S
Sideline
Guest
Using godhead is a really good idea. I might just incorporate it. Thanks for the suggestion.
- Status
S
Sideline
Guest
I think you’ve really hit upon something here. Even if I were to fully detail exactly what kind of god would be consistent with the world as I see it, I still don’t think that such a being or entity exists. The god I would invent, even if it were logically consistent, is only a theoretical construct. Whether the god I invent, or the god Catholics believe in, is a better formulated god doesn’t in anyway constitute evidence of the existence of these entities.
It is a little like figuring out a plausible diet for the sasquasch. Yes, you could use inference to come up with a reasonable diet for it, but what’s the point?
T
Thing
Guest
I’ve never implied the character of my ‘god’…
Me:
I’ll take that as a No, then?
S
spectrm
Guest
all I have to say is:
venganza.org/
But I do have to say, figuring out the true nature of god isn’t important. Figuring out the true nature of the Catholic god, the Protestant god, the Islamic god - those quests ARE important, as the people who believe in them coexist with us - and all the other followers on the planet.
But we’re getting off topic.
@sideline: any arguments you’ve had difficulty combating?
@all:
I’ve got some notes I’ll go over and toss out some ideas that I’ve had difficulty with from my perspective. ~8pm CST.
S
spectrm
Guest
Either you can’t read or you ignored the rest of my post. I don’t like to assume people to be ignorant, so you’re illiterate? Can you prove me wrong?
Please read a person’s response before you pick some mild comment about the nature of the discussion as proof that I’m not talking about the issue.
T
Thing
Guest
Is that a no?
S
spectrm
Guest
I’ll explain this one last time - something non-existent cannot have a character. There is no god to be indifferent.
To quote a very wise man:
“Everyone is atheist about one god or another. Christians are atheist about Thor, Zeus, Ra, gaeia…Wiccan’s are atheist about Thor, Zeus, Ra, Yahweh…capital-A Atheists just take it one god further” – Richard Dawkins
So the answer isn’t no and it isn’t yes. The question does not apply to the problem and so no formidable answer can be made.
T
Thing
Guest
No problem Spectrm, here was what you said:
"@thing: see, that’s one of the main points in the chain I have trouble with. Yahweh is omniscient and omnipotent and created no disease or evil. Neglecting that with all his knowledge, he permitted satan to rebel, we’re still left with his knowledge that humans will mess up and suffer diseases from the bacteria and virii he created. Yet he has done no wrong? That isn’t a god, that’s a dictator, or a selfish 2yo. I’m very glad the likelihood of such a deity is low, as well. "
This is your god, omniscient, omnipotent, a dictator and a selfish 2yo.
To which you added:
“…I’ve never implied the character of my ‘god’…”
To which I said;
The character of your god, obviously, is seen in what he has created, yes?
To which you don’t want to respond with a yes or no.
You’ve already created in your mind an Omnipotent Creator God for yourself, for your argument; a God with what we might call a poor attitude and a bad character.
When I simply asked you if you could see Gods actual character in what He created, yes or no? - you then decided to change the subject to the existance of God/god.
"@thing: see, that’s one of the main points in the chain I have trouble with. Yahweh is omniscient and omnipotent and created no disease or evil. Neglecting that with all his knowledge, he permitted satan to rebel, we’re still left with his knowledge that humans will mess up and suffer diseases from the bacteria and virii he created. Yet he has done no wrong? That isn’t a god, that’s a dictator, or a selfish 2yo. I’m very glad the likelihood of such a deity is low, as well. "
This is your god, omniscient, omnipotent, a dictator and a selfish 2yo.
To which you added:
“…I’ve never implied the character of my ‘god’…”
To which I said;
The character of your god, obviously, is seen in what he has created, yes?
To which you don’t want to respond with a yes or no.
You’ve already created in your mind an Omnipotent Creator God for yourself, for your argument; a God with what we might call a poor attitude and a bad character.
