Any suggestions to refute atheism

[spectrm]

As for the purpose - I can’t say. I don’t believe it’s a ‘purpose’ so much as a ‘process’. As I’ve said, I like the ‘soul-building machine’ idea, but I don’t see it as something ethereal. At the very core of the universe, I think, is an ‘equation’ of some sort - a function that uses us and the other parts of the universe as calculator bits - that is an iteration of the function that spawned it (and each of us or some part of us are sub-iterations of that…so on). This equation has a balance. It’s fulcrum is chaos. I think we’re supposed to search out ways of exuding the most positive energy that we can to tip the balance one way or the other (and not like this is a binary deal…there could be any millions of ways it could lean…this is planar mathematics on the theoretical level). By learning as much as we can about the world, we can serve a good steward to our universe. By studying deeply into ourselves, we can find ways to better our understanding of others and make our lives and relationships richer and more vibrant - as strong relationships are the only effective way to have a life experience outside our own…vicariousness, and such. And by kind and loving acts, we can put out a positive energy that can cause a rip-tide of good-will that can undo feuds, put an end to hatred, dispose of a wont to be different, and instead bind us as one species - one piece of the world’s beauty - and just explore and learn. We could increase our success as individuals and as a species exponentially, through cooperation and community. There’s no limit to what we can accomplish if we just quit bickering and put our minds and hearts into it.

To quote a very wise man:
“It only takes one thing, one simple change. And it doesn’t require money, or a sacrifice of time, or a personal giving - just a choice…right here…right now…a choice. To love and let be loved. First step - take all that money we spend on defense each year - on weapons and vehicles and death training - and spend it instead on feeding, clothing, and educating the poor and needy of the world which it would, many times over, not one child excluded. And we, as a single people, can explore space, both inner and outer, forever and til the end of time.” - CASH MONEY TO THE PERSON WHO CAN TELL ME WHO I’M QUOTING! SERIOUSLY. Forty-two and 27 cents on my person right now. If you can tell me who I’m quoting, I will mail you a check for that amount. FIRST PERSON TO ANSWER!!!

As I’ve said - I’ve witnessed much of the same phenomenon that the religious have. We just perceive it in the way that we need to in order to understand it. In my world-view, I simply don’t perceive the need for a godhead to have made it all, nor do I need a god at all. I believe there is just one nature to the world. There is one objective truth - that all things can be subjective (chaos). I believe our character is reflected in what form of subjectivism we choose to embody and the energy (karma, if you will) we put out in doing so.

 

[Thing]

The problem with this rationale is what I had stated earlier - “Look for something long enough and you shall find it - whether or not it’s truly there.” If we have an incentive or a desire to see something, we will. This doesn’t mean that what we’re seeing is real. The only reason I searched as long as I did for spirituality is because I thought “My family believes, but I don’t…either I’m missing something or there is a flaw in me”. All throughout my search, I found people who didn’t believe either - and what’s more - they didn’t think there was anything wrong with it. Those who continue the search when it’s fruitless are doing so already knowing that their mind will end up in faith, whether they find it or not. That’s not a very open approach. I entered into it looking hoping, but not expecting, to find. Hope gave way to disappointment which gave way to comfort. There is an intense comfort in coming to terms with ones real mortality.

I think the point of ‘spirituality’ is to give the individual a direction to go in and a way of getting there (inter-personally). I certainly have a healthy way of interacting with people and my world. My beliefs and world-view give me incentive and drive to be a better individual. I donate to charity, I care for ‘down-and-out’ family members, I’m affectionate with my family and friends. And in the end, isn’t that what it’s really all about? I don’t see how acceptance of a ‘god’ will make any of this better and the effort put forth in search wasn’t worth it. So now, it’s a passive acceptance that there is no such thing. If I’m presented with evidence to the contrary, I always examine it, but rarely find anything of value in it - too much is inferred by the person relating it. The presenters faith makes the evidence into something larger than it really is.

Thats why I’m suggesting to you that you continue the search, yourself. From the outset, you asked for scientific proof but you say that you will not accept scientific proof because thats impossible. Then you seem to pin your hopes on other people explaining and convincing you from their own experience but you say their certainty is just in their minds and its impossible for something like that to convince you also.
So what are the alternatives.
You have found one. Its the easiest one, which is to just do nothing and pretend you are not asking the question somehow as if the existance of a question in your heart does not necessarily imply a new type of answer being offered to you.
There is another alternative to answer your question. But it is not easy; it does not rely on empiricism; it does not rely on any persons experiences.
When you accept atheism at this point you are simply trading one set of beliefs for another. You cannot prove God by science you believe; equally you cannot disprove Him by that same science. You cannot follow others in their belief but you can follow others in their belief; away from God or an answer.
Don’t you see the playing pitch you construct is level. You can neither prove nor disprove God with the methods you have chosen and defined for your purposes.
If you do actually want an answer, once and for all, to this question of yours, instead of following anyone anywhere or using methods you predefine as impossible, you need to decide to find an answer. Deciding to find an answer but with the qualification that you will give up after a certain period is useless, as all you are doing is telling yourself you do not believe in an answer and before you even begin the search you have admitted defeat.
To find anything in this life, car keys, wife, country, lost city, God, the one searching always starts with the belief that they can find the object of their search; it is the natural motive for any search. Most people from there will take it to the very attractive extreme of refusing to give up on their search for what they want until they either find it or die in the attempt.

 

[HereticAmI]

To communicate my idea, I had to use words (sorry I didn’t send it telepathically). The symbols are merely representative of the concept they embody. You add value to the symbol, but the concept has an inherent value of its own. As proven by the fact that DNA predates “proper” linguistics, information can be stored and communicated in a normalized fashion without the pre-requisite of a creator.
Where you see a vacuum and a designer willing to fill it, I see a fabric of existence that defines things to operate exactly as they do.

You’ll have to forgive and/or indulge me for interrupting, but as an initial matter, you are correct, as there was and is information that predates linguistics. But that’s not the point. The point isn’t the existence of the information, the point is being able to recognize that information does in fact exist. Is DNA aware that information exists? Or does DNA just do what it does? That’s the difference. And in the same sense that my own DNA does much, but apparently is too shy or reserved to tell conscious me just what all of that doing much consists of and just how the whole thing works. Maybe you could explain how my microscropic strand of DNA can be aware of its own information but yet see to it that conscious me remains oblivious to the reality? How can that be? That the DNA is “aware” of itself on a micro level in rather many respects, but on the macro level rather much is lost in the translation [as it were] and so lost on me.

If it helps, picture a chimp, me, a truckload of bananas, some stick’um, and a wall. I use the stick’um to arrange the bananas on the wall to spell out…Chimp, you are sure darn dumb, as you’ll eat all of these bananas and never know that you’re being insulted by me calling you, dumb, with emphasis on the dumb “darn”]. Sure, there is information in my arrangement, but it’s lost on the chimpanzee. So, again, it isn’t the fact that information exists, it is the fact that some “thing” in the universe “recognizes” that information exists.

Another item is the 2------ thing from that one another post. Is the claim that if we take 1 and make it 1,000,000,000 that the quality changes in some fundamental respect? Isn’t carbon, carbon? Why should the carbon in my brain be more self-aware than the carbon in the leaf of that oak tree?

And you can poke this part of my brain and I’ll laugh, and you can give me a hallucinogen and I’ll hallucinate, granted, but please explain to me how I have the “will” to set my “imagination” “free”? And kindly explain the answer in some rather fundamental terms, such as just how and why the carbon in my brain cells decided/ that now is the time to “ruminate” on my fantasy world.

 

[HereticAmI]

Sorry, I lied, and so one more item. I was reading this piece on the death of entropy. Or something like that. The author of the piece posits a potential field that continuously “invigorates” the universe, bit by little, microscopic bit, say, at a sub-quantum level. Interesting notion. If he posited consciousness and a will to the potential field he’d have my God.

