Where Do Moral Questions Stop?

[seer]

What's nonsense? That all the data shows consciousness is caused by and dependent on a physical brain? Is that nonsense? If it is, show me evidence that it is false. Conscious deliberation, using the laws of logic and reason certainly depend on having a functioning brain. It depends on physical matter causing it. So nothing is lost on my view. Your view is actually incoherent, and you still haven't refuted that.

Yes Thinker everything is lost. If our brain chemicals are not rational then what is? Conscious deliberation, using the laws of logic, reason etc... play no functional role in the process. They are just as non-rational as the chemicals that produce them - how could it be otherwise?

Our thoughts are meaningful to us. They are what allow us to know what we're thinking about, which in turn is what our brain is doing. But we have zero conscious control over them. That is actually logically impossible and you have not even attempted to show me how it is logically possible. IF thoughts control our brain, show me some goddamn evidence of it!

Goddamn Thinker? Really? And again, I'm not a materialist, so I do not have to conform to your limited criterion. But you can start with the work of Jeffrey M. Schwartz and Henry P. Stapp: http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/PTRS.pdf

So let me ask Thinker - if we did not have any thoughts would anything we do or say change? If not how are thoughts meaningful?

[The Thinker]

Yes Thinker everything is lost. If our brain chemicals are not rational then what is? Conscious deliberation, using the laws of logic, reason etc... play no functional role in the process. They are just as non-rational as the chemicals that produce them - how could it be otherwise?

Do animals have souls? Do animals have free will?

[seer]

Do animals have souls? Do animals have free will?

No and probably no. And I will ask again, if we did not have any thoughts would anything we do or say change? If not how are thoughts meaningful?

[The Thinker]

No and probably no. And I will ask again, if we did not have any thoughts would anything we do or say change? If not how are thoughts meaningful?

How then are animals like chimps able to perform rational tasks? And when did the soul appear in human evolution?

Your question is regarding philosophical zombies. I don't think they're metaphysically possible because once you have a functioning brain it gives rise to consciousness in the same way that boiling water gives rise to steam. As far as your earlier comments:

Yes Thinker everything is lost. If our brain chemicals are not rational then what is? Conscious deliberation, using the laws of logic, reason etc... play no functional role in the process. They are just as non-rational as the chemicals that produce them - how could it be otherwise?

That is another classic fallacy of division. You just can't help yourself.

And again, I'm not a materialist, so I do not have to conform to your limited criterion.

You don't have to be a materialist to acknowledge that making a claim about the physical world requires physical evidence.

But you can start with the work of Jeffrey M. Schwartz and Henry P. Stapp: http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/PTRS.pdf

They base everything on the copenhagen interpretation of QM, which many physicists reject as being incoherent. There are so many purveyors of woo-woo out there that it's enough to drive an atheist mad. One of the most common claims is that the famous double slit experiment shows that consciousness collapses the wave function because it seems that observing the quantum particles changes their behavior from waves to particles. This is often used by spiritualists and theists as evidence that there is a soul, because, it is argued, physical reality seems to exist only when we're looking at it, and so the soul must be fundamental.

But most working physicists will tell you that consciousness has nothing to do with wave function collapse, often described as decoherence. 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]

How then are animals like chimps able to? And when did the soul appear in human evolution?

Heck if I know exactly when God ensouled homo sapiens, I suspect around 12-14 thousand years ago when art, music, architecture, religion, language and writing began to explode on the scene in a way that they didn't previously. And Thinker, I made it clear that brain chemicals can cause us to act rationality - just that we can not know when they are causing us to know a truth or a falsehood perceived to be true.

Your question is regarding philosophical zombies. I don't think they're metaphysically possible because once you have a functioning brain it gives rise to consciousness in the same way that boiling water gives rise to steam.

They are called philosophical zombies Thinker because it is a philosophical exercise. I don't think that David Chalmers for instance believes that there are real zombies. But his point stands - you can't really know if my inner, mental life is like yours. A psychopath may speak and act like us in every way - but be completely devoid of moral conscience or feeling for others.

