|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: What makes atheists doubt their atheism?
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Squibs, first you misrepresent me by calling me an atheist (I'm not, or at least not yet), then you claim that I didn't answer the question in the OP (I did, even though I'm not a performing seal and I suspect the OP conceals an agenda), now finally your stated reasons for hypothetically doubting atheism are identical to one I gave which you deemed inappropriate in some way. For someone who's lamented the direction the thread's taken, you're not doing much to convince me that you're interested in genuine discussion.
It certainly wasn't my intention to misrepresent you by calling you an atheist. I misunderstood your world-view, which I now see is “Free-thinking Non-Denominational Christian Agnostic ”. If I could I would edit out your name from my post. But as I can't. So “Sorry” will have to do. The reason I thought you were an atheist is because you say the type of things I would expect an atheist to say.
I don't know anything about concealed agendas. However, if you think there is one then perhaps you should tell us what it is, because on the face of it it seems to me that a perfectly reasonable question has been asked. Ramarius even went on to individually thank those people (atheist and theists) who directly answered the question.
As for preforming seals - if you think that the theists here are asking for a show the happy thing about internet forums is that you don't have to respond if you don't want to. If you are preforming (and I don't agree that anyone intended you to do such a thing) then it is by your own choice.
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Well, that depends, doesn't it? My journey has been (and remains) very emotional, but not in the way you imply. Emotion is what makes it harder for me to cut the ties and walk away, not easier. I suspect if I was completely rational, I'd have gone long ago.
Yes, it depends. That is why I qualified who I was talking by saying, “I have noticed that there is a particular type of atheist who is prone to denying that emotion had any significant impact in the journey to atheism”. If this doesn't apply to you then that is fine. But let's be clear that I never had you, The Great Gumby, in mind when I wrote what I did.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
I've been thinking about my earlier post and would like to add to it a little.
I doubt quite a lot of things - whether this world is really what it seems to be, whether existence itself is what it seems to be, etc. For my own sanity I have made a conscious decision to assume that it is, but I toy with other ideas at times. One of the ideas I toy with is whether some 'superbeing' could exist. My answer to that is, of course, I don't know. But what I do know, as much as anyone can say they know anything, is that if there were such a superbeing then no religion yet described, imagined, or created by humans has yet made sense of it to my satisfaction. Hence I cannot believe in any religion or other form of belief currently practiced. I don't doubt my atheism in relation to what humans believe God to be.
This is what I was getting at, when I asked Justinian whether he ever thought outside the box and considered whether there might be something bigger than anything science can discover.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Squibs, first you misrepresent me by calling me an atheist (I'm not, or at least not yet), then you claim that I didn't answer the question in the OP (I did, even though I'm not a performing seal and I suspect the OP conceals an agenda), now finally your stated reasons for hypothetically doubting atheism are identical to one I gave which you deemed inappropriate in some way. For someone who's lamented the direction the thread's taken, you're not doing much to convince me that you're interested in genuine discussion.
It certainly wasn't my intention to misrepresent you by calling you an atheist. I misunderstood your world-view, which I now see is “Free-thinking Non-Denominational Christian Agnostic ”. If I could I would edit out your name from my post. But as I can't. So “Sorry” will have to do. The reason I thought you were an atheist is because you say the type of things I would expect an atheist to say.
Well, the label doesn't bother me nearly as much as the rest. Labels are only so much use, and this one's probably a bit out of date, but I don't have anything better to put in its place. As for sounding like an atheist, I can promise that I wasn't munching on a baby as I typed, if that's what you mean. I'm far more irritated that you specifically called me out by name as not answering the question to your satisfaction (as if I or anyone else owes you anything - that's what I mean about performing seals), and then later went on to raise exactly the point I did in the first place. Did you even read what I wrote, or did it just look too "atheist" for you?