Sorry, one more lie, and so one more item. The words of a soul who speaks to your “lower” and “higher” levels:

users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Papers/Py104/searle.prob.html

Sounds rather like you. But, again, the problem is, don’t tell me your opinion, tell me how we get from “lower level” to “higher level”. Or as he glosses over the matter:

“Of all the theses that I am advancing in this article, this one arouses the most opposition. I am puzzled as to why there should be so much opposition, so I want to clarify a bit further what the issues are: First, I want to argue that we simply know as a matter of fact that brain processes cause conscious states. We don’t know the details about how it works and it may well be a long time before we understand the details involved. Furthermore, it seems to me an understanding of how exactly brain processes cause conscious states may require a revolution in neurobiology. Given our present explanatory apparatus, it is not at all obvious how, within that apparatus, we can account for the causal character of the relation between neuron firings and conscious states. But, at present, from the fact that we do not know how it occurs, it does not follow that we do not know that it occurs. Many people who object to my solution (or dissolution) of the mind-body problem, object on the grounds that we have no idea how neurobiological processes could cause conscious phenomena. But that does not seem to me a conceptual or logical problem. That is an empirical/theoretical issue for the biological sciences. The problem is to figure out exactly how the system works to produce consciousness, and since we know that in fact it does produce consciousness, we have good reason to suppose that are specific neurobiological mechanisms by way of which it works.”

Apparently, he has never heard of the logical fallacy of an a prioriassumption, as he says that “we know that in fact (that) it does produce consciousness” yet he cannot describe the “causative mechanism”. You’ll have to forgive and/or indulge me once again, but when I was taught “science”, I was taught that we know next to nothing about cause we don’t know “causative mechanism”. And so maybe he should listen to his critics:

“There are certain philosophical moods we sometimes get into when it seems absolutely astounding that consciousness could be produced by electro-biochemical processes, and it seems almost impossible that we would ever be able to explain it in neurobiological terms.”

Yeah, we are in that mood because we know that we don’t hear displacment waves, we instead perceive what we call sound. Her voice is majestic, and not at x decibels, etc. And what our friend calls “common mistakes”, I call instead the entire problem:

“The two most common mistakes about consciousness are to suppose that it can be analysed behavioristically or computationally.”

As I hope that I’ve made plain, the “info” that you speak of here, the DNA, is just that, computational. But, again, that’s not how I perceive it, and so as I said in my one prior post, you can add up all the synaptic data you like, and you’ll get a displacement wave crunching machine, but you won’t get a mind that perceives the waves as “sound”.

And here’s where he states the exact objection on the part of some, me included:

“There is a simple demonstration that the computational model of consciousness is not sufficient for consciousness. I have given it many times before so I will not dwell on it here. Its point is simply this: Computation is defined syntactically. It is defined in terms of the manipulation of symbols. But the syntax by itself can never be sufficient for the sort of contents that characteristically go with conscious thoughts.”

In other words, you look and measure the displacement waves, and that’s what you get, displacement waves, that you can understand as such, but you don’t get sound. Now back to those darn dumb chimpanzees:

“Something is a symbol only if it is used, treated or regarded as a symbol. The Chinese room argument showed that semantics is not intrinsic to syntax. But what this argument shows is that syntax is not intrinsic to physics. There are no purely physical properties that zeros and ones or symbols in general have that determine that they are symbols.”

And that’s why you love jazz and I hate jazz. Same displacement waves but they don’t quite burn you and me in quite the same fashion as that strong acid does when thrown all over us. And what he notes took ten years to see I saw immediately. Fine, DNA has info, but we need a mind, and not a brain, to see the info for what it is. Just ask the darn dumb chimp, and let her or his complete obliviousness to your question serve as my sufficent answer. And note the criticial distinction here, as you may speak English and me Swahili, and so we have some trouble trying to communicate with our verbal symbols, but the chimp and us don’t even make it that far, as he or she likely won’t even “recognize” that we’re trying to communicate to her or him in symbolic terms, i.e., we speak two differing languages but we recognize the attempt to communicate the information, while our darn dumb chimps don’t recognize the attempt.

 

[spectrm]

Thats why I’m suggesting to you that you continue the search, yourself.

I continue to search for answers. I don’t presuppose any nature to those answers or their source.

From the outset, you asked for scientific proof but you say that you will not accept scientific proof because thats impossible.

No - from the onset, I asked for any epistemological verification of anything that can be used effectively as an answer (meaning that it’s implications fit the real world and carry at least a measure of empirical support). And I never said scientific proof is impossible.

Then you seem to pin your hopes on other people explaining and convincing you from their own experience but you say their certainty is just in their minds and its impossible for something like that to convince you also.

Hardly. I find community in the sharing of people’s experiences of phenomena. I don’t think I need to be convinced anymore than you need to be de-convinced.

So what are the alternatives.
You have found one. Its the easiest one, which is to just do nothing and pretend you are not asking the question somehow as if the existance of a question in your heart does not necessarily imply a new type of answer being offered to you.

Curiosity != answers. If you honestly think atheism (at least at the onset) is easy, you’ve never tried it.

There is another alternative to answer your question. But it is not easy; it does not rely on empiricism; it does not rely on any persons experiences.
When you accept atheism…

More non-strata that I’ve already contended with. During my search, I realized that I wasn’t searching for god, I was searching for answers. I found many, but none of them were ‘in god’. Once I had realized there was more than just two alternatives, the presupposition that there was a particular answer to be sought out specifically became rather foolish.

 

[AirLiner]

1. there are MANY theories on how the brain is responsible for the mind, and we’re working on getting to the level where we can gather conclusive data. It’s a process. It’s not a binary process, as you seem to believe. We accrue percentage of probability until such point that it’s blaringly factual - and there are truly only a few things that hit that mark. But 99.99999% might as well be 100% when the alternative is ~5%.

Many? Well that’s the key word here. This reminds me of the origin of life, when you have more than 10 theories its safe to assume we really don’t know what’s going on. For these situations the evidence is sketchy so its very difficult to come up with a good theory. I respectfully disagree, we are nowhere near a mind-body theory with a high enough percentage or probability where it is practically truth.

Not at all. See, we’re problem solvers. That’s what our brain and our body is developed for…to solve adaptive problems. We can’t guarantee the reliability of a reporting mechanism from any animal other than humans (I hesitate to say “yet”…but that’s a topic of a different color). But we can guarantee our own reportability and compare it against reproducible brainwave patterns and CT scan … I think your understanding of science as it stands is quite poor.

I care to disagree, I say it is you who has a poor understanding of science because we’ve already seen how animal brains work and how their brain waves emerge and such. Add in as much time as you want we will always merely be observing how the particles in an animal brain interact with each other and release brain waves. That’s all we’ll have. compare it all you want with a human brain, the empirical evidence will indicate that they are merely extremely complex machines. Why should that be different 100 years from now? Compare animal brains to human brains a million times, you will never get any farther.

I say that because you over simplify my argument (btw - you should really try focusing on your own). There is a distinct incentive for humans to cooperate and not simply start offing one another. ‘Illusion’ is not the ONLY thing keeping one from homicide. It’s merely the most cited reason. Truthfully, we have an inherent aversion towards any involvement with the death process - this is a successful evolutionary development, if there ever was an example of one.

I am very focused on my own argument thank you. Of course we have an inclination to live and not kill each other, human beings are designed to perpetuate the species. Yet in the atheist perspective this is merely the arrangement of particles in our bodies leading us to certain behaviors. It’s all merely the movement of atoms. There’s really no reason not to move atoms right? I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, atheism is inherently nihilistic. Atheists can either be libertines or delude themselves into behaving “morally” for no true reason.