That is another classic fallacy of division. You just can't help yourself.

No it is not Thinker, I asked a very direct question: If our brain chemicals are not rational then what is? Conscious deliberation, using the laws of logic, reason etc... play no functional role in the process. They are just as non-rational as the chemicals that produce them - how could it be otherwise?

You don't have to be a materialist to acknowledge that making a claim about the physical world requires physical evidence.

But I don't believe we live in a physical universe. So why would physical evidence be required.

They base everything on the copenhagen interpretation of QM, which many physicists reject as being incoherent. There are so many purveyors of woo-woo out there that it's enough to drive an atheist mad. One of the most common claims is that the famous double slit experiment shows that consciousness collapses the wave function because it seems that observing the quantum particles changes their behavior from waves to particles. This is often used by spiritualists and theists as evidence that there is a soul, because, it is argued, physical reality seems to exist only when we're looking at it, and so the soul must be fundamental.

But most working physicists will tell you that consciousness has nothing to do with wave function collapse, often described as decoherence. 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.

Well that is your opinion, and that if fine. BTW the Copenhagen interpretation is pretty much the best explanation, I linked a recent study where, concerning entanglement, "spooky action at a distance" seems to be proven. And I'm not basing my argument on QM - you were asking for something physical - well there are scientists, only a few yes, working on it.

[Jichard]

They are called philosophical zombies Thinker because it is a philosophical exercise. I don't think that David Chalmers for instance believes that there are real zombies. But his point stands - you can't really know if my inner, mental life is like yours. A psychopath may speak and act like us in every way - but be completely devoid of moral conscience or feeling for others.

It looks like you've gone back to misrepresenting Chalmers. Again.

Chalmers is a naturalist who thinks that consciousness can be explained naturalistically. You've been told this before, yt you still deceptively try to misrepresent Chalmers' work as supporting your non-naturalist position. Amazing.

Well here is a quote and link from someone in the field, neuroscientist, philosopher, Dr. Sam Harris. So Jorge's question is not merely a gotcha question.



http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/t...-consciousness

I would also refer you to David J. Chalmers' Hard problem of consciousness - who is also a philosopher and cognitive scientist

http://consc.net/papers/facing.html

Here's the thing: I've already read both Harris and Chalmers. In fact, I've read both of Chalmers' books. So I won't fall for quote-mines of either of them.

Neither of them think consciousness needs to be accounted for at the level of chemical reactions. And both accept that multiple realizability of mental states. So, in fact, they would both agree that the OP's question is nonsense. Furthermore, Chalmers thinks that psychological states like awareness can be accounted for in functionalist terms, and similarly so for states like belief. So he would disagree with the OP, and point out that the OP is conflating awareness and consciousness.

And by the way: both of them are naturalists. So they don't think consciousness is a non-natural phenomena.

[JimL]

Well good, that is what I have been saying all along.

Well, I think you've been saying a little bit more than that you are not sure about the existence of free wil. To be fair though, I've been fairly adamant myself in my role as devils advocate, even though I'm not at all certain one way or the other.

Well first they have done work on the possible physical connection between the mind and the body http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/PTRS.pdf

Second, the important point that there is no rational reason to be wed to materialism.

Haven't had the patience to read the entire article as of yet, got as far as Quantum theory and am anxious to get back to it when not so tired and can focus better. Not yet convincing but a great article, nicely written and extremely insightful so far. I would like to finish reading and make sure I fully understand it before commenting further. Thanks for digging up that article.

Btw, whether materialism is right or wrong, it is not an irrational belief, belief in the immaterial is, even if in the end it turns out to be a reality. I not sure that that is where the linked article is going though. We'll see!

[Tassman]

I get it, so my brain chemicals cause me to believe in false things, what false things do your brain chemicals cause you to believe are true Tass? BTW - the "Jesus I Love You" - is for you atheists. When you open my posts you can't help but say that in your mind. Hopefully, we can rewire your brain. You will thank me later...

