Where Do Moral Questions Stop?

[The Thinker]

Really Thinker, I wasn't speaking of that at all but your claim about objective values - which you failed to show, you did not make a logical case, you only offered a personal opinion. No Thinker you never did logically answer my question. It was not if you could be determined to believe a truism, but going from being determined to believe that A is true, to A being actually true. You never logically closed that circle.

I did not offer my opinion. I offered an argument on my blog that logically leads to a conclusion. Morality is dependent on sentience and life. No sentience or life, no morality. The more sentience, the more the moral concerns are. You claim this is not true or not proved. Let me ask you this. If pain is bad, wouldn't more pain be more bad? Every rational person knows the answer is yes. If something is bad, the more you have of it, the more bad it is. Likewise, if morality depends on sentience, the more you have of it, the more morality matters.

As far as determinism vs LFW, your position is logically incoherent, so there is no way you can be right. Since there is only two positions here LFW or non-LFW, I win by default.* And I did logically close that circle. You just keep claiming I didn't and keep moving the goal posts around because you aren't a serious debater.

That is completely irrational. What do chemicals know of the laws of logic?

Chemicals don't. But lots of chemicals interacting in certain ways that we call "human beings" can obey the laws of logic through emergent properties. This is nothing more than the fallacy of division for the 30th time. Sadly you never learn.

Furthermore, your position that the soul knows logic and guides the body like a ghost in the machine is flat out refuted by physics, chemistry, and biology. You also have a problem in answering how animals like chimps and dogs can behave logically without souls. How can chimps remember numbers or solve puzzles if they are just atoms with no soul? How can dogs remember objects by name if they are just atoms with no soul? How do people do things when they are not consciously aware like when they sleepwalk? There mere existence of this refutes your whole view.


*Non-LFW could include compatibilism and hard determinism by the way, but neither is an LFW position.

[The Thinker]

But that is the point, there are no "different" places, there is only one clump of matter and energy, when the universe was at low entropy that was the totality of matter and energy, when the universe is in full entropy that is the totality of matter and energy. And there are not different times since time is static and tenseless. So if B-Theory is correct and the past exists with the future, both states exist at once - the totality of matter and energy is in low entropy, the totality of matter and energy is in full entropy.

Yes there are different places and therefore different times! If you think there isn't you prove once again that you don't know squat about this basic science. The "lump" extends infinitely, it isn't a single point. So long as they are in low entropy and high entropy in different parts of spacetime, there is no contradiction or incoherency that you claim there is.

And aside from all this, to bring in even more science that you probably aren't even aware of, in quantum mechanics sub-atomic particles are in a superposition before they're measured, meaning, they are in every place at the same time. That itself violates your claim that one thing can't be different at the same time. Your logic is based on classical notions of possibility, not modern scientific notions.

[seer]

I did not offer my opinion. I offered an argument on my blog that logically leads to a conclusion. Morality is dependent on sentience and life. No sentience or life, no morality. The more sentience, the more the moral concerns are. You claim this is not true or not proved. Let me ask you this. If pain is bad, wouldn't more pain be more bad? Every rational person knows the answer is yes. If something is bad, the more you have of it, the more bad it is. Likewise, if morality depends on sentience, the more you have of it, the more morality matters.

No Thinker, this is your logical leap: The more sentience, the more the moral concerns are or If pain is bad, wouldn't more pain be more bad? Yes, that would be your opinion, but it does not necessarily follow, nor have you demonstrated how it naturally follows. A lion kills and eats a gazelle, a Nazi gasses a Jewish child, Wolves take down a deer, we slaughter unborn human beings in the womb. And the only difference is the subjective value we put on these events. I mean, in your world, there is no objective reason why we as a species should even survive.

Chemicals don't. But lots of chemicals interacting in certain ways that we call "human beings" can obey the laws of logic through emergent properties. This is nothing more than the fallacy of division for the 30th time. Sadly you never learn.

So when you get a lot of chemicals together then they know the laws of logic? That is like saying that I can string a thousand nuts and bolts together and expect them to fly. As an example, look at your moral argument above. How do you know that your brain determined you to believe a truism here? Well you would say because in your conscious mind it makes sense, but it only makes sense because your brain determined that it would make sense - whether it actually did or not. Your conclusions are NOT the result of conscious deliberation, or by consciously applying the laws of logic and reason to the problem. You believe what the chemicals dictate that you believe. Now you may believe that you win by default, but what have you won? And how do you know that you won?

[seer]

Yes there are different places and therefore different times! If you think there isn't you prove once again that you don't know squat about this basic science. The "lump" extends infinitely, it isn't a single point. So long as they are in low entropy and high entropy in different parts of spacetime, there is no contradiction or incoherency that you claim there is.

Again Thinker, how can there be different times if time is static and tense-less? Please explain. And again, there are not different "parts" since what is in low entropy is the totality of energy/matter and what is in high entropy is also the totality of energy/matter. So the totality of energy/matter is both in low entropy and in high entropy.