Once again, we don’t have conclusive empirical evidence. But we do have some empirical evidence and plenty of observational data. And once again you narrow it to only two possibilities. Why are YOU so closed minded?

Logically there are two possibilities, but the evidence (at least from the materialist perspective) narrows it down to one. It’s just a simple use of the empirical method.

d…d…d…d…d…d…answer the damned argument. Don’t sidestep with rhetoric and ridicule. You prefer to erect strawmen than contend with the argument at hand. There’s only so many times I’m going to repeat myself.

No strawmen, merely what the materialist evidence indicates.

Yes, I find the religious bigots a big turn-off too coughAirLinercough. Would I be happy if religion were rid from the world? Perhaps…But I do reason that some people really do NEED it…who’m I to take that away from them. I can’t say I would sleep any differently at night, but I can say the world would be quite a different place indeed. And as for the “gatherings”…I was really making an allusion towards church/congregation. It was a slight jab.

Oh, yeah I dislike those religoius bigots too, they offer no real reasoning, no good logic, just unconnected testimonies and Bible verses, mindlessly following their ideologies. I really just wish fideism was wiped off the face of the earth, it impedes good human thinking.
I see the same behavior in many atheists, zero understanding of theology, zero understanding of philosophy, even of history, they merely mindlessly repeat what they think are scientific facts which support their cause and mindlessly follow all of those major atheist writers, while condemning Christianity as if they are experts in it though their knowledge of the religion is laughable. Let’s face it bigotry and ignorance plauges both atheists and theists. I’m here to demonstrate that I’m not suffering from those afflictions. If your going to accuse me of it use reasoning, not coughs.

No. On the right track to having answers that have true meaning to him. As a person of faith, you of all people should appreciate the journey!!! Who’s to say he doesn’t go back to the church with more energy than even you can muster (and with less bigotry). Let him find his own path.

I don’t want him to find whatever is of convenience to him. Indifferentism is absurd, I prefer him to find the one and only actual truth, which should be of convenience to him anyways.

Less speculation and more the tone, tenor, and content of our conversations both private and public. I was merely relating my story in comparison to his in order to make a point about how improperly you’re handling the argument. Do you not have anything of value to contribute or are you going to continue to ridicule?

I apologize, but I was merely pointing out something I noticed.

 

[spectrm]

You’ll have to forgive and/or indulge me for interrupting, but as an initial matter, you are correct, as there was and is information that predates linguistics. But that’s not the point. The point isn’t the existence of the information, the point is being able to recognize that information does in fact exist.

‘If a tree falls in the middle of the forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?’ Of course it does. Information is important and IS information regardless of whether someone is there to perceive it as such.

Is DNA aware that information exists? Or does DNA just do what it does?
That’s the difference.

I couldn’t argue that DNS is aware, no. I don’t exclude it as a possibility, however improbable. Language isn’t self-aware either. We convey messages through language (which we’ve designed) and nature conveys messages through DNA (which it has ‘designed’).

And in the same sense that my own DNA does much, but apparently is too shy or reserved to tell conscious me just what all of that doing much consists of and just how the whole thing works.

A solid case could be made that such awareness would not only be detrimental to evolutionary development, but would also, by definition, make understanding of it impossible. “If the human mind was simple enough to be understood, we would be so simple that we couldn’t.”

Maybe you could explain how my microscropic strand of DNA can be aware of its own information but yet see to it that conscious me remains oblivious to the reality?

Why would I attempt to explain something I don’t hold true?

How can that be? That the DNA is “aware” of itself on a micro level in rather many respects,

Honestly couldn’t tell you. Dunno why you’re asking the wrong person.

but on the macro level rather much is lost in the translation [as it were] and so lost on me.

A lot seems lost on you…you do accept that you breath…oxygen…do you frequently think of the process followed to do so? Where did the knowledge of this process come from? From the lungs? Did the lungs instill this knowledge in you? No…you were taught.

If it helps, picture a chimp, me, a truckload of bananas, some stick’um, and a wall. I use the stick’um to arrange the bananas on the wall to spell out…Chimp, you are sure darn dumb, as you’ll eat all of these bananas and never know that you’re being insulted by me calling you, dumb, with emphasis on the dumb “darn”]. Sure, there is information in my arrangement, but it’s lost on the chimpanzee. So, again, it isn’t the fact that information exists, it is the fact that some “thing” in the universe “recognizes” that information exists.

And my point is that the two are unrelated. Our ability to recognize and process information isn’t not simply “brought about” by the presence of other information in our system. Your analogy is just more non-strata…I don’t know if you really are confused or merely trying to confuse others.

Another item is the 2------ thing from that one another post. Is the claim that if we take 1 and make it 1,000,000,000 that the quality changes in some fundamental respect? Isn’t carbon, carbon? Why should the carbon in my brain be more self-aware than the carbon in the leaf of that oak tree?

I don’t attach a real value to the number - that’s where you seem to reside. And, no, nothing fundamental changes in the mass. As I stated, when particles assemble, they DO amount to more than merely the sum of their parts. There is no ‘fundamental’ difference between 2 million and 1 million atoms, or cells…but there IS a progressive difference. You are keeping a very limited world-view. While this is fine for you beliefs, it doesn’t work in intelligent discourse. It’s not just ‘black’ and ‘white’.

And you can poke this part of my brain and I’ll laugh, and you can give me a hallucinogen and I’ll hallucinate, granted, but please explain to me how I have the “will” to set my “imagination” “free”? And kindly explain the answer in some rather fundamental terms, such as just how and why the carbon in my brain cells decided/ that now is the time to “ruminate” on my fantasy world.

And I say that YOU decide. The hardware (brain) developed with a set of instructions (electricity + neurotransmitter) in order to more effectively compete in the environment. With a basic set of instructions in place, it was only a matter of time before thoughts started including the results of multiple instructions (this is just an inherent nature - where multiple phenomena are frequent enough and and able to interact, complex strings naturally form…we see this in nucleotides, crystalline compounds, etc - it’s a normal behavior in logic systems, as well). With basic instructions strung into complex operations, the abstraction just needs to be repeated with itself as the point of abstraction to reach 3rd, 4th and so-on orders of thinking. This isn’t so much a matter of ‘how does carbon induce consciousness’ - it’s a matter of ‘how can an information laden universe not create an information processing system’.

 

[AirLiner]

The ‘cell’ was in parentheses because it reflects a belief that I hold…not what I accept as reality. I believe I mentioned it goes well beyond mere RNA into the sub-atomic particles and the properties they hold. I believe that to create consciousness as we’re discussing it, takes the 2,000,000 whatever figure I stated. This, once again, has empirical evidence and observational support.

A belief that you hold not that you accept as reality? Woah there, what do you mean by that.
Yeah the other statement you said. Yes there is evidence but only in the human brain.

False, false, and false. Do not infer my beliefs. I believe it CAN be provable by natural studies, but I believe plenty of things that I embody in a sense of mysticism (as I said before “what did they call the television in 1776?” - I have to convey the ideas somehow…). This is only because we’re not at a level of study that we can see and generate data on them. But as history has shown, it’s only a matter of time (if we can stop focusing on research to make a man’s member salute!!!).

History has had us advance in our use of reason, yet you are so sure that in the future we are going to acquire a new way of of gathering info. Just because time passes by doesn’t mean we are going to come up with a different form of finding truth.
I really have a problem with this “future science” of yours. Since the dawn of man we have used reason to figure out truth. The scientific method is merely a way to organize human reason. If it was the year 5000 B.C. and someone asked another how do you figure out what the truth is.They could say I observe and infer. In the year 2009 its the same thing. Science doesn’t change human reason it merely organizes it, science is a way to use human reason. Unless human beings cease to be human beings and begin thinking in a fundamentally different way then there will be no other method of figuring out natural truth. And since they time of the ancient Greeks and maybe even earlier human beings have been striving to understand the mind and how it relates to the body, in more than 2000 years nobody has come up with an explanation of how matter can produce thought. We end up with the mind is material it happens but we don’t know how or *the mind is immaterial because it can’t happen through material means. *.

