Progress after the Royal Society conference?

[Faizal_Ali]

@lee_merrill

No, that’s not in the video, in several examples, bacteria were allowed to evolve under pressure, and the mutations that then occurred were examined. No mutations were selected ahead of time.

(Jacques Cousteau voice): “Two minutes later:”

@lee_merrill

Again, please watch the video, what seems to happen in experiments where two residues are altered, and no fitness is gained by restoring just one of the altered residues, is that evolution gives up, and disables production of the result entirely.

IOW, they were waiting to see if a specified mutation occurred. Huh.

@lee_merrill

@Faizal_Ali

But what you were supposed to do there was demonstrate that I had said the argument “My brain atoms made me do it” would fly in court.

Saying “you are going to just keep acting like no one has already addressed that very silly argument” clearly implies someone addressed, someone refuted what I said.

Here is the relevant part of the previous discussion:

@Faizal_Ali

@lee_merrill

So please explain to me how that’s going to fly in court, or point me to where someone else explained that

I never said it would “fly in court”. Your question confirms you have no idea what I am talking about.

You asked me to explain how the claim “My brain atoms made me do it” would “fly in court”, but that is not something I ever claimed would happen. That you seem to think that, in order to support my argument, I need to demonstrate that it would fly in court only demonstrates that you don’t understand what I am saying.

@lee_merrill

Yes, some do argue that quantum mechanics is a way to get to free will. I don’t think their arguments have gained much traction.

Yes, primarily for two reasons. If QM is not determined but indeterminate, all that could do is make our actions random. If our actions are random, however, it is difficult to argue that they are free.

Also, even if determinism is not true at the quantum level, that does not mean it is not still true at the higher levels (e.g, physical brain processes) that pertain to our actions.

@lee_merrill

But you want to resume the discussion? If this is not the case, then why do the courts allow a plea of “not guilty by reason of insanity”?

Because there are believed to be situations in which a perso’ns mind is being influenced by illness or other factors such that they ought not be held responsible for their actions. This does not support your argument that a rational mind could not have been produced by evolutionary processes.

@lee_merrill

Repeating what I said, rewording it, is what is a non-answer. And I have previously provided reasons to believe we have a soul, out-of-body experiences, without brain activity, and so on.

And I have explained why I do not find that evidence at all convincing. You have not demonstrated that you understand my counterarguments, never mind providing a meaningful response.

@lee_merrill

@Faizal_Ali

@lee_merrill

I agree that “The question of the source of our rational thinking is never part of that assessment”, yet I still maintain that psychiatrists keep in mind that some of a client’s thinking and conclusions may have an unreasoning cause, which results in irrational thinking.

This time, Dory doesn’t even make it to the end of the sentence before contradicting herself.

But where is the contradiction?

It should be obvious, but whatever: You start by saying psychiatrists do not concern themselves with the source/cause of a patient’s thinking, then conclude by saying we decide whether thinking is irrational based on whether is has an unreasoning source/cause.

Does that help?

@lee_merrill

I said psychiatrists are not interesting in the source of our rational thinking, it’s irrelevant to helping clients.

Wrong again. e.g.In cognitive psychotherapy, we will try to help the patient enlist their capacity for rational thought to counteract the irrational thoughts that might be part of their condition.

@lee_merrill

I agree that agents are indeed the source of their actions, but I do also insist that an agent needs to also be free to choose between alternatives. You have made a mere assertion to the contrary, and similarly with the claim that “our brains are the source of our actions and also of the basis of our identity as individuals”. These claims need defending.

Not really, that’s not the main disagreement here. In theory, our minds could be produced by immaterial causes that are still deterministic, and in my view free will could still exist.

@lee_merrill

These claims need defending. Also, even if these statements are true, they do not how specifically, collections of atoms can become agents. Not all collections of atoms are agents!

All that requires is the ability to distinguish a human brain from, say, a boulder or a coffee table. Do you understand the differences between those things?

@lee_merrill

I have it on good evidence that the moon was caused by a collision with a Mars-size body, I have a probable, defensible explanation, so I don’t need to examine in detail other explanations, which I only heard about in your post. If this other explanation becomes commonly known, and commonly accepted, then I will consider it seriously. I expect that won’t happen.

And yet you insist we take seriously the whacky conspiracy theories proposed by Axe, Tour, Behe et al. There’s that hypocrisy, again.

@lee_merrill

So how are Stadler and Tour and Behe untrained?

Tour is not an evolutionary biologist. He is a chemist who, several years ago, publicly proclaimed that he does not understand evolution, and proceeded to spend the rest of his time proving this to be correct.

Stadler is not an evolutionary biologist, but a biomedical engineer.

Behe is a trained biochemist, but has a twenty year history of making dishonest and incompetent claims about evolution, so he has no credibility on the subject.

@lee_merrill

If not, how do you know they don’t have observable, repeatable evidence?

I dismiss that video for the same reason you dismiss the video on the hollow moon. The difference is I have spent considerable time researching the claims made by Tour, Behe et al so I am confident they have nothing worthwhile to say. How much time have you spent researching the Hollow Moon Theory?

@lee_merrill

I would recommend to you again Habermas and Moreland’s book “Beyond Death”, where they present veridical NDEs, and they mention an article in The Humanist”:

Based on what I have already read by the two of them, I really doubt that would be a productive use of my time. Thanks, but no thanks.