can move with my mind to see how they are effected. Physics rules this out. More on that later.

But, if like you claim, that thoughts have no causal role in the process then we would be no different without thoughts. Thoughts make no difference in your world, they do in mine.

On your view, we wouldn't even need a brain and we'd still be able to act rationally. Why must the soul require a brain? Makes no sense. It should be able to directly influence your mouth, arms, and legs to do what it wants.

OK, so now it is "good" evidence. The fact is there is research in this area.

Yes, I presume you care about the quality of evidence right? And all the research is showing brain causes mind. Here's some of that evidence:

Tracking the Unconscious Generation of Free Decisions Using UItra-High Field fMRI

Predicting free choices for abstract intentions

Internally generated preactivation of single neurons in human medial frontal cortex predicts volition.

There Is No Free Won’t: Antecedent Brain Activity Predicts Decisions to Inhibit

No Thinker, it is not losing popularity, just about every experiment, like the one I recently posted, is confirming it. And my point is that there are things in the universe that seem incoherent yet are still facts. Not that this proves the possibility of the soul only that we don't know enough to rule it out.

It is losing popularity. The many-worlds interpretation is growing probably the fastest:

Elvridge., Jim (2008-01-02). The Universe – Solved!. pp. 35–36. ISBN 978-1-4243-3626-5.OCLC 247614399. "58% believed that the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) was true, including Stephen Hawking and Nobel Laureates Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Feynman"

The copenhagen interpretation is unfalsifiable, and that's why it seems every experiment "confirms" it. As reported by FQXi, a new experiment might be able to falsify certain QM interpretations that fall under what are known as the psi-epistemic models. Interpretations into quantum mechanics diverge into two camps: psi-ontic models, and psi-epistemic models. Psi-ontic models are realist in the sense that they say that the wave function is real and exists independently of our observation. Psi-epistemic models say that the wave function isn't real and represents our ignorance about our state of reality.

We already know consciousness doesn't collapse the wave function as per the evidence I showed you. So to use that as evidence for the soul is false.

When it comes to not being able to rule the soul out, we do know enough about science to do this. You know why? Because the laws of physics at our everyday experience are completely understood. And guess what? There's no room for a soul or your thoughts to have any causal effect on you that could influence the atoms in your body in a way powerful enough that it hasn't already been detected. That would violate the standard model of physics and quantum field theory, which is the best tested scientific theory ever. These laws can be summed up in one equation:

Everyday-Equation.jpg

So no seer, you just don't know enough about science to know what you're even talking about, and rely on pseudo-science and woo-woo to ground your faith.

[seer]

On your view, we wouldn't even need a brain and we'd still be able to act rationally. Why must the soul require a brain? Makes no sense. It should be able to directly influence your mouth, arms, and legs to do what it wants.

Well yes since I don't believe that the soul is physical. But again, thoughts make no difference in your world, they do in mine. And my thoughts do effect my physical decisions. Like the color of the shirt I picked this morning.

Yes, I presume you care about the quality of evidence right? And all the research is showing brain causes mind. Here's some of that evidence:

So let me get this right, the researchers were determined to come to these conclusions - and you know that they were determined to come to the correct conclusions - how? And let me ask Thinker. If my brain has already decided to move my finger (for instance) before I'm conscious of the choice, why doesn't my finger actually move until after I become conscious of the choice? Why doesn't my finger move before I become aware, at the point when the brain has made the decision.

It is losing popularity. The many-worlds interpretation is growing probably the fastest:

Really? So you believe there there are other worlds where you and I are having this same conversation? And you think that is coherent? Where is your physical evidence for these other worlds?

[Tassman]

Well yes since I don't believe that the soul is physical. But again, thoughts make no difference in your world, they do in mine.

There's no good reason to believe that the soul exists at all. And you have yet to explain how an immaterial entity like a soul can interact with the material brain. Where’s the nexus? Waiting!

And my thoughts do effect my physical decisions. Like the color of the shirt I picked this morning.

A chimpanzee's thoughts enable it to choose the best banana on the tree; does this mean it has a soul too?

[Tassman]

Good then you agree that you have no choice in what you believe, or think - true or not.

As has been explained many times, the reality is that by the time you make a conscious decision the important action has already transpired within your subconscious. This is not separate from “YOU”, as you keep implying; it’s a part of you.

Thus, whilst you have the illusion of acting freely, you have very little access to what the actual process is. This is what causal determinism is all about. The same applies to all conscious animals. Unless you can explain why this isn't the case then you’re blowing hot air. So far you haven’t even tried to explain it which surely indicates that you can’t.

Yes, I agree that you were determined to believe the above - whether it is true or not.

You’re flogging a dead horse with this mindless repetition, seer. You’ve made no attempt to explain how libertarian free-will can exist in an otherwise determined universe other than god-did-it by divine fiat, but why would anyone believe such nonsense? You can’t even establish that deities exist.