And aside from all this, to bring in even more science that you probably aren't even aware of, in quantum mechanics sub-atomic particles are in a superposition before they're measured, meaning, they are in every place at the same time. That itself violates your claim that one thing can't be different at the same time. Your logic is based on classical notions of possibility, not modern scientific notions.

Isn't superposition primarily based on the Copenhagen interpretation which you reject?

[The Thinker]

No Thinker, this is your logical leap: The more sentience, the more the moral concerns are or If pain is bad, wouldn't more pain be more bad? Yes, that would be your opinion, but it does not necessarily follow, nor have you demonstrated how it naturally follows. A lion kills and eats a gazelle, a Nazi gasses a Jewish child, Wolves take down a deer, we slaughter unborn human beings in the womb. And the only difference is the subjective value we put on these events.

Where is the logical leap? If X is bad, more X is more bad. That is logically true.

I mean, in your world, there is no objective reason why we as a species should even survive.

Neither is yours. God's opinion is just as subjective as anyone else's.

So when you get a lot of chemicals together then they know the laws of logic? That is like saying that I can string a thousand nuts and bolts together and expect them to fly.

No it's not, because what matters is the kinds of chemical reactions and their pattern. Our brains evolved over 3.5 billion years in a process that allows it to rationally respond to our environment. That is what all the facts show, and your view is pure fantasy - its contradictory to science, and it is internally incoherent. It cannot possibly be wrong.

As an example, look at your moral argument above. How do you know that your brain determined you to believe a truism here? Well you would say because in your conscious mind it makes sense, but it only makes sense because your brain determined that it would make sense - whether it actually did or not.

Because I can logically show its truth with argument, evidence, and reason and I can refute counter-arguments to it like yours.

Your conclusions are NOT the result of conscious deliberation, or by consciously applying the laws of logic and reason to the problem. You believe what the chemicals dictate that you believe. Now you may believe that you win by default, but what have you won? And how do you know that you won?

My brain is doing all that and what I'm dictated to believe is the result of data given to my brain by my senses which my brain can rationally interpret, given that I have a working brain. Rational interpretation is part of the whole determined process due to the structure of the brain. On your view conscious deliberation cannot have a cause, because if it did it would be determined. But if it has no cause, then it's just random and it would be a mere coincidence that it ever got anything right. Don't you see how your view is actually incoherent? You've simply not owned up to this fact.

[The Thinker]

Again Thinker, how can there be different times if time is static and tense-less?

Because time is the equivalent of space for the 50th time, and as long as you have different spaces, you have different times, and therefore there is no inchoherency whatsoever. Low entropy and high entropy exist in different places just as New York and Los Angeles exist in different places. You're just so ignorant here it's embarrassing.

Please explain. And again, there are not different "parts" since what is in low entropy is the totality of energy/matter and what is in high entropy is also the totality of energy/matter. So the totality of energy/matter is both in low entropy and in high entropy.

That is completely false and something that reveals how ignorant you are. Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Prove to me that what is in low entropy is the totality of energy/matter and what is in high entropy is also the totality of energy/matter. That is not claimed under the B-theory. So you're making stuff up or you're extremely ignorant.

Isn't superposition primarily based on the Copenhagen interpretation which you reject?

No, it exists in most interpretations except the Bohmian interpretation, and the Bohmian interpretation is completely deterministic, so if you seek refuge in it, you must accept determinism like me. The mere existence of the superposition shows your flaw in logic by not considering that science forces us to change our notions of what is logically possible or not. You can't use classical logic, you have to use quantum logic.

[seer]

Because time is the equivalent of space for the 50th time, and as long as you have different spaces, you have different times, and therefore there is no inchoherency whatsoever. Low entropy and high entropy exist in different places just as New York and Los Angeles exist in different places. You're just so ignorant here it's embarrassing.

But that is false, the universe in low entropy contains all matter/energy , the universe in high entropy also contains all matter and energy. There are not "different" places, it is like saying New York exists here and not here. And again, if time is static and tense-less, then it is a meaningless consideration since the past present and future exist together. So as we sit and discuss this all matter and energy (the whole universe) is both in low entropy and in high entropy.

That is completely false and something that reveals how ignorant you are. Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Prove to me that what is in low entropy is the totality of energy/matter and what is in high entropy is also the totality of energy/matter. That is not claimed under the B-theory. So you're making stuff up or you're extremely ignorant.

OK, so there is more than this universe? Remember it was Carroll who said that the universe was in originally low entropy and was moving to high entropy. Is there more matter and energy that we don't know about?

You can't use classical logic, you have to use quantum logic.

Yet how much time did you spend trying to make arguments using classic logic in our discussions. Well I guess we can discount all those - correct? Sad Thinker...

[seer]

Where is the logical leap? If X is bad, more X is more bad. That is logically true.

No the logical leap is first thinking that pain is bad. Like any animal I would not like my pain, but I may like your pain, especially if it helps to feed me. All quite subjective. And second, that more sentience necessarily leads, or should lead, to more moral concern. That is pure opinion Thinker, and again, I'm not saying it is a bad opinion, I may even share it, but it is opinion nonetheless.

