Another view of "Pascal's Wager"

[benjamin1973]

Bradkskii, I think you have a problem here. Given any specific feeling, you can argue for its evolutionary value. But what I don’t think you have is a material explanation for psychogony-- the existence of such a thing as mind.

What is it that allows for a material system, under any formulation, to experience qualia?

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

The problem with Pascal’s Wager is that it’s a false dilemma. It’s not “Accept Christ or nothing.” It’s accept Christ, or Krsna, or Buddha, or something that’s been long forgotten, or something we haven’t discovered yet. . . or a million other possibilities. . . or nothing.

In the context it is typically presented in these days, yes. But the wager is part of a collection of works in which Pascal argues other points as well.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

It helps propagate the species

Are you saying our desire exists “because” it will help propagate our species? If so, that sounds remarkably purposeful. But i don’t think you meant that, you being an atheist and all. I think you meant that our natural desire for survival causes us to seek ends that facilitate that effect.

If you don’t understand evolution then I am probably not the guy to help with that.

There is no ultimate purpose in the desire not to cease to exist. It is just that. We don’t want to die. We’d like to keep on living. The reason (not purpose) is that we need that desire or else we, as a species, would cease to exist.

Again, if you don’t understand the reasons for why we do things as obvious as that, then you need to do more reading.

 

[IWantGod]

If you don’t understand evolution then I am probably not the guy to help with that.

What supposedly don’t i understand?

The reason (not purpose) is that we need that desire or else we, as a species, would cease to exist.

That’s not an intelligible explanation for why we would have an instinctual desire to survive if metaphysical naturalism were true. You are just saying if we didn’t have it we wouldn’t survive, but of course i know that, i am not an idiot.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

evolutionary psychology

This is a very weak dodge.

Evolutionary psychology, as a science, has nothing to do with intelligibly explaining why desires exist in relation to metaphysical naturalism.

What you should have said is: ‘I have read nothing that indicates to me that evolutionarey science, as a science…etc etc’.

You need to read more. Then discuss the matter from an informed point of view. I will then have no objection if your views are then in opposition to mine.

 

[IWantGod]

What you should have said is: ‘I have read nothing that indicates to me that evolutionarey science, as a science…etc etc’.

You need to read more. Then discuss the matter from an informed point of view. I will then have no objection if your views are then in opposition to mine.

This is just a dodge. I fully understand how the scientific method works and the epistemological context in which it operates

You are just avoiding answering my qeustion,

 

[Bradskii]

Bradkskii, I think you have a problem here. Given any specific feeling, you can argue for its evolutionary value. But what I don’t think you have is a material explanation for psychogony-- the existence of such a thing as mind.

What is it that allows for a material system, under any formulation, to experience qualia?

The only explanation that I have that makes sense is that the ability to have consciousness is an evolved ability. Ask me how it came about and I will have no problem in stating that I do not know. It’s a question that still needs to be answered.

You might suggest that you have the answer. I don’t agree with it.

 

[IWantGod]

Again, if you don’t understand the reasons for why we do things as obvious as that, then you need to do more reading.

If metaphysical naturalism is true there is no intelligible reason for having an instinctual desire to survive. There is no intelligible reason for goal direction in nature if its ultimate cause is blind, purposeless, meaningless, non-teleological matter… These qualitative experiences we have make no sense with a materialist view of reality. What you have with metaphysical naturalism is an unintelligible brute fact.

You can ignore that if you wish, but i thought reason was your agenda, so i took the liberty of pointing this out to you.

 

[Bradskii]

I

What you should have said is: ‘I have read nothing that indicates to me that evolutionarey science, as a science…etc etc’.

You need to read more. Then discuss the matter from an informed point of view. I will then have no objection if your views are then in opposition to mine.

This is just a dodge. I fully understand how the scientific method works and the epistemological context in which it operates

You are just avoiding answering my qeustion,

If you want to discuss the evolutionary reasons why we act as we do, then you need to understand the points I am making. And you therefore need to read an absolute minimum about evolutionary psychology.

When I am discussing theology with any given theist then I try to respect their views by understanding their viewpoint. And that neccesitates me reading as much as I can reasonably be expected to read about the matter in hand so we can have a well informed discussion.

 

[IWantGod]

The only explanation that I have that makes sense is that the ability to have consciousness is an evolved ability

That’s a description of the processes leading up to the emergence of consciousness. That does not mean that the existence of consciousness is logically consistent with metaphysical naturalism or that a purely materialistic conception of the mind makes rational sense…

 

[IWantGod]

If you want to discuss the evolutionary reasons why we act as we do

No. I think i have made it very clear that i want to discuss the intelligible reasons you have for the existence of the instinctual desire for survival if metaphysical naturalism is true.

 

[benjamin1973]

It’s fine to say, “There’s a brain, and it’s obviously conscious. If I hit you with a sledge-hammer, you will no longer be conscious. Therefore, the brain, an evolved organ, is immediately responsible for your consciousness; and the process of evolution in general, being responsible for the brain, includes the evolution of consciousness.”

But that’s a bit of a dodge. The question is why ANY material system, including the Universe as a whole, would allow for the existence of consciousness, rather than a total lack of it. And when I say consciousness, I don’t mean the ability of a physical system to take in data, process it, and output a behavior. I’m talking about qualia, the capacity to experience subjectively what things are like.

So far as I know, there’s nothing about a material world view in general, or about a scientific world view specifically, which even BEGINS to explain why such a thing as consciousness exists in the Universe.

So far, we have:

1. The Big Bang
2. ???
3. Consciousness!

Keep in mind that I declare as agnostic, not as Christian or Catholic. But given that the existence of physical states implies previous physical states, I think it’s not unreasonable to suppose that the existence of mental states implies previous mental states.