And yes, I suspect an agenda, because I've seen this so many times before that it's a well-worn routine. Ask an atheist if there's anything that would change their minds, or if they have any doubts or uncertainties. If they say yes, they're not really atheists, not really real, more like confused doubters who are just begging for a stream of predictable apologetics. If they say no, they're dogmatic, closed-minded, unscientific, following the "religion of atheism", and so on. It's tedious and embarrassing.
It may be that there was no such intention here, but I've seen it often enough to be very cautious. The fact that my answer was misrepresented so spectacularly should give you an idea of why that might be.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
...I would think that if ever I became an atheist one thing that would trouble with respects to my world-view was the question of morality - specifically if concepts such as "good" and "bad" could exist in an absolute sense. (I have personally never heard an atheist who gave an adequate answer to this question.)...
This particular atheist has never really understood the question. Why do you need to know the answer? What would the answer mean to you in real terms? Do you think it would enlighten you to a degree where you yourself could be absolutely good? How does religious belief persuade you that Absolute Good and Bad do exist as concepts — by which I presume you mean in some way divorced from the manifest actions and interactions of conscious beings, otherwise they are necessarily relative terms?
Ok. Major sidelining issue; I know.
--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
I've been thinking about my earlier post and would like to add to it a little.
I doubt quite a lot of things - whether this world is really what it seems to be, whether existence itself is what it seems to be, etc. For my own sanity I have made a conscious decision to assume that it is, but I toy with other ideas at times. One of the ideas I toy with is whether some 'superbeing' could exist. My answer to that is, of course, I don't know. But what I do know, as much as anyone can say they know anything, is that if there were such a superbeing then no religion yet described, imagined, or created by humans has yet made sense of it to my satisfaction. Hence I cannot believe in any religion or other form of belief currently practiced. I don't doubt my atheism in relation to what humans believe God to be.
This is what I was getting at, when I asked Justinian whether he ever thought outside the box and considered whether there might be something bigger than anything science can discover.
I can't remember what I replied then. But science can establish parameters for anything that impacts the material world. Science isn't a means for creating knowledge - it's a means for sorting and testing ideas. Any proposed explanation that has a consistent impact on the physical world can have scientific techniques turned on it.
And for the record, a large but fundamentally simple God isn't outside the box. It was sitting right in the very centre of the box with concentric circles painted on it. Or at least it was. Currently that target has enough holes in it it can be used as a collander and has been put to one side.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Squibs, first you misrepresent me by calling me an atheist (I'm not, or at least not yet), then you claim that I didn't answer the question in the OP (I did, even though I'm not a performing seal and I suspect the OP conceals an agenda), now finally your stated reasons for hypothetically doubting atheism are identical to one I gave which you deemed inappropriate in some way. For someone who's lamented the direction the thread's taken, you're not doing much to convince me that you're interested in genuine discussion.
It certainly wasn't my intention to misrepresent you by calling you an atheist. I misunderstood your world-view, which I now see is “Free-thinking Non-Denominational Christian Agnostic ”. If I could I would edit out your name from my post. But as I can't. So “Sorry” will have to do. The reason I thought you were an atheist is because you say the type of things I would expect an atheist to say.
Well, the label doesn't bother me nearly as much as the rest. Labels are only so much use, and this one's probably a bit out of date, but I don't have anything better to put in its place. As for sounding like an atheist, I can promise that I wasn't munching on a baby as I typed, if that's what you mean. I'm far more irritated that you specifically called me out by name as not answering the question to your satisfaction (as if I or anyone else owes you anything - that's what I mean about performing seals), and then later went on to raise exactly the point I did in the first place. Did you even read what I wrote, or did it just look too "atheist" for you?
OK, so I guess sorry is not sufficient. I did read your post and, as I've already said, I did not think that you answered the question. Frustration is not the same as doubt. After reading your post for the third time I still don't see a direct answer in there to the OP. But perhaps that's just me. Perhaps other people found your response relevant. I'm not sure what else I can say.