When I simply asked you if you could see Gods actual character in what He created, yes or no? - you then decided to change the subject to the existance of God/god.
A
AirLiner
Guest
I do think its a shame the argument from consciousness did not have more discussion. Anyone care to attempt and refute my statements on it?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5097396#post5097396
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5097396#post5097396
S
Sideline
Guest
Hi Airliner,
This isn’t really my area, but you since you have gone to a lot of work on this post, and asked for comments, I thought I’d throw in my 2 cents.
You have mistaken a lack of knowledge for an explanation. I could be wrong. If you have some papers that make the claim that you presented, we could discuss it further. Otherwise it doesn’t seem like there is enough information available to really argue this point.
But the fact that some people might believe something stupid isn’t an argument for there being a god. It’s an argument for the existence of idiots.
Since the rest of your argument is based on the same lines, I’m going to stop there.
This isn’t really my area, but you since you have gone to a lot of work on this post, and asked for comments, I thought I’d throw in my 2 cents.
So… this is an homage to reason. You don’t really explain anything, accept to say that we should use reason, and that immaterial information is valid. There isn’t really any argument yet.
This isn’t an argument either. It’s a statement of your beliefs. Your first paragraph is a tribute to reason, but your second paragraph is devoid of it. “The universe itself is evidence for the existence of God”, you say, but you don’t give any reason for thinking that.
I don’t care about obvious, it can be as convoluted as you like, as long as your argument holds together logically.
No, this isn’t what they are saying. What people are saying is that the development of consciousness is only found in creatures with highly complex neural structures. That we don’t have an adequate pathway demonstrating the transition from non-consciousness to consciousness. Like I said, I’m not an expert in this area, but from what I understand, we don’t have an adequate knowledge base to construct a model of how consciousness develops. We can describe when it comes about, and how it functions to a certain degree.
You have mistaken a lack of knowledge for an explanation. I could be wrong. If you have some papers that make the claim that you presented, we could discuss it further. Otherwise it doesn’t seem like there is enough information available to really argue this point.
The fact that it sounds so absurd should be your first tip off that you don’t understand the current theories of cognition all that well. I won’t try to argue that you haven’t heard that claim from an atheist, you very well may have. Being an atheist isn’t the same as being intelligent. Now, if that were the reasoned opinion of the majority of scientists studying cognition, then you would have a point.
But the fact that some people might believe something stupid isn’t an argument for there being a god. It’s an argument for the existence of idiots.
Since the rest of your argument is based on the same lines, I’m going to stop there.
S
spectrm
Guest
I skimmed it and came to much the same conclusion as sideline.
Consciousness is certainly one of the items in heavy analysis all over science. Each year is the ‘Mind and Life’ conference where many noted scientists and top religious officials (the Dalai Lama frequents as does a number of Jesuits amongst many others) which seeks to find understanding and a research direction to reconcile the relationship between the material and the seemingly ethereal. (to note: we know the brain is physical and we get a strong inclination the mind is ethereal, but we only know one for certain, right now).
Now - we don’t claim to know the answer to consciousness at all. We just prefer to hold out for the real explanation than to call it quits and say “God did it”. You are the one proposing an answer, not atheists. And, before you say it, the existence of something is not in itself proof of one theory over another.
- Mind and Life: mindandlife.org/
S
spectrm
Guest
EDIT: C-R-A-P is a cuss on these forums? Jeez…
I have not constructed an ‘Omnipotent Creator’ with all those other attributes. That’s what abrahmic faiths put forward.
Cutting out all the other **** - if you are asking me:
“Spectrm, do you see God’s character in what he created?” - no…I don’t see anything in creation that hints at a character. I see beauty and pain distributed about all corners of the universe. The only implication this has for me is one of equilibrium.
But the thought process is actually as such: I don’t see or perceive a need for a god, so there is no character to be deduced. To deduce from the world god’s character (in my minds eye) is equivalent to saying “Santa Claus brings me presents so he must be a really nice guy”.
