The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! Try and Make Me Believe Atheists Have No Moralsin Religion

ViceRegent

@NonCredenti

Prove they are part of the natural world?

NonCredenti

Vaulk said:

There's an issue with the idea that Atheism can be correct and that Atheists can possess Morality.  It's not that they can't possess it, it's just that Morality doesn't fit the evolutionary explanation, we'll use the example of "Selflessness".

The idea that selflessness is an evolutionary result is preposterous.

This is proven in the following logical deduction:

As a nit-pick, what follows from you is not a logical deduction. I guess you're making a sort of Socratic argument, but that's not the same thing.

More importantly, if you are attacking an "evolutionary explanation" for morality, your questions are misguided. Notice that each of your questions starts with "Why should I care...?" or "Why should I be...?" If you're trying to examine an "evolutionary explanation," your question should be more like "Why do I sometimes act selflessly? "Should" questions can certainly come up in morality and ethics, but it is misleading to talk about evolutionary foundations for morals yet skip all the foundation stuff and jump right to sophisticated end-points.

So if we re-word your question:
Q: Why do I sometimes behave selflessly?
A: There are many reasons. Like many other animals, humans seem to be hardwired to behave selflessly toward their own kin. We do not think a bird which regurgitates food for its chirping chicks has made a conscious decision to be selfless. Instead, we attribute it to something instinctive in the parent bird--it is hard-wired to provide food for its chicks, at least until they can leave the nest. 

Additionally, psychologists, biologists, and neuroscientists have identified common proto-moral traits that seem to be universal among humans, many of which also show up to lesser degrees in other highly-social and relatively intellectually developed species, notably our close evolutionary kin, chimps, bonobos, and the other great apes. These "pillars" of proto-morality are sometimes numbered differently, but generally they are:

1. Harm: Intentional assault is wrong.
2. Reciprocity: Norms of sharing and cooperation There is no place on earth where, if people notice you being a freeloader, they won’t think poorly of you.
3. Hierarchy: Respect for authority and a respect for honor. This is true at different scales—at a minimum, at the family level, and within the community, at work, and at the national scale.
4. Purity: Morally important to protect self and others from physical or spiritual contamination. Universal restrictions having to do with food, sex, and death. There don’t appear to be any societies that are indifferent to these matters.
5. Community: Moral distinction between in-group and out-group. Value of loyalty, and condemnation of betrayal (traitors and heretics).*

Some psychologists lump empathy in with Harm, while others think it is significant enough to be its own pillar. Regardless, we can see how early humans who had developed empathy and strong kin-selection intuitions would be inclined toward "selfless" behavior. 

Closely related to this is the fact that humans are an intensely social species. We need to cooperate with each other to survive and thrive. This is an evolutionary trade-off. The evolutionary emphasis on our energy-hungry brains means gestation was shortened so the baby can exit the birth canal before its head gets too large, but that means we are born very under-developed. We cannot even crawl for months, and it is often a full year before we can take our first steps, etc.. This, in turn, means living in social groups has a survival advantage for a species which must expend so much energy helping young ones reach maturity. I think this is, in a nut-shell, a decent summary of what morality is--strategies to balance our inherent selfishness against the need to cooperate for survival.

And as others have said, it gets more complicated when we consider the dopamine jolt we receive when helping others. So the behavior doesn't even need to be completely selfless. I might do something for the feeling it gives me, even though from a strict survival standpoint, it lowers my chances. 

We have to be careful about not straw-manning evolutionary explanations. An innate behavior doesn't need to increase the survivability of each and every individual; it can be passed on if it increases the survivability of others who possess that gene (genetic relatives). So if you have some super-altruism gene which causes you to behave in some super-altruistic way to benefit your five children, who have the same gene, you've increased the gene in the gene pool, whether you survive or not.


Now, as we start developing intellectually as a species, we can start talking about moral strategies, and start asking the "Why should I..." questions. But even then we're not lost for explanations. With the development of more advanced intellect, we can answer your value-laden questions with value-laden answers. 


*The above is taken from a lecture given by Psychologist Paul Bloom, who specializes in researching how babies and children develop a sense of morality.

See also: The Social Animal, by David Brooks; The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, by Jonathan Haidt; and Descartes' Baby: How the Science of Child Development Explains What Makes Us Human, by Paul Bloom.

NonCredenti

JoePineapples said:

I think it could be argued that if morals were attributed to the evolution of the human brain, we would all have the same (or at least very similar) morals.

Sure, it "could be argued" but I think the stronger argument, from an evolutionary standpoint, is that we have evolved certain moral intuitions, but that doesn't mean the moral conclusions of every person and/or culture will be exactly the same. For example, evolved empathy can lead to different conclusions, can be ignored by some, and isn't even felt by some. 

ViceRegent

Show us proof of this evolved moral intuiton?

NonCredenti

ViceRegent said:

@NonCredenti

Prove they are part of the natural world?

One doesn't "prove" concepts are part of the natural world any more than they "prove" they're not part of the natural world. One offers evidence and/or argumentation (a form of evidence) to support a claim. 

Vaulk appears to be working with a straw-manned idea of materialism. I'm not aware of anybody who holds the extreme, hard materialism that Vaulk seems to be arguing against, such that thoughts and numbers don't exist because they're not physical things. Most non-dualists (or non-idealists, or non-monists of other flavors, etc.) would describe themselves as Naturalists, not Materialists, in large part because of this straw-manning that goes on. Naturalism holds that "everything supervenes (something that is a consequence of, entailed by, emergent from, or established by, the natural." So, under Naturalism, concepts emerge from minds, which are brains (and before anybody objects, no I'm not saying all brains are/have minds). Concepts such as "justice," and evaluations of circumstances like "that was right/wrong/moral/immoral" are developed in our brains, and brains are part of the natural world. 

To say that things like human concepts or numbers are "supernatural" seems a much tougher argument to make.

NonCredenti

ViceRegent said:

Show us proof of this evolved moral intuiton?

From an earlier post:

See also: The Social Animal, by David Brooks; The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, by Jonathan Haidt; and Descartes' Baby: How the Science of Child Development Explains What Makes Us Human, by Paul Bloom.

Also, Franz de Waal, who has worked with primates for decades, studying their proto-morality, writes extensively about it in such books as Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved, and Good Natured.

For example, he writes about one of the pillars of morality, reciprocity, in capuchin monkies. They display a proto version of reciprocity (sense of fairness) when they reject rewards for a task if they see a companion receive a better reward.   Here's a link to a TED Talk he gave on the subject.  Higher animals also show other proto-moral behaviors, like empathy, hierarchy, community, etc... Under an evolutionary paradigm, it's easy to build a model where proto-behavior developed into more complex and sophisticated versions as humans developed. 

ViceRegent

@NonCredenti

I did not ask for names of people who agree with you, I asked for proof.  Got it or should I reject your claim as nonsens?

NonCredenti

@ViceRegent

You have misunderstood. I did not give the names of people who agree with me. I gave the names of experts in the field, and a few of the books they've written on the subject (they also have dozens of articles in scholarly journals published, if you're looking for shorter reads). If you want to reject their claims, you're free to offer your own arguments, and you're free to cite other experts in the field who disagree with them. I wish you the best of luck.

NonCredenti

I'll also note the topic is a challenge to "Try and make me believe atheists have no morals."  I eagerly await your "proof"

Vaulk

@NonCredenti

So where might I ask can I find numbers in nature?  If numbers are part of the natural world and the natural world existed long before Humans were around (According to popular scientific Theory) then who or what was responsible for these numbers in the natural world?

