quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
One of the reasons there is, I am very pleased to say:), much more atheism about these days is because people know so very much more about how and why things happen and not one of those things is caused by God/god/s.

---

quote:

---

With the increasing prominence and influence of the New Atheism,

---

As they say on XKCD 'citation please!'

Six types of atheists

Andrew Brown article on the six types

quote:

---

The largest group (37%) was what I would call "cultural non-believers", and what they call "academic" or "intellectual atheists": people who are well-educated, interested in religion, informed about it, but not themselves believers. I call them "cultural" because they are at home in a secular culture which takes as axiomatic that exclusive religious truth claims must be false. ...

They are more than twice as common as the "anti-theists" whose characteristics hardly need spelling out here...

these people made up only 14% of their sample, and all other research that I know of would place their proportion much lower.

---

quote:

---

arose out of a perception that, on the one hand, many agnostic undergraduates had acquired a new contempt for and lack of understanding of religion, due to the remarkable reach of the New Atheists' arguments, and also that many Christian students felt ill-equipped to respond intelligently to such criticisms of their faith.

---

I cannot cite the source of this perception, though I suspect it arises out of his experience as a university chaplain. In any case, that is my source, Louise, meagre though it is.

I agree with the point made in various ways, that apologetics (or polemics) is unlikely to convince atheists or agnostics, and that a faith built on intellectual foundations may prove rather fragile, though I like Jenn's reference to apologetics 'providing a plausibility structure for Christianity in the public consciousness', a point made rather more prosaically by Rowan Williams in a 20ll interview, that 'argument has the role of damage limitation.'

I agree wholeheartedly with Rafin's point that loving our neighbour (and our enemy) would be a more salient 'argument' for Christian faith, but that still leaves open the question of how Christians engage collectively with the contemporary mindset, if at all! William Lane Craig's desire to train a cadre of Christian philosophers is intriguing, but I am struck by the thought that to engage with contemporary intellectual currents might also require us to become historians, scientists, psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, and linguists, as well as theologians. I've probably missed quite a few other useful professions off that list.


* ISBN: 9781610975797 if you want to check it out at your favourite online bookstore.
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Jade Constable
The OP implies there is 'more atheism' and I agree, since, for instance, far more radio presenters, comedy programmes, etc assume that their listeners are of the general, of-course-there's-no-God opinion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by argona:
My difficulty debating with many atheists is indeed their ignorance, and not just of religion. So few seem to understand that what science is leading us to deny is not the existence of God, it's the reality of the self acting through time, which they all continue to behave as though they are.

---

quote:

---

According to quetzalcoatl Debating with atheists can be a thankless task. Several reasons for this - so many of them are actually ignorant about religion, and produce bizarre straw men; for some reason, many US atheists see through a Protestant lens, so think all Christians do like wise; they are often philosophically naive/clumsy - see Dawkins.

So I wonder if it's worth it. I guess it is with the intelligent and non-ignorant ones; on the other hand, it can become very intellectual. I'm not sure this is worthwhile.

---

quote:

---

quetzalcoatl: Debating with atheists can be a thankless task. Several reasons for this - so many of them are actually ignorant about religion

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

quetzalcoatl: Debating with atheists can be a thankless task. Several reasons for this - so many of them are actually ignorant about religion

---

I like debating with atheists from time, but my biggest problem has been that my opponents seemed ignorant about science and logic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Debating with atheists can be a thankless task. Several reasons for this - so many of them are actually ignorant about religion, and produce bizarre straw men;

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Debating with atheists can be a thankless task. Several reasons for this - so many of them are actually ignorant about religion, and produce bizarre straw men;

---

Funny thing, drop the a and the statement is still true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Debating with atheists can be a thankless task. Several reasons for this - so many of them are actually ignorant about religion, and produce bizarre straw men; for some reason,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
....quite possibly without realising the dubious nature of some of those arguments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
As far as I know, the term 'New Atheism' is one coined by believers to mock us atheists. The response to this might well be that (New) Atheists' mockn religious beliefs, but the difference is they replace religious dogma with naturalistic/scientific (I'm always a bit worried when using these words since one of the discussions a while back:)), and better, explanations. In any case, as HughWRM says above, atheists have only one guaranteed thing in comon - a lack of belief in any gods at all, not just all except one. The one thing that would immediately change all atheists to theists is a provable god. And, Yes, I know no-one can actually 100% prove the non-existence of God, but I think I'll avoid going round that circle too!

If only the structure of the church, particularly the CofE here, could be retained without the God belief.

Jade Constable
Yes, I was talking of UK and, yes, people are certainly more open and assured about their atheism now and the census showed that the number of people ticking a non-belief box has jumped up quite a bit.
I often wonder what it wouldh have been like to be an atheist in early human times! I bet there were quite a few who'd already moved towards a realisation that natural things happened whether humans prayed or sacrificed things or not.
I'm sure many atheists read their horoscopes, but I hope most of them know for certain it's only for fun!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Debate is a thankless, sterile adversarial task period.

Did Jesus do it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It's about relationship with the living God. Atheists might continue to try to explain this away, but for those of it for which it is a reality of life, it is not going to disappear.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Graham J:
I've recently been reading books by Brian McLaren that have given me a new perspective on evangelism/apologetics.

I also enjoyed reading Francis Spufford's book: Unapologetic.

---

I was planning to mention Francis Spufford's Unapologetic myself. I enjoyed reading it very much. It's subtitled: "Why, despite everything, Christianity can still make surprising emotional sense."

He addresses--with humour but also with depth--the doubts of today's intelligent agnostic or atheist--or of any of us on some days. He's not trying to prove anything but just explaining why Christianity makes sense to him--and primarily on emotional grounds. And he shows that emotional grounds for one's life orientation are not to be dismissed.
"Emotions are also our indispensable tool for navigating, for feeling our way through, the much larger domain of stuff that isn't susceptible to proof or disproof, that isn't checkable against the physical universe."

As he says, science is never going to give us the basis to make secure judgements about things like justice or mercy--works of the human imagination. Literature and music, dreams, hopes, sorrows--all this is our emotional life and hugely important.

He had a direct experience of mercy from something, somewhere that was so powerful, it affected him profoundly. The emotion, he says, came before the intellectual assent to any Christian propositions.

Hard to explain this book--will sound touchy-feely but actually is argued (IMO) with intellectual rigour and aimed at people who like to think deeply about these things.

Don't know if Graham J or others who had read it will agree with this description of the book but anyway it's an excellent read for anyone interested in contemporary apologetics--or non-apologetics, he does call it "Unapologetic " on purpose!
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Acknowledged Isaac David. I suppose I was thinking of the usual tennis matches that play to an exhausting draw. Like William Lane Craig taking on the mantle of Augustine (eight and a half million ...), Anselm and Kalam (... ´words´). Whereas Jesus used startling rhetoric predicated on completely radical inclusive humanist premisses. Premisses that all liberal atheists embrace more than the majority of Christians.

I´ve gone past the point of caring to engage with atheism and in fact, a la Peter Rollins, embrace it. As Jesus did on the cross. I want to unite with atheists and Muslims (not for the first time, having seen the superb Mehdi Hassan Oxford Debate on Is Islam a Violent Religion a couple of weeks ago) and others being moved by the Spirit poured out on ALL flesh. Even Christians.

As so many have said here, I´m looking for the alternative to words. If I have to engage with atheism it surely must be by embracing it, agreeing with it, ´me too´ and then radically topping it, seeing it and raising it with Jesus.

Just like He did. As for opposing evil in His religion, yeah that too. That´s part of agreeing with atheism. To win them for Christ
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
When I try to have a debate with atheists (also on the Ship), my experience is often that they claim to hold a scientific position, but they don't seem to grasp some very basic things about what Science exactly is. Repeatedly these debates end up at a point where I find myself in the position where I have to argue some of the very basic tenets of Science to them, for example what constitutes a scientific explanation. Already a couple of times I caught myself thinking about my opponent in terms of "Hello? You're the one who claims to defend Science here "

I have to say that I find this increasingly tedious, and I'm losing my interest in these debates a bit.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
And Isaac David, I agree, I suppose the audience need to see that ´our boy done good´ in a scrap, but it´s so ... second rate. I love boxing too. So Greco-Roman. A polished turd.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
LeRoc put his finger on it, debating with atheists is so damn boring and tedi....zzz.
 

---

Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
....quite possibly without realising the dubious nature of some of those arguments.

---

Could you cite one or two, please?

---

quote:

---

claim to hold a scientific position, but they don't seem to grasp some very basic things about what Science exactly is.

---

quote:

---

Faith, by definition, is believing in things without evidence and, personally, I don't do that, because I'm not an idiot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
debating with atheists is so damn boring

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

This thread has grown more tu quoques than my French beans are producing flowers and beans, no doubt because of the hot weather. And all the little tu quoques are now producing little tu quoquelets.

---

quote:

---

nearly 20 years ago when this interweb thing started I was completely addicted to Glenn Miller´s Christian Think Tank.

---

Ahhh...so that's where he ended up

(And another big thumbs up for Spufford's 'Unapologectic'. He's apparently turning up at GB this year...).
 

---

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :
 
Well as I think someone mentioned up thread there are atheist and there are atheists. In general conversation I find it quite usual to meet people who have rejected a view of God that many theists have never held in the first place. Presented with straightforward arguments for why I believe faith in God is rational they tend to become less confrontational, and more conversational. From there we can get onto more useful matters of discussion such as who we think Jesus was and is, why he is significant, what happens when we die, and how we can make the most of the life we have. Apologetics can helpfully provide a platform for such discussions by demonstrating a sound basis for theistic and, in my case, Christian belief.