As for eating babies, preforming seals and suggesting that you owe me something - those are all red herrings that you tossed in. Additionally, I've never accused you of being "too 'atheist'" - partly because I don't know a great deal about you and partly because I don't know what that even means. My point was that if something quacks like a duck it is reasonable to assume that is it a duck. I apply the same methodology in all areas of life, and it was no more intended as a slight against you then when I hear someone talking like theist and assume that that is what they are.
So, again, I apologise for picking you up wrong. You're not an atheist. I accepth that. I also apologise if you think that I am ignoring your point whilst making it myself. Of course, I don't see it like that but there you go.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
...I would think that if ever I became an atheist one thing that would trouble with respects to my world-view was the question of morality - specifically if concepts such as "good" and "bad" could exist in an absolute sense. (I have personally never heard an atheist who gave an adequate answer to this question.)...
This particular atheist has never really understood the question. Why do you need to know the answer? What would the answer mean to you in real terms? Do you think it would enlighten you to a degree where you yourself could be absolutely good? How does religious belief persuade you that Absolute Good and Bad do exist as concepts — by which I presume you mean in some way divorced from the manifest actions and interactions of conscious beings, otherwise they are necessarily relative terms?
Ok. Major sidelining issue; I know.
I would be happy to talk about it in another thread or by PM.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Well, I don't think that whether there is a God is a question open to scientific analysis. But if you want a scientific justification for why there ought to be - as best we can tell (if you don't assume God just made it happen) consciousness arises out of complexity.
Even very simple neural networks are ca[able of surprisingly complex tasks. If this is true, surely the universe is a complex enough interdependent system to have attained consciousness billions of years ago. And if a consciousness the size of a universe is not a God - why not ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
@Great Gumby. Evening G2. Just to reassure you, no hidden agenda in the o/p. There's plenty of chat from theists on these threads about personal doubts and challenges - I am genuinely interested in the reflections of those who have or had atheistic beliefs on what made them/ makes them have second thoughts about their worldview. I hope the way I have conducted myself in the course of the discussion reflects that.
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think˛:
... surely the universe is a complex enough interdependent system to have attained consciousness billions of years ago. And if a consciousness the size of a universe is not a God - why not ?
Um, wtf?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Ramarius
I'd just like to say thank you for such an interesting topic question which has brought a satisfying collection of atheists/non-believers into one thread! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
HughWillRidmee
quote:
Offline for a few days – don’t go away.
The long post ending with this line - a very good read.
And me too, I'm only away for two days, but will be straight back here asap!
[ 19. July 2012, 07:18: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Think˛:
... surely the universe is a complex enough interdependent system to have attained consciousness billions of years ago. And if a consciousness the size of a universe is not a God - why not ?
Um, wtf?
How do you think consciousness arises ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Oh, in the usual non-bollocks way.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
HughWillRidmee
quote:
Offline for a few days – don’t go away.
The long post ending with this line - a very good read.
Was it? It sounded like just more of the same old tired out atheist dogma to me. Sorry HughWillRidmee (and SusanDoris), it's just my opinion.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
...I would think that if ever I became an atheist one thing that would trouble with respects to my world-view was the question of morality - specifically if concepts such as "good" and "bad" could exist in an absolute sense. (I have personally never heard an atheist who gave an adequate answer to this question.)...
This particular atheist has never really understood the question. Why do you need to know the answer? What would the answer mean to you in real terms? Do you think it would enlighten you to a degree where you yourself could be absolutely good? How does religious belief persuade you that Absolute Good and Bad do exist as concepts — by which I presume you mean in some way divorced from the manifest actions and interactions of conscious beings, otherwise they are necessarily relative terms?
Ok. Major sidelining issue; I know.
I would be happy to talk about it in another thread or by PM.
Let's keep it open to all comers, shall we..?