NonCredenti

Vaulk said:

@NonCredenti

So where might I ask can I find numbers in nature?  If numbers are part of the natural world and the natural world existed long before Humans were around (According to popular scientific Theory) then who or what was responsible for these numbers in the natural world?

Good question. The answer depends partly on what we think numbers are. If you're something like a Platonist, and think that numbers are real "things" (albeit non-physical things) then you probably wouldn't be able to find them in nature, but maybe you'd find them in the Platonic Realm of Forms, which Plato called heaven. But I don't think many people today are really Platonists. 

I think it makes much more sense to say that numbers are just the labels we use to express quantities of things. So you'll find numbers wherever you find things. This means there's no who or what "responsible" for them. They're just a fact of reality--part of the fabric of reality.  A quantity is just a property of a group. 

Vaulk

@NonCredenti

You've stated clearly that numbers are a part of the natural world.  If numbers are "Labels we use to express quantities of things", then how would they exist during the "Insert millions number here" of years that Humans supposedly did not inhabit the Earth?  And if they didn't exist then, then were numbers only part of the natural world upon the emergence of Humans on the Planet?  On top of this, if numbers are only part of the "Natural world" if Humans are also, then how does one justify that numbers are part of the natural world?

I'm tempted to allow just about any skewed definition of the "Natural World" in order to try and help you as much as possible to explain this because I'm almost deadly certain that it's not possible that numbers could be of the Natural World.

NonCredenti

Vaulk said:

@NonCredenti

You've stated clearly that numbers are a part of the natural world.  If numbers are "Labels we use to express quantities of things", then how would they exist during the "Insert millions number here" of years that Humans supposedly did not inhabit the Earth?  And if they didn't exist then, then were numbers only part of the natural world upon the emergence of Humans on the Planet?  On top of this, if numbers are only part of the "Natural world" if Humans are also, then how does one justify that numbers are part of the natural world?

I'm tempted to allow just about any skewed definition of the "Natural World" in order to try and help you as much as possible to explain this because I'm almost deadly certain that it's not possible that numbers could be of the Natural World.

Before humans existed, quantities existed, but specific labels for those quantities didn't. What's wrong with saying the English label "two" didn't exist until humans appeared (and even further, not until the English language was invented)?

If you can imagine a universe with nothing at all in it except two hydrogen atoms, then you should have no problem understanding how there can be quantities without humans.

If you want to say "quantity" is synonymous with "number," then you would also be able to see how numbers exist independent of humans.

On the other hand, if it's important to you to differentiate between the concept and its label, then you should be able to see that quantities existed without their labels. 

Neither of the above scenarios preclude numbers from being part of the natural world.

Vaulk

@NonCredenti

So if I understand you correctly, your conclusions are:

1. Numbers are just labels we use to express quantities of things.
2. The concept of Quantity existed prior to the existence of Human Beings on the Earth.

If the above is as you believe then I suppose I have only one question left, what do you think a concept is?

NonCredenti

Vaulk said:

@NonCredenti

So if I understand you correctly, your conclusions are:

1. Numbers are just labels we use to express quantities of things.
2. The concept of Quantity existed prior to the existence of Human Beings on the Earth.

Now can we both agree that not only does the "Natural world" need to be defined in order to understand it, but that it is defined as:

Natural World: Existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/natural

Understanding fully that the meaning of words can change over time depending on how they're used by people, I think we need to come to an agreement as to what we both believe the "Natural world" is.

Two minor adjustments, which I've bolded. I'm not trying to be unnecessarily nit-picky, but I want to avoid misunderstandings.

Firstly, I wouldn't say the "concept" of quantity existed prior to humans, since concepts arise from humans. Rather, I'd say quantities of things existed, even if there was nobody around to count and label them. It's similar to saying gravity existed before humans came up with the concept of gravity; or atoms existed before humans ever conceptualized them. 

Secondly, I'm not sure if you're differentiating between "nature" and "natural world."  I think I've been using them pretty interchangeably to mean "nature" or "the universe." For the purpose of this issue, I'd say it's important to understand "nature" as not consisting of a spirit/supernatural realm. Other than that, I think we'll be fine. So when I first said "Concepts such as 'justice,' and evaluations of circumstances like 'that was right/wrong/moral/immoral' are developed in our brains, and brains are part of the natural world," it might be less confusing to read it as saying these things don't require a supernatural explanation.  

Remember, the context of this is I was critiquing your use of "materialism" to mean "anything not literally made of physical things cannot exist under materialism," [not a direct quote] which is just inaccurate, and I was giving examples of things that every materialist agrees exist, yet which are not physical things.

Vaulk

@NonCredenti

Firstly, I'd disagree that quantities of anything existed prior to Human beings inhabiting the Earth.  Quantity exists solely and exclusively as a Human idea and more importantly...in the Human mind.  Outside the mind of Human beings there is no such thing as quantity.  This is like saying that time is real regardless of Human existence...it's simply not true.  Perception is the ruling factor in the existence of these concepts but again...only the perception of Humans is affected by these constructs.  In the creation of the concept of time and numerical values, we haven't affected anything in the entirety of the natural world...except ourselves, this is really the only necessary test in determining whether or not something exists without us.  

On a minor note, gravity isn't a fair comparison at all in this regard.  Firstly, gravity (Not the measurement thereof) was not created by humans just as the Earth's climate wasn't either.   Secondly, while gravity itself has several fixed properties, time has none that we don't assign to it.  Granted if Human's didn't exist then no one would notice these properties but the rest of the living planet would still be affected.

Onto the defining of the Natural World.  We're almost there, I don't quite think that simply excluding the spiritual/supernatural world will cut it in this case.  I agree that exclusion can help greatly in narrowing down the meaning of something but first you must know what something is...by only providing what it isn't then you're suggesting that the word is exclusively meant to denote something that is not.  I don't believe that "Natural World" is meant in any way, shape or form to simply mean "Something that isn't spiritual or supernatural".  I'll make some more suggestions:

Natural World: all of the animals, plants, and other things existing in nature and not made or caused by people
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/the natural world

Natural World: All the components of the physical universe — atoms, plants, ecosystems, people, societies, galaxies, etc., as well as the natural forces at work on those things. Elements of the natural world (as opposed to the supernatural) can be investigated by science.  
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/glossary/glossary_popup.php?word=natural+world

I could keep on this but if neither of these are acceptable then perhaps you could be so kind as to suggest a reference for the meaning of what we're discussing.  

I'm not sure where I ever mentioned "Materialism" or suggested that anything that isn't literally made up of physical things cannot exist under materialism.  I've looked through my previous posts and I'm almost certain I never said that, nor did I insinuate it either...I'll leave that one open for now as I'm sure you didn't just make that up. 

Schnuupi

Of course Athiests have morals but not by evolution in itself, they are also based on personal experiences growing, which is why you can see differences in behaviour per location, family, situation etc. Religious people follow the same rules, because they are raised under the guide of a religion their personality and morals will follow closely with others in that religion but not by god. But because of the way they grew up.

NonCredenti

Vaulk said:

@NonCredenti

Firstly, I'd disagree that quantities of anything existed prior to Human beings inhabiting the Earth.  Quantity exists solely and exclusively as a Human idea and more importantly...in the Human mind. 

Outside the mind of Human beings there is no such thing as quantity. 

I think we're mostly in agreement on this, but we're starting to talk past each other. I think we agree that human concepts do not exist unless humans are around to "invent" them. But at the same time, a thing and it's measurement are not the same, so gravity can exist without humans, while the measurement of gravity is a human activity.