Debating with anyone is useful if it leads to a better understanding of each other's position. Where it degenerates into repetition of fixed positions it tends to become somewhat tedious. But as an old friend of mine who used to post here once remarked, repeating arguments for Christianity in debates with atheists can be valuable for the non-participant who is listening in - particularly the agnostic who is still weighing up the arguments and evidence.
 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
As far as I know, the term 'New Atheism' is one coined by believers to mock us atheists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

quote:

---

Originally posted by argona:
My difficulty debating with many atheists is indeed their ignorance, and not just of religion. So few seem to understand that what science is leading us to deny is not the existence of God, it's the reality of the self acting through time, which they all continue to behave as though they are.

---

Atheism is the absence of belief in a god or gods.

You will probably continue to have difficulty debating with atheists if you are ignorant of what atheism is. Also see below re Pew Forum survey of religious knowledge.

As to the reality of self - AFAIK science is suggesting that self is simply a story we tell ourselves to accommodate a reactive construct which is dependant upon our environment.

---

quote:

---

lilBuddha: Science=/=atheism.
Science=/=any attempt to prove/disprove God

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Jade Constable
The OP implies there is 'more atheism' and I agree, since, for instance, far more radio presenters, comedy programmes, etc assume that their listeners are of the general, of-course-there's-no-God opinion.

---

quote:

---

Dawkins has been talking this way for years, ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I'd just like to say, that repetition doesn't make him wrong!

---

quote:

---

One of the biggest things that drove me away from religion was the hypocrisy. To see people who spoke with very little compassion, patience or understanding speaking about morality and faith in a way they completely contradict.

---

I've never found this a convincing argument.

I suppose it's because I've always known the church to contain people who are limited, as indeed I am, and I never expect anything like perfection. But I don't opt out of the human race because much of it is flawed, nor do I out of religion.

It's like objecting to medicine because it sometimes does not work at all, and usually not as well as we would hope.

You should judge a faith by it's recognised exemplars. If you find Christ a hypocrite clearly there's no further to go. But if you've heard somebody sounding off (as I have) that AIDS is a gay plague sent by God, or (as someone who got Toronto-ised assured me) that God knows what to do with homosexuals - kill them, then if you really think they are representing the real genius of christianity, then fair play, you can invoke a plague on us all. Alternatively you can leave it to the idiots who say that sort of thing.

Mind you, maybe invoking a plague isn't exactly the way of the Lord.

Mind you, is intolerance always bad? Why tolerate wrong? I quite admire Charles Finney for refusing communion to slave owners. There is something in what CS Lewis said that we use the word tolerate wrongly. You tolerate when you genuinely believe something is wrong. Like tolerating an overt racist in a church, which frankly I would find hard. I "tolerate" same-sex relationships because I do not see them as wrong.

DH warning accepted.
 

---

Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :
 
"We must meet one another doing good"

Pope Francis

As an Atheist who has been practicing Zen Buddhism for around 10 years. When I meet a Christian feeding the hungry,helping the sick working for justice etc. (Walking the walk) I feel honored to be in their presence and hopefully there are good things to be done together.
When I meet a Christian that tells me I MUST believe "six impossible things before breakfast" or I will rot in hell for eternity I would rather hang out with the Mad Hatter.
 

---

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ikkyu:
"We must meet one another doing good"

Pope Francis

As an Atheist who has been practicing Zen Buddhism for around 10 years. When I meet a Christian feeding the hungry,helping the sick working for justice etc. (Walking the walk) I feel honored to be in their presence and hopefully there are good things to be done together.
When I meet a Christian that tells me I MUST believe "six impossible things before breakfast" or I will rot in hell for eternity I would rather hang out with the Mad Hatter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
As Christianity isn't about good works, nor is it about believing six impossible things before breakfast, I don't know where this leaves anyone.

Love, kindness and goodness are some of the fruits of the spirit which grow as we grow in faith, therefore they should be seen in greater evidence as we mature.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: Raptor Eye. There is only love. And only love works. Does good. To the loved. To the lover it is its own reward.

---

There's not only love, there's faith and hope too. The greatest is love, agreed

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If your faith does not generate works, then it is useless and I would argue you do not truly understand Jesus' words and therefore do not truly have faith.
If faith is necessary to salvation, as in believing in God, then S/he is unworthy of adoration.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
To believe in Christ doesn't mean to suspend our intellect, nor does it mean we're perfect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by argona:
I said 'deny', not 'disprove'. Of course atheism merely states that with no evidence for the existence of a deity, and no explanatory value in such existence as a hypothesis, the notion can safely be dismissed - like Russell's teapot .....

No atheism does not say that the notion can safely be dismissed – atheism is a state of unbelief (as you say not disbelief) and nothing more. I imagine that it is possible for atheists, particularly those raised in the more fundamental versions of religion, to be quite concerned about their inability to believe. If, as some Christians believe, there is a petty, vicious, vindictive, vengeful tribal chieftain type god we atheists probably ought to be scared stiff shouldn't we? Forty years ago, in my union rep. days, I used to throw up before entering negotiating meetings (only the first few) with management. I ascribe this to being brought up by a mother who believed that her god ordered the circumstances of our lives and that anyone attempting to improve upon His perfection was wickedness personified. I was convinced that what I was about to do was right, just, moral – but I still threw up.

The reason I said that science does not deny the existence of God is that the theistic hypothesis, implying some teleological account of existence, could resolve a difficulty - namely that science does, in the sense of denial that I'm talking about here, seem to deny the existence of self without which we cannot live as we must.

I don’t think that science can ever deny the existence of something that can be called God (or multiple Gods for that matter). What science can say is that it finds no evidence for their existence and no reason why there need be gods. That said, there are many areas still unresolved by science and one can posit a god alongside many other explanations. History suggests that discovery will, if it occurs, exclude the supernatural.

Logic can, of course, cast severe doubt on the existence of the formal god(s) structures that humans have dreamt up - but the irrationality of the abrahamic god (for example) does not disprove the possibility of some alterative existence which may be considered godlike by some. It is somewhat ironic that, if there is a proof of God, it will be science, rather than religion, that discovers it.

science does ,..seem to deny the existence of self without which we cannot live as we must. I don’t follow your meaning re live as we must can you explain please?


I fully agree with much of the rest of your post – except that I don’t see any need for theism to rescue my life. Perhaps I’m just lucky that I don’t have a need to have an explanation (however vague) for everything. I’m relatively new to the “no free will” concept – the experimental evidence which supports it seems rationally unassailable but I can’t say I welcome it. In the meantime I enjoy experiencing my life, and hope that the net result of my life will be a miniscule plus in the quality of life for (a few?) others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I'd just like to say, that repetition doesn't make him wrong!

---

No, but it does make him boring.

Yes, of course, atheism is boring – it’s so simple even I can understand it.

If one need's the intellectual stimulation of something which can be argued about constantly without any possibility of closure, something where everybody’s opinion is (unless you were a Cathar etc.) as irrelevant as anybody else’s then religion is an obvious candidate. If one wants to debate pre/mid/post trib millennialism, perpetual virginity, the existence of purgatory and the validity of indulgences, the precise nature of the Trinity, whether 666 (or was it 616 originally?) will be branded on to foreheads or whether the magic number is your social security number/smartphone security code/ gun certificate ID etc. etc. etc. one can do so with great gusto, a different topic every day and absolutely no possibility of a conclusive outcome. (see SoF - What is a Christian et al ).

In other words - is the act of debating a stimulating intellectual squabble, an attention/finance seeking advertisement or a boring, repetitive attempt to increase understanding and possibly improve someone's quality of life?

---

quote:

---

HughWillRidmee: I’m relatively new to the “no free will” concept – the experimental evidence which supports it seems rationally unassailable but I can’t say I welcome it. In the meantime I enjoy experiencing my life, and hope that the net result of my life will be a miniscule plus in the quality of life for (a few?) others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I’m relatively new to the “no free will” concept – the experimental evidence which supports it seems rationally unassailable but I can’t say I welcome it. In the meantime I enjoy experiencing my life, and hope that the net result of my life will be a miniscule plus in the quality of life for (a few?) others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

HughWillRidmee: I’m relatively new to the “no free will” concept – the experimental evidence which supports it seems rationally unassailable but I can’t say I welcome it. In the meantime I enjoy experiencing my life, and hope that the net result of my life will be a miniscule plus in the quality of life for (a few?) others.

---

That's great. But of course, if there is no free will, it's also quite meaningless. I assume you are suggesting that my life is meaningless – it is perfectly possible to argue that it is and, indeed, why should/must it be meaningful except for human arrogance. Obviously there are some consequences of my life - but meaning (as in "purpose")? Meaning for who, me? - I didn't choose to live so I can't have been born because of a self-determined purpose: for others? - they didn't choose for there to be me(whatever me may be) other than my parents in a vague "let's make a baby" sort of way. Meaning for society? - society will seek to get me to conform/promote its preferences but that is merely an attempt to indoctrinate me with a purpose belief - Meaning for god - you're back to defining/demonstrating the existence of "god". (in this case "god" is what decides my purpose?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I’m ....... others.

---

Keep enjoying your life, the arguments are hardly unassailable. Though most I've read argue some level of cause beyond conscious control.
I wasn’t talking about arguments, unless there is a concerted conspiracy of perverted science the experimental evidence is what matters, and that seems to be both extensive and rigorous

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

HughWillRidmee: I’m relatively new to the “no free will” concept – the experimental evidence which supports it seems rationally unassailable but I can’t say I welcome it. In the meantime I enjoy experiencing my life, and hope that the net result of my life will be a miniscule plus in the quality of life for (a few?) others.