You presuppose so much about the implications. I know plenty of scientists who believe firmly in free-will and of course the common experience of it is a large argument in it’s favor. There are numerous among us who see free-will as a natural adaptation. Certain processes simply can’t be handled at the raw-resources level. Processing of a much higher caliber and abstraction is necessary (it’s like the genetics are assembling an ‘auto-pilot’ system for themselves).

You gotta be kidding me, in the book 13 things that don’t make sense by Michael Brooks, a respectable science writer, it is clearly stated that the majority of scientists don’t believe in free will, he then goes on to describe how the scientists who do believe in free will are using unscientific methods. Honestly this isn’t the first time I’ve encountered an atheist reluctant to deny free will. Is it really that hard to accept the implications of your beliefs?

You are, of course, correct on this note. Some things are beyond the scope of our provability…at present. If history has shown us anything, it’s that we try and try and then get it right. It’s a process. I feel like a broken record. Anyone who claims empiricism is the only true epistemology is just as fanatical as I perceive some of you to be. I said that I believe nihilism to be beneath both of us, and I meant it. Science, on the other hand, can and does often include the human experience, which is undeniable.

I’d say that only applies if your a materialist, because then abstract ideas, logic, philosophy, ethics, are unprovable through empirical means. Otherwise almost nothing is unprovable through good use of human reason. And as to empiricism being the only epistemology, I know for a fact that a famous atheist and chemist by the name of Peter Atkins once claimed that all truth is accessible through empirical science.

But that’s what you had asked for.

Your right, but now I’m trying to get the conversation back to where it originally started.

Not in the way that you use the word…

Dualism as in the mind is immaterial. Feel free to explain yourself.

 

[spectrm]

Many? Well that’s the key word here. This reminds me of the origin of life, when you have more than 10 theories its safe to assume we really don’t know what’s going on. For these situations the evidence is sketchy so its very difficult to come up with a good theory. I respectfully disagree, we are nowhere near a mind-body theory with a high enough percentage or probability where it is practically truth.

10 theories…not that I stated a number…all varying in details and portions. The reason for the difference is to determine the actual nature of the phenomenon, as we are characterizing something in an attempt to understand it…many possible variables. It’s not like there are 10 theories as distinct and different as ‘strict materialism’ and ‘devout catholicism’.

I care to disagree, I say it is you who has a poor understanding of science because we’ve already seen how animal brains work and how their brain waves emerge and such…

And they display symptons highly suggestive of consciousness, meaning it’s a valid scientific avenue to pursue.

I am very focused on my own argument thank you. Of course we have an inclination to live and not kill each other, human beings are designed to perpetuate the species. Yet in the atheist perspective this is merely the arrangement of particles in our bodies leading us to certain behaviors. It’s all merely the movement of atoms. There’s really no reason not to move atoms right? I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, atheism is inherently nihilistic. Atheists can either be libertines or delude themselves into behaving “morally” for no true reason.

In two sentences, you contradict your self. You cannot argue your point through the other persons. You paint a cartoonishly simple view with hard-line materialistic rules that don’t inherenty fit any person’s ideas and serve more to paint you opponent as a nihilist than to contend with the real ideas. You’re so inclined towards evangelism, you attempt to do so for me, as well. So…once again…stick to YOUR argument and leave ME to MINE.

Logically there are two possibilities,

false

but the evidence (at least from the materialist perspective) narrows it down to one. It’s just a simple use of the empirical method.

false

No strawmen, merely what the materialist evidence indicates.

nothing but strawmen misrepresented as materialism.

Oh, yeah I dislike those religoius bigots too, they offer no real reasoning, no good logic, just unconnected testimonies and Bible verses, mindlessly following their ideologies. I really just wish fideism was wiped off the face of the earth, it impedes good human thinking…I’m here to demonstrate that I’m not suffering from those afflictions. If your going to accuse me of it use reasoning, not coughs.

And you prejudice of my beliefs, and presupposition of my beliefs, because of a general doctrine I adhere to is the same as me referring to you as evil because “all catholics burn witches, blow up Panned Parenthood clinics and all catholic priests sexually abuse boys”. You can’t project onto me the worste examples of atheist ideology.

I don’t want him to find whatever is of convenience to him. Indifferentism is absurd, I prefer him to find the one and only actual truth, which should be of convenience to him anyways.

there is nothing ‘convenient’ about the pursuit of knowledge.

I apologize, but I was merely pointing out something I noticed.

You made an assessment of a person’s state and progress, spiritually. I was pointing out, through the relation of our stories, that a better understanding of our purpose in the search, our background, and US in general would assist you in understanding how we come to our ideas. We HAVE been religious…we understand your thought process better than you’d be willing to admit. Have you ever been atheist?

 

[spectrm]

A belief that you hold not that you accept as reality? Woah there, what do you mean by that.

No scientist would deny that human beings are capable of unsupported belief. There are certain beliefs that I have that are merely placeholders for the reality I see us one day discovering.

History has had us advance in our use of reason, yet you are so sure that in the future we are going to acquire a new way of of gathering info. Just because time passes by doesn’t mean we are going to come up with a different form of finding truth.

In a way…

I really have a problem with this “future science” of yours. Since the dawn of man we have used reason to figure out truth. The scientific method is merely a way to organize human reason. If it was the year 5000 B.C. and someone asked another how do you figure out what the truth is.They could say I observe and infer. In the year 2009 its the same thing. Science doesn’t change human reason it merely organizes it, science is a way to use human reason. Unless human beings cease to be human beings and begin thinking in a fundamentally different way then there will be no other method of figuring out natural truth.

It’s more a matter of there being parts of natural truth that our five senses, and any improvements upon those senses abilities, cannot perceive. Something being observable in the natural world is not the same as being observable TO US in the natural world.

To the more immediate argument - while reason is always the method, it’s application is frequently evolutionarily, if not revolutionarily, changed with new discoveries. The implications of E=mc2 were profound…we’re only now discovering the true validity of some of it’s corollaries.

And since they time of the ancient Greeks and maybe even earlier human beings have been striving to understand the mind and how it relates to the body, in more than 2000 years nobody has come up with an explanation of how matter can produce thought. We end up with the mind is material it happens but we don’t know how or *the mind is immaterial because it can’t happen through material means. *.

And 2000 years ago, people believed the earth was flat and the center of the universe…amazing how things change, huh?

You gotta be kidding me, in the book 13 things that don’t make sense by Michael Brooks, a respectable science writer, it is clearly stated that the majority of scientists don’t believe in free will, he then goes on to describe how the scientists who do believe in free will are using unscientific methods. Honestly this isn’t the first time I’ve encountered an atheist reluctant to deny free will. Is it really that hard to accept the implications of your beliefs?

science != empiricism - inferrence, deduction, induction, etc are all a part of the process. One hard-liner’s opinion is hardly a conclusive account of all similar takes on the matter. I’ve gone back and forth twice on the free-will concept and settled on the side I’m on. I know from the human experience that I have free-will. That’s part of the brain’s job - to create an independent consciousness. The freedom of this consciousness then rests in it’s ability to effectively manipulate it’s own feedback loops - which it is lent to as the.

I’d say that only applies if your a materialist, because then abstract ideas, logic, philosophy, ethics, are unprovable through empirical means. Otherwise almost nothing is unprovable through good use of human reason. And as to empiricism being the only epistemology, I know for a fact that a famous atheist and chemist by the name of Peter Atkins once claimed that all truth is accessible through empirical science.

Is this relevant? So one atheist made an absolutist statement…if the ill-logic in that can’t be seen clearly, then you’re clearly missing something intrinsic.