Regarding numbers, the labels we give for specific groups of things ("one," "two," etc) are human inventions. All I'm saying is that the group exists whether or not there is a human to give a label to the size of that group.  
This is why, in my last post, I differentiated between quantities and numbers. Before the first humans walked across some plain in North America, there were two large boulders sitting in the middle of that plain. There was no human to label them "boulder" and no human to give them the label "two." But that doesn't mean that this "group of things" wasn't a "group of things."

 Onto the defining of the Natural World.  We're almost there, I don't quite think that simply excluding the spiritual/supernatural world will cut it in this case.

Natural World: All the components of the physical universe — atoms, plants, ecosystems, people, societies, galaxies, etc., as well as the natural forces at work on those things. Elements of the natural world (as opposed to the supernatural) can be investigated by science.  

Right, I didn't mean to replace your definition, but to expand on it. I think the above definition is fine.

I'm not sure where I ever mentioned "Materialism" or suggested that anything that isn't literally made up of physical things cannot exist under materialism.  I've looked through my previous posts and I'm almost certain I never said that, nor did I insinuate it either...I'll leave that one open for now as I'm sure you didn't just make that up. 

I got that idea from this:

ViceRegent said:

The issue is not do atheists have morals, but whether their materialistic worldview can account for them, which is to ask how they can rationally and objectively justify the existence of a moral code and how they know their personal moral code is the right one.

And your response was:

Vaulk said:

Agreed.  Morality has no physical composition, no chemical or biological makeup and has no assigned standard of measurement. Morals are not physical and are part of the supernatural realm...which exists beyond the understanding of science.  

[Bold mine, in both quotes.]

This seems pretty clearly to be making an implication which is common from theists when summarizing a naturalistic position: 'If it isn't physical, a materialist cannot account for it.' The aim seems to be to claim that a naturalist and/or materialist cannot include intangible things like morals or emotions into their worldview.

ViceRegent

They cannot by definition.  ROFL

Vaulk

@NonCredenti

It's slightly more complicated than @ViceRegent makes it out to be however he's on the right path.  While Science cannot truly ever have a permanent limitation as to what it can and cannot account for, it's still an accepted truth that Science not only cannot study the supernatural but also cannot begin to explain it.  Below is an example of what I'm talking about courtesy of Berkeley:

"Science studies the natural world. This includes the components of the physical universe around us like atoms, plants, ecosystems, people, societies and galaxies, as well as the natural forces at work on those things. In contrast, science cannot study supernatural forces and explanations. For example, the idea that a supernatural afterlife exists is not a part of science since this afterlife operates outside the rules that govern the natural world".

"Science focuses exclusively on the natural world, and does not deal with supernatural explanations".
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/intro_01

Please don't mistake my position against the idea that Science can explain everything beyond reasonable doubt.  I rather enjoy Science and have a great deal of respect for the Scientific method however, there are certain aspects of the universe that Science not only cannot explain but has no position of authority over.  I suppose case in point could be the difference between the Mind and the Brain.  While the brain is an ever studied portion of the Human anatomy, the mind is certainly acknowledged in Psychology as being totally separate.  There's still an ongoing debate between Dualism and Monism however the evidence supporting Dualism (While more importantly refuting Monism) is far more convincing, leading me to believe that the Mind and the Brain are separate from one another.  If this is true then we have a perfect example of a supernatural entity.  
https://www.simplypsychology.org/mindbodydebate.html

Understanding that it is my assertion alone (In this debate) that the mind exists as I've stated it does, then thoughts and ideas would also be supernatural.  Even without the premise of the separate Mind, thoughts and ideas exist beyond the natural world as (Again) they have no existential properties.  You can measure brain waves, you can even take note that certain neurons in the brain will fire off during thought processes but you cannot observe a thought or idea and more importantly your thoughts and ideas are confined within your mind.  I contend that you cannot observe thoughts in the natural world.

NonCredenti

@Vaulk

Great. Thanks for the response. I think I understood everything you said, and we don't have to haggle over definitions.

I disagree with your fourth paragraph, regarding mind/brain, and what the consensus is, but perhaps that's a debate for another time. 

We do not determine whether something exists in the natural world by whether it can be observed. We cannot observe forces, subatomic particles, the curvature of space-time. That doesn't mean they don't exist in the world. We can see their interactions with other things in the world, and infer at least some of their properties through those interactions. 

Now, if you want to redefine everything non-physical--morality, justice, mercy, fear, hunger, love, and countless other things--as supernatural because they're not physical, I guess you're free to have your personal definition, but then you're not really interacting with the atheists/naturalist argument. 

Vaulk

@NonCredenti

I'm almost with you on your conclusion that whether or not something can be observed does not determine that it is/isn't within the natural world.  As I've stated before I have a great deal of respect for Science and moreover respect for the scientific method.  And you are correct in your assertion that certain forces cannot be observed however, we can observe their application upon elements within the natural world (Indirect observation). Gravity for one cannot be observed directly but can be observed indirectly.  Subatomic particles can be observed indirectly with the appropriate equipment similar to the way we indirectly observe the force of gravity.  I don't know nearly enough about the curvature of space-time in order to comment on it so I will gladly bow out of attempting to comment on it for a lack of knowledge.

Thoughts however...thoughts cannot be indirectly observed.  There is no standard of indirect measurement for thoughts, you cannot observe how a thought will impact the natural world because thoughts do not impact the natural world or so we believe.  You cannot apply any standard of observation and in turn find thoughts in the natural world...directly or indirectly.  Thoughts have no force to exert upon the natural world...at least none that can be detected so far.  I'm a big fan of the scientific method, I'm a big fan of rules period...and in this case in order to properly determine what realm the mind and subsequently thoughts belong...we would need to apply the scientific method.

This is the rub sort-to-speak.  This is why the field of Psychology is dismissed by so much of the Scientific Community, it's not a hard Science.  In fact in order to accept Psychology as a true Science, one has to accept that the Scientific Method is no longer a standard.  

So to summarize my point, I contend that in order to believe that thoughts are real you either have to admit that Science cannot explain them (Due to an inability to apply the Scientific Method), or you have to admit that only Psychology can explain thoughts and take sides with the fact that the majority of the Scientific Community refutes that it's a real Science.  Either position would put you at odds against a naturalistic worldview.  Below is an example of the issue of Psychology as an alleged field of Science.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-replicated-100-psychology-studies-and-fewer-half-got-same-results-180956426/

The last step of the Scientific Method is to reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observation and theory.  "The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility – no science."  Alina Bradford
https://www.livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html

Hence the issue with attempting to side with Psychology as an explanation to the mind and how thoughts can be studied with Science.

ViceRegent

@Vaulk

It is more complicated, but if a baby is choking of pureed bananas, you do not give him steak. 

ViceRegent

@Vaulk

But your point about the scientific method does demonstrate why the nonsense of evolution is not science.

Schnuupi

I like how you call Evolution nonsense yet at least evolution looks at history and information to make theory's. I would be much more accurate in saying the nonsense of religion since that is literally just from nothing. Both are just ideas and neither can be proved. But at least one likes to look at the given information before making a decision where as the other is just "Hey I tell you this is the way it is so it MUST be." @ViceRegent

ViceRegent

ROFL.  I love how the deluded evolutionist personifies evolution and thinks it looks at things and then draws inferences.  

NonCredenti

Vaulk said:

@NonCredenti

... And you are correct in your assertion that certain forces cannot be observed however, we can observe their application upon elements within the natural world (Indirect observation). Gravity for one cannot be observed directly but can be observed indirectly....