---

That's great. But of course, if there is no free will, it's also quite meaningless.

---

quote:

---

HughWillRidmee: I assume you are suggesting that my life is meaningless – it is perfectly possible to argue that it is and, indeed, why should/must it be meaningful except for human arrogance.

---

quote:

---

que sais-je: So what's the problem with my life being meaningless?

---

Just to be clear again, the word "it" in my sentence didn't refer to the noun "life".

The same answer (or actually it's a return question ) I gave to HughWillRidmee: if you believe that our thoughts are meaningless physical processes of our brains, then why are we having this discussion?
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
Martin PC Not, etc. said

quote:

---

As a distant, stumbling, blind, deaf, dumb and dumber, hypocritical follower of Jesus God Incarnate I fail to see anything to disagree with in atheism.

---

Nailed it.
 

---

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

que sais-je: So what's the problem with my life being meaningless?

---

Just to be clear again, the word "it" in my sentence didn't refer to the noun "life".

The same answer (or actually it's a return question ) I gave to HughWillRidmee: if you believe that our thoughts are meaningless physical processes of our brains, then why are we having this discussion?

---

quote:

---

que sais-je: Because that's how the machine works.

---

quote:

---

que sais-je: PS if you are in the Amazon it must be morning for you - I think that gives you an unfair advantage over us drooping European based types. So must to bed - another long day and the machine wants to mangle and backup the day's events. Sweet dreams.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I’m ....... others.

---

Keep enjoying your life, the arguments are hardly unassailable. Though most I've read argue some level of cause beyond conscious control.

---

I wasn’t talking about arguments, unless there is a concerted conspiracy of perverted science the experimental evidence is what matters, and that seems to be both extensive and rigorous

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Of course. But then nothing we're saying here has meaning. Xignqvrtsgg4$. The machine could just as well have me drink a whisky now. Or kill the old lady who's passing on the street in front of my house.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by glockenspiel:
How so??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
Some people find Christianity unattractive because its adherents don't live up to its teaching, and other people find it unattractive because they do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by glockenspiel:
How so??

---

It sounds like this:

'Dawkins is a plonker, therefore atheism is wrong'.

I'm not sure if that is a genuine ad hominem, but it it is surely fallacious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by glockenspiel:
their assigned task.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by glockenspiel:
I simply don't understand the last two posts. Can anyone explain what they are on about?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Nope, I don't get the point of that last post either.

---

quote:

---

que sais-je: In the sense that converting inputs to actions is meaningful I'd say there is meaning.

---

quote:

---

quetzalcoatl: But as you say, without free will, I am not at liberty to prefer the true over the false, am I? In fact, terms such as 'I' and 'liberty' and 'prefer' become nonsense, and perhaps even 'evidence'.

---

quote:

---

quetzalcoatl: it is perfectly possible to be a dualist and an atheist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by que sais-je:
[QB]

"If I believe free will is an illusion, I have three choices."

[QB]

---

Oh my. I'd have been ejected from the premises for uncontrollable laughter.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

quetzalcoatl: it is perfectly possible to be a dualist and an atheist.

---

That might be true. With some of the atheists I've been discussing with on the Ship I've been having some difficulty in trying to establish whether they hold a dualist position or not.

In any case, I think that adopting a dualist position requires an amount of belief. Which doesn't make it that different from the theist position.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
For example, if you believe that there is no free will, then there is no real difference between the religious position and a 'scientist' position. Sure, our belief that there is a God may be false, but what's the difference between a machine that has an intermediate state that translates as 'false' and another machine that has an intermediate state that translate as 'true'? Why would it matter?

---

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: five minutes from now it might help the 'true' machine make better decisions than the 'false' one

---

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: (for example, the former might decide not to persecute other machines just because they are set up a different way).

---

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: it matters an awful lot to them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: five minutes from now it might help the 'true' machine make better decisions than the 'false' one

---

No, I'm sorry. This assumes that the second machine has a choice, an option that has already been ruled out by people who believe there is no free will.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: (for example, the former might decide not to persecute other machines just because they are set up a different way).

---

So what? A machine persecutes or even destroys another machine. Big deal.

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: it matters an awful lot to them.

---

If there is no free will, then there is no 'them'.

---

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: It does not imply a choice (in that sense) at all. All it implies is a change to the processing faculties of the machine such that the same input produces a different output.

---

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: The complexity of our machinery is more than sufficient to produce, well, us - even if, at the molecular level, it's ultimately nothing more than physics and chemistry.

---

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: Like if there's no God then there's no point in love or compassion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
What is it that gives meaning to a machine that converts inputs to actions? An operator who interprets these inputs and actions.

---

quote:

---

I'm sorry, but like other people on this thread it is at this point that I find the atheists' dialogue intellectually dishonest.

---

quote:

---

.. but what's the difference between a machine that has an intermediate state that translates as 'false' and another machine that has an intermediate state that translate as 'true'? Why would it matter?

---

quote:

---

quetzalcoatl
But as you say, without free will, I am not at liberty to prefer the true over the false, am I? In fact, terms such as 'I' and 'liberty' and 'prefer' become nonsense, and perhaps even 'evidence'.

---

quote:

---

the universe itself as an utterly immanent order making structure without ground

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by que sais-je:


But I have a lot of sympathy with Martin's view in so far as I understand it. I picked up a book I'd bought for 50p a few days ago and opened it at random. It said:

" ... the one who can best point out our error, and help us to see it, is the adversary whom we wish to destroy. This is perhaps why we wish to destroy him. So, too, we can help him to see his error, and that is why he wants to destroy us. ... Love, love only, love of our deluded fellow man as he actually is, in his delusion and his sin: this alone can open the door to truth." Thomas Merton (Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander)

---

quote:

---

The position that the complexity of our brain produces 'us' is already a dualist position. That's not what we're discussing here.

---

Whoa, careful tiger, you are making an assertion well above our pay grade here. As I understand it, it only becomes dualist if there is no 1 to 1 mapping of brain states to mind states, ie there is some sort of emergence going on. And even then it isn't dualism in the sense I think you mean it, ie substance dualism, where there are different realms of existence, the physical and the mental/spiritual.

But we have talked about this before, nay recently, and I don't suppose either of us will change our minds/brain states any time soon.

But I want to ask you something. For you, it seems, free will is the key. If we don't have it, we have no meaningful existence. But what do you actually mean by free will, and how does your, presumably theistic account, actually work? You seem to be wedded to what the philosophers call libertarian free will, that is a free will that means our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by a god or the physical world. In that case, when I see a wallet stuffed with tenners in the road, what are the determining factors in my choosing between trousering it and handing it in? And how is the "I" doing the choosing more free in your account than in the materialist/naturalist account?
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 

quote:

---

que sais-je: I'm struggling with how you use the word 'meaning'. When someone refers to the meaning of a word, I think of some alternative form of words which we can agree can be substituted.

---

quote:

---

que sais-je: I certainly don't think I'm being dishonest in the sense of consciously claiming to believe something I don't.

---

quote:

---

que sais-je: If it reduces your (or your groups) survival chances, it gives a sort of implicit advantage to those with a different intermediate state.

---

If we are going to use procreation as a way of evaluating belief vs. non-belief, then belief wins hands-down. Don't ask me for exact numbers, but I have no doubt that the believers in this world are producing more offspring than the non-believers. So, by the Darwinian argument, we shoud urge everyone to believe

And if we're going for attractiveness as a criterium, well, I'm a believer and I don't think I need to say any more.

quote:

---

que sais-je: 'I' is the process that establishes what has happened.

---

quote:

---

Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: And LeRoc. I like you mate, I really do, but how does something as meaningless as freewill null compassion?

---

quote:

---

Grokesx: Whoa, careful tiger, you are making an assertion well above our pay grade here. As I understand it, it only becomes dualist if there is no 1 to 1 mapping of brain states to mind states, ie there is some sort of emergence going on. And even then it isn't dualism in the sense I think you mean it, ie substance dualism, where there are different realms of existence, the physical and the mental/spiritual.

---

quote:

---

Grokesx: But what do you actually mean by free will, and how does your, presumably theistic account, actually work?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

HughWillRidmee: I assume you are suggesting that my life is meaningless – it is perfectly possible to argue that it is and, indeed, why should/must it be meaningful except for human arrogance.

---

I wasn't talking about your life in particluar, it's just that if you believe in "no free will" then I don't see how anything we do can have meaning. And if you believe this to be true, then why are you discussing things with me?

I’m assuming that you consider “meaning” to be synonymous with “purpose” and trying to understand what you think should have meaning. Life, as the opposite of death, has, in itself, no purpose. On the other hands lives can have meaning in more than one way. Depends upon how you interpret "meaning" I suspect.

People and their actions have effects on other people and their environment. Such actions are (I suspect always) purpose-driven. To others, our purpose-driven (food, shelter, warmth, power, sex etc.) lives have meaning in the sense that they create change. Since the current theory seems to be that we interpret how others see and react to us as our “self” the loop is completed when we see our self-purpose as that which others see in us?

At another level - Perhaps we (human beings) are unable to prevent seeing noble, conscious, self-congratulatory meaning (purpose) in our actions even if there was only base unconscious decision. Perhaps we discuss things because we accept that the balance of nature and nurture inputs can be varied by additional data, leading to an irresistible change in output? It could be that we are incapable/frightened of physical combat and use SoF as a substitute to dissipate the insistent urgings of our hormones. Maybe we are just trying to clarify our own thoughts? Does it matter? There probably is an answer to every question but I'm never going to know most of the questions so not knowing some answers is hardly a show-stopper.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The evidence of at least some form of free will is as strong as the evidence for no free will.