Your right, but now I’m trying to get the conversation back to where it originally started.

just don’t blame me for the digression.

Dualism as in the mind is immaterial. Feel free to explain yourself.

Then no - the mind remains at least in part material.

 

[AirLiner]

According to me (my belief…unverified…I do not claim it as science, or fact):

You see I think that is damaging the conversation. I start to feel as if I’m merely reading your opinions, rather than what you see as truth.

Each of us, in our millions and million and billions of atoms in most if not all of our billions of cells have little specs of star-stuff. … The sub-atomic charge of these particles is already verified, and the effects of which are being studied as I type.

Yes we are made of material

This charge, this property about them, affects the behavior of electrons and atoms and other sub-atomic particles. … This is why there’s a tenable energy in a room with a lot of static and why certain areas of the earth have a certain feeling of energy - as well as why the area where lightning struck often feels measurably cooler for a while afterwards.

Sure, particles behave in different ways based on how the react to the universe’s forces.

Enough of these particles amass in one place, combined with organic biology - which does not inherently depend on the properties of these particles, but I believe it plays a role, create an energy field that becomes akin to jumpstarting a car. Now all the genetics need to do is build the machine (which is easy as organisms progress physically to the more complex, why should not the brain).

Particles combined with organic biology? Organic biology is merely the study of particles with carbon, chemically your are saying that carbon particles set the stage for thought. And I don’t see the need for the “energy field”, again these are just carbon molecules.

Eventually, a particular organism becomes the dominant species in nearly every environment on the planet and suddenly, there is no more need for biological adaptation - in effect, physical evolution has ceased. NOW the most complex problem in our environment is US.

…

… The only way to adapt is to lend the weight to an organ that’s capable of adapting in real-time - one that has a will all it’s own and the ability to enact it through it’s body (which conveniently had been developed over the last few million years).

Listen, this is wrong, we would not have become the dominant species in the first place without our minds, so this logic is off.

Much of this is already accepted as a possible answer. Dawkins has an entire chapter dedicated to the exact argument made in my last paragraph. I’m not as far off base as you think, either (sorry if I alluded towards a larger disparity).

While I consider him an incompetent philosopher I’ve read and greatly respect his biological writings. So explain, how did we become the dominant species without our already advanced minds?

To be honest, the majority of my ideology is common to nearly all the atheists I’ve ever met. I do believe in objectivism - a lot of atheists are objectivist…ask any Ayn Rand fan what religion they are, and they’ll all scoff, but they’re objectivists!!! …

As far as objective truth, I believe it exists too even in morals (natural law) , but I don’t see how atheists can be objectivists. Don’t forget that morals are illusions according to Dawkins, which by the way makes more sense from the materialist perspective. I see objectivism as merely a popular movement held by atheists who don’t want to abandon those truths I mentioned earlier as inaccessible by empiricism. They want morals, ethics, philosophy, and values to be as true as the material science that gives them so much truth about the universe. However in the end its all incompatible with a materialist viewpoint. I really don’t think the majority of atheists are objectivists.

The star stuff is my own special twist, I guess. I have certainly felt the energies of people. I see aura’s. I’ve felt a sense of nirvana during meditations, and I’m a frequent pot smoker (it’s the cheater’s way to a sense of clarity - but my life is busy, and a shortcut is sometimes necessary…I do have a lot of important stuff upon which to meditate). People emit energy, and each person’s energy is unique. I…

Aura’s? Those are merely the impact of their person and characteristics they leave on you. To be honest trying to label them as a physical phenomenon is not logical to me.

Please don’t view my pot-smoking as “he’s some silly hippy with crazy mystical ideas”. I’m a very rational individual with a very successful job and high marks in the IQ category (not that that’s truly conclusive of anything…I do think it’s culturally biased). I’m not crazy and I’m not on any crazy person meds (not even anti-depressants…did them a few times recreationally…not my bag…I don’t recommend them either).

Regardless of how rational one is they can still make grave errors, I’ve seen that there can be brilliant scientists who still believe that the earth is 6000 years old, and seen that brilliant biologists can make historical revisionists and incompetent philosophers.

I think we all witness the same phenomenon and process the information differently. We’ve all developed different filters throughout our lives by what we allow/will-to/default-in believing/perceiving/doing. This is a part of our natural development - to become unique individuals for the sake of increasing our success in the world. And that’s pretty much the metaphysics of it.

Well I actually see that as the cause of so much ignorance in the world. People all like to accept their own truth.

Ah and while you gave me your thoughts on how the mind could have emerged, I still saw no explanation on how those subatomic particles acquire or even have the properties to produce an immaterial mind. Is it in your next post perhaps, but I’d like to take a break, I’ll try to be back later today.

 

[spectrm]

You see I think that is damaging the conversation. I start to feel as if I’m merely reading your opinions, rather than what you see as truth.

You asked me to lay out MY world-view…so I did, but placed a disclaimer. I will further my already ardent efforts to denote when I’m speaking from personal ideologue or scientific consensus.

Yes we are made of material

But more than that - the material is not all homogeneous and possesses certain properties that lend it towards aberrant (as opposed to normative in material lacking said property) behaviors.

Sure, particles behave in different ways based on how the react to the universe’s forces.

My point is that the particles ARE the universe’s forces. The properties they possess effect the matter, and thereby environment, around them.

Particles combined with organic biology? Organic biology is merely the study of particles with carbon,

But my view also takes into account various electromagnetic (presumably) and other sub-atomic properties that can enact changes in behavior in the matter around it.

chemically your are saying that carbon particles set the stage for thought. And I don’t see the need for the “energy field”, again these are just carbon molecules.

In my view, the ‘energy field’ is necessary to ‘jumpstart’ the matter into collective action. They have to get in sync somehow (all these electro-enabled cells and organs) to begin communication - it’s a part of any information conveyence system. Various elements in the cells (which, as stated, can exist without a charge) containing this ‘potential-energy’ property create the energy field I mentioned which interferes with the signal in other cells and matter. Different signals of competing strength in magnetics tend towards normalizing on one signal…the collisions create a state where the entire field adopts the same wavelength and draws it’s amperage from the diseparate sources (I don’t know much jargon in electromagnetics, so take the words for what they are…they’re meant to convey the theory).

The evolutionist mainstream doesn’t accept this ‘star-stuff’ idea, as it’s another ‘unnecessary part’ much like the ‘god hypothesis’, but it’s a theory I have that seems to explain a lot of areas that current scientific research is ignoring.

Listen, this is wrong, we would not have become the dominant species in the first place without our minds, so this logic is off.

Sure we could have. We were superior minded long before we were capable of abstract thought. This is accepted evolutionary theory. We didn’t wake up one day, with higher consciousness, and begin conquering the world…our already superior intellect won the throne and pitted us against ourselves, rather than our elements. I think you’re a bit behind on your evolutionary theory.

As far as objective truth, I believe it exists too even in morals (natural law) , but I don’t see how atheists can be objectivists. Don’t forget that morals are illusions according to Dawkins……I really don’t think the majority of atheists are objectivists.

Then you miss an enormous understanding of the world…Objectivism is not solely about morality. As I posed the question, please answer it and I can explain what I mean:
“If a meteor crashes into a planet, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?”

Aura’s? Those are merely the impact of their person and characteristics they leave on you. To be honest trying to label them as a physical phenomenon is not logical to me.

But a person’s impact often effects my physical state. A person’s good attitude can liven my day, making me more relaxed and amiable. Funny, what you’ll tell ME is logical…

Regardless of how rational one is they can still make grave errors, I’ve seen that there can be brilliant scientists who still believe that the earth is 6000 years old, and seen that brilliant biologists can make historical revisionists and incompetent philosophers.