--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Think˛:
... surely the universe is a complex enough interdependent system to have attained consciousness billions of years ago. And if a consciousness the size of a universe is not a God - why not ?
Um, wtf?
Well, that's one valid answer. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
My own response would be to question how a previously non-conscious universe might at some time in its development attain such a quality. And to postulate instead that consciousness is an innate quality of the universe, which becomes manifest when certain 'bits' of it come to be arranged in a certain way under certain conditions. (See my Carl Sagan strap line, below)
Thus, 'a consciousness the size of a universe' actually is that universe, or at least a function of it. There is no need to call it god. We can just call it the universe.
--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
The physical universe is big and has lots of components, some of which are structurally complex and which interact in various ways (for example, through the physical effects of gravitation and electromagnetic radiation and so on). Notwithstanding upfucked definitions of terms, consciousness is the product of immense complexity of biological structure and function, but to say the universe must be conscious 'because it’s huge and complex and has functions' is like saying my car must be capable of securing world peace and a cure for cancer whilst cooking perfect lobster thermidor for eight 'because it has a clever fuel injection processor'. Purleaze.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The formulation that I'm familiar with is that a knowable universe requires personhood.
Only trouble is, this gets us into all kinds of a mess with the idea of an unknowable universe, which is a contradiction, as I have just named it!
But we can postulate a universe separate from consciousness, with the proviso, a la Kant, that it can never be known. No, don't be silly, we can suggest that there is an isomorphism between what we observe, and the theoretic universe that we do not experience. 'Zounds, i'faith, Mistress Quickly, thou has exposed thy placket now!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
quetzalcoatl: But we can postulate a universe separate from consciousness, with the proviso, a la Kant, that it can never be known.
That would be the universe where one sock of a number of pairs in my wardrobe went?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think that would be the quark-gluon plasma, which is continually re-energized by odd socks, old holey jeans, and particularly, if you are over 60, by memories. All gone, but not forever, since we reject any such concept.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
... to say the universe must be conscious 'because it’s huge and complex and has functions' is like saying my car must be capable of securing world peace and a cure for cancer whilst cooking perfect lobster thermidor for eight 'because it has a clever fuel injection processor'. Purleaze.
Purleaze, indeed. I'm surprised a consistently conscious yet constantly changing mass of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, chlorine, sodium and other trace elements such as yourself should have come up with such an absurd simile.
The molecules that make up your car are not arranged in a way that makes manifest their latent consciousness. But, rearranged in such a way that they can be inhaled or ingested by an influential humanitarian, gifted medical scientist or celebrity chef, their conscious aspect will temporarily be made manifest and they'll be ideally placed to tackle all the problems that are causing you so much concern.
It seems to me that if you don't embrace the notion of latent-manifest consciousness being an inherent function of all stuff, your only other fundamental explanation is that consciousness is imbued by an externally agency — or 'breathed into you', as certain thought systems would put it. Or is there a middle way you can think of?
--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I have to say that I'm with Yorick on this one. I'm familiar (mostly through Hofstadter) with the idea that complexity can generate consciousness, but I'm not convinced that the links between the constituent parts of the universe could really be the equivalent of our brain's synapses. The speed of light seems to be an obstacle. Also, I'd say that the exchange of information between the Solar System and, say, Alpha Centauri, although existant, is rather limited.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Exactly. People who imagine that the complexity of the physical known universe could be sufficient for the emergence of consciousness because that’s the case with the human mind are failing massively to appreciate the degree of the structural and functional complexity of our cerebral cortices. I mean, massively failing. The human brain is far and away the most complex structure in the known universe, and makes it correspondingly look like a model of the Taj Mahal made from four Lego bricks.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
It's been a while since I read Hofstadter, but I don't think it's just the complexity of the system, it's also the exchange of information between the parts of it. In our brains, the synapses do that. I don't see any mechanism within the universe taking up this role (unless they'll discover some really weird properties of Dark Matter ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
[ 19. July 2012, 12:52: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Yup. Anatomy determines function. The complexity of function is all in the interaction of the structural parts, and Saturn cannot interact with the crab nebula with sufficient complexity to conceive its own existence.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Yorick: Saturn cannot interact with the crab nebula with sufficient complexity to conceive its own existence.