I would appreciate you providing links/references to experimental evidence which supports your statement. If you wish I can find and re-supply the details of books previously mentioned which provide many references to experimental evidence which strongly suggest that what we usually call free will is a self-generated story. Are you throwing doubt on the techniques and/or interpretation of the claimed results? – if so do you have specific criticisms?

---

quote:

---

Can you give an example of a non-dualist 'us' (or 'I')?

---

quote:

---

And don't ask me how,

---

quote:

---

...these processes don't completely determine our decisions but there is an 'I' that also influences them. And don't ask me how, but I believe this 'I' is connected with God...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grokesx:
As far as I can see, when you say:

quote:

---

...these processes don't completely determine our decisions but there is an 'I' that also influences them. And don't ask me how, but I believe this 'I' is connected with God...

---

I can't see how a connection with God makes the "I" any more of a free agent than it would have been if it were simply the result of genes, brain, experience and environment. In my example, if I decided to hand the wallet in, presumably the decision would be Godly inspired. So I couldn't take any credit for it.

---

quote:

---

Grokesx: I don't think I can add any more than I did the last time we talked about this.

---

And the last time we talked about this, I gave a reaction

quote:

---

Grokesx: But I am asking you how. (...) And I think I am quite justified in doing so in the face of your accusations of intellectual dishonesty with those you disagree with.

---

quote:

---

Grokesx: I can't see how a connection with God makes the "I" any more of a free agent than it would have been if it were simply the result of genes, brain, experience and environment.

---

I believe that besides matter, forces and natural laws there is a creative force in the Universe¹ which I call 'God'. The genes, the brain, the experience and the environment are all there, but there is something more. This something more isn't God making my decisions for me, but a creative force enabling that there is an 'I' who can make these decisions.

Now, how He does that, I really have no idea. I guess if I knew the answer to that, it would mean that I were God. And I can assure you, in spite of some evidence to the contrary, that I'm not.

So, when I find a wallet in the street (after I've checked that there isn't a string attached to it and a couple of children behind a bush ) everything comes into play: my genes, my brain, my experience, my environment... But they don't completely determine my decision. They all influence my 'I', but I can still decide where I'll go with all these influences.

So, in the end the responsibility lies with me. And God is watching, I'm sure.


¹ My words 'besides' and 'in' aren't entirely accurate here. I mostly think about the relationship between God and the Universe in a panentheistic way.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
I´m sure you did LeRoc. You are being positively Descartesian. Which can only play to a draw here. Which, as ever, plays to a false dichotomy.

There is chaos for sure.

And, er, compassion cannot be willed. According to the Judeo-Christian source library and indeed whole narrative, none are clean, none are sinless, none do good. Which is remarkably deterministic.

Compassion comes by suffering, by exposure, by confrontation.

Inevitably.

Let´s hope.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Hugh,

You make it dueced difficult to quote you, especially on my phone.
I will get links soon as I get a chance.
What I do say about the experiments on both sides of the issue is that they are a bit simple to carry such conclusions. This is of necessity, but the extrapolations are stretched.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
You got me on a roll here LeRoc. A rocky one for sure.

The source of compassion is God, who has no free will. Love loves. On the incarnation thread another false dichotomy is raised: because we are not THE hypostatic union we are not ... made in the image of God? From the breath of God, the mind of God, God? Made from? Made of?

Love.

Our need for compassion, to be loved and to love is innate, contingent.

Where is choice? (Did Satan have it? Adam and Eve? Judas?)

In the apostle Paul was helpless determinism - nature - to do the wrong thing.

(Satan never experienced that sense, or if he did it curdled instantly. Adam and Eve? Judas?)

In legalism, in being creedally, doctrinally and even behaviourally perfect, our hearts are benighted.

That is determinism.

Wow. I´m just wallopped round the ear ´ole there. I´ve bought in to the social gospel big time. And I´m frustrated ... sweet ... and bitter.

See?

Only God can will creation, against its will, despite its need, to love.

Chaos is creation, ineffable sensitivity to initial conditions, all going inevitably, Sisypheanly, ´freely´ down before it can go up, above, transcend, be transcended, along an infinity of paths via the same sink.

And one Will up.
 

---

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
Having read through page 3 several times, I'd just like to make a few comments..

I wonder if I'm a dualist. A quick glance at even the opening section on the subject in wikipedia fails to help! I think only a long study of Philosophy would - and it's too late for that. I do know, with a certainty that admits of only a vanishingly small possibility that any god will ever be proved, that I am an atheist.
If dualism requires 'a certain amount of belief' (LeRoc) then that would seem to be in free will. However, I don't think I 'believe in' it, I know what free will is thought to be, know that our human species acts on it, and that it is a totally integrated part of us, whatever we choose to call it.
I see no difficulty in the fact that everything that is, and that we are, is as a result of evolution. and that adding in an idea of a god caused unnecessary complications right from the start of our species, but because of how we evolved, it was inevitable!
I tend to nod in agreement with the atheist posts of course, but do so enjoy reading all these discussions.
 

---

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
Deleted - posted twice by mistake.

[ 28. July 2013, 08:30: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
LeRoc is on a roll - good stuff.

If there is no free will, then there is no I. If there is no I, then there is no 'my life' or 'my mind' or 'my anything'.

So, if you really believe that, this should produce an interesting version of existence! You have been in effect, depersonalized, sorry, I forgot, there is no you. Fundamental particles rule OK!
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Is that false dichotomy directed at ME oh wing-ed serpent?! At the decohered superposition of wave functions typing at you?
 

---

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If there is no free will, then there is no I. If there is no I, then there is no 'my life' or 'my mind' or 'my anything'.

---

quote:

---

So, if you really believe that, this should produce an interesting version of existence!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Is that false dichotomy directed at ME oh wing-ed serpent?! At the decohered superposition of wave functions typing at you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by que sais-je:


Buddhists call it Anatta and would agree with you that it is an interesting version of existence.

But then the Buddha might also say what's this got to do "Atheism & Apologetics"? I'm sure you know the parables, burning houses, poisoned arrows, that sort of thing.

The OP seemed to me more interesting.

---

quote:

---

Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: Compassion comes by suffering, by exposure, by confrontation.

Inevitably.

Let´s hope.

---

1. He tries to find someone weaker than him, and starts pushing that person down himself.
2. He has compassion with others who are suffering too. "I didn't like it when this happened to me, so I wouldn't want this to happen to others either."

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Knowing suffering yourself is definitely one of the ingredients of being able to have compassion with others.

---

quote:

---

And the last time we talked about this, I gave a reaction

---

quote:

---

Some people I'm having discussions with about this subject (also on the other thread you mentioned) assert that there is no free will, that the idea that we make choices (or even that there is a 'we' who makes choices) is an illusion, that everything is caused by the electro-chemical processes in our brain (which are either completely determined or allow for some quantum randomness, it doesn't make much difference in the end).

---

quote:

---

So, if people want to believe that we have no free will, then that's ok by me. I just don't see, given this premise, why they'd want to convince others of it.

---

They have no choice

Look, you know full well that the free will debate has been rumbling on for centuries and will probably rumble on for centuries more. As in much philosophy, it can be an exercise in definitions – word jugglery is not confined to the compatibilist position - but definitions are important when people make sweeping statements like, “If there is no free will, there is no ‘I’”. If they ain’t clear about what they mean by free will, and “I”, then the statement is just word salad.

And I know I keep urging you to read stuff, but before you go off on one again you should really get up to speed on the modern discussions. Pretty much all discussion of free will in philosophy these days is from a materialist standpoint, and the eliminative, "Free will is an illusion" is by no means a dominant position.

Maybe when someone does say, “Free will is an illusion” you could ask them what they mean by it. Depending on the answer, you might get a more fruitful discussion or confirmation that they are talking out of their arses.

And if you haven’t already done so, check out Lil Buddha’s link. Although there is no woo like quantum woo, that all looks like solid stuff to me.

quote:

---

This something more isn't God making my decisions for me, but a creative force enabling that there is an 'I' who can make these decisions.

---

quote:

---

Grokesx: Something that apparently does not apply to yours.

---

quote:

---

Grokesx: What you call a contradiction, I see as other people not accepting your reasoning.

---

quote:

---

Grokesx: For instance, your assertion that if the mind is solely determined by the processes in the brain, then the self, emotions etc don't actually exist is not a self evident truth

---

quote:

---

Grokesx: But that creative force would just be another thing that is not you that goes into making you. I can see no logical difference between that ensemble and one where the creative force is left out, as far as free agency is concerned.

---

quote:

---

In materialist models, the electro-chemical processes in my brain make the decisions.

---

quote:

---

Grokesx: No, no, no, a thousand times no. In materialist models - apart from eliminative models - the electro-chemical processes of the brain give rise to the "you" that makes the decisions.

---

1. The actions of the 'you' are already completely determined by the electro-chemical processes in the brain. In this case, the fact that the 'you' thinks it is making decisions, is an illusion.
2. The actions of the 'you' aren't completely determined because the chemical processes in the brain allow for quantum randomness. In this case, the fact that the 'you' thinks it is making decisions, is also an illusion.
3. From the electro-chemical processes in the brain somehow emerges a 'you' that can make decisions for itself. Also pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

Mind you, I have no problem if you pull rabbits about a hat to explain to yourself how the mind works. But if you get to pull your rabbit out of a hat, then I get to pull mine. (And mine is prettier )
 

---

Posted by Grokesx (# 17221) on :
 

quote:

---

However, they seem to switch between materialism and different forms of dualism so often, that it is often difficult to follow them.