Agreed. My point is simply that I’m an average joe - not a doctor, lawyer, politician, homeless guy, crazy guy, etc., etc. Basically - I’m not a crackpot. Many people have views rooted in a form of mysticism that often reflect some of the same metaphor that I use.

Well I actually see that as the cause of so much ignorance in the world. People all like to accept their own truth.

And so long as the world turns, it shall continue, as it always has. Nothing has changed…it’s still just the world we live in. How are you to say people are ignorant merely because they don’t accept YOUR truth?

Ah and while you gave me your thoughts on how the mind could have emerged, I still saw no explanation on how those subatomic particles acquire or even have the properties to produce an immaterial mind. Is it in your next post perhaps, but I’d like to take a break, I’ll try to be back later today.

The ‘producing’ the immaterial part was already explained, but I’ll put it here for chronology.

 

[spectrm]

The set of basic instructions the brain has presented (and again, not so basic…they control everything from every various muscle response, respiratory, digestive, and endocrine - the list goes on) are utilized by the cerebral cortex (primarily) to respond to stimuli with the additional supplement of past memory and comparative analysis of events. Animals display a change in complex motor behavior (an aversion towards choosing the dog house to the left vs. an aversion towards choosing the dog house to the right) based on their past experience with that response. The method used for storing and recalling memory is still a mystery, but a lot of work and research is finding many good answers, but they’re all still just a collection of theories.

As for an independent mind from all this mass. This is just one theory, but it’s an example so you can drop the statement that there is no link between the matter and the sensation of consciousness.
Imagine, if you will, a large cluster of neurons. The most outer edge of the cluster are ‘border’ neurons. They possess certain synaptic connections that allow it to communicate with the more ‘hardware-oriented’ clusters, as well as other clusters like itself with the intent of containing the clusters ‘worker’ neurons inside. (it’s not really this cut and dry, but it’s to exaggerate the point for conceptual purposes).

At this point, all we have is another instance of what we already know to exist in the automatic nervous response systems. But some clusters are made differently…
Inside of this large coating of border cells, a begin state of a thought (an electrical snapshot of another part of the brain at a moment in time) is dumped. Another mental process takes in stimuli and (using the method detailed in the cerebral cortex example - if not that particular mechanism) determines which states and data sets need to be tested. The process responsible for the dumping and determination can then begin flipping different values of the state it’s testing to see what results it brings.

Eventually, there become so many mental states that need to be processed, so many events that need sequencing, applied value, and purpose added to that this system need to run 24x7. The popular definition of ‘oneness’ (as in the question “If all my cells die and are replaced, after a while, am I even myself anymore?”) is along the lines of: the contiguous sequence of phenomena in a body’s life that define it’s perception of the world. This definition was stated as such to meet the needs of everything from coma patients to schizophrenics

When these ‘state-testing’ systems become necessary on a constant basis (as it would with human social interaction), it’s easiest to just encapsulate all of them as one large one, and give over control to a part of the system itself - but really, this is reasonable. Evolution frequently designs tons of little systems, puts them together with each other and then assigns a ‘manager’ - he have all kids of endocrine related organs…even digestive organs that are effected by the endocrine system…then you have the thyroid, the gonads, all of those endocrine organs. This is about where consciousness comes in. We’re sitting in front of the controls of this mega state-testing system. We’re not aware of the mechanics of the system we command - it would likely be detrimental to our operation of it anyway. We just know the controls and are supposed to learn how and when to use them. Sovereignty is given over to us (thereby granting independent consciousness and free-will) so we can adapt more readily and effectively than could an organism without this additional higher level capacity.

 

[AirLiner]

10 theories…not that I stated a number…all varying in details and portions. The reason for the difference is to determine the actual nature of the phenomenon, as we are characterizing something in an attempt to understand it…many possible variables. It’s not like there are 10 theories as distinct and different as ‘strict materialism’ and ‘devout catholicism’.

A gap in information is what is causing all of those variables hence materialist theories don’t really explain what is going on because of the lack of info. And in philosophy of the mind, when attempting to explain how the mind works in relation to the body, the views really fall in between materialism and dualism of the mind. Two options.

And they display symptons highly suggestive of consciousness, meaning it’s a valid scientific avenue to pursue.

You can pursue it all you want, youll never get there due to the reportability thing. You still haven’t gotten around this except by saying that we will somehow in the future gain a new way of gathering knowledge.

false…false…strawmen

No reasoning.

stick to YOUR argument and leave ME to MINE…You can’t project onto me the worste examples of atheist ideology.

I realize that I have been stereotyping, I apologize, but roaming atheist, forums, sites, and youtube videos have left me quite defensive and and with a tendency to sterotype atheists since the majority I have encountered behave virtually in the same way. I’ll to stop bringing outside info into this and focus on what you give me.

convenient…knowledge

Well some ideas are convenient to people. They find a truth and it satisfies them, that’s what I was talking about.

You made an assessment of a person’s state and progress, spiritually.

Atheism isn’t a single denomination like a religion, atheists may occasionally vary in opinions and experiences, though as I pointed out earlier the majority don’t. I originally pointed out that Sideline was like the majority.

No scientist would deny that human beings are capable of unsupported belief. There are certain beliefs that I have that are merely placeholders for the reality I see us one day discovering.

Well yeah, but I want to discuss what we view as truth not, “placeholders” as you say.

In a way…

Then we shouldn’t be sure that in the future we will acquire some form of new science.

Something being observable in the natural world is not the same as being observable TO US in the natural world.

If it leaves no effects and is in no way observable to us then as far as we’re concerned it doesn’t exist. St. Thomas of Aquinas went over this, and I don’t think many other philosophers would disagree. And I also don’t think that the mind applies to that since it leaves effects, thus making it observable.

The implications of E=mc2 were profound…we’re only now discovering the true validity of some of it’s corollaries.

E=mc2 did not change how we think, it merely allowed us to explain how matter interacted with eachother in a much better way than before.

And 2000 years ago, people believed the earth was flat and the center of the universe

2000 years ago people could already realize that the earth was round, and 2000 years ago thinking that the earth was the center of the universe was the scientific way to think .Their naked eyes gave them evidence that supported that theory quite well. And 2000 years ago, people knew that their bodies were made of matter, that’s all you need to try and figure out the basic process of how matter in motion produces thought. Yet in all that time there has been absolutely no progress in explaining how matter can make thought.

One hard-liner’s opinion is hardly a conclusive account of all similar takes on the matter…freedom of this consciousness then rests in it’s ability to effectively manipulate it’s own feedback loops - which it is lent to as the.

Not one hardliner’s opinion, but rather the majority of scientists’ scientific ideas. And to prove the latter statement you really do have to accept dualism. Matter in motion doesn’t manipulate anything, it merely responds to the motion of other matter and transfers energy, etc.

Is this relevant? So one atheist made an absolutist statement

I apologize, this is a result of sterotyping. The atheists I encountered earlier tended to worship and follow major atheists writers like sheep, so I noted Atkins views. Sorry for any inconvenience.

Then no - the mind remains at least in part material.

Okay, then I guess I shall see your explanation for that.

 

[buffalo]

A gap in information is what is causing all of those variables hence materialist theories don’t really explain what is going on because of the lack of info. And in philosophy of the mind, when attempting to explain how the mind works in relation to the body, the views really fall in between materialism and dualism of the mind. Two options.
You can pursue it all you want, youll never get there due to the reportability thing. You still haven’t gotten around this except by saying that we will somehow in the future gain a new way of gathering knowledge.

No reasoning.

I realize that I have been stereotyping, I apologize, but roaming atheist, forums, sites, and youtube videos have left me quite defensive and and with a tendency to sterotype atheists since the majority I have encountered behave virtually in the same way. I’ll to stop bringing outside info into this and focus on what you give me.
Well some ideas are convenient to people. They find a truth and it satisfies them, that’s what I was talking about.