Neither is yours. God's opinion is just as subjective as anyone else's.

So you agree that there is no objective moral reason why we should survive as a species. If that is the case, why would there be objective moral ways to act?

Because I can logically show its truth with argument, evidence, and reason and I can refute counter-arguments to it like yours.

This is just silly Thinker. You have no idea if this is the case - argument, reason, applied logic are all the function of the conscious mind but the conscious mind in your world plays no causal part in the process. You can not logically show anything, you only spit out what the chemicals dictate that you spit out, logical or not. Our conscious understanding of these things (which you are appealing to now) is meaningless - no more consequential than the steam off a steam engine (that was your example right?). You can't have it both ways, you are using the very thing, conscious reasoning, that according to you plays no part in the process.

[The Thinker]

But that is false, the universe in low entropy contains all matter/energy , the universe in high entropy also contains all matter and energy. There are not "different" places, it is like saying New York exists here and not here.

Are you kidding me? You obviously don't know what you're talking about and you're wrong. So if you think this is true, back it up with evidence. And don't reply saying, "well isn't it the case that...." That's a non-starter. Show me scientific evidence that:

(1) the universe in low entropy contains all matter/energy
(2) the universe in high entropy also contains all matter and energy
(3) There are not "different" places, it is like saying New York exists here and not here

Show me this is true.

And again, if time is static and tense-less, then it is a meaningless consideration since the past present and future exist together. So as we sit and discuss this all matter and energy (the whole universe) is both in low entropy and in high entropy.

If we were characters in a movie pressed onto a DVD and you said "as we sit and discuss this the beginning and end of the movie exist. Wahhh!" Saying the past present and future exist together implies they exist in the same place, which as I've told you 30 times, is not the case. The beginning of the movie exists in one part of the DVD, and the end of the movie exists in another part of the DVD. There is no incoherency. You're just retarded.

OK, so there is more than this universe? Remember it was Carroll who said that the universe was in originally low entropy and was moving to high entropy. Is there more matter and energy that we don't know about?

Whether there is more than one universe or not is irrelevant.

Yet how much time did you spend trying to make arguments using classic logic in our discussions. Well I guess we can discount all those - correct? Sad Thinker...

No. Classic logic works when discussing classical things. When discussing fundamental science, which you obviously know little to nothing about, you cannot use classical logic to claim certain things are incoherent. That's why your religious views are baseless.

[The Thinker]

No the logical leap is first thinking that pain is bad. Like any animal I would not like my pain, but I may like your pain, especially if it helps to feed me. All quite subjective. And second, that more sentience necessarily leads, or should lead, to more moral concern. That is pure opinion Thinker, and again, I'm not saying it is a bad opinion, I may even share it, but it is opinion nonetheless.

Now you're moving the goal posts yet again. So are you saying that god saying causing pain is bad is also just an opinion?

So you agree that there is no objective moral reason why we should survive as a species. If that is the case, why would there be objective moral ways to act?

The two do not depend on one another. People naturally want to live, as does all life, and we're sentient and have the ability to suffer. Those are the intelligible reasons why killing and causing unnecessary suffering are wrong. God has nothing to do with it. And even if god existed, it saying "Humans should live" would be its subjective opinion. If you disagree, make an argument why.

This is just silly Thinker. You have no idea if this is the case - argument, reason, applied logic are all the function of the conscious mind but the conscious mind in your world plays no causal part in the process.

This is just silly seer. Your LFW+dualism view is totally logically incoherent and self-refuting. It can't even get off the ground. This is like someone arguing for a square-circle.

You can not logically show anything, you only spit out what the chemicals dictate that you spit out, logical or not. Our conscious understanding of these things (which you are appealing to now) is meaningless - no more consequential than the steam off a steam engine (that was your example right?). You can't have it both ways, you are using the very thing, conscious reasoning, that according to you plays no part in the process.

Incorrect, because all thoughts have to have a cause. If they have no cause they are just random spontaneous fluctuations, and it would only be a coincidence that they were ever correct or coherent. So trying to make this claim from your LFW point of view is extremely ironic because it's self-refuting and incoherent. You still have yet to even try and make an argument that shows its coherency.

[Jichard]

No the logical leap is first thinking that pain is bad. Like any animal I would not like my pain, but I may like your pain, especially if it helps to feed me. All quite subjective.

Stop being disingenuous.

Surely, the NT does not contain specifics regarding every possible moral question that may arise. In the case of a moral question that is not dealt with in the NT, how do you determine right and wrong?

Right, in that case I would look at immediate harm, actually physical harm. The problem is we we can not know the long term consequences of our acts - even our good acts.

[Jichard]

Surely, the NT does not contain specifics regarding every possible moral question that may arise. In the case of a moral question that is not dealt with in the NT, how do you determine right and wrong?

Right, in that case I would look at immediate harm, actually physical harm. The problem is we we can not know the long term consequences of our acts - even our good acts.

And look who's being disingenuous...

No the logical leap is first thinking that pain is bad. Like any animal I would not like my pain, but I may like your pain, especially if it helps to feed me. All quite subjective.