---

quote:

---

Grokesx: As Martin pointed out in his elliptical way (he has flagged up other areas, too, although he is far too sensible to get involved in pointless arguing about them), your concept of dualism is the Cartesian one, which virtually no one bothers to defend these days.

---

quote:

---

Science isn't able to explain how we get from electro-chemical processes to a conscious 'you' without either pulling rabbits out of a hat or resorting to wishful thinking.

---

quote:

---

In my posts, I have pointed to at least half a dozen different theories, none of which is Cartesian. It would be so helpful if you actually read what I posted sometime

---

quote:

---

Grokesx: That's as maybe, but it's not clear to me that you have a handle on dualism vis a vis materialism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
LeRoc, your posts have reminded me of some experiences I've had during long meditation retreats. I have seen many people (after a certain period of time, say a week), have an experience, which is a kind of great I am, but the centre of this I am is everywhere. I mean that you hear the bird singing, and that is the centre; your back hurts, that is the centre; the tap drips - the centre. It is the point of view of no point of view.

Anyway, for some people this is a great experience, and sometimes I equate it with the pearl of great price. It can change your life.

Of course, you can relate it to God, who is the great I am, and who creates us in his image, as an I am, which appears as the ego. Of course, then we can fend off the great I am, and try to kill it!

You probably know that the old mystics used to speak of a circle whose centre is everywhere; well, it is available to us.

Thank you for your posts.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps not, but I'm not required to.

---

quote:

---

In the last couple of weeks, I have had a number of discussions with people who assert that there is a scientific explanation for the brain. When I asked you (plural)...

---

quote:

---

I asked a number of times "Which of these theories would you like to discuss?" but you always have wriggled around making a choice, or walked away from the discussion (as in your case).

---

quote:

---

So, the only thing I'm asking (at this point almost begging, imploring) is: if you think that there can be a scientific explanation for the brain, point to one —just one— explanation and we'll discuss it. You don't even have to commit yourself "this is the one that I'll believe in for all eternety", just picking a vague favourite will do. Then we'll pull up a chair, roll up our sleeves, order a good pint, and talk.
Until you do, I'll stay with my position: there cannot be a scientific explanation for the brain.

---

quote:

---

Grokesx: I entered the previous discussion because I felt you and Quetz were not representing the materialist position accurately and nothing you have said since has changed my view.

---

quote:

---

Grokesx: From our discussions so far, you have probably gathered I expect that consciousness will turn out to be an emergent property of the brain.

---

quote:

---

quetzalcoatl: LeRoc, your posts have reminded me of some experiences I've had during long meditation retreats. I have seen many people (after a certain period of time, say a week), have an experience, which is a kind of great I am, but the centre of this I am is everywhere. I mean that you hear the bird singing, and that is the centre; your back hurts, that is the centre; the tap drips - the centre. It is the point of view of no point of view.

---

quote:

---

Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: How does God make I´s? How does He ensoul us? En-I us? Is there one bag of ´I´ and He adds a pinch at the moment of conception?

---

I like to imagine that He's eating alphabet soup consisting only of the letter I
 

---

Posted by Grokesx (# 17221) on :
 

quote:

---

That's probably because neither quetzalcoatl nor I were trying to represent the materialist view. I can't speak for him, but if it is anything like me, it was more like trying to find out "What kind of view is my opponent presenting?"

---

quote:

---

You're entitled to expect this of course. I still feel that emergent properties are like pulling rabbits out of a hat.

---

quote:

---

Grokesx: The bit where you were telling people that they didn't grasp the implications of materialism didn't seem like that. Nor did the bits where you seemed to insist that eliminative materialism represented the whole of materialist/naturalistic philosophy.

---

I was telling people that they didn't grasp the implications of what they seemed to be saying, while still trying to ask questions about whether what they were saying represented eliminative materialism, some other kind materialism, or something else.

And I acknowledged the whole time that there are other theories within materialist/naturalistic philosophy besides eliminative materialism. I even presented various of these theories to them, trying to find out which one they were trying to represent.

Talk about misrepresenting my position

quote:

---

Grokesx: The slow accumulation of knowledge by people working in the various fields may provide an answer one day.

---

quote:

---

SusanDoris: I hesitate to post again here, but to say something like there can not be a scientific explanation for the brain is to deny evolution, isn't it? Whether we will ever understand all the intricacies of how the brain works I don't know, but surely there is no doubt that brains evolved?

---

quote:

---

Karl: Liberal Backslider: Dress it up as you like, this is just a God of the Gaps argument.

---

quote:

---

Karl: Liberal Backslider: I take it you're referring to what's called the "Hard problem" here? http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580394-5,00.html

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
No matter how complex you assume the relationships between our electro-chemical processes to be, you haven't begun to arrive at consciousness.

---

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: If consciousness is the complex electro-chemical processes in our brains, then there's no problem to solve.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: If consciousness is the complex electro-chemical processes in our brains, then there's no problem to solve.

---

No, it isn't. Electro-chemical processes is about elements, about resistances, currents... The experience of consciousness that each and every one of us has is something entirely different.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Sounds are neither true nor false; they're just particular patterns of moving air molecules. But I can still communicate truth or falsehood by using the words "true" or "false".

There's nothing magical about ermergence. One does not need an overseeing traffic congester to get from the behaviours of individual drivers to phantom motorway jams, for example.

---

quote:

---

Karl: Liberal Backslider: Except of course that the one directly correlates to the other, as is explained by the article.

---

quote:

---

Karl: Liberal Backslider: One does not need an overseeing traffic congester to get from the behaviours of individual drivers to phantom motorway jams, for example.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
No, it isn't. Electro-chemical processes is about elements, about resistances, currents... The experience of consciousness that each and every one of us has is something entirely different.

---

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: In what way?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: In what way?

---

In the way that me looking at flower and thinking it's beautiful I have an experience that has nothing to do with elements and currents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: In what way?

---

In the way that me looking at flower and thinking it's beautiful I have an experience that has nothing to do with elements and currents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Sounds are neither true nor false; they're just particular patterns of moving air molecules. But I can still communicate truth or falsehood by using the words "true" or "false".

There's nothing magical about ermergence. One does not need an overseeing traffic congester to get from the behaviours of individual drivers to phantom motorway jams, for example.

---

But your example actually contains the hard problem. Sounds are not true or false, and the physical words do not convey truth or falsity, since they are arbitrary. It is the propositions which are true or false, and propositions are not physical objects.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: In what way?

---

In the way that me looking at flower and thinking it's beautiful I have an experience that has nothing to do with elements and currents.

---

Except that it has everything to do with them; scientists can tell that you're having that experience by looking at your brain activity.

---

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: Why doesn't it? How do you know?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Sounds are neither true nor false; they're just particular patterns of moving air molecules. But I can still communicate truth or falsehood by using the words "true" or "false".

There's nothing magical about ermergence. One does not need an overseeing traffic congester to get from the behaviours of individual drivers to phantom motorway jams, for example.

---

But your example actually contains the hard problem. Sounds are not true or false, and the physical words do not convey truth or falsity, since they are arbitrary. It is the propositions which are true or false, and propositions are not physical objects.

---

No, but they are modelled by physical processes in the brain, in much the same way that they're represented by the arbitrary sounds "true" and "false".

I'm not so sure this is God of the Gaps - it might be argument from Personal Incredulity - "I can't see how physical processes can give rise to consciousness, therefore they don't".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: In what way?

---

In the way that me looking at flower and thinking it's beautiful I have an experience that has nothing to do with elements and currents.

---

Except that it has everything to do with them; scientists can tell that you're having that experience by looking at your brain activity.

---

Everything? Come off it. They can't describe the experience at all.

---

quote:

---

Karl: Liberal Backslider: But the point is there's a direct correlation between the experience and the brain activity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Karl: Liberal Backslider: But the point is there's a direct correlation between the experience and the brain activity.

---

Correlation ≠ explanation.

There is a great correlation between the decreasing number of pirates and the warming up of the climate too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Marvin: Chemical processes are the same as consciousness
LeRoc: No, they aren't. They're different things.
Marvin: Prove to me that they aren't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Karl

And you'd have a better chance with 'science is so wonderful, and it can explain everything, well, actually not, but one day it will!'. Dogmatism and fideism in one short sentence.

---

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: You may have misunderstood my question. I was wondering how the experience of seeing a flower can have "nothing to do with" electrochemical processes given that it quite clearly involves photoreceptor cells in your retinas, electric impulses along your optic nerve and the interpretation of those impulses by the cells in your visual cortex. Or did you have some other experience in mind?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The final blow by scientism is 'it's a developing field'. In other words, here's a promissory note for future developments in neurology, which will one day, I promise, demonstrate how brain activity gives rise to mental stuff.

This just strikes me as philosophically naive and non-congruent. It might well be that this not a scientific problem at all, but a philosophical one. Brain and mind are not in the same category. It's like trying to get a motive out of a geranium.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Karl

And you'd have a better chance with 'science is so wonderful, and it can explain everything, well, actually not, but one day it will!'. Dogmatism and fideism in one short sentence.

---

Why should I choose "science can't explain this at the moment therefore there's a soul therefore God" over "science will probably find an explanation for this, like it has so many other things thought mysterious and proof of God in the past"?

I am not claiming that this is a done deal and science definitely will explain it. I am claiming that one is not forced by the lack of a current explanation to conclude that the soul exists and therefore God.

Therefore its apologetic value is limited.

---

quote:

---

Karl: Liberal Backslider: I am claiming that one is not forced by the lack of a current explanation to conclude that the soul exists and therefore God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: You may have misunderstood my question. I was wondering how the experience of seeing a flower can have "nothing to do with" electrochemical processes given that it quite clearly involves photoreceptor cells in your retinas, electric impulses along your optic nerve and the interpretation of those impulses by the cells in your visual cortex. Or did you have some other experience in mind?