Thoughts however...thoughts cannot be indirectly observed.  There is no standard of indirect measurement for thoughts, you cannot observe how a thought will impact the natural world because thoughts do not impact the natural world or so we believe.  You cannot apply any standard of observation and in turn find thoughts in the natural world...directly or indirectly.  Thoughts have no force to exert upon the natural world...at least none that can be detected so far. ...

This is the rub sort-to-speak.  This is why the field of Psychology is dismissed by so much of the Scientific Community, it's not a hard Science....  

So to summarize my point, I contend that in order to believe that thoughts are real you either have to admit that Science cannot explain them (Due to an inability to apply the Scientific Method), or you have to admit that only Psychology can explain thoughts and take sides with the fact that the majority of the Scientific Community refutes that it's a real Science.  Either position would put you at odds against a naturalistic worldview....

One of the problems here is you are making demands which cannot currently--and perhaps ever--be met. Then when those demands are not met, you want to conclude 'it's not the scientific method, so it's not natural, so it's supernatural.' 

We agree that many parts of the world can be observed indirectly, but you deny thoughts can be. It seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that's because you are adopting an overly-narrow conception of "thoughts," such that if we cannot observe the thought "I think I'll have lasagna for dinner tonight" then it's unobservable. Thoughts are brain states, and we can indirectly observe brain them. We can tell by the look on someone's face--and their heart rate and perspiration--if they're angry, happy, afraid, etc. With fMRI machines we can see decisions being made in real-time, though we cannot tell the content of that decision until the subject expresses it to us. What is all that, if not indirect observation?  

Additionally, we can observe the impact of thoughts in the natural world. Watch a boxing match and you'll see the result of the thought "I"m going to punch this guy in the nose." We cannot observe the impact of every thought, and most thoughts probably have no impact outside the brain, but it just seems obviously wrong to say thoughts have no impact on the world.

We are severely limited in our ability to investigate this because our technology is not up to the task, and we have strict ethical constraints. We can't just go cutting people's brains open and poking around. A great deal of the most interesting discoveries about how our minds work have come as a result of split-brain patients--people who have had their corpus callosum cut, separating the two halves of their brain. This was usually done to alleviate severe seizures which did not respond to other treatment. These patients were rare to begin with, and are becoming more so with new seizure treatments. 

It's a bit of a side point, but I think you're overstating the issues with Psychology, and I don't think the smithsonianmag article does the work you want it to. There is controversy over the efficacy of certain types of psychological treatments, but that's just one branch of many in a varied field. Much of the psychological research into the mind is done by neurologists and biologists. Many psychologists don't have a couch and never say "and how does that make you feel?" They study statistics all day and calculate P values.

It's unfair for me to say "Citation needed" when I'm not providing citations to support my claims, but I think it's wildly inaccurate to say "the majority of the Scientific Community refutes that it's a real Science." This is doubly so when we're talking about research into cognition.

TL;DR:  We can detect brain states, including emotional reactions, decisions being made, and we can trace the flow of sense perceptions. It's just wrong to say we cannot indirectly detect the mind at work.

ViceRegent

@NonCredenti

None of what this guy says should he taken seriously as he has admitted he knows nothing.

NonCredenti

@ViceRegent

Did not.

Ampersand

As an actual argument rather than responding to trolls or poor arguments, the answer is a simple yes.

Morality is subjective. We can see this in how different people have different morals - we can argue about whether something was right or wrong and both sides of an argument can passionately believe they are right. Some people might like to think they have some perfect source of morality to rely upon - whether that be a philosophy they hold to or a god they worship - but ultimately their belief in such strictures is based on their subjective whim.

ViceRegent

@Ampersand

Awesome non-srquitur.  The fact that criminals exist does not mean Law is subjective.  Learn logic and morality.

Vaulk

@NonCredenti

I'm afraid in some aspects you are correct.  The Scientific community has made demands that I have matched within my arguments for reproducibility within experimentation standards.  The Scientific community as a whole demands that research, studies, experimentation and theories all be reproducible and that if they are not...they are swiftly dismantled and refused within the accepted circle of Scientific data.

"In the world of science, the gold standard for accepting a finding is seeing it “replicated.” To achieve this, researchers must repeat a study and find the same conclusion. Doing so helps confirm that the original finding wasn’t a fluke — one due to chance"
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/when-study-can’t-be-replicated

I'm a reasonable person or so I'd like to think but this is a non-negotiable standard that's been well established within the Scientific Community. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has gone as far as to assign terms such as "Fraud" and to officially retract Scientific research, study and experimentation because it was not reproducible.
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/42/17028.abstract

If you cannot reproduce it...it's not science.  Experimenting with Human thoughts is problematic when it comes to reproducing any study, research or experiment because thought may result in action...or it may just as easily not.  What one Human thinks may drive him/her to suicide while another Human thinking the exact same thing under the exact same circumstances may just as easily shrug it off and take no action at all.

Your example of being able to look at the brain is somewhat problematic.  Yes we can observe the brain but we cannot observe a thought.  You've stated that we can tell by the look on someone's face, their heart rate or perspiration what emotion they're experiencing...but that's not necessarily the case now is it?  If what you were saying is true then those would be a standard but we all know very well that the measurement you're suggesting is unreliable as a Human may just as easily not display any of those reactions and still be thinking about the same thing.

And yes we can observe the brain (Again) with FMRI and we can watch the brain do certain things while thoughts are happening within the mind...but there is no conclusive evidence that thoughts cause the brain to act that way or if the brain is simply acting as a processor in the process of developing the thought.  We don't know because we cannot observe the thought.

Contradiction: Thoughts do not have any impact on the natural world.  If I were to test this, I could sit in front of a tree and think as hard as I could to try and affect the tree...safe to say that nothing would happen.  My actions can affect the tree...not my thoughts.  

And you're right, many Psychologists don't have people laying on couches telling them about their Mother.  This doesn't change that Psychology applies Scientific principles while simultaneously throwing out standards of Scientific ethics in order to study in the field without constant failure.  If you maintain the Scientific Method while apply psychology...you fail.  So "Let's get rid of it and still call it Science"!

Ampersand

Vaulk said:

If you cannot reproduce it...it's not science.  Experimenting with Human thoughts is problematic when it comes to reproducing any study, research or experiment because thought may result in action...or it may just as easily not.  What one Human thinks may drive him/her to suicide while another Human thinking the exact same thing under the exact same circumstances may just as easily shrug it off and take no action at all.


And you're right, many Psychologists don't have people laying on couches telling them about their Mother.  This doesn't change that Psychology applies Scientific principles while simultaneously throwing out standards of Scientific ethics in order to study in the field without constant failure.  If you maintain the Scientific Method while apply psychology...you fail.  So "Let's get rid of it and still call it Science"!

Psychologists can reproduce effects - however they look to to reproduce effects in samples of dozen or hundreds or thousands of people rather than on the individual level.

To replicate an experiment you want to replicate everything with everything having the same conditions. Unfortunately humans are incredibly complex. You cannot reset a human back to the exact same state they were at a certain point in the past and conduct an experiment again and expect the same result. Humans are also different from one another, varying biologically and mentally from one another - so again trying the experiment on a different person introduces variation not found in the original sample.

This is why psychological experiments don't focus on individual humans but rather humanity as a group. So for instance in the Milgram experiments they conducted them with groups of participants. When groups of participants have been involved in replications of the experiment, the results have been very similar.

This is because although individuals can vary, by taking a large enough controlled sample you will have a sample that is representative of a certain group (whether that's humanity as a whole, the people of a country, a specific sub-group like left-handed transvestites, etc) and would be expected to accurately represent the diversity found in the overall population.

ViceRegent

@Ampersand

How do you know this is an accurate representation?  