Your response, as always, assumes dualism where none exists and it assumes, without explanation, libertarian free-will. You refer to YOUR brain chemicals, as thought they were separate from the real YOU. And you refer to "ME" as if you were something apart from the rest of your brain activity, but this is not the case.

EVERYTHING, including your logic and reasoning and all the activity of your brain cells is done by the brain as a total, unified activity although, as I said, the conscious brain is just the tip of the iceberg in the decision-making process. But it’s not something apart from it.

As for “believing in false things” your decision you accept Jesus as your personal saviour will have been influenced by a number of conscious and subconscious factors including your social acculturation within a predominantly Christian society. If you had been born and raised in a Muslim society you would almost certainly have embraced Islam.

Dembski only wrote the article about Schwartz, Home boy. And Dr. Jeffrey M. Schwartz is no joke and is published, and has done groundbreaking work on OCD, and here is one of his published papers from The Royal Society dealing with the very subject we are speaking of: http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/PTRS.pdf

Seer, I’m not going to indulge your quote-mining. It’s a bad habit I’m trying to break you of. You will thank me later.

“Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize. It's a way of lying….”

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining

Heck if I know exactly when God ensouled homo sapiens, I suspect around 12-14 thousand years ago...<snip>

You're assuming without a shred of substantive evidence that souls exist in the first place. And on top of this speculative assumption you even guess that what you don't exists first came into being. Can you see the problem here?

<snipped>

But I don't believe we live in a physical universe. So why would physical evidence be required.

A physical, material universe is ALL that there's substantiated evidence of, to argue that we don't live in a physical universe is sheer denial. "Denial: It is a self defence mechanism employed by aspects of the subconscious mind in an attempt to protect emotional and psychological well-being."

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Denial

[seer]

well, i think you've been saying a little bit more than that you are not sure about the existence of free wil. To be fair though, i've been fairly adamant myself in my role as devils advocate, even though i'm not at all certain one way or the other.

ok

haven't had the patience to read the entire article as of yet, got as far as quantum theory and am anxious to get back to it when not so tired and can focus better. Not yet convincing but a great article, nicely written and extremely insightful so far. I would like to finish reading and make sure i fully understand it before commenting further. Thanks for digging up that article.

Btw, whether materialism is right or wrong, it is not an irrational belief, belief in the immaterial is, even if in the end it turns out to be a reality. I not sure that that is where the linked article is going though. We'll see!

ok

[seer]

Your response, as always, assumes dualism where none exists and it assumes, without explanation, libertarian free-will. You refer to YOUR brain chemicals, as thought they were separate from the real YOU. And you refer to "ME" as if you were something apart from the rest of your brain activity, but this is not the case.

EVERYTHING, including your logic and reasoning and all the activity of your brain cells is done by the brain as a total, unified activity although, as I said, the conscious brain is just the tip of the iceberg in the decision-making process. But it’s not something apart from it.

As for “believing in false things” your decision you accept Jesus as your personal saviour will have been influenced by a number of conscious and subconscious factors including your social acculturation within a predominantly Christian society. If you had been born and raised in a Muslim society you would almost certainly have embraced Islam.

But that is the point Tass, we have no choice in what we believe and in your model conscious thoughts play no causal role. Chemical brain processes dictate what you will believe and what you will do. Your "rational deliberations" play no effective role. I have no choice but to believe in Jesus, you have no choice but to believe what you wrote above - TRUE OR NOT.

Seer, I’m not going to indulge your quote-mining. It’s a bad habit I’m trying to break you of. You will thank me later.

Sheesh Tass, I didn't even quote the paper, I just offered it, it is in a peer reviewed journal. It really is interesting no matter what side of the debate you are on.

You're assuming without a shred of substantive evidence that souls exist in the first place. And on top of this speculative assumption you even guess that what you don't exists first came into being. Can you see the problem here?

So your brain chemicals dictated that you say this - true or not - correct... Just as my brain chemicals cause me to believe that the soul exists. Those mischief making brain cells, always pulling our leg!