---

Of course, my experience of seeing a flower has to do with photoreceptor cells and electric impulses (I disagree with your word 'interpretation' because it already adds a layer of meaning). However, that's not all there is. What I experience isn't photoreceptors and impulses, it's a sensation of "What a beautiful flower!"

---

quote:

---

Karl: Liberal Backslider: You do know that that sensation can also be created by poking your brain in the right place with an electrode?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Karl: Liberal Backslider: You do know that that sensation can also be created by poking your brain in the right place with an electrode?

---

That still doesn't explain it.

---

quote:

---

Karl: Liberal Backslider: No, but to my mind it strengthens the suspicion that experience and physical brain activity are tied together, rather than one of them taking place in some non-corporeal soul.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
However, that's not all there is. What I experience isn't photoreceptors and impulses, it's a sensation of "What a beautiful flower!"

---

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: Yes, that's what the impulses feel like.

---

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: Are you assuming that electrical impulses between brain cells don't feel like anything in and of themselves?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
For the physicalist, some kind of mentalese or anthropomorphizing always creeps into the description of the physical. Thus, the neurons somehow 'feel', or 'think', or 'sense'.

This is another magic link between the physical and mental, achieved via linguistic assault and battery.

Having your physicalist cake, and eating your metaphysics too!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: Yes, that's what the impulses feel like.

---

That's no explanation. You've introduced 'feeling' into something that is just an electro-chemical process.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: Are you assuming that electrical impulses between brain cells don't feel like anything in and of themselves?

---

Yes, very much. These impulse don't feel anything. They react to an electrical potential. And even the word 'react' is homomorphizing things here.

---

quote:

---

Karl: Liberal Backslider: Hmm - I wouldn't read to much into that. As an IT engineer I talk about computers "getting confused" and "having a think" or might refer to a server "thinking the request is coming from a different IP range", but it's shorthand and doesn't mean I really think that computers get confused or think for themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This is another magic link between the physical and mental

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
For the physicalist, some kind of mentalese or anthropomorphizing always creeps into the description of the physical. Thus, the neurons somehow 'feel', or 'think', or 'sense'.

This is another magic link between the physical and mental, achieved via linguistic assault and battery.

Having your physicalist cake, and eating your metaphysics too!

---

Hmm - I wouldn't read to much into that. As an IT engineer I talk about computers "getting confused" and "having a think" or might refer to a server "thinking the request is coming from a different IP range", but it's shorthand and doesn't mean I really think that computers get confused or think for themselves.

---

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: The physical and the mental aren't two different things though! Mental activity is physical activity.

---

Yes, and my aunt is a traffic bus You can't just assert this.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: The physical and the mental aren't two different things though! Mental activity is physical activity.

---

Yes, and my aunt is a traffic bus You can't just assert this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: The physical and the mental aren't two different things though! Mental activity is physical activity.

---

Yes, and my aunt is a traffic bus You can't just assert this.

---

It has to be demonstrated, and no-one can.

---

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: What sort of evidence would you accept?

---

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: In contrast, the evidence against amounts to no more than an argument from incredulity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The final blow by scientism is 'it's a developing field'. In other words, here's a promissory note for future developments in neurology, which will one day, I promise, demonstrate how brain activity gives rise to mental stuff.

---

quote:

---

Pre-cambrian: The irony is that it is the theists who are always so quick to trot out the dictum "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" to prop up the existence of their god. But as soon as the prospect of future scientific discoveries is brought up - when science already has a rather strong track record of provided explanations of how and why things happen - it is dismissed as a "promissory note".

---

I see no contradiction here anywhere
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Those things are just paraphrases of the problem - the link between a piece of nervous tissue and thoughts. Nobody denies that there is a link, but what is it? Just saying that brain is mind just dogmatizes it.

---

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: Just like vocal chord/mouth activity is speech.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Pre-cambrian: The irony is that it is the theists who are always so quick to trot out the dictum "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" to prop up the existence of their god. But as soon as the prospect of future scientific discoveries is brought up - when science already has a rather strong track record of provided explanations of how and why things happen - it is dismissed as a "promissory note".

---

I see no contradiction here anywhere

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Babies use their vocal chords and mouths, but they sure don't produce speech.

It's another split between the physical base, and the conscious product. How does one produce the other? No-one knows.

---

quote:

---

Pre-cambrian: No I don't suppose you would.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
"It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should , and yet it does." Chalmers, Facing up to the Problem of Consciousness.

---

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: You're still saying "consciousness" as if it's something other than a product of brain activity though. What exactly do you think it is?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
"It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should , and yet it does." Chalmers, Facing up to the Problem of Consciousness.

---

Maybe then the problem is with philosophy, which is after all limited to the confines of the human mind, and not with possible causations that the human mind is unable to understand or unwilling to accept.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Pre-cambrian: No I don't suppose you would.

---

No, because there isn't one.

I as a theist say: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so I have the freedom to believe in a God".

Materialists may say: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so I have the freedom to believe that Science will provide an explanation some day."

Yes, they have that freedom. But that doesn't constitute scientific proof. It is very much wishful thinking.

Where is the contradiction?

---

quote:

---

Pre-cambrian: It is not contradiction, it is double standards.

---

quote:

---

Pre-cambrian: You may think that expecting future scientific explanations is "wishful thinking", in which case perhaps you would like to provide some evidence for the existence of god before the next explanation comes along, just to redress the balance a tiny amount.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: You're still saying "consciousness" as if it's something other than a product of brain activity though. What exactly do you think it is?

---

No-one knows. But I'm not the one claiming that Science can provide an explanation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Pre-cambrian: It is not contradiction, it is double standards.

---

But there are double standards. Science sets different standards for itself than religion does. Science requires evidence, religion requires faith.

quote:

---

Pre-cambrian: You may think that expecting future scientific explanations is "wishful thinking", in which case perhaps you would like to provide some evidence for the existence of god before the next explanation comes along, just to redress the balance a tiny amount.

---

I don't have to, because I fully accept that my belief in God is having faith in something I don't have evidence for.

---

quote:

---

argona: Is God non-natural? Maybe off-centre here, but as a scientist/philosopher, the natural/supernatural divide seems unsustainable to me. What is, is natural. If God is, God is an entity of nature. Outside the universe, time, space, everything that follows from all that, yes. But whatever that denotes, is nature

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by argona:
Is God non-natural? Maybe off-centre here, but as a scientist/philosopher, the natural/supernatural divide seems unsustainable to me. What is, is natural. If God is, God is an entity of nature. Outside the universe, time, space, everything that follows from all that, yes. But whatever that denotes, is nature, albeit obscure to us now. As St Paul says, in time we shall know, as we are known.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Pre-cambrian: It is not contradiction, it is double standards.

---

But there are double standards. Science sets different standards for itself than religion does. Science requires evidence, religion requires faith.

---

quote:

---

Pre-cambrian: But what I was pointing out was religion setting one set of standards for itself and another set of standards for science. Those are double standards.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
theism has inherited the dualism of physics/metaphysics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
"It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should , and yet it does." Chalmers, Facing up to the Problem of Consciousness.

---

Maybe then the problem is with philosophy, which is after all limited to the confines of the human mind, and not with possible causations that the human mind is unable to understand or unwilling to accept.

---

Yes, you could argue that we are still wrestling around in the shambolic mess left by Descartes, and others. I don't think that for Aristotle this brain/mind dichotomy would have arisen as a problem, but since the Enlightenment split them, we are now trying to mend them! This may be impossible, since we have created the mess. The problem may not lie with the wished for solution, but with the question.

---

quote:

---

Pre-cambrian: Sometimes it may be a healthy rejoinder to say: "OK, it may be metaphysics but it doesn't stop it being silly."

---

I like this one
 

---

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :
 
Any time philosophy gets silly, it ain't philosophy!

Going back to the question I asked a little while back, suppose a godless universe that contains no sentient life, though perhaps some trees. By chance, random matter splats onto a surface making what a sentient being, had it existed, might have seen as a picture of a tree. Would it be a picture of a tree?

[ 01. August 2013, 00:24: Message edited by: argona ]
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
theism has inherited the dualism of physics/metaphysics.

---

You might find this pertinent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by argona:
Going back to the question I asked a little while back, suppose a godless universe that contains no sentient life, though perhaps some trees. By chance, random matter splats onto a surface making what a sentient being, had it existed, might have seen as a picture of a tree. Would it be a picture of a tree?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Is that because the mental / physical divide is an arbitrary one put in place for understanding, but not necessarily that helpful when more information is required?

A bit like early scientific hypotheses that do explain phenomena but the more those phenomena are investigated the more gaps are shown? We still use Newtonian Mechanics as a good approximation to Einstein's Relativity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by argona:
By chance, random matter splats onto a surface making what a sentient being, had it existed, might have seen as a picture of a tree. Would it be a picture of a tree?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by argona:
Going back to the question I asked a little while back, suppose a godless universe that contains no sentient life, though perhaps some trees. By chance, random matter splats onto a surface making what a sentient being, had it existed, might have seen as a picture of a tree. Would it be a picture of a tree?

---

Yes, of course it would.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Much like a tree falling in the forest, which, f no creature is present to hear it, does not make a sound.

---

quote:

---

Maybe there are religious people who do that, but I can assure you that I try to hold Science only to the standards it sets for itself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It creates a mechanical wave which is an occilation of pressure. "Sound" is the interpretation of said wave.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian
Added to the tendency (not least in parts of the Ship) to place philosophy, let alone metaphysics, on a pedestal.