[JimL]

ok





ok

I don't think that Schwartz understands the true nature of quantum mechanics. It is true that it is probabilistic from the observers point of view according to the copenhagen interpretation, but it is not probabilistic in itself according to Schrodingers equation, it is determinism. A freely chosen act on your part is not what collapses the probability wave in reaction to that choice, the probability wave doesn't collapse at all. The probability wave is only probabilistic from your perspective because you don't know which part of the wave pertains to your own world and which parts do not. You, your choices, being free choices, could only attain if the wave actually did collapse with all other pobabilities vanishing as a result of your choice. Even then it wouldn't be a free choice because ,you, your brain, is part of the system and its unconscious decisions are determined by the same laws as the system as a whole is determined. Your conscious observation of an action on your part, is not the free cause of that action, the cause of an action on your part is dependent and unconsciously determined prior to awareness.

Btw, most physicists don't accept the copenhagen interpretation any longer any way. Its non-sensical really. It states that the entirety of existence is governed deterministically in accordance with Schrodingers equation, until it isn't. In other words it admits to the fact that the fundamental nature of existence is deterministic at the quantum level, but when things are big, the fundamental nature of existence is somehow no longer relevant.It gives no explanation for that assertion other than the fact that upon observation the probability wave seems to vanish, collapsing to a single point, but experiments have shown this not to be the case, that qauntum particles, be they singular or parts of larger things, in either case they are always governed by the same deterministic laws.

[seer]

I don't think that Schwartz understands the true nature of quantum mechanics. It is true that it is probabilistic from the observers point of view according to the copenhagen interpretation, but it is not probabilistic in itself according to Schrodingers equation, it is determinism. A freely chosen act on your part is not what collapses the probability wave in reaction to that choice, the probability wave doesn't collapse at all. The probability wave is only probabilistic from your perspective because you don't know which part of the wave pertains to your own world and which parts do not. You, your choices, being free choices, could only attain if the wave actually did collapse with all other pobabilities vanishing as a result of your choice. Even then it wouldn't be a free choice because ,you, your brain, is part of the system and its unconscious decisions are determined by the same laws as the system as a whole is determined. Your conscious observation of an action on your part, is not the free cause of that action, the cause of an action on your part is dependent and unconsciously determined prior to awareness.

I don't know about Schwartz, but his co author Henry Stapp is a mathematical physicist, with a PhD in particle physics.

Btw, most physicists don't accept the copenhagen interpretation any longer any way. Its non-sensical really. It states that the entirety of existence is governed deterministically in accordance with Schrodingers equation, until it isn't. In other words it admits to the fact that the fundamental nature of existence is deterministic at the quantum level, but when things are big, the fundamental nature of existence is somehow no longer relevant.It gives no explanation for that assertion other than the fact that upon observation the probability wave seems to vanish, collapsing to a single point, but experiments have shown this not to be the case, that qauntum particles, be they singular or parts of larger things, in either case they are always governed by the same deterministic laws.

Do you have numbers on that claim Jim? The real point is that no one really understands QM.

[seer]

As has been explained many times, the reality is that by the time you make a conscious decision the important action has already transpired within your subconscious. This is not separate from “YOU”, as you keep implying; it’s a part of you.

And "I" don't have a choice in what I'm determined to believe or think - right or wrong.

You’re flogging a dead horse with this mindless repetition, seer. You’ve made no attempt to explain how libertarian free-will can exist in an otherwise determined universe other than god-did-it by divine fiat, but why would anyone believe such nonsense? You can’t even establish that deities exist.

My argument Homer is the impossibility of the contrary. If you are correct, logic, reasoning and deliberation play no part in the forming of conclusions or beliefs. They are dictated to us by the non-rational brain processes. So you effectively have destroyed human reason. Yet you want us to assume that your conclusions are actually reasonable. So you behavior belies your theory.

[Tassman]

And "I" don't have a choice in what I'm determined to believe or think - right or wrong.

Wrong! You persist in erroneously equating causal determinism with fatalism. "Determinism does not mean or entail that all events are inevitable, in the sense that they will happen no matter what we decide or try to do. They point out that determinism does not render our beliefs, desires, deliberations, or decisions causally impotent. Quite the contrary! So long as our mental states are part of the deterministic sequence of events, they play a crucial role in determining what will happen." Neuroscientist David Eagleman: The Brain & Decision-Making.

Hence, 'choice' is an integral part of the causal stream that is ‘determinism’.

My argument Homer is the impossibility of the contrary. If you are correct, logic, reasoning and deliberation play no part in the forming of conclusions or beliefs. They are dictated to us by the non-rational brain processes. So you effectively have destroyed human reason. Yet you want us to assume that your conclusions are actually reasonable. So you behavior belies your theory.

See above.

Now please explain YOUR theory of libertarian Free will in a world where everything else is determined. Still waiting!

[seer]

Wrong! You persist in erroneously equating causal determinism with fatalism. "Determinism does not mean or entail that all events are inevitable, in the sense that they will happen no matter what we decide or try to do. They point out that determinism does not render our beliefs, desires, deliberations, or decisions causally impotent. Quite the contrary! So long as our mental states are part of the deterministic sequence of events, they play a crucial role in determining what will happen." Neuroscientist David Eagleman: The Brain & Decision-Making.

Hence, 'choice' is an integral part of the causal stream that is ‘determinism’.

Tass, what are you talking about? Do I have any control over what I think or believe? Or is it all predetermined by antecedent conditions?

Now please explain YOUR theory of libertarian Free will in a world where everything else is determined. Still waiting!

Good so you agree that your thoughts and beliefs are determined - whether true or not.