[Tassman]

But that is the point Tass, we have no choice in what we believe and in your model conscious thoughts play no causal role. Chemical brain processes dictate what you will believe and what you will do. Your "rational deliberations" play no effective role. I have no choice but to believe in Jesus, you have no choice but to believe what you wrote above - TRUE OR NOT.

Yet again you’re talking in dualistic terms, can’t you see this? You say “we” as though “we” are separate from the totality of the processes that comprise our decision-making capacity. This isn't the case. Both our conscious and sub-conscious mental states play a crucial role in determining what will happen. They’re a part of the deterministic sequence of events.

Conversely, there’s no substantive evidence of any sort to support your model of libertarian free-will NOR is there substantive evidence for the existence of souls. None! Dualism is a failed hypothesis. End of story.

Sheesh Tass, I didn't even quote the paper, I just offered it, it is in a peer reviewed journal. It really is interesting no matter what side of the debate you are on.

Seer, you have a history of cherry-picking quotes from science that you think support your religious agenda and dismissing those that do not support your religious agenda. This is quote-mining and it’s dishonest. It’s a misuse of science. Science is not intended to reinforce existing presuppositions but to acquire new knowledge based upon physical evidence.

So your brain chemicals dictated that you say this - true or not - correct...

No, as always you're confusing 'fatalism' with 'determinism'. Determinism does not mean that all events will happen no matter what we decide or try to do. Our mental states are a part of the deterministic sequence of events, they play a role in determining what will happen.

Just as my brain chemicals cause me to believe that the soul exists. Those mischief making brain cells, always pulling our leg!

Yet again you’re talking in dualistic terms. Your “brain chemicals” (to use your childish terminology) are not separate from you; they’re a part of you. They cannot “dictate” what you believe. What your “brain chemicals” do is cause you to believe whatever is determined by the totality of the evidence which you have acquired via learning and personal experience over time.

The same applies in principle to chimpanzees and other animals. There’s no reason whatsoever, apart from unevidenced religious beliefs, to think humans are anything more than intelligent primates. To view the human animals as special, immortal entities, different in kind from his simian cousins, is escapist fantasy unsupported by any substantive evidence.

[seer]

Seer, you have a history of cherry-picking quotes from science that you think support your religious agenda and dismissing those that do not support your religious agenda. This is quote-mining and it’s dishonest. It’s a misuse of science. Science is not intended to reinforce existing presuppositions but to acquire new knowledge based upon physical evidence.

No you have a history of falsely accusing me. Just like you did here and in the thread about determinism.

No, as always you're confusing 'fatalism' with 'determinism'. Determinism does not mean that all events will happen no matter what we decide or try to do. Our mental states are a part of the deterministic sequence of events, they play a role in determining what will happen.

That is not what I asked Tass, do you have a choice in what your brain chemicals cause to do or believe - true or not?

[The Thinker]

Heck if I know exactly when God ensouled homo sapiens, I suspect around 12-14 thousand years ago when art, music, architecture, religion, language and writing began to explode on the scene in a way that they didn't previously. And Thinker, I made it clear that brain chemicals can cause us to act rationality - just that we can not know when they are causing us to know a truth or a falsehood perceived to be true.

Human language goes back way before 14 years ago. Even Neanderthals had the foxp2 gene that allows us to have language. And art, architecture and religion go back way before 14 thousand years ago. The aboriginals of Australia have cave art that dates to ~30k years ago. If you admit brain chemicals can cause us to act rationally, then your question, "If our brain chemicals are not rational then what is?" is already partly answered. We can never always know if we know the truth, so determinism makes no difference here.

They are called philosophical zombies Thinker because it is a philosophical exercise. I don't think that David Chalmers for instance believes that there are real zombies. But his point stands - you can't really know if my inner, mental life is like yours. A psychopath may speak and act like us in every way - but be completely devoid of moral conscience or feeling for others.