---

quote:

---

That is one issue which seems to come out of this discussion. The split between objectivity and subjectivity has been enormously powerful... Maybe it's a pseudo-problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
"It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should , and yet it does." Chalmers, Facing up to the Problem of Consciousness.

---

Maybe then the problem is with philosophy, which is after all limited to the confines of the human mind, and not with possible causations that the human mind is unable to understand or unwilling to accept.

---

quote:

---

Grokesx: In this arena, religion and science can, if fruitful discussion is the aim, be held to the same sort of standards.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc
"Science will find an explanation some day".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by argona:
By chance, random matter splats onto a surface making what a sentient being, had it existed, might have seen as a picture of a tree. Would it be a picture of a tree?

---

No more, I think, that a pattern of random squiggles could amount to writing before there was a language written down like that.

Transforming a pattern of flat pigments into a representation of something is a more convention-governed activity than we usually realise. Think of child's drawings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Much like a tree falling in the forest, which, f no creature is present to hear it, does not make a sound.

---

Of course it does. Conservation of energy.

---

quote:

---

But this is what I've been trying to say for weeks! "Science will find an explanation some day" and "There is something here that cannot be explained by Science, which I choose to connect with God" are on the same footing.

---

quote:

---

Grokesx: Yes, you have claimed that, but have refrained from exposing your side of the argument to the same scrutiny you lavish on your opponents'.

---

quote:

---

Grokesx: You seem to think "Something to do with God" is a sufficient position while demanding science grade answers from the other side.

---

quote:

---

Grokesx: Mind you, at least you spotted the irony of a theist labelling emergence as pulling rabbits out of the hat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed...
The heart had been created using scaffolding from a pig's heart with all the cells washed out, then human stem cells were seeded into the heart. With a bit of teaching to persuade the cells to work in unity, this heart pumped blood. Now nobody really knew why those stem cells had differentiated the way they did, but the structure had triggered it. My thought was if you used God of the gaps, was it God that made this heart work?

---

quote:

---

Curiosity killed ...: The link to the discussion here was the demonstration of the working of the mind

---

quote:

---

Curiosity killed ...: My thought was if you used God of the gaps, was it God that made this heart work?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed...
But that implies that creating artificial hearts is of God - and that opens up another area of debate.

---

quote:

---

So, to summarize: after we've established where the line between Science and philosophy lies, we're all equals beyond that line.

---

quote:

---

But I'm allowing myself a somewhat stronger discussion style in establishing that line.

---

quote:

---

Grokesx: My interest is in the area between this line and our science/philosophy line, where the terms of discourse and argument are equal. Where there is no holding sciency arguments to one standard and religiousy ones to another.

---

quote:

---

My reaction to "Science will find an explanation one day" is: it's ok if you believe that, just don't pretend that this is already a scientific argument, or that we can be sure that it will happen.

---

quote:

---

Grokesx: I don't care what your reaction to that argument is because I have never made it. And I I'm not sure anyone on this thread has made it either.

---

quote:

---

In its essence, a heart is just a mechanical thing that can perfectly well be described by physics

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Grokesx: In this arena, religion and science can, if fruitful discussion is the aim, be held to the same sort of standards.

---

But this is what I've been trying to say for weeks! "Science will find an explanation some day" and "There is something here that cannot be explained by Science, which I choose to connect with God" are on the same footing.

---

quote:

---

We can often explain such behaviour by animals;

---

But that's the point. What was inexplicable turned out to be explicable, and the answer was nothing like we expected it to be.

Me looking at the flock in super slo-mo is roughly analogous to where we are now with brain imaging etc. The answer turned out to be emergence, and prior to the discovery, group mind or telepathy was seriously postulated as an answer. How close an analogy do you need
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
Lovely image of starlings, but I'm not sure that that works as an analogy. We can often explain such behaviour by animals; but we can't explain experience itself, except 'this is what the brain does'.

---

quote:

---

Physicalism may be a simple theory of the mind, but it is inadequate. A more adequate philosophy of mind will insist that the mind, while clearly related to the brain (and, indeed, to the human body) is far from ‘nothing but’ a complex arrangement of matter. At the very least, the mind has several immaterial properties, such as the intentional ‘aboutness’ of beliefs. It follows that no merely physical explanation of the mind is possible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grokesx:

quote:

---

We can often explain such behaviour by animals;

---

But that's the point. What was inexplicable turned out to be explicable, and the answer was nothing like we expected it to be.

Me looking at the flock in super slo-mo is roughly analogous to where we are now with brain imaging etc. The answer turned out to be emergence, and prior to the discovery, group mind or telepathy was seriously postulated as an answer. How close an analogy do you need

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by argona:

A better one than that, Grokesx. Looking more closely at a flock of starlings and seeing interactions that are invisible at a distance, is hardly comparable to, eg, looking more closely at a pattern of firing neurons and concluding... "Ah yes, that's me being pissed off with my partner for getting crabby with me, just because our son was crabby with her". (Ok, it's been a difficult evening.) That's not a difference of scale, or of the possibility of data collection, it's a difference of kind.

---

quote:

---

Grokesx: If we were actually having a proper conversation, this might well lead into various ideas on emergence and analogies with other, known complex emergent systems, drawing on neuroscience, cognitive science, biology, eco-systems, social sciences, meteorology, immunology etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by grokesx
I note it was written 2002.

---

quote:

---

Is there a part 2 where the author gives us a "more adequate" philosophy of mind?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ikkyu:

People have argued repeatedly in this thread that the pattern of firing neurons in the brain cannot be the same as the mind. That the two things are different. So what are the properties of the mind that cannot be explained as a combination of the interaction of our senses with the "outside" world and patterns in our neurons? What makes it different in "Kind"? How does that work?
What makes the mind work if its not the brain?
I keep hearing people pointing out the fact that the full scientific explanation of the Mind is still a work in progress. But what is the alternative? And how is it a better explanation? I would like to hear more of that. Or is that too much to ask?

---

quote:

---

What does the extra missing piece do that these don't? And how does it do it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Ikkyu
Your post ending:

quote:

---

What does the extra missing piece do that these don't? And how does it do it?

---

Good one!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ikkyu:
What happens when a person tastes chocolate? The piece of chocolate touches the taste buds. These send signals to the brain. Also we smell the chocolate at the same time and that is part of the experience.
Those messages generate activity in the brain. Put all of these together and you taste chocolate. If there is something wrong with your taste buds or your nose the signals that get to the brain are different and so is the experience. If you put something else and not chocolate it tastes different. If you have ever eaten chocolate before or have experienced something similar your memories will interact with the way your brain is processing this information and alter what it feels like.
Where is the need of a non-material component in that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:


It just seems to me to be a philosophical issue. Science has (correctly) exiled subjectivity from its domain, therefore can't describe it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ikkyu:
But what does "Ah yes, that's me being pissed off with my partner for getting crabby with me, just because our son was crabby with her" look like?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ikkyu:

Where is the need of a non-material component in that? If somebody stimulates your neurons in the same way but you are not really eating chocolate it still would feel the same. What is missing? And what does the missing piece in this description DO.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by argona:
I haven't a clue what it might look like, but I know how it feels. Resentment, love, anger, anxiety, concern, all of those were present. And I can't see how they could be described in any kind of "the knee bone's connected to the thigh bone" account of things. The attempt to do so looks, to me, like a serious category error.

If I'm wrong, and as I've said, that may well be wrong, it seems to me that the understanding of ourselves necessary to operate in any culture that has existed - and, I suspect, in any human culture that could exist - is annihilated.

---

quote:

---

Meaning? Is there something about the year 2002 that somehow invalidates ideas that were expressed during it?

---

quote:

---

Not that I'm aware of. But since falsification is a principle of science ...

---

quote:

---

Of course, you could actually engage with the article and criticise what Williams has actually said,

---

quote:

---

Just to take one example of the weirdness of physicalism: It is very strange to discuss whether my belief that I am hungry is to the left or the right of my belief that angel cake will satiate my hunger! Then again, what weight or mass should we attribute to the thought that an angel cake would be nice to eat?! How many thoughts about angel cakes will fit into the space of my brain?! If thoughts and beliefs were purely physical things one would expect such questions to be meaningful. Instead, they seem to be nonsensical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andromeda:
Surely the point people are trying to make is that the experience itself is non-material. The causes may be physical but the experience itself cannot be shown to be physical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grokesx:
@Quetz
I really don't understand how the first person/third person stuff is supposed to be such a massive problem. If a psychologist or neurologist or cognitive scientist is studying my consciousness, it's in the third person to him, so no problem. Simples.

---

quote:

---

Ikkyu: Where is the need of a non-material component in that? If somebody stimulates your neurons in the same way but you are not really eating chocolate it still would feel the same. What is missing? And what does the missing piece in this description DO. How does the missing piece work?

---

quote:

---

Ikkyu: Define non-material. If that "non-material" substance has any effect on the physical universe we could measure it, or observe it, and it would be part of the physical universe. If it does not, it is irrelevant because it makes no difference.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by grokesx
Meaning he has had eleven years to present the alternative view.

---

quote:

---

Scientific theories make predictions that can be tested empirically and that we can determine by observation and/or experiment whether they are wrong. No metaphysical theory can be falsified in that sense. Philosophers, bless em, always try to disprove each others metaphysical theories and rarely succeed in convincing anyone except themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:


It may be quite true that if we electrically stimulate some neurons in my brain I'll have the same experience, but that's not an explanation. Science doesn't accept this kind of reasoning as an explanation in other fields either, so it shouldn't count as one here.

