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

Again, it isn't the neural processes that are important in this particular regard, it is what the processes produce. Among those data computing processes is executive functions, judgement, and value placement. All of this informs one's actions. This is the domain of ethical deliberations:

"Executive functions (EFs) include high-order cognitive abilities such as working memory, inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, planning, reasoning, and problem solving. EFs enable humans to achieve goals, adapt to novel everyday life situations, and manage social interactions. Traditionally EFs have been associated with frontal lobe functioning."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/executive-function

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

I think the fact that reason is still a factor leads one to conclude the same. Punishment provides no benefit to anyone. It is nothing more than the assuaging of an aggressive urge, a mistaken conclusion that someone else's consciousness is somehow the punisher's property. Which is never the case.

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

No, that's just my emotions talking. I'm pleased with him simply not being on earth to violate the human consciousness anymore. But, I do not regard him as someone who can be pittied, or shown compassion by any person that is thinking rationally on the subject.

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

As seen in scientific realism. But that's not the only realism. Many universes in the vacuum? What vacuum? Eternal inflation is a fantasy.

Among those data computing processes is executive functions, judgement, and value placement. — 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. 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.

No, that's just my emotions talking. — Garrett Travers

Oh well, according to your own view, that cannot be helped.

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

This is emotion speaking. Biological determinants that produces executive functions and endless data computation, would never imply an absence of ethical responsibility. It's sepcifically just that very executive function and endless data computation that makes everyone responsible for their actions. 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. They're advanced enough to "sustain more complex cognitive functions—such as reasoning, planning, decision-making, creativity, and problem solving." So, what you're gonna have to do to make your point, is negate that such is an accurate description of consciousness. Otherwise, I'll need to take your admission that I'm correct.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01519/full

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

That is correct, if one wishes to play fantasy-planet and dismiss the science that shows us what the brain is capable of, including reasoning and conceptualization. Not in the real world though. It's more appropriate to say "I'm not arguing anything, merely speaking and doing so with condescension for no apparent reason."

Oh well, according to your own view, that cannot be helped. — Janus

No, just the one you'd like me to make an argument for, so that you'd have a point to you wasting my time on this antiscientific attempt at a gotcha. Didn't work.

The reality that can be experimentally verified is totally irrelevant and nonsensical for who's not interested in it. — EugeneW

Hmmm.... Tell that to the Uighurs in Xinjiang. Not being interested in reality doesn't mean it can't harm or kill you.

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

Yes, Tom. That's right. The people of Nagasaki didn't give a shit about quantum potentiality in the realm of objective considerations. They were vaporized.

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.

You're wrong to think I'm attempting a "Gotcha"; I'm just telling you I can't make sense of your view and why. If you can't handle that without taking it personally or being able to explain yourself more convincingly the problem lies with you. It has nothing to do with science; it tells us nothing about moral responsibility. You're getting your categories mixed up, apparently.

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

Nobody.... Ever said there was some... "you."...?

No, "you" are the whole unit. Your brain produces executive functions that allow itself to witness, record, project, plan, and initiate for future action in accordance with sensory data accrual. Or, "superior-pattern-processing," as one great researcher put it. The "you" that you're mentioning as some sort of bizarre requirement for ethics, is just your brain that's also doing everything else. And right now, your brain is talking to someone who has provided you some current research in neuroscience that can help you understand the whole thing. Here's some more. My argument is consistent and supported by neuroscience. As usual: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303502619_Is_Self-Consciousness_Equivalent_to_Executive_Function#:~:text=Consciousness%20can%20be%20understood%20as,consequences%20of%20one's%20own%20behavior.

The point is that if you are nothing but your brain then you are entirely limited by its capacities and proclivities. 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. It is, on your view, however you want to spin it, merely a natural process, and hence 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.

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. The brain you've got, is the brain you've got (or the brain you are is the brain you are).

The point is that if you are nothing but your brain then you are entirely limited by its capacities and proclivities — Janus

That's not a point. The brain is also not limited by such, but has the capacitance for conceptualization which gives rise to Ethics.

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

No, you're just used to thinking of the mind and brain as separate. But, you're not reading what I am saying to you and what the science says. You (ARE) your brain. You (DO) produce actions and theorizations of actions that are normative, and can indeed be helped, changed, practiced, corrected, recalibrated, and aligned with the actions of other creatures of consciousness. The only thing that changes with the acceptance of my position, is the knowledge of what's happening, as far as we are aware of such. Nothing more.

It is, on your view, however you want to spin it, merely a natural process — Janus

There's no such thing as "merely a natural process." This is a reduction.

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

Yes, in lala-land, where we put our fingers in our ears and stick our tongues out. But, not here where natural processes give rise to self-correcting behavior and perpetual data integration that generate concepts. No, that's not what you're being told. You just want to believe it no matter what you're shown.

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

That's specifically covered in executive function. You ARE the brain directing itself. That "you" is the brain producing "you" to do just that. You're are not understanding this. Get rid of the dualist bullshit and read what I'm saying to you.

The brain you've got, is the brain you've got (or the brain you are is the brain you are). — Janus

He who goes in circles becomes a wheel.

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?

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.

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

Yes, they call that executive dysfunctionality. Normally associated with trauma. And it depends on the nature of the issue. Once memory is damaged you have a real problem in the normative realm. But, drawing the line is difficult, it's the most complex system in the universe. But, as far as people like Hitler? No, he knew what he was doing. His mental illness was not of the neurological kind, but of the emotional. And no, that's not a generalization. Some people fall outside of this box for whatever reasons. But, this is intrinsic to our species.

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

No, not insult, you just keep going round and round. And simply saying I haven't made an argument isn't an argument. I have given you plenty of sources on the subject, let's try it again: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303502619_Is_Self-Consciousness_Equivalent_to_Executive_Function#:~:text=Consciousness%20can%20be%20understood%20as,consequences%20of%20one's%20own%20behavior.

Argument:

If the individual human brain produces consciousness, then the individual brain produces morality. Being part of nature is not relevant to functions that allow for: “metacognitive executive function” (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex), including self-awareness, the temporality of behavior, metacognition, working memory, abstraction,problem solving, and similar complex intellectual processes, and (b) “emotional/motivational executive function” (orbitofrontal and medial frontal lobe), which isrelated to the ability to coordinate cognition and motivation, including the ability tocontrol emotions and behavior." These are the characteristics that allow for morality, not negate it.

There you go, the argument, once more, with some (the same) science to back it up. Do not tell me I haven't made an argument again, or I will stop responding

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:

:up: :up:

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.

The central thesis of the book is: there is life-meaning in suffering. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yes, to put it a bit more succinct than I.

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

What a funny way to assert a fact of reality for those that are not interested.

:smirk:

:cool:

The Dunning-Kruger kids are always the last to know.

Where do the mystics keep churning these guys out of? Fucking Rivendell??

"Narnia".

That's exactly the reason they're not interested in that reality.

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

:rofl:

All that remains if arguments don't work anymore. Laughing.

All that remains if arguments don't work anymore. — 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.

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? Heterotic string theory in 26 dimensions?

Where do the scientific realists keep churning guys like you out? — EugeneW

Reality.

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?

Reality. — Garrett Travers

So do the mystics.

I just ignore scientific reality. Precisely because I know about it. What's to argue? — EugeneW

A point of any kind would suffice, really.

A point of any kind would suffice, really — Garrett Travers

Then you have to accept that reality first.