That's a problem plaguing all worldviews. We can never know with certainty if other beings are conscious. It's called the problem of other minds.

No it is not Thinker, I asked a very direct question: If our brain chemicals are not rational then what is? Conscious deliberation, using the laws of logic, reason etc... play no functional role in the process. They are just as non-rational as the chemicals that produce them - how could it be otherwise?

It is the fallacy of division. That's like asking, if the wires in an airplane can't fly, then what does? If the engines of an airplane can't fly, then what does? Flight only exists when the whole thing is together and working. The individual parts of a plane cannot fly by themselves. Just like with the brain, the individual parts are not rational. Rationality only exists when the whole thing is together and working.

But I don't believe we live in a physical universe. So why would physical evidence be required.

Then why even have physical evidence for anything? Why did you link me to studies? You're contradicting yourself here. On the one hand you try to make arguments using links to physical evidence in science [pseudo-science really] and on the other hand you now say you don't accept physical evidence because "I don't believe we live in a physical universe." So what is it? Be consistent.

Well that is your opinion, and that if fine. BTW the Copenhagen interpretation is pretty much the best explanation, I linked a recent study where, concerning entanglement, "spooky action at a distance" seems to be proven. And I'm not basing my argument on QM - you were asking for something physical - well there are scientists, only a few yes, working on it.

It's not my opinion, it is the opinion of a great many top physicists. The copenhagen interpretation is incoherent and we know nothing about wave-function collapse depends on consciousness. Quantum entanglement is a real thing, I don't deny that. But how in the world does it help your view that libertarian free will is true, or that souls exist? They are both falsified by logic and science.

[seer]

Human language goes back way before 14 years ago. Even Neanderthals had the foxp2 gene that allows us to have language. And art, architecture and religion go back way before 14 thousand years ago. The aboriginals of Australia have cave art that dates to ~30k years ago. If you admit brain chemicals can cause us to act rationally, then your question, "If our brain chemicals are not rational then what is?" is already partly answered. We can never always know if we know the truth, so determinism makes no difference here.

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.

That's a problem plaguing all worldviews. We can never know with certainty if other beings are conscious.

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

It is the fallacy of division. That's like asking, if the wires in an airplane can't fly, then what does? If the engines of an airplane can't fly, then what does? Flight only exists when the whole thing is together and working. The individual parts of a plane cannot fly by themselves. Just like with the brain, the individual parts are not rational. Rationality only exists when the whole thing is together and working.

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

Then why even have physical evidence for anything? Why did you link me to studies? You're contradicting yourself here. On the one hand you try to make arguments using links to physical evidence in science [pseudo-science really] and on the other hand you now say you don't accept physical evidence because "I don't believe we live in a physical universe." So what is it? Be consistent.

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.

It's not my opinion, it is the opinion of a great many top physicists. The copenhagen interpretation is incoherent and we know nothing about wave-function collapse depends on consciousness. Quantum entanglement is a real thing, I don't deny that. But how in the world does it help your view that libertarian free will is true, or that souls exist? They are both falsified by logic and science.

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.

[Tassman]

No you have a history of falsely accusing me. Just like you did here and in the thread about determinism.

Science exists to acquire new knowledge based upon physical evidence. It's NOT intended to reinforce existing religious presuppositions as you invariably try to use your cherry-picked quotes…e.g. in previous threads from the likes of neuroscientist Sam Harris, physicist Alexander Vilenkin and primatologist, Frans de Waal. You quote-mine these experts and yet you frequently say that you’re not bound by scientific knowledge because you don't believe we live in a physical universe. In short you adopt a cafeteria approach to science to further your own religious agenda and this is cynical and dishonest.

That is not what I asked Tass, do you have a choice in what your brain chemicals cause to do or believe - true or not?

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

And I’m STILL waiting for the evidence (apart from personal testimony) supporting your notion of libertarian free-will and credible evidence for the existence of souls. Waiting!!!

The point is, there are things in this universe that may seen incoherent only because of our severely limited understanding.

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