Like I said before on this thread, I'm not a Cartesian. I don't believe that there is a non-material component that is responsible by itself for us having these experiences. We definitely need our brains for it, and the electro-chemical processes inside of it. But those aren't enough to explain this inner world, this experience.

Science doesn't give an explanation of how to get from these electro-chemical signals to an inner world, and I'm not sure if it can. Science describes the physical processes in this world, and I don't see how it can get to this inner world without postulating it in the first place.

I can't give an explanation of how to get there either. But since I believe that Science cannot either, I have the freedom to put my explanation there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Ikkyu: Define non-material. If that "non-material" substance has any effect on the physical universe we could measure it, or observe it, and it would be part of the physical universe. If it does not, it is irrelevant because it makes no difference.

---

Yet it is very real. I experience this inner world. You do too. Science doesn't have an explanation for this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
If you mix eggs and flour and sugar and many spices, then no matter how complex and sophisticated your baking recipe, you will not bake a functional gatling gun. You certainly can get a cake "emerging" from your baking, that goes beyond anything you can attribute to any single ingredient. But there is not the right sort of power in these things to make a gatling gun, no matter what you try. Likewise, there is no power in a computer program to become "conscious".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
If you mix eggs and flour and sugar and many spices, then no matter how complex and sophisticated your baking recipe, you will not bake a functional gatling gun. You certainly can get a cake "emerging" from your baking, that goes beyond anything you can attribute to any single ingredient. But there is not the right sort of power in these things to make a gatling gun, no matter what you try. Likewise, there is no power in a computer program to become "conscious".

---

Doesn't making a declarative statement like that imply a knowledge of how consciousness works akin to our current knowledge of cakes and Gatling guns?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Doesn't making a declarative statement like that imply a knowledge of how consciousness works akin to our current knowledge of cakes and Gatling guns?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Ikkyu, you haven't understood the problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
There is nothing in pushing electrons about that can get you there.
Likewise, there is no power in a computer program to become "conscious"

[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Is the Mind a Physical process in brains? And. How does that work? The evidence for the first of these is in my opinion overwhelming.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Our intuition amounted to nothing when attempting to deal with the subatomic world. Appeals to philosophical ideas about how things “have” to be, failed, and the result was Quantum Theory as you well know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Our normal intuition tells us nothing about what the experience of tasting chocolate should look like as seen from a third person perspective. Because we spend our lives in the first person. So it cannot be used as an argument against mental events being a physical process in the brain.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
We know a lot about how our consciousness works, since it simply is a primary and fundamental experience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Driving is something you do with a car, it is not something the car does as such.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

All you are saying here is that the argument does not hold because you allow yourself to appeal to magic where things become problematic. According to you, if we had much better science, then we could "bottom up" construct a physical brain, which would somehow gain a first person perspective. But how does that happen? If this is mechanistically dependent on the physical entities and their arrangements, then we must be able to understand this. At least we must be able to understand this in the sort of constructive / predictive sense with which we understand quantum mechanics. Otherwise you are just injecting magic juice there. But the argument is precisely that we can see no mechanistic way of constructing a first person perspective from physical entities. We have no constructive / predictive idea how this could arise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

Something is odd here. Something is not quite right. And real science does not happen by ignoring what is odd and not quite right.

---

quote:

---

Ikkyu: I agree that the scientific study of this topic is still a work in progress.

---

quote:

---

Ikkyu: A question, if you are not a Cartesian Dualist are you a Property Dualist?

---

quote:

---

Ikkyu: Just neurons firing that we experience as our “inner world”.

---

quote:

---

Ikkyu: I can only remind you of Grokesx's example of the flock of birds. 3 very simple rules lead to very complex behavior.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
We know a lot about what it's like to have consciousness, but that's not the same as knowing how it works. To borrow from your car analogy, saying "[w]e know a lot about how our consciousness works" because we're conscious entities is like saying that someone is a qualified car mechanic because they know how to drive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
And I'm a bit skeptical of reasoning by analogy. The analogy is never a perfect fit, and one that posits a hitherto unknown external* "driver" pushing around our meat-puppet bodies seems like it's made several highly speculative logical leaps.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ikkyu:
We are not cars, our brain is a part of us. Are you postulating we need a tiny invisible Homunculus to move us around?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ikkyu:
So assuming that the physical components account for the behavior observed is not an appeal to magic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
That's just an aspect of Dynamic Systems, that simple equations can lead to complex patterns. However, there isn't a paradigm shift here. Every bird can be described here as a point particle, a speed, and a formula giving its interaction with other birds, that can all be described in terms of Cartesian coordinates. What comes out is a pattern, that can also be described in terms of Cartesian coordinates. It's really the same thing. You don't get from 3 birds flying into the sky to a couple of giraffes preparing a sandwich. Within the brain, there is a paradygm shift between the physical action of our neurons and our mental 'inner world'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Because you cannot point to any feature of these myriad of cells that could reasonably be seen as leading to consciousness. Quantity cannot stand in for quality. No matter how big a shit heap becomes, it never starts smelling of roses. De facto you are saying: well yes, none of these neural units show any capacity for supporting consciousness, but if I put many, many of them together then - abracadabra - consciousness arises. That's magic thinking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
The very fact that you find variability in consciousness among animal species in rough proportion to the complexity of the central nervous system is a fairly good indicator that in this particular case you can make qualitative changes through quantitative increases.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
The performance increase appears to be relying on more (parallel) units, rather than the addition of some special unit. But this precisely suggests that we should find the capacity for consciousness in each of these many units, albeit in a distributed manner.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Isn't the expectation that if something possesses a characteristic then some (or all) of its components must also possess that characteristic known as the fallacy of division?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Isn't the expectation that if something possesses a characteristic then some (or all) of its components must also possess that characteristic known as the fallacy of division?

---

Nope. I'm not saying that every single neuron must be conscious. I'm saying that if a heap of them are conscious, then somehow that power to be conscious must be distributed among them.

---

I'm not entirely certain what you're trying to convey here. You seem to be saying that if something possesses a characteristic then its components must possess characteristics which, if assembled into that something, would give that something its characteristics. Or, in short version, something which has a characteristic has that characteristic (and may be made of smaller components). I'm not sure that tells us anything. Clarification, please?

[ 09. August 2013, 20:12: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I've been trying to explain to Crœsos 4 times on the other thread that this isn't the fallacy of division. I wonder if IngoB can do a better job

The fact that a 747 can fly by itself doesn't mean that we can expect all of its constituent parts to be able to fly by themselves.

However, Science cannot claim to have explained a 747 without having given an explanation of why it can fly by itself while its parts can't. Shouting "fallacy of division!" doesn't release Science from giving such an explanation.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
You seem to be saying that if something possesses a characteristic then its components must possess characteristics which, if assembled into that something, would give that something its characteristics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Or, in short version, something which has a characteristic has that characteristic (and may be made of smaller components).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure that tells us anything. Clarification, please?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Sure. You took a causal claim about characteristics and turned it into a tautology by removing the explanatory significance it attributed to composition.

---

quote:

---

Le RocWe do not know what the basic consciousness operation of a neuron is supposed to be

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Except you didn't attribute any significance to composition in your original point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
You just hypothesized that a if something possesses a property like consciousness it "must be distributed among [its component parts]". Sort of a "conservation of characteristics", like conservation of mass or angular momentum. I'm not sure that it's meaningful to say that, to continue with the Wikipedia example, a bisected 747 has 50% of the ability to fly unaided across the ocean. That proportion, by itself, tells us nothing (and would be deceptive if the sales agent said it would get us halfway there).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
At any rate, your assertion that "no matter how big a shit heap becomes, it never starts smelling of roses" seems to back up this interpretation of your position. Namely that a large, complex system can only have properties which exist in some (or all) of its component pieces.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
You just hypothesized that a if something possesses a property like consciousness it "must be distributed among [its component parts]". Sort of a "conservation of characteristics", like conservation of mass or angular momentum. I'm not sure that it's meaningful to say that, to continue with the Wikipedia example, a bisected 747 has 50% of the ability to fly unaided across the ocean. That proportion, by itself, tells us nothing (and would be deceptive if the sales agent said it would get us halfway there).

---

Nobody has said anything about how the distribution of power, and hence the composition, works. In fact, the one example that has been worked out above - namely the 747 - refutes your assertion now that this would have to mean that every part receives a proportional percentage share. To remind you, there was talk about "core components", thus an uneven distribution. Furthermore, the components identified - the jet engines and the wings, respectively - contribute quite differently to the flying abilities of a 747.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Obviously you can now add near arbitrary complexity to this. But ultimately this will be just more of the same. You cannot step from what the computer is and does (an electron pusher) to what we do in looking at it (explaining it in terms of states). There is nothing in pushing electrons about that can get you there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:

---

Le RocWe do not know what the basic consciousness operation of a neuron is supposed to be

---

I am reading with great interest as always. May I ask : In case I am misinterpreting, do you imply, when u use the phrase 'supposed to be', that there is a purpose, rather than an evolved, adaptive feature?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
But if you're cutting along a line of symmetry, there's an equal number of wings and engines in each half. That seems like a 50/50 split to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
More to the point, we seem to be in agreement that a complex system can have characteristics that are not present, even fractionally, in any of it's components. Being derived from the interaction of other, different characteristics of the components isn't the same thing as the component having some fraction of the derived characteristic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
This seems to be saying that a complex system can't have properties which aren't found in at least one of its component parts. Since this is the basis for you conclusion that there's something wrong in principle with trying to understand consciousness as a set of brain functions, I'm not sure that conclusion is supportable if it's acknowledged that a system need not have only the characteristics possessed by its component pieces.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0