Vaulk

@Ampersand

Your example of the milgram experiment in this regard is somewhat accurate of a representation of measuring Human behavior but is far from any representation of the application of the Scientific Method in Human thoughts.  Behavior is not necessarily a byproduct of thought.  It's a well established Psychological principle that the Brain is not 100% in control of what you do.  Your actions are not all derivatives of your Brain.  There are things that we do on a regular basis that require no thought process what-so-ever from the Brain.  If your Brain were required to think for every action that you take then I doubt seriously that we would have nearly as many stereotypes as we have today.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/obesely-speaking/201403/your-mind-does-not-care-what-your-brain-thinks

You are absolutely correct in your assertion that Human beings are too complex in order to replicate any experiment on Human thoughts.  This is yet another example of why I contend that Human thoughts are not of the natural world. 

Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.  Now you've contended that thoughts can be indirectly observed by providing examples of instead observing Human behavior.  I agree that Human behavior is guided by thought to a degree however, the problem with this conclusion comes when attempting to apply the standards of experimentation.  While Scientists to this day continue to attempt to experiment with Human thoughts, the end result is the same.  Humans are too complex to simply observe actions and suggest that you're really just observing thoughts.  Likewise, Human thoughts are also too complex of a subject to reproduce an experiment on them.  To this day, no one even knows where memories are stored and the closest thing we can get to explaining the inner-workings of the mind is to compare it erroneously to a Computer. 
https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

The simple fact is that we know virtually nothing about the Human mind and we know even less about what goes on at the metaphysical level.  We certainly haven't ever observed a thought, we don't even know if memories are stored in the Brain at all.  I'm pretty comfy with acknowledging that Science doesn't have the answers and likely never will.  I mean we used to liken the Human mind and body to hydraulic lines, then cogs and wheels (A machine essentially) and today we think it's more like a Computer...which is utterly ridiculous.  I can see how this would be problematic from a Naturalistic worldview however, if I were an Atheist at certain times during History I would believe:

1. There is such a thing as the Aether.
2. Spontaneous generation of complex life occurs regularly.
3. Transmutation of Species happens all the time.
4. Maternal impression is responsible for birth defects
5. That Telegony is a real concern.

It's no stretch of the imagination that holding fast to a Naturalistic worldview could be leading you down the wrong path (It's not like it hasn't in the past) but I respect that you don't subscribe to the dude in the sky.  As far as Atheists having Morals...of course they do.  They just don't want to admit that they can't account for them.  I can account for a majority of my Morality by citing popular western Moral code.  Human beings are entitled to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness" where I come from, what's less popular is the fact that those Human Rights are well documented as being bestowed by a higher power.  Our forefathers established very clearly and solidly that our fundamental Human rights are bestowed by our creator (A fancy tactic of ensuring that nothing as fallible as a Human could remove them), and then went on to acknowledge the "Supreme Judge of the World".  I'm with the forefathers on this one.
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

NonCredenti

Sorry to have to say this, but you have a fundamental misunderstanding of science, and it has led to you making one incorrect statement after another. You think "The Scientific community as a whole demands that research, studies, experimentation and theories all be reproducible and that if they are not...they are swiftly dismantled and refused within the accepted circle of Scientific data," but this is just plain false. Reproducibility is highly prized, the "gold standard," as you quote one article. But it is flatly false to say a finding is "swiftly dismantled and refused" if it cannot be reproduced. This seems to be the central claim upon which your entire "supernatural" argument rests, and it is incorrect. 

As Ampersand says, some findings are difficult or impossible to reproduce because of the nature of the thing being investigated. To reproduce a finding, one must reproduce every facet of it, and many things are very difficult to control for all variables.  The first article you quote says this very thing--it is difficult to adequately reproduce some experiments with things which vary significantly, like cells and people. 

Reproducibility is not "a non-negotiable standard."  You claim "The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has gone as far as to assign terms such as 'Fraud' and to officially retract Scientific research, study and experimentation because it was not reproducible," and you link to an article (http://www.pnas.org/content/109/42/17028.abstract) that you evidently believe makes this claim, but it says nothing of the sort. Did you find this article as a result of your own research, or did you get it from some apologetics site? This is sloppy work. The article gives four reasons for an article being retracted: 1) fraud, 2) error, 3) plagiarism, 4) duplicate publication. Nowhere in the article does it equate fraud with "non-reproducibility."  In fact, neither the word "reproducible" or any variation or negation thereof appear anywhere in the article. This article has literally nothing to do with reproducibility.

You admit in one breath that we can indirectly detect some "non-physical" things, then want to exclude a few specific "non-physical" things because of a made-up rule about reproducibility. This is special pleading.

ViceRegent

To defend their naturalism, and the mystic nonsense it leads to, atheists will attack and deny science all day.

To be science requires observation, testing and repeatability.  If there is no way to test or repeat a claim, it is not science.  Oops, there goes goo-to-the-zoo evolution, Big Bang cosmology and a whole host a non-science BS.

Vaulk

@NonCredenti and @Ampersand

Apologies as the references I studied in support my my argument were linked to the http://www.pnas.org/content/109/42/17028.abstract reference but did not carry over.  I suppose under certain circumstances it could be considered necessary to show just how important it is that Scientific research and experimentation be reproducible and repeatable and to certain people it wouldn't be needless to say or stand to reason.  My understanding of science is aligned with the Science academies and associations below:

From the American Society for Microbiology
     "There may be no more important issue for authors and reviewers than the question of reproducibility, a bedrock principle in the conduct and validation of experimental science".
     "The assumption that experimental findings are reproducible is a key criterion for acceptance of a manuscript, and the Instructions to Authors insist that “the Materials and Methods section should include sufficient technical information to allow the experiments to be repeated.”
http://iai.asm.org/content/78/12/4972.full

From Live Science
     "The word "science" is derived from the Latin word scientia, which is knowledge based on demonstrable and reproducible data, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary".
     The steps of the scientific method go something like this:
1. Make an observation or observations.
2. Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
3. Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what's been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
4. Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
5. Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
6. Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. "Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method," Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. "The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility – no science."
https://www.livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html

From John Timmer, Science Editor at Ars Technica since 2007
     "Reproducibility is a common standard for scientific data. If experimental or descriptive data cannot be reproduced, then they are generally discarded."
     "It goes without saying that reproducibility is the cornerstone of research."
https://arstechnica.com/science/2006/10/5744/

I'm confident, even without all the references to credible information, that Scientific research, experimentation and study MUST include reproducibility.  It takes very little thought to imagine what would happen if one Scientist tested a theory by experiment and concluded after the completion that it was a complete success and subsequently had his theory published.  We're actually living in that world right now:

     Psychology has seen a renewal of internal concerns about irreproducible results. Researchers showed in a 2006 study that, of 141 authors of a publication from the American Psychology Association (APA) empirical articles, 103 (73%) did not respond with their data over a 6-month period.[14] In a follow up study published in 2015, it was found that 246 out of 394 contacted authors of papers in APA journals did not share their data upon request (62%).[15] In a 2012 paper, it was suggested that researchers should publish data along with their works, and a dataset was released alongside as a demonstration[16], in 2017 it was suggested in an article published in Nature Scientific Data that this may not be sufficient and that the whole analysis context should be disclosed.[17] In 2015, Psychology became the first discipline to conduct and publish an open, registered empirical study of reproducibility called the Reproducibility Project. 270 researchers from around the world collaborated to replicate 100 empirical studies from three top Psychology journals. Fewer than half of the attempted replications were successful.
https://osf.io/e81xl/wiki/home/
http://www.nature.com/news/cancer-reproducibility-project-releases-first-results-1.21304

This is not mere evidence, but proof that without reproducbility, the substantially high risk of fraud, errors, and outright incompetent experimental processes can lead to huge blows within the Scientific community and can send research and progress backwards when unchecked.  Further examples of research, experiments and theories that were not reproducible:

http://www.immunize.org/bmj-deer-mmr-wakefield/
http://www.science20.com/science_20/jan_hendrik_schön_world_class_physics_fraud_gets_last_laugh_whole_book_about_himself
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/29/the-stem-cell-scandal

So I've established the following:
1. Reproducibility is a bedrock principle in the conduct and validation of experimental Science.
2. Science by definition includes the requirement of reproducible data.
3. The Scientific Method requires that experiments be reproduced until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory.  This is in respect to the understood fact that a singular failure to reproduce does not equate to a false conclusion but:
4. Reproducibility is a common standard for scientific data and if said data cannot be reproduced...it is generally discarded.  
5. Without reproducibility, there is no Science.
6. History accounts for innumerable failures to reproduce experiments, some of which have caused serious problems within respective Societies that still remain today.