Atheism isn’t a single denomination like a religion, atheists may occasionally vary in opinions and experiences, though as I pointed out earlier the majority don’t. I originally pointed out that Sideline was like the majority.

Well yeah, but I want to discuss what we view as truth not, “placeholders” as you say.

Then we shouldn’t be sure that in the future we will acquire some form of new science.
If it leaves no effects and is in no way observable to us then as far as we’re concerned it doesn’t exist. St. Thomas of Aquinas went over this, and I don’t think many other philosophers would disagree. And I also don’t think that the mind applies to that since it leaves effects, thus making it observable.
E=mc2 did not change how we think, it merely allowed us to explain how matter interacted with eachother in a much better way than before.
2000 years ago people could already realize that the earth was round, and 2000 years ago thinking that the earth was the center of the universe was the scientific way to think .Their naked eyes gave them evidence that supported that theory quite well. And 2000 years ago, people knew that their bodies were made of matter, that’s all you need to try and figure out the basic process of how matter in motion produces thought. Yet in all that time there has been absolutely no progress in explaining how matter can make thought.

Not one hardliner’s opinion, but rather the majority of scientists’ scientific ideas. And to prove the latter statement you really do have to accept dualism. Matter in motion doesn’t manipulate anything, it merely responds to the motion of other matter and transfers energy, etc.

I apologize, this is a result of sterotyping. The atheists I encountered earlier tended to worship and follow major atheists writers like sheep, so I noted Atkins views. Sorry for any inconvenience.

Okay, then I guess I shall see your explanation for that.

One thing common to every atheist it the lack of hope. This lack of hope manifests itself in various ways to various atheists. But it is always there underneath. This is such a discouraging point of view.

 

[AirLiner]

You asked me to lay out MY world-view…so I did, but placed a disclaimer. I will further my already ardent efforts to denote when I’m speaking from personal ideologue or scientific consensus.

Well then let’s stay away from personal ideologue if its not what you view as the truth.

But more than that - the material is not all homogeneous and possesses certain properties that lend it towards aberrant (as opposed to normative in material lacking said property) behaviors.

Actually as you note in nature the properties of matter make them quite good at being organized; proteins, crystals, molecules, etc.

My point is that the particles ARE the universe’s forces. The properties they possess effect the matter, and thereby environment, around them.

The only forces that come from atoms are the nuclear forces, and electromagnetic forces. These decide their properties.

But my view also takes into account various electromagnetic (presumably) and other sub-atomic properties that can enact changes in behavior in the matter around it.

Yes indeed, carbon atoms also have electromagnetic (and also nuclear) forces.

In my view, the ‘energy field’ is necessary to ‘jumpstart’ the matter into collective action. They have to get in sync somehow (all these electro-enabled cells and organs) to begin communication - it’s a part of any information conveyence system. Various elements in the cells (which, as stated, can exist without a charge) containing this ‘potential-energy’ property create the energy field I mentioned which interferes with the signal in other cells and matter. Different signals of competing strength in magnetics tend towards normalizing on one signal…the collisions create a state where the entire field adopts the same wavelength and draws it’s amperage from the diseparate sources (I don’t know much jargon in electromagnetics, so take the words for what they are…they’re meant to convey the theory).

What? No. There is no need for energy fields when you have nuclear forces. The nuclear forces decide which atoms stay together and interact with each other. The same force also influences how organic compounds work together. Its not as if atoms are communicating to each other. Our bodies are merely arrangements of atoms that interact in ways to preserve the arrangement.

The evolutionist mainstream doesn’t accept this ‘star-stuff’ idea, as it’s another ‘unnecessary part’ much like the ‘god hypothesis’, but it’s a theory I have that seems to explain a lot of areas that current scientific research is ignoring.

oh lol, I though you meant mere carbon atoms since they’re formed in stars. You mean substances with that energy field right? Well in the mainstream evolution evolutionist view, the interaction of atoms by millions of trial and error steps eventually resulted in that self preserving arrangement I talked about earlier.

Sure we could have. We were superior minded long before we were capable of abstract thought. This is accepted evolutionary theory. We didn’t wake up one day, with higher consciousness, and begin conquering the world…our already superior intellect won the throne and pitted us against ourselves, rather than our elements. I think you’re a bit behind on your evolutionary theory.

Oh you meant sophisticated brain, well actually thinking that one day we suddenly awoke with our modern consciousness and begun taking over the worlds is what I believe, and what many scientists believe too (great leap forward).

Then you miss an enormous understanding of the world…Objectivism is not solely about morality. As I posed the question, please answer it and I can explain what I mean:
“If a meteor crashes into a planet, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?”

I said even to mean that truth in general, even morality is objective.
If a meteor crashes into the planet it will produce certain waves in the air, but since no mind will receive and interpret it then there will be no sound.

But a person’s impact often effects my physical state. A person’s good attitude can liven my day, making me more relaxed and amiable. Funny, what you’ll tell ME is logical…

Why not just say that persons ideas entered my mind and made me feel better rather than personify the process as an aura?

And so long as the world turns, it shall continue, as it always has. Nothing has changed…it’s still just the world we live in. How are you to say people are ignorant merely because they don’t accept YOUR truth?

I’m sure most everyone can agree that the human race is imperfect hence there will not in the present status quo be a universal agreement in truth. The closest thing we’ll always have is a seemingly eternal debate. I say people are ignorant for not accepting the truth because the truth, which I happen to accept, makes sense. Then again everyone says that, but I believe human beings are rational so by exposing the truth as being logical then at least there is hope that some people should accept it in the eternal debate.

The ‘producing’ the immaterial part was already explained, but I’ll put it here for chronology.

Really? well I’m looking forward to the next post.

 

[AirLiner]

The set of basic instructions the brain has presented (and again, not so basic…they control everything from every various muscle response, respiratory, digestive, and endocrine - the list goes on) are utilized by the cerebral cortex (primarily) to respond to stimuli with the additional supplement of past memory and comparative analysis of events. …The method used for storing and recalling memory is still a mystery, but a lot of work and research is finding many good answers, but they’re all still just a collection of theories.

All this shows me that were merely automatons that can store analog information that can be used later. oh wait but were obviously not because we’re aware of it. (yes I will keep reading)

As for an independent mind from all this mass. This is just one theory, but it’s an example…

I believe the mind and brain to be separate, the only link is that the brain serves as the mind’s medium of communication.

Imagine, if you will, a large cluster of neurons. The most outer edge of the cluster are ‘border’ neurons. They possess certain synaptic connections that allow it to communicate with the more ‘hardware-oriented’ clusters, as well as other clusters like itself with the intent of containing the clusters ‘worker’ neurons inside. (it’s not really this cut and dry,…).

I still see a mere machine. Neuron produces signal, signal bumps into other neuron, causes inner workings of neuron to move in a different way.

At this point, all we have is another instance of what we already know to exist in the automatic nervous response systems. But some clusters are made differently…
Inside of this large coating of border cells, a begin state of a thought (an electrical snapshot of another part of the brain at a moment in time) is dumped. Another mental process takes in stimuli and (using the method detailed in the cerebral cortex example - if not that particular mechanism) determines which states and data sets need to be tested. The process responsible for the dumping and determination can then begin flipping different values of the state it’s testing to see what results it brings.

You are still merely describing a complex machine, matter moves around and interacts with other matter. An electrical snapshot is merely matter interacting with electromagnetic forces. Taking in stimuli merely means that matter which you know as analog information merely moves matter which triggers your dumping and determination process which is also the movement of matter. Neurons release signals, etc

Eventually, there become so many mental states that need to be processed, so many events that need sequencing, applied value, and purpose added to that this system need to run 24x7. The popular definition of ‘oneness’ (as in the question “If all my cells die and are replaced, after a while, am I even myself anymore?”) is along the lines of: the contiguous sequence of phenomena in a body’s life that define it’s perception of the world. This definition was stated as such to meet the needs of everything from coma patients to schizophrenics

Yes, the brain has alot going on in it, there’s trillions of brain cells. That’s a lot of complex matter maneuvers.