Not unless it uses its Death Star moon to send a signal, of course!
But I agree with you. If someone wants to believe in a conscious universe, then that's their prerrogative of course. But I don't think you can give a convincing physical 'proof' of it.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Yorick: Saturn cannot interact with the crab nebula with sufficient complexity to conceive its own existence.
Not unless it uses its Death Star moon to send a signal, of course!
But I agree with you. If someone wants to believe in a conscious universe, then that's their prerrogative of course. But I don't think you can give a convincing physical 'proof' of it.
Yorick: As with your car simile, you are trying to satirise my point with inappropriate references — ie, inert, inorganic matter.
LeRoc: Belief isn't really the issue. Consideration of the behaviour of inorganic elements formed into complex organic compounds is what I'm getting at. The resultant consciousness is formed either from something innate in that matter, or it has to be imbued by some external agency. There lies the fundamental difference between atheism and theism. And I think anyone taking an atheist platform has to take the former option seriously.
Is there a high-speed connection between vastly distant elements of the universe? I don't see how that matters. Has the internet age really convinced us that nothing truly exists unless it's constantly chattering to something else? For what it's worth — and I'm stepping into deep water without a rubber ring here — I understand/believe quantum physics holds that there are such high-speed pan-galactic connections at sub-atomic level. Don't ask me to explain that - it's just what I heard.
--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
Yorick: As with your car simile, you are trying to satirise my point with inappropriate references — ie, inert, inorganic matter.
Well, TBQH, I'm struggling to see the universe as a discrete entity of organic, ert matter.
You're a bright chap- please help me to understand what I'm missing here?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
kankucho: Is there a high-speed connection between vastly distant elements of the universe? I don't see how that matters. Has the internet age really convinced us that nothing truly exists unless it's constantly chattering to something else?
The thing is: at least according to Hofstadter, nothing can truly be conscious unless its constituent parts are constantly chattering between eachother. I don't see how this is happening in the universe.
quote:
kankucho: For what it's worth — and I'm stepping into deep water without a rubber ring here — I understand/believe quantum physics holds that there are such high-speed pan-galactic connections at sub-atomic level. Don't ask me to explain that - it's just what I heard.
I think what you're referring to is quantum entanglement. My physics days are behind me, but I'm afraid that I'm rather convinced by the no-communication theorem that says that no FTL communication can happen in this way.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
[EDIT: this is to Yorick]
Well, so far as we know, the whole universe is made up of different combinations of these, entirely inorganic, elements:
http://lsc.ucdavis.edu/~ahart/Alicia118A/periodic_table.jpg
Some formations of it exhibit and experience consciousness, without any other x-ingredient that we've yet been able to identify. (Ok, those elements might not account for the whole universe, but they're sufficient to produce conscious existence within our immediate environment). Where would you say that quality comes from — within its own makeup, or from without?
[ 19. July 2012, 13:50: Message edited by: kankucho ]
--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The thing is: at least according to Hofstadter, nothing can truly be conscious unless its constituent parts are constantly chattering between eachother. I don't see how this is happening in the universe.
Does he mean manifestly or latently conscious? (that's a distinction I'm trying hard but failing to communicate here). You can't make an ark out of an acorn — at least until the acorn's innate potential is made manifest by changes in circumstance.
--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
kankucho: Does he mean manifestly or latently conscious? (that's a distinction I'm trying hard but failing to communicate here).
I don't think that I completely understand the distinction, but I'd say both.
quote:
kankucho: You can't make an ark out of an acorn — at least until the acorn's innate potential is made manifest by changes in circumstance.
