A serious & honest question(s) for atheists.

[carn]

In general, I would consider that anything which affects sentient beings may be said to matter, insofar as it has effects which may be felt. But perhaps that is too broad a conception? Obviously there are degrees of significance involved - the pleasure of enjoying a good meal is not equal to the pleasure and long-term significance of reconnecting with a long-lost friend, and the pain of having a splinter pulled certainly does not equal the pain - or, indeed, the long-term significance - of the pain of childbirth, for example - but at what point is it possible or reasonable to say that any experience does not matter?

Sentinent beings are just complicated machines it was said.
Normally if machines create internal and/or external status reports (e.g. car running out of gas), it does matter only, if that report is relevant to the machines purpose.

If humans are just complicated machines arising from natural laws and chance, their status reports (joy, happiness, pain, sorrow) should just be as irrelevant as a warning light blinking in an abandoned car. Only if a purpose exists status reports can be classified into preferrable and less preferrable ones.

Why should the fate of sentinent machines be in any way more relevant than that of non-sentinent machines or animal machines or of the to human eye invisible molecule structures on and in the keyboard im typing on, of which some were surely damaged by me typing this message?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Sentinent beings are just complicated machines it was said.

Actually, the word “just” wasn’t in the original statement. It’s a small word, but (at least to me) it impacts the interpretation of the statement significantly.

For example:

• Ralph is a dog.
• Ralph is just a dog.

The presence of the word “just” has a deflationary impact on the interpretation of the statement. If that’s your intent, that’s fine. But that doesn’t seem to represent the original statement well.

 

[carn]

Actually, the word “just” wasn’t in the original statement. It’s a small word, but (at least to me) it impacts the interpretation of the statement significantly.

For example:

• Ralph is a dog.
• Ralph is just a dog.

The presence of the word “just” has a deflationary impact on the interpretation of the statement. If that’s your intent, that’s fine. But that doesn’t seem to represent the original statement well.

Ok, but doesnt change, as i meant “just” just in the sense there is nothing beyond being a complex machine, so no soul or any other supernatural part.

Why should one care about the fate of machines or about them generating negative or positive status reports?

 

[Sair]

Ok, but doesnt change, as i meant “just” just in the sense there is nothing beyond being a complex machine, so no soul or any other supernatural part.

Why should one care about the fate of machines or about them generating negative or positive status reports?

Indeed, why should we, unless we are said machines?

 

[carn]

Indeed, why should we, unless we are said machines?

And why should we care just because we are said machines?

Individually the thing will be over in at latest 150 years.

And what would be wrong with a “Brave New World” solution, using the right drugs all those machines would be continously generate joy status reports?

 

[capoly]

This whole hullabaloo about “machines” and “just machines” is blown way out of significance. These particular “machines” (humans) are significantly and fundamentally different from non-sentient cars. If that car would experience pain (as we recognize it) and it would blow its horn to get our attention then we would care, if for no other reason, then to stop that noise.

Sentient, self-aware machines are aware of their internal status, and find some of the possible states pleasant, while they find others unpleasant. Sheer biology, no need to refer to any kind of “soul”. Even non-sentient “machines” (animals) have the same kind internal status-reports, and they also seek out pleasure, and avoid pain as much as possible. Good, old biology again, explaining the phenomenon. As to why should we care? Biology again. I cannot experience your possible tooth-ache, but since I experinced my own, I am ready to help yours (as much as I can), because I accept your internal status as significant for you. Even higher animals attempt to help to others who are apparently in pain. And since they are not supposed to have “spiritual souls” (whatever that nonsense means), obviously simple biology is a good explanation. No need to over-complicate the issue.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Why should one care about the fate of machines or about them generating negative or positive status reports?

I suppose you are asking here what motivation that one person would have in general to care about the state of another. There’s no way that I could discuss the known motivates completely here. But I’ll touch on a couple of points.

In general you’ll find that people that don’t care about other people (such as those with “antisocial personality disorder”, also known as sociopaths) are in some cases immune to caring beyond how another person’s well being impacts the self (utilitarian). Beyond that , that which would motivate such a person to care will include anti-psychotic drugs and other substances that influence neurotransmitters.

I think that most people though are already affected by empathy to various degrees. The empathy one has for another can be reduced through dehumanizing statements from their in group about their out group and increased through statements, experiences, and activities that raise awareness of similarities between ones self and another. One’s empathy can also be spread thing; a person can more easily have empathy for another single human being than with a much larger collection of human beings (because of this, some campaigns to help those struggling in other lands have concentrated on showing individuals or small groups struggling instead of showing a shot of a large group of people struggling).

 

[Sair]

For them as feel so inclined, here is a rather interesting discussion of free will in the light of neuroscientific study, both article and comments:

bigquestionsonline.com/content/does-contemporary-neuroscience-support-or-challenge-reality-free-will

 

[Sair]

Sentinent beings are just complicated machines it was said.
Normally if machines create internal and/or external status reports (e.g. car running out of gas), it does matter only, if that report is relevant to the machines purpose.

