No, on the physicalist presumption those "new conceptualizations" are just further neural processes caused by prior neural processes. The brain is not a moral agent. If the brain is responsible for all thought, speech and action then there is no rationally supportable moral responsibility. — Janus
Sure, but it is compassion (in this case based on the realization of the determinist than on that view no one is morally culpable) that would lead to refraining from believing that punishment is deserved. — Janus
You said you wished there was a hell so that Hitler could get the eternal punishment he deserves. Do you think that sentiment is rationally justified? — Janus
There are many ways to talk about the world. There are many worlds in the universe. There is 'possibly' many universes in the vacuum. Even many vacua ... That is aspect-pluralism — 180 Proof
Among those data computing processes is executive functions, judgement, and value placement. — Garrett Travers
No, that's just my emotions talking. — Garrett Travers
All rigidly determined by nothing but the brain according to you. High-sounding talk about "executive functions" doesn't change the entailments of the deterministic physicalist view. — Janus
I'm not arguing about the soundness of the view itself, I am taking no stand on its truth or falsity; I'm just laying out what the view entails. On that view there is no "you" that could be responsible: it is an illusion. — Janus
Oh well, according to your own view, that cannot be helped. — Janus
Hmmm.... Tell that to the Uighurs in Xinjiang. Not being interested in reality doesn't mean it can't harm or kill you. — Tom Storm
This is because your neural processes are able to produce "high-level cognitive functions that foster goal-directed behavior and are a pre-requisite for sustained focusing, regulation of attention resources and automatic responses, and rapid and flexible adjustment to the changeable requests of the environment." However, that's not all. — Garrett Travers
There is no "you" over and above ""high-level cognitive functions that foster goal-directed behavior and are a pre-requisite for sustained focusing, regulation of attention resources and automatic responses, and rapid and flexible adjustment to the changeable requests of the environment." to be responsible for their well or ill-functioning, on you view, so I still see no rational sense in your position, I'm afraid. — Janus
The point is that if you are nothing but your brain then you are entirely limited by its capacities and proclivities — Janus
Your brain does what it does and what it causes your body to do may be, on a normative view, morally sound or unsound, but either way it cannot be helped because the brain is what it is with whatever capacities and proclivities it has to become what it becomes. — Janus
It is, on your view, however you want to spin it, merely a natural process — Janus
it makes as much sense to hold it morally responsible as it does to hold any other natural process morally responsible; i.e. none at all. — Janus
I'll put it another way; on this view of yours you have no control over whether your brain's "executive function" causes you to do good or evil, as they are normatively understood. — Janus
The brain you've got, is the brain you've got (or the brain you are is the brain you are). — Janus
But, not here where natural processes give rise to self-correcting behavior and perpetual data integration that generat concepts. No, that's not what you're being told. You just want to believe it no matter what you're shown. — Garrett Travers
This is a gross generalization. Some brains may be what we might call normatively functional and others not. If a brain is normatively dysfunctional then what to do? What is the person who has or is that brain to do about their normative dysfunctionality? — Janus
You haven't provide any argument for your position or any cogent explanation of it, that I can see. And now you're resorting to insults; always a bad sign. — Janus
That's a good question, may have to think a bit. — Garrett Travers
The central thesis of the book is: there is life-meaning in suffering. — ZzzoneiroCosm
The reality that can be experimentally verified is totally irrelevant and nonsensical for who's not interested in it.
— EugeneW
Of course it is ... :lol: — 180 Proof
All that remains if arguments don't work anymore. — EugeneW
Where do the mystics keep churning these guys out of? Fucking Rivendell?? — Garrett Travers
Where do the scientific realists keep churning guys like you out? — EugeneW
It's not possible to argue against assertions of non-existent substance that is claimed no evidence is needed for. You're not arguing here, on this. You're just saying things. — Garrett Travers
I just ignore scientific reality. Precisely because I know about it. What's to argue? — EugeneW
A point of any kind would suffice, really — Garrett Travers
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.