I don't think I understand what you're trying to say here.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
[That, above.]
Okay, I see. You’re saying that the universe is functionally complex like a human brain because both the universe and a human brain are composed of molecules made of elements. You are actually saying that, right, in all seriousness?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Yorick: Saturn cannot interact with the crab nebula with sufficient complexity to conceive its own existence.
Not unless it uses its Death Star moon to send a signal, of course!
But I agree with you. If someone wants to believe in a conscious universe, then that's their prerrogative of course. But I don't think you can give a convincing physical 'proof' of it.
I agree with that. I think it shows a confusion between scientific method and metaphysics. The arguments for panpsychism are philosophical, and science don't do that. Science doesn't aim to describe reality.
This interchange seems to be a busy one. You get scientists doing bad philosophy these days (no names!), and theologians doing bad science.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Science doesn't aim to describe reality.
Hmmmm... interesting, because I thought these days, science was supposed to have the answers to all questions, and anything it can never answer isn't deemed as a meaningful or sensible question in the first place.
The comment isn't really aimed at quetzalcoatl, of course, but to our gathering of atheists/almost atheists on this thread.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I thought these days, science was supposed to have the answers to all questions
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
Well, so far as we know, the whole universe is made up of different combinations of these, entirely inorganic, elements:
http://lsc.ucdavis.edu/~ahart/Alicia118A/periodic_table.jpg
Some formations of it exhibit and experience consciousness, without any other x-ingredient that we've yet been able to identify. (Ok, those elements might not account for the whole universe, but they're sufficient to produce conscious existence within our immediate environment). Where would you say that quality comes from — within its own makeup, or from without?
Okay, I see. You’re saying that the universe is functionally complex like a human brain because both the universe and a human brain are composed of molecules made of elements. You are actually saying that, right, in all seriousness?
The universe is functionally complex; don't you agree? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
But I wasn't drawing any causal parallels to the complexity of the human brain — which is, arguably, the universe's most complex achievement, formed entirely from stuff found lying around on its own periodic table, and giving manifestation to its own propensity for consciousness.
I could scrub all that and tell you that consciousness is shipped in from God, if you really want me to give your atheist propensity for doubt a bit of a shove in the direction of the Ship's default position. But I'd just be humouring you if did that.
--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Science doesn't aim to describe reality.
Hmmmm... interesting, because I thought these days, science was supposed to have the answers to all questions, and anything it can never answer isn't deemed as a meaningful or sensible question in the first place.
The comment isn't really aimed at quetzalcoatl, of course, but to our gathering of atheists/almost atheists on this thread.
That would be a silly thing to say, as it would be a philosophical argument, and not a scientific claim, therefore rules itself out.
I would say that scientists make observations about appearances. Of course, they also make predictions on the basis of various hypotheses, about probable further observations.
You can, if you want, say that this describes 'reality', of course you can, but that is not a scientific claim, again, but a philosophical one, and again seems to be ruled out by any scientistic argument.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That would be a silly thing to say, as it would be a philosophical argument, and not a scientific claim, therefore rules itself out.
I would say that scientists make observations about appearances. Of course, they also make predictions on the basis of various hypotheses, about probable further observations.
You can, if you want, say that this describes 'reality', of course you can, but that is not a scientific claim, again, but a philosophical one, and again seems to be ruled out by any scientistic argument.
Scientistic or scientific? Anyway, in all that you've rather nicely defined the difference between "science" and "scientism", which saves me the trouble. It is unfortunate (and unbeknown to me before this thread started) that few scientismists would admit to holding such a philosophy.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
The universe is functionally complex; don't you agree?
No, absolutely not! Not when compared with the structural and functional complexity of the human brain, which complexity we agree (I think) is a prerequisite for animal consciousness.
Do you have any idea how insanely complex is the arrangement of the structure of the cerebral cortex, and the insanely complex way it functions?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That would be a silly thing to say, as it would be a philosophical argument, and not a scientific claim, therefore rules itself out.