I've already provided an exact  and real example of how accepting studies in Psychology without reproducible data can and has resulted in discovering (Of the 100 tested) a less than 50% accuracy rating in research and studies that have already been published in the American Psychology Association's Empirical Articles.  

From the Reproducibility Project by Open Science Framework:

     "Reproducibility is a core principle of scientific progress (1–6). Scientific claims should not gain credence because of the status or authority of their originator but by the replicability of their supporting evidence. Scientists attempt to transparently describe the methodology and resulting evidence used to support their claims. Other scientists agree or disagree whether the evidence supports the claims, citing theoretical or methodological reasons or by collecting new evidence. Such debates are meaningless, however, if the evidence being debated is not reproducible".
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716.full?ijkey=1xgFoCnpLswpk&keytype=ref&siteid=sci
https://osf.io/phtye/

Above is a perfect example of the absolute requirement of reproducibility in Psychological research, study and experimentation.  270 researchers from around the world came together to conclude the above concerning study, research and experimentation within the field of Psychology.

I maintain my conclusion that reproducibility is a requirement for Science and IS non-negotiable in all but experiments and research into natural events that cannot be isolated due to their limited existence (Comets and other astrological entities).  Even while applying Science to ancient events, the experiments still must be reproducible with whatever controls were used...regardless of how long ago the event occurred e.g. ancient evolution.  If an experiment were not reproducible then there would be no way to test the validity of the conclusion and I'm having a really hard time swallowing the idea that any research or theory can be above Scientific scrutiny...at that point you might as well pick up the Bible and subscribe to the dude in the sky.

Specifically with the subject of Psychology, which this project was entirely focused upon, I have provided what I would believe to be more than sufficient evidence that reproduciblity IS required and you have established the following:

Ampersand said:

To replicate an experiment you want to replicate everything with everything having the same conditions. Unfortunately humans are incredibly complex. You cannot reset a human back to the exact same state they were at a certain point in the past and conduct an experiment again and expect the same result. Humans are also different from one another, varying biologically and mentally from one another - so again trying the experiment on a different person introduces variation not found in the original sample.

NonCredenti said:

As Ampersand says, some findings are difficult or impossible to reproduce because of the nature of the thing being investigated. To reproduce a finding, one must reproduce every facet of it, and many things are very difficult to control for all variables.  The first article you quote says this very thing--it is difficult to adequately reproduce some experiments with things which vary significantly, like cells and people. 

Since we're operating with the understanding that you cannot produce the same results in an experiment with Human thought and I've established that reproducibility is a requirement specific to the field of Psychology in regards to experimentation and research then suffice to say that in Psychology, you cannot apply a Scientific approach to studying or experimenting with Human thought.  

Lastly, I have made no special pleading in this regard as I've shown that reproducibility is not just some whimsical requirement that I made up...as you've suggested I did.  It's a well established and well documented, known scientific standard (As I've...shown time and time again) specifically in the field of Psychology.  If your argument is that Human thoughts are too complex in order to research and experiment with reproducible results and there's no such requirement for reproducibility...then your argument just fell through.  

Well argued though and cheers.

NonCredenti

@Vaulk

OK let's try this... According to one link you provided, " Thrity-six percent of replications had significant results; 47% of original effect sizes were in the 95% confidence interval of the replication effect size; 39% of effects were subjectively rated to have replicated the original result..."

What does that mean to you?

uzairmahmud

@mehbeh1

You have morals, because God put them in you. God Bells You!

Vaulk

@NonCredenti

When an arguer responds to an argument by not addressing the points of the argument.  Unlike the strawman fallacy, avoiding the issue does not create an unrelated argument to divert attention, it simply avoids the argument.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/61/Avoiding-the-Issue

But in the spirit of playing along, what it means to me is that while over half of the scrutinized studies were not reproducible, 36% of the replications returned significant results.  Since the statement concerning the 36% did not indicate in any way that they were reproducible, I'm interpreting this as "Unable to reproduce but results weren't insignificant" and this likely means that the results were close or closer than further from the published study.  Then there's the 47% of studies that had "Size" effects that were within 95% accuracy, meaning that this particular variable "Size" was accurately tested in 47% of the studies, again less than half.  Finally there's the other half of the statement "Less than half" only in a percentage format showing that only 39% of all tested effects were rated by the individual researchers to have replicated the original result.

That's what it means to me.  To summarize: I suppose it's a higher degree of accountability regarding the statement "Less than half of the attempted replications were successful".  You have indeed found a more creative way to say exactly what I said before.

NonCredenti

@Vaulk

Sorry, I meant to bold certain parts, but forgot.   My point was that "reproducibility" is not a straight yes/no, binary question in many cases--especially in areas like psychology.

If you put a bunch of hydrogen molecules and a bunch of oxygen molecues in a flask and pass a spark through it, you'll get water.  This is basic chemistry and if you try to reproduce this experiment you should get the same result every time. I think it is this very narrow meaning of reproducibility that you're using. It is not reasonable to expect this flawless reproducibility with more complex systems--like human behavior, for a number of reasons (inability to reproduce, track, or even understand all the variables, among others). 

The percentages in the quote demonstrate that for all but the simplest of experiments, reproducibility is measured in percentages, not yes/no, and it is unreasonable to demand that all research meet the bar of the least complex experiments. 

Vaulk

@NonCredenti

I'm not suggesting any strict requirement of reproducibility and the examples I've cited have allowed for your suggested variations.  This doesn't in any way, shape or form refute that reproducibility is a requirement none-the-less in Psychology.  When any Scientist attempts to reproduce a result, experiment, study, research and fails...that may simply mean that an error occurred along the way and the expected reaction is to try again.

This continuous reapplication should occur though until either the results ARE reproduced or until you can safely say that the successful results were a fluke.  In the end if it cannot be reproduced with a degree of certainty then it is not Scientifically sound...that much is clear from several leading Science organizations including the American Psychology Association.  

To make my point clearer, reproducibility is the rock-solid method for scrutiny in Scientific study, research and experimentation.  To suggest that these methods in Science (With the exception of one-time instances like comets) do not have to be reproducible is to admit that you don't require any concrete proof of the actual work put in to reach the proposed conclusion.  This is likened to someone telling you that they know God exists and that he created the earth and not requiring them to display any sound proof of their conclusion.  I suppose I could conclude that their claims are solid enough, maybe their reputation is enough evidence...... or maybe I could demand that their claims be subjected to scrutiny in order to establish whether or not they are credible.