When these ‘state-testing’ systems become necessary on a constant basis (as it would with human social interaction), it’s easiest to just encapsulate all of them as one large one, and give over control to a part of the system itself - but really, this is reasonable. Evolution frequently designs tons of little systems, puts them together with each other and then assigns a ‘manager’ - he have all kids of endocrine related organs…even digestive organs that are effected by the endocrine system…then you have the thyroid, the gonads, all of those endocrine organs.

The endocrine system is still just cells interacting with each other. There is no awareness. Just a basic system off of which the other systems branch off. So in the brain, there really is no main system. There is an arrangement of neurons that know how to respond to certain signals in a way to preserve the current arrangement of the body. Like in the endocrine system though there should still be no awareness.

This is about where consciousness comes in. We’re sitting in front of the controls of this mega state-testing system. We’re not aware of the mechanics of the system we command - it would likely be detrimental to our operation of it anyway. We just know the controls and are supposed to learn how and when to use them. Sovereignty is given over to us (thereby granting independent consciousness and free-will) so we can adapt more readily and effectively than could an organism without this additional higher level capacity.

No, like I said the brain is merely an arrangement of neurons that sends signals to the body to keep it in its present shape. There is no indication of awareness. So for example, the brain is designed to send matter to the heart in a way to keep it pumping, working.
Imagine two machines. One can throw rocks and the other has buttons that if not pressed will fail to work, pretend it keeps a light bulb on for the sake of this. Anyways, one machine will keep throwing rocks at the others buttons and it shall keep working. Now imagine a billion of these arrangements. Some machines could throw send rock signals to each other to keep one machine in a certain equilibrium. No matter how elaborate the systems get, you still have only a complex machine with no need for awareness.

 

[AirLiner]

You provided me really no explanation of how atoms that moves can produce a conscious entity. You merely stated that due to the complex nature of the brain it is logical to assume that there is an aspect that is conscious. That isn’t an explanation that is an assumption. Face it, matter moving can only explain how other matter moves. You can’t explain how it can produce a mind. For 2000 years all have failed in producing that explanation. You can tell me how complex the brain is all you want, look up philosophical zombie and tell me why that brain shouldn’t produce that. A machine doesn’t need a mind to be extremely complex.

 

[spectrm]

You provided me really no explanation of how atoms that moves can produce a conscious entity. You merely stated that due to the complex nature of the brain it is logical to assume that there is an aspect that is conscious. That isn’t an explanation that is an assumption. Face it, matter moving can only explain how other matter moves. You can’t explain how it can produce a mind. For 2000 years all have failed in producing that explanation. You can tell me how complex the brain is all you want, look up philosophical zombie and tell me why that brain shouldn’t produce that. A machine doesn’t need a mind to be extremely complex.

I have fully explained the popular theory for how consciousness is produce by the systems in the brain, the reason why (as evolutionary development must solve some problem in the environment). The philosophical zombie is put down by the human experience. So stop bringing it up. The point is that the machine CAN be really complex, or it can reach the complexity it needs with less complexity. There is always more than one way to solve any problem. The one remaining at the end is frequently the one that is actually simpler.

You claim that our lack of information is the reason to believe in god. I claim that science has proven itself time and again, and is perceivably getting closer to answering these questions.

And if you really believe your answer to the meteor question…then I am the objectivist of us.

I think our problem is a fundamental difference in the way our thought processes actually work. You can’t see how we can possibly be material only. You can’t open your mind up to the concept. This will be my last post on this topic. Thanks, everyone, for the conversation thus far. I hope everyone got something out of it.

 

[AirLiner]

Since spectrm has decided to leave the conversation, this commentary is addressed to the readers any comments are appreciated.

I have fully explained the popular theory for how consciousness is produce by the systems in the brain, the reason why (as evolutionary development must solve some problem in the environment). The philosophical zombie is put down by the human experience. So stop bringing it up.

Spectrm’s theory provided no explanation as to how matter produces consciousness. Just an assumption that consciousness logically exists to aid the brain’s complex processes.
He also states that the philosophical zombie is put down through human experience. Now that is true, but logically the brain should produce a philosophical zombie. Spectrm sees a material brain, notices that he is conscious and assumes that the brain must produce consciousness, now upon further thinking though this is absurd

Here’s a comparison, I have a sealed box made of plain cardboard. The box has an opening. It is dark and I can’t see what’s inside. As far as I know its empty. Now I drop an object in this box and it jumps out. Am I going to assume that the laws of physics don’t apply in the box? No that’s absurd, empty boxes don’t do that. The object should’ve just stayed in there yet it didn’t. The logical conclusion is that there is some form of elastic substance in there.
In comparison there is the mind. I have a brain, I know what its made of. It produces thought, now matter in motion doesn’t and shouldn’t do that, it should produce a philosophical zombie, yet it doesn’t. The logical conclusion is that the mind is immaterial.
Following spectrm’s reasoning, the box would defy the laws of physics.

The point is that the machine CAN be really complex, or it can reach the complexity it needs with less complexity.

I think spectrm worder that wrong because it makes no sense. I think he meant to say that a machine* can* be really complex or it can do its intended job with less complexity. That’s true. Rube Goldberg devices prove this.

There is always more than one way to solve any problem. The one remaining at the end is frequently the one that is actually simpler.

This doesn’t lead anywhere to a materialist mind folks. A brain should be able to do its job without any entity aware of what it experiences.

You claim that our lack of information is the reason to believe in god. I claim that science has proven itself time and again, and is perceivably getting closer to answering these questions.

No, what I’m saying is that the existence of the mind proves dualism. The existence of the mind interacting with the material brain isn’t lack of evidence it is evidence. Evidence that the immaterial exists. It’s actually a very logical conclusion yet spectrm has ignored all the reasoning I’ve provided him.

His latter statement proves that he doesn’t understand science. We have all the evidence, the brain is made of matter, we know its basic structures. Now the theory would be matter in motion produces thought, the theory seems valid. But that’s as far as science will get ya. To find out *how * matter produces consciousness, you need philosophy, yet spectrm think the empirical method will explain it? Science isn’t about directly providing explanations but rather proving and disproving theories which then serve as explanations. Without the testing we should already have the theory or an idea on how matter in motion produces consciousness, I mean we already have evidence, (the brain is made of matter). In fact theorizing involves raw human reason. You look at a phenomenon, examine the evidence, and try to use reason to connect the two. Yet in 2000 years there hasn’t been anything close to an explanation connecting matter and thought. No explanation on how matter produces thought. I’ve already shown that the mind isn’t possible though material means. It’s very reasonable to accept this.

And if you really believe your answer to the meteor question…then I am the objectivist of us.

Well, what do you guys think he meant by this?

I think our problem is a fundamental difference in the way our thought processes actually work. You can’t see how we can possibly be material only. You can’t open your mind up to the concept. This will be my last post on this topic. Thanks, everyone, for the conversation thus far. I hope everyone got something out of it.

The concept of materialism is close to the truth. The universe is made up of matter after all. The existence of the mind stands in the way of this though, it disproves materialism. I am not some bigot who started out with the idea “the mind is immaterial, now I’m off to find support of it!” I remember very early on I wanted to find out the secrets of the brain to discover how it could possibly produce thought. Eventually I realized that you would find merely cells moving around. Now this was puzzling to me, this was no answer, cells in motion shouldn’t produce thought. Then in April of 2008 I was browsing through a philosophy book at my local Borders and found the name of the concept that had fascinated me, dualism since then I have been a very strong proponent of it and also noted how dualism is also the best evidence for the existence of God.