I would say that scientists make observations about appearances. Of course, they also make predictions on the basis of various hypotheses, about probable further observations.
You can, if you want, say that this describes 'reality', of course you can, but that is not a scientific claim, again, but a philosophical one, and again seems to be ruled out by any scientistic argument.
Scientistic or scientific? Anyway, in all that you've rather nicely defined the difference between "science" and "scientism", which saves me the trouble. It is unfortunate (and unbeknown to me before this thread started) that few scientismists would admit to holding such a philosophy.
Does anyone actually argue for scientism? Dawkins is always getting accused of it, but I doubt if he does really.
It also seems to be ambiguous, depending on whether you say that science can describe/explain everything, or everything factual, or something like that.
But anyone who actually argues that only scientific descriptions are of value is trashing aesthetics, ethics, other big chunks of philosophy, maths, logic, and so on. So it seems unlikely. I can't remember if the logical positivists ever said this, but of course, it meant that their own declarations were without value!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
The universe is functionally complex; don't you agree?
No, absolutely not! Not when compared with the structural and functional complexity of the human brain, which complexity we agree (I think) is a prerequisite for animal consciousness.
Do you have any idea how insanely complex is the arrangement of the structure of the cerebral cortex, and the insanely complex way it functions?
I think you're setting up a strange and impertinent duality here. We can certainly agree that the human brain and animal consciousness in general are immeasurably complex. But these are forms and functions entirely derived from the forms and functions of the universe itself, and so qualify the universe-itself as immeasurably complex — however unimpressed you might be by its less sophisticated gaseous and rocky bits.
[ 19. July 2012, 15:58: Message edited by: kankucho ]
--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
kankucho, please forgive me, but I haven't got a fucking clue what you're on about. The brain is made of stuff we find elsewhere in the universe. So the hell what? ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
[spelt your name wrong- apologies. What does it mean, btw?]
[ 19. July 2012, 16:03: Message edited by: Yorick ]
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Is this an argument that the universe has produced consciousness, therefore ... errrm, well, it's, kind of, I mean to say, errm.
Well, it's capable of being conscious, I suppose.
But so what? The universe has produced cancer, so it is obviously capable of being cancerous. Does this mean that the universe itself is cancerous?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Even more annoying, when you try to edit after about 14 seconds, it actually says, 'Nice try', as if you were doing something reprehensible!
I was aiming to add that the argument might be that consciousness cannot be derived from adding physical bits to each other, therefore must be derived from God.
Incorrect.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Does anyone actually argue for scientism? Dawkins is always getting accused of it, but I doubt if he does really.
This is the thing. I would accuse Richard Dawkins of holding scientistic views, but what I would call "scientism," he would call "science." And it seems this is so for most of those who hold similar views - Peter Atkins for example.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was aiming to add that the argument might be that consciousness cannot be derived from adding physical bits to each other, therefore must be derived from God.
Incorrect.
Is it though? Incorrect I mean...
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I doubt if Dawkins would say that for example aesthetic judgements can be defined scientifically. I could be wrong.
Certainly, Harris seems to be saying that ethical values can be so defined. About 98% of the reviews I have read of this have said, what total crap.
Of course, sometimes you get the abysmal argument that everything is in the brain anyway, and one day we will be able to scan it all. Yeah, that will be really useful, if you're on a date. Whip out a scanner, scan your partner's brain for signs of sexual excitement, and you're home free.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was aiming to add that the argument might be that consciousness cannot be derived from adding physical bits to each other, therefore must be derived from God.
Incorrect.
Is it though? Incorrect I mean...
Yes, of course it is. It is perfectly OK to say that we don't know how consciousness arises.
It's possible that consciousness comes from God, but that 'possible' is going to be hard to convert into 'probable' or 'necessarily true'.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