To be clear, I am not suggesting in any way that a singular failure (or even 10 failures) to reproduce a result should be a clear indication that something is not Scientifically sound.  Leading Scientific organizations have their own standards of reproducibility, it is none-the-less a standard though and is not a "Made up rule".

Ampersand

@Vaulk

Your example of the milgram experiment in this regard is somewhat accurate of a representation of measuring Human behavior but is far from any representation of the application of the Scientific Method in Human thoughts.  Behavior is not necessarily a byproduct of thought.  It's a well established Psychological principle that the Brain is not 100% in control of what you do.  Your actions are not all derivatives of your Brain.  There are things that we do on a regular basis that require no thought process what-so-ever from the Brain.  If your Brain were required to think for every action that you take then I doubt seriously that we would have nearly as many stereotypes as we have today.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/obesely-speaking/201403/your-mind-does-not-care-what-your-brain-thinks

All behaviour is not necessarily a byproduct of thought, but some very obviously is. Are you arguing that the behaviour in the Milgram experiments was not caused thought and is on par with, say, the ability to breath in and out while you are asleep? If so that seems absurd and you will need to back it up. if not, then what point are you trying to make? The conciouncious actions - like breathing patterns while you sleep - can obviously be measured and done so even easier as by definition there is a physiological component that can be assessed and as shown the results of concious thought can be measured and assessed too.

You are absolutely correct in your assertion that Human beings are too complex in order to replicate any experiment on Human thoughts.  This is yet another example of why I contend that Human thoughts are not of the natural world.  

Firstly, I do not make any such claim about humans specifically. If you are trying to ascribe supernatural properties to humans based on the inability to perfectly understand the mechanism of thought and the brain, you must ascribe the same supernatural importance to dogs, pigs, mice, etc who we are no more able to understand the thought process of than humans.

Secondly, I specifically state that we do assess human beings - we just assess them as a group rather than individually in almost all experiments except case studies. 

Lastly, your claim that this is "yet another example of why I contend that Human thoughts are not of the natural world" does not logically follow from this. Having a finite ability to assess the results of the brain's is expected based on  finite ability to assess the brian itself. There is no need to create an entire other metaphysical reality to explain this as it is expected based on our knowledge only being partially complete.

Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.  Now you've contended that thoughts can be indirectly observed by providing examples of instead observing Human behavior.  I agree that Human behavior is guided by thought to a degree however, the problem with this conclusion comes when attempting to apply the standards of experimentation.  While Scientists to this day continue to attempt to experiment with Human thoughts, the end result is the same.  Humans are too complex to simply observe actions and suggest that you're really just observing thoughts.  Likewise, Human thoughts are also too complex of a subject to reproduce an experiment on them.  To this day, no one even knows where memories are stored and the closest thing we can get to explaining the inner-workings of the mind is to compare it erroneously to a Computer. 
https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Scientists do not observe actions and suggest they are observing thoughts. They observe actions and therfore are able to draw conclusions based on how thoughts and human behaviour work as per the example I gave you and as shown previously we can reproduce such experiments..

Also you state that the closest thing we can get to explaining the inner-workings fo the mind is to compare it erroneously to a computer then link to a man who specifically is going out of hiw way to provide better explanations than comparing it erroneously to a computer.

The simple fact is that we know virtually nothing about the Human mind and we know even less about what goes on at the metaphysical level.

We know a great deal about the human mind, there is simply much more still to learn - which both explains our knowledge and the areas where we still lack knowledge without any need to create a supernatural metaphysical reality.

We certainly haven't ever observed a thought

We observe thoughts personally all the time. The issue is observing other people's thoughts and matching them to the physical components that we can observe.

We don't even know if memories are stored in the Brain at all. 

Yes we do, we just don't know the full mechanics for instance whether it's synapses, neurons or something else in the brain which stores them (although the newest research seems to be indicating neurons.

I'm pretty comfy with acknowledging that Science doesn't have the answers and likely never will.

Your own link above which you used to explain the current lack of knowledge suggests that we will eventually understand human memory based on the continuing progress we are making - with a reference to a Nobel prize winning scientist who won his prize for researching the physical basis of memory storage.

 I mean we used to liken the Human mind and body to hydraulic lines, then cogs and wheels (A machine essentially) and today we think it's more like a Computer...which is utterly ridiculous.  I can see how this would be problematic from a Naturalistic worldview however, if I were an Atheist at certain times during History I would believe:

1. There is such a thing as the Aether.
2. Spontaneous generation of complex life occurs regularly.
3. Transmutation of Species happens all the time.
4. Maternal impression is responsible for birth defects
5. That Telegony is a real concern.

You would also have believed all of those if you were religious at certain times during history. The issue isn't one of religion or atheism, it's about the scientific approach to knowledge. Science is not expected to provide all answers to everything at all times - but a mature and knowledge based response to that isn't to then fill in the blanks with whatever fits your preconceived beliefs like an ancient mariner filling in "Here be dragons" on the parts of the map he doesn't know about.

It's no stretch of the imagination that holding fast to a Naturalistic worldview could be leading you down the wrong path (It's not like it hasn't in the past) but I respect that you don't subscribe to the dude in the sky.  

Any world view could be wrong. The scientific world view is simply the one that there is a rationale basis to suppose will be accurate (if not perfect) and which has a system in place for testing if it is giving you wrong information and correcting that.

While you are perfectly free to imagine that the scientific method can be wrong in terms of big picture things, while it is just imagination there is no rational reason to pay heed to that point of view

As far as Atheists having Morals...of course they do.  They just don't want to admit that they can't account for them.

No, we're perfectly able to. Over time our ancestors evolved from simple organisms to the advanced creatures we are today - one of the features of which is a powerful brain which grants us intelligence, emotion and the ability to hold moral concepts. Our morality will be effected to an extent by our biological make-up (e.g. as an obvious example someone with a severe enough learning deficiency will be unable to grasp complicated moral frameworks) and also by the environmental factors which shape us.

I can account for a majority of my Morality by citing popular western Moral code.  Human beings are entitled to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness" where I come from, what's less popular is the fact that those Human Rights are well documented as being bestowed by a higher power.  Our forefathers established very clearly and solidly that our fundamental Human rights are bestowed by our creator (A fancy tactic of ensuring that nothing as fallible as a Human could remove them), and then went on to acknowledge the "Supreme Judge of the World".  I'm with the forefathers on this one.
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

What meaningful difference is there between your description if how your morals form and my description of how my morals form? You are describing yourself being brought up and influenced by your environment to adopt certain morals. There is no meaningful difference between what you have just described and my accounting for how morality develops.

Apologies as the references I studied in support my my argument were linked to the http://www.pnas.org/content/109/42/17028.abstract reference but did not carry over.  I suppose under certain circumstances it could be considered necessary to show just how important it is that Scientific research and experimentation be reproducible and repeatable and to certain people it wouldn't be needless to say or stand to reason.  My understanding of science is aligned with the Science academies and associations below:

This post doesn't seem relevant to me. I've already shown how experiments into the mind can be replicated and given a famous example of such.

Vaulk

@Ampersand

All behaviour is not necessarily a byproduct of thought, but some very obviously is. Are you arguing that the behaviour in the Milgram experiments was not caused thought and is on par with, say, the ability to breath in and out while you are asleep? If so that seems absurd and you will need to back it up. if not, then what point are you trying to make? The conciouncious actions - like breathing patterns while you sleep - can obviously be measured and done so even easier as by definition there is a physiological component that can be assessed and as shown the results of concious thought can be measured and assessed too.