If humans are just complicated machines arising from natural laws and chance, their status reports (joy, happiness, pain, sorrow) should just be as irrelevant as a warning light blinking in an abandoned car. Only if a purpose exists status reports can be classified into preferrable and less preferrable ones.

Why should the fate of sentinent machines be in any way more relevant than that of non-sentinent machines or animal machines or of the to human eye invisible molecule structures on and in the keyboard im typing on, of which some were surely damaged by me typing this message?

Well, a car running out of fuel is relevant to the car’s purpose - but that’s not really a good analogy with animals, since cars are human-designed machines made with the intention that they will serve our purposes.

As for animals, we devise our own purposes in order to get our needs met in the enviromnents in which we exist. Things matter or don’t matter to us in relation to how well or poorly they meet our needs, be they bodily, emotional or intellectual. It’s not really any use to ask whether things “should” matter in such a context - they just do. It’s a bit like asking, “Well, should it be raining?” It just is, whether we fancy there’s any reason or purpose attached to it or not.

The fate of sentient beings matters more than the fate of nonsentient entities simply because a sentient being is, by definition, a being that feels things, and it these feelings matter to the individual who experiences them. A nonsentient entity has no capacity to care, no ability to feel. I’m sure you could try very hard to persuade yourself, if you felt so inclined, that nothing matters because there’s no ultimate reason for it to matter in the absense of a soul or an afterlife or whatever - but I think you’d still notice and care if, for example, you ran out of food and water, or if your friends stopped contacting you, or if you became ill and couldn’t get treatment. That is just the way we’re wired.

 

[guanophore]

This whole hullabaloo about “machines” and “just machines” is blown way out of significance. These particular “machines” (humans) are significantly and fundamentally different from non-sentient cars. If that car would experience pain (as we recognize it) and it would blow its horn to get our attention then we would care, if for no other reason, then to stop that noise.

Sentient, self-aware machines are aware of their internal status, and find some of the possible states pleasant, while they find others unpleasant. Sheer biology, no need to refer to any kind of “soul”. Even non-sentient “machines” (animals) have the same kind internal status-reports, and they also seek out pleasure, and avoid pain as much as possible. Good, old biology again, explaining the phenomenon. As to why should we care? Biology again. I cannot experience your possible tooth-ache, but since I experinced my own, I am ready to help yours (as much as I can), because I accept your internal status as significant for you. Even higher animals attempt to help to others who are apparently in pain. And since they are not supposed to have “spiritual souls” (whatever that nonsense means), obviously simple biology is a good explanation. No need to over-complicate the issue.

I agree with you, but this principle seems to fall through when applied to infants in the womb, who are clearly in fear and pain when their bodies are threatened with dismemberment. Yet our culture of death seems to have no concern for their biology.

 

[capoly]

guanophore:

I agree with you, but this principle seems to fall through when applied to infants in the womb, who are clearly in fear and pain when their bodies are threatened with dismemberment. Yet our culture of death seems to have no concern for their biology.

Not in the first trimester, certainly. Until there is a brain, there is no “fear” and there is no “pain”. There is a fundamental difference between a freshly fertilized zygote and the baby 5 minutes before being born, and the concpet of an “immortal soul” cannot be considered by a rational person.

 

[guanophore]

Not in the first trimester, certainly. Until there is a brain, there is no “fear” and there is no “pain”. There is a fundamental difference between a freshly fertilized zygote and the baby 5 minutes before being born, and the concpet of an “immortal soul” cannot be considered by a rational person.

Yes, there is a difference, just as there is a difference between a newborn and a senior. Both are human beings in different stages of growth. Recoiling from unpleasant stimuli does not really require much in the way of a “brain”, as any life form engages in such reaction.

The fact that you consider yourself a “rational person” and have no use for the concept of “immortal soul” does not mean that other rational persons need to come to the same conclusion. You are not the standard for all that is rational in humanity.

Someday you will be called to account for your immortal soul, and the souls of those you have damaged. You may find the day of judgment “irrational”, but that does not negate the reality of it.

 

[capoly]

guanophore:

Yes, there is a difference, just as there is a difference between a newborn and a senior. Both are human beings in different stages of growth.

The difference is much more than that. Both the newborn and the senior are human persons, while a zygote is not. Without a working brain there can be no person. I would be amenable to limit abortions to the first trimester, and outside it only when the mother’s life is in danger.

guanophore:

Recoiling from unpleasant stimuli does not really require much in the way of a “brain”, as any life form engages in such reaction.

You said: “fear” and “pain”. Both are the reaction of a working brain.

guanophore:

Someday you will be called to account for your immortal soul, and the souls of those you have damaged. You may find the day of judgment “irrational”, but that does not negate the reality of it.