If you had a mental singularity which unfolded into all the conscious entities in the Universe, I’d say you could reasonably call that God. The Bible says, “I am the alpha and the omega,” which means the beginning and the end are one, which I think reasonably represents a conscious singularity.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Again, if you don’t understand the reasons for why we do things as obvious as that, then you need to do more reading.

If metaphysical naturalism is true there is no intelligible reason for having an instinctual desire to survive.

What you class as ‘metaphysical naturalism’ is to me…nature. It is simply a natural process. No teleology involved. It goes where it goes. Maybe God initiated it, I don’t know. But it is blindingly obvious to me that it is directionless.

And yet again you are confusing instinct with reason. You must read some more about this subject from my point of view. At least then you could disagree with what I say. Rather than exhibit that you don’t understand what I am saying

 

[IWantGod]

But it is blindingly obvious to me that it is directionless.

So your instinctual desire to act for your survival is obviously directionless?

If you cannot see the logical problem with what you are saying , and if you feel compelled to ignore the goal direction that is evident in biological organisms, including the human mind, it’s best we end the discussion here.

 

[Bradskii]

I think it’s not unreasonable to suppose that the existence of mental states implies previous mental states.

I think that that is complete hogwash. If you accept that the evolutionsry process can lead from single cellular to multi cellular organisms and from there to the vast array of life that has existed ober the last few billions of years, then I see no problem in the evolution of mental states from that of the most basic sentient organism possibly imaginable to us.

How that happened? Hey, go figure it out and win a few prizes.

Tell me it’s because of a specific God at a specific time on a specific planet for a specific reason and I’ll ignore you.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

But it is blindingly obvious to me that it is directionless.

So your instinctual desire to act for your survival is obviously directionless?

If you cannot see the logical problem with what you are saying , it’s best we end the discussion here.

Good idea.

 

[benjamin1973]

I think you are incapable of getting the point. It’s not about whether physical structures can carry mind-- that’s clearly true. The issue is why it is that the Universe allows for mind at all.

You sound pretty confident in your view, but let me ask you something: given any arbitrary physical system, how will you determine whether it is capable of experiencing qualia?

On what layer of physical mechanism do you propose mind supervenes? At the QM level? At the atomic or molecular levels? Is it a product of a particular chemistry, or does it occur any time information is complex and self-referential enough to hit a kind of critical mass?

Here’s what I think. I think you have literally zero idea what mind is, or why it exists in the universe.

As for specific God on specific planet, I literally just said that I’m agnostic. However, if you want to persuade religious people, like the ones you’ll find on a Catholic forum, that they should adopt a material monist world view, then you’ll have to show that your world view has ANY explanation, literally ANY, about why mind exists.

There are multiple layers of reality on which mind might supervene, but if you can’t show which one of them it is, then there’s always the possibility that mind is intrinsic to all reality-- that the Big Bang represents not only the unfolding of the physical possibilities that science studies, but that it carried also the seeds for mind, right from the start.

 

[Bradskii]

We have two different views here. You say that for the mind to exist it must have been caused by a mind. At the absolute minimum you are a deist.

I on the other hand say that it is entirely a natural process and we have examples of that from living organisms that appear to have no self awareness to those like us that are entirely self aware.

As for the mechanism itself, it is undeniably at the surface level chemical. And there are some who contend that reaching a certain level of complexity will naturally result in a degree of self awareness. This seems entirely reasonable to me as the more complex the central nervous system the more apparent is the ability to be self aware.

If you are looking for a detailed explanation as to how all this comes about, then I am not the guy to give it. As to why…look to evolution for the answer. If something is a benefit to survival, then the organism that posseses it will survive longer than one that doesn’t.

There’s no need to look too deeply into this. You are reading more into it than is warrented. Just because we don’t fully understand something there is no need to invoke to supernatural.

 

[MPat]

Demonstrate that you’re not making this up, please. While it makes sense, I don’t know it to be true.

For example “Nostra aetate” (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ts/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html) finds nice things to say about Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism.

It looks like Hindus classify Christianity and other religions as some “yoga” (Comparing Christianity and Hinduism), which also should outrank atheism.

Muslims classify many other religions as “People of the Book” (People of the Book - Wikipedia).

Ironically, other religions would agree with you-- but they would insist THEIR religion is the one with the best evidence.

At this point it is only important that evidence is different, that one can at least try to choose a religion most likely to be true by looking at the evidence, even if Pascal’s Wager itself can’t be easily modified to cover that choice.

Although in some cases it can. For example, if one mistakenly rejects Hinduism or Buddhism, one can try again after reincarnation, thus there is no urgency there. Or if one mistakenly rejects Mormonism, eventually someone will perform “baptism for the dead” - and thus there is no urgency there either.

The only explanation that I have that makes sense is that the ability to have consciousness is an evolved ability. Ask me how it came about and I will have no problem in stating that I do not know. It’s a question that still needs to be answered.

You might suggest that you have the answer. I don’t agree with it.

Yep. For you refuse to accept it. Because if you accept it, you’d have to suffer from great cognitive dissonance or accept further unpleasant conclusions. For example, that you are not as “reasonable” (as you define that), as you think (well, actually, I doubt anyone is quite as “reasonable”, as you seem to think you are).

 

[benjamin1973]

No, I certainly wouldn’t say “must.” That would be out of character for a declared agnostic. But I think we have to drop the material vs. immaterial mind topic for now, because I realize we’re derailing a thread about a very different OP.

I’d be happy to make a new thread about it if you are interested in discussing it, though.