What I'm saying is that the Milgram experiment was a study of Obedience...not Human thought.  I'm not saying that thoughts weren't considered, I'm not saying that thoughts weren't taken into serious consideration.  This doesn't change the fact that this was not a study of Human Thought.  I acknowledge that in Psychology, many times, studies are conducted on groups of individuals instead of just one person...and using the Milgram Experiment is a decent example of just that.  It however, is not an example of experimentation, research or study into Human Thought.  I'm saying that your provision of this example would be likened to using the 1971 Stanford Prison study to suggest that it somehow was a study of the Human Thought because evil intentions are byproducts of Human Thoughts. 

Additionally, you assert that while some behavior is subconscious, behavior in general is caused by thought while the concept of Duality refutes it. If the Mind is not a separate entity from the Brain, then when under hypnosis...your body would not react to being told it was being burned with a branding iron while in reality you were being touched with a room temperature pencil.  The part of the body touched with the pencil becomes red, blisters and reacts just as if it were being touched by something red hot.  You may have skipped over this entire portion of my argument as I've seen no argument against it and it serves adequately as evidence against your idea that (With the exception of subconscious functions) thoughts come from the Brain and subsequently control behavior.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/obesely-speaking/201403/your-mind-does-not-care-what-your-brain-thinks

Firstly, I do not make any such claim about humans specifically. If you are trying to ascribe supernatural properties to humans based on the inability to perfectly understand the mechanism of thought and the brain, you must ascribe the same supernatural importance to dogs, pigs, mice, etc who we are no more able to understand the thought process of than humans.

Secondly, I specifically state that we do assess human beings - we just assess them as a group rather than individually in almost all experiments except case studies. 

Lastly, your claim that this is "yet another example of why I contend that Human thoughts are not of the natural world" does not logically follow from this. Having a finite ability to assess the results of the brain's is expected based on  finite ability to assess the brian itself. There is no need to create an entire other metaphysical reality to explain this as it is expected based on our knowledge only being partially complete.

See above for an explanation on Duality.

Scientists do not observe actions and suggest they are observing thoughts. They observe actions and therfore are able to draw conclusions based on how thoughts and human behaviour work as per the example I gave you and as shown previously we can reproduce such experiments..

Also you state that the closest thing we can get to explaining the inner-workings fo the mind is to compare it erroneously to a computer then link to a man who specifically is going out of hiw way to provide better explanations than comparing it erroneously to a computer.

I'm picking up here that you haven't checked that reference I provided, had you done so then I doubt you would think it was written by someone going out of their way to provide a better explanation.  I'll re-link.
https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer

We know a great deal about the human mind, there is simply much more still to learn - which both explains our knowledge and the areas where we still lack knowledge without any need to create a supernatural metaphysical reality.

"A great deal" is relative.  So if we can say with any confidence that we have more to learn about the Human Mind than we currently know (Quantifiable data), then how can we possibly say that we know "A great deal" about it?  I suppose if we compared what we know about the Human Mind to another totally unrelated field of research like Quantum Physics then yes, I do believe we could at that point say that we know "A great deal" about the Human mind.  This would be a faulty comparison but it would qualify your statement above.

We observe thoughts personally all the time. The issue is observing other people's thoughts and matching them to the physical components that we can observe.

May I ask then, have you ever personally observed a thought and if so, what color was it?  Also, when you were personally observing this thought, was it in the Brain or in the Mind?

Yes we do, we just don't know the full mechanics for instance whether it's synapses, neurons or something else in the brain which stores them (although the newest research seems to be indicating neurons.

How exactly, please tell me, specifically...do we have knowledge that memories are in fact stored within the Brain when we cannot identify a memory within the Brain?  If you're suggesting that someone has found a way to pinpoint a memory's physical location within the Brain and has successfully done so...PLEASE LINK!

Your own link above which you used to explain the current lack of knowledge suggests that we will eventually understand human memory based on the continuing progress we are making - with a reference to a Nobel prize winning scientist who won his prize for researching the physical basis of memory storage.

So then may I ask that you concede that, to a degree, we do not know, that science cannot currently explain it and that the Naturalistic worldview does in fact require faith in place of reasonable evidence in some degrees?

You would also have believed all of those if you were religious at certain times during history. The issue isn't one of religion or atheism, it's about the scientific approach to knowledge. Science is not expected to provide all answers to everything at all times - but a mature and knowledge based response to that isn't to then fill in the blanks with whatever fits your preconceived beliefs like an ancient mariner filling in "Here be dragons" on the parts of the map he doesn't know about.

Your likening of faith in a higher power to a mariner erroneously labeling uncharted waters as "Dragon territory" is funny, but does little more than detract from the debating method.  The point I was making is that the naturalistic worldview has lead people down the wrong path in History, not due to bad use of the data...but bad data. 

Any world view could be wrong. The scientific world view is simply the one that there is a rationale basis to suppose will be accurate (if not perfect) and which has a system in place for testing if it is giving you wrong information and correcting that.

Would you say that even Atheism could be wrong as a worldview?

While you are perfectly free to imagine that the scientific method can be wrong in terms of big picture things, while it is just imagination there is no rational reason to pay heed to that point of view

You've misquoted me and successfully misrepresented my statement to suggest that I've come to the conclusion that the Scientific Method can be wrong.  I've said no such thing and that's probably about as much qualification as that needs.

No, we're perfectly able to. Over time our ancestors evolved from simple organisms to the advanced creatures we are today - one of the features of which is a powerful brain which grants us intelligence, emotion and the ability to hold moral concepts. Our morality will be effected to an extent by our biological make-up (e.g. as an obvious example someone with a severe enough learning deficiency will be unable to grasp complicated moral frameworks) and also by the environmental factors which shape us.

I'll see the perfection in your ability to account for Morality and raise you some reasonable doubt and let you call when you have the evidence to suggest that it's reproducible...in keeping with the focus of my argument that is.

What meaningful difference is there between your description if how your morals form and my description of how my morals form? You are describing yourself being brought up and influenced by your environment to adopt certain morals. There is no meaningful difference between what you have just described and my accounting for how morality develops.

The meaningful difference is that your provision includes unobservable events that have never been reproduced and are (By all Scientific standards) impossible to have occurred...the odds are so exponentially improbable that it's safely concluded as impossible.  Meanwhile I believe that my Morality comes from a Society that is deeply rooted in the belief in God, that without God there is no Morality.  Simply put, is Murder wrong?  Is it Evil?  How do you know?  I'm sure you think it's wrong but how do you know?  What evidence can you provide that it's wrong?  If there is no God, then there is no objective Morality.  Otherwise, all Morality is opinion.  Without God the statement "Murder is evil" is the same as "I don't like Murder".  I wouldn't suggest that we ever live like the latter, it's no random chance that the first societies to abolish slavery, establish universal Human Rights and to proclaim Liberty as a virtue were all Judeo-Christian societies.
http://blog.adw.org/2014/12/a-recent-article-ponders-how-rare-earth-is-and-how-astronomical-the-possibility-of-complex-life-in-the-universe-is/


This post doesn't seem relevant to me. I've already shown how experiments into the mind can be replicated and given a famous example of such.

This is because it wasn't relevant to you.  I had intended to address both you and Noncredenti both in an attempt to address both of you simultaneously...leaving you to differentiate between which portions were relevant to you and which weren't but that may not have been a good idea as I see it's caused some confusion.

anonymousdebater

Question: Where do you get your morals from that is not culturally-dependent?

Judaism

Of course atheists have morals, it'll be silly to think they don't! But still. . . they have a problem. . . they "think" G-d set common sense into our heads, but here's a quick hint: He didn't! He only reinforced them. 

So no, if you're looking for someone to "argue" that they don't have morals, you won't find it here!