Sorry, but I cannot take such a “threat” seriously. For all I know, it is not impossible that there is an entity who played a significant role in forming our physical universe - and you call that being God. What IS impossible that this being is like what the chistian religion (any flavor or it) describes. The God you believe in is just another “married bachelor”, and mixture of contradicting attributes, and the usual “defense” - namely that it is a “mystery” and not a contradiction simply does not fly. You cannot rationalize a contradiction into a “mystery”.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

capoly

**There is a fundamental difference between a freshly fertilized zygote and the baby 5 minutes before being born, and the concpet of an “immortal soul” cannot be considered by a rational person. **

Not true. The DNA is the same. What’s more fundamental than DNA?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

capoly

and the concpet of an “immortal soul” cannot be considered by a rational person.

Only atheists are rational people?

 

[capoly]

Charlemagne II:

Not true. The DNA is the same. What’s more fundamental than DNA?

By your reasoning a growing tumor (which has the same DNA as the host), should be elevated to a “human” status based upon the DNA.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Capoly

You said there was no fundamental difference.

What is more fundamental to an atheist than the possession of the same DNA?

 

[guanophore]

The difference is much more than that. Both the newborn and the senior are human persons, while a zygote is not.

Science disagrees with you. According to science, the zygote is a human person. In fact, my Developmental Psychology textbook from the college says it is the “study of human development from conception to death”. Once the sperm enters the egg, it only produces a human being. Everything it requires to become human is contained within it. In that sense, it is a complete genetically unique form of life.

Without a working brain there can be no person. I would be amenable to limit abortions to the first trimester,

Ahh…so that means you will consider creatures who are born with hydrocephaly, or who have had traumatic brain injury and no longer meet your criteria of having a “working brain” not real “persons”. This is the thinking the Nazi’s used behind much of their genocide also. Creatures that did not meet their criteria of “human” did not deserve to live, and can be exterminated. Certainly you have plenty of company in your view It may not agree with what science and divine revelation tell us, but certainly there are plenty of people who engage in ethinic cleansing and euthanasia of the handicapped and elderly will support you…

We might as well start cleaning out all the nursing homes of the elderly who have lost their “working brains” since they are no longer human. That will save us a lot of money too.

 and outside it only when the mother's life is in danger.

Jesus taught that it is the greatest form of love to lay down our lives for another.

You said: “fear” and “pain”. Both are the reaction of a working brain.

One has to wonder how you define “working brain”. There are plenty of representatives in the animal kingdom that experience fear and pain that do not meet the criteria of being human.

Sorry, but I cannot take such a “threat” seriously. For all I know, it is not impossible that there is an entity who played a significant role in forming our physical universe - and you call that being God.

This is good to hear. I am glad that you are at least leaving a crack open through which Revelation can leak into that hardened heart and mind.

What IS impossible that this being is like what the chistian religion (any flavor or it) describes.

Since your posts have shown a severe lack of knowledge and understanding of the Christian concept of God, this is not a problem. It is quite evident that the God in whom we believe is nothing like your conception of who He is.

The God you believe in is just another "married bachelor", and mixture of contradicting attributes, and the usual "defense" - namely that it is a **"mystery"** and not a contradiction simply does not fly.

Certainly it is difficult for persons who are concrete in thinking, not very bright, or unable to tolerate ambiguity to admit any type of reality of which they cannot conceive within the narrow confines of their own experience.

You cannot rationalize a contradiction into a "mystery".

And a person who is solely reliant upon their own rationality is unable to appreciate and embrace that which is a mystery. Such a person excludes themselves from mystery by limiting experience to their own limited understanding.

 

[celluloid]

Do you think that your human experience is just the result of electrons transitioning from one quantum state to another? In other words, is your reading this text just the result of “molecules in motion?” If you believe this, do you believe that you have free will,

No, and I believe that the whole concept of free will is muddled by most religious proponents and ultimately incoherent as a concept. My opinions are similar to (professor of philosophy) Galen Strawson’s views on free will.

Are you absolutely sure that your conscious self will not survive the physical death of your brain, and if so, do you have any subjective probabilities about those “odds”?

Almost certainly no survival after death at all. The evidence of near death experiences (of which it is always conceivable that brain damage is only slight or non-existent) in ludicrous compared to people living with extensive brain damage, and no one can deny that the level or quality of consciousness is closely tied to physical brain function.

 

[guanophore]

By your reasoning a growing tumor (which has the same DNA as the host), should be elevated to a “human” status based upon the DNA.

Nice try, but a tumor will not develop into a toddler or a senior if it remains connected to life supporting factors.

The zygote is not some sort of malformation or malfunctioning invader of the human body. Left unmolested it will develop into a bigger and bigger human being,