If anyone is too young to get that last point, nevermind it. As soon as I tried to figure it out, I didn’t get anymore presents from Santa!!!
Okay - I’ve responded to this twice and the website has timed out…so one more time, I guess - much shorter than my previous attempts.
I have not constructed an ‘Omnipotent Creator’ with all those other attributes. That’s what abrahmic faiths put forward.
Cutting out all the other **** - if you are asking me:
“Spectrm, do you see God’s character in what he created?” - no…I don’t see anything in creation that hints at a character. I see beauty and pain distributed about all corners of the universe. The only implication this has for me is one of equilibrium.
But the thought process is actually as such: I don’t see or perceive a need for a god, so there is no character to be deduced. To deduce from the world god’s character (in my minds eye) is equivalent to saying “Santa Claus brings me presents so he must be a really nice guy”.
If anyone is too young to get that last point, nevermind it. As soon as I tried to figure it out, I didn’t get anymore presents from Santa!!!
S
spectrm
Guest
If, and only if, you see a parallel between this statement and their experience with yahweh and can see why the statement:
is so poignant,
Merely respond ‘Yay’ or ‘Nay’ to my inbox. I’d like to talk with you.
principiadiscordia.com/ - !(just a big ‘Ha-Ha’)
T
Thing
Guest
Describing Gods’ character to us from what one can see in His universe you said you see beauty and pain in all corners of the universe. This is a very good discripion; am very pleased with it, and was all I was really asking you for.
I am not and was’nt and still am not asking you if you think God exists.
S
spectrm
Guest
chalk it up to good ol’ semantical misunderstanding.
A
AirLiner
Guest
Use my passages in context. I was criticizing shredderbeam for denying philosophy as a valid method to seek truth.
Well, my post wasn’t about the cosmological argument was it? I acknowledged other arguments for the existence of God, but the post was meant to concentrate only on the argument from consciousness.
Oh, but being obvious is important to avoid the unnecessary “we don’t know” arguments. Ironically you spectrm end up applying this to the consciousness argument.
Highly complex neural structures are basically a lot of atoms. And in the next paragraph I acknowledge complexity and how it helps in the ability to carry information, but this is not the same as consciousness at all. The only creatures in which we can describe consciousness as coming about are human beings, and that’s from personal experience. (I experience consciousness, that being is designed the same way as I, he claims to experience consciousness, therefore he must experience consciousness). We can describe how it functions to a degree? Really? I’ve seen those claims before and they’re always so misleading. Please explain to me yours.
Be more specific a paper on what? You seemed to have covered everything about your quote of me in your previous paragraph.
Oh, but I disagree, yes I’ve heard of an atheist dualist, which I though was a paradoxical situation.
I do know that scientists can look at how matter moves in a brain and explain what it does. However this is the only thing they can do. Even if the evidence indicates that the mind is immaterial they can’t come to that conclusion because it doesn’t involve matter. This is why the use of reason is important.
Now, complex neural structures like I said are just atoms. Now imagine the first brain, it probably had no consciousness, it was just a collection of nerves. What if I added a few atom at a time and started moving atoms in different directions, a few atoms later and its still the same structure. This could go on indefinitely, but chemically it will still be virtually the same structure as before. However eventually I could reach the human brain. This is what happened in evolution. Obviously at one point there was a well built brain and just one little tweak (a mutation) in organization produced consciousness even if it was primitive. One generation before, nothing, one generation later and there’s something. How is this possible, you still have basically the same structure as before, how can one shift in atom position and movement produce consciousness. Maybe it was a big mutation, lots of atoms shifted positions and movements, but that’ just avoiding the issue. Looking at their structures, either all of those brains should experience some form of consciousness getting progressively more and more complex, or they all shouldn’t experience consciousness at all.
A structures complexity merely means that a structures particles will be in different amounts and positions. Can this logically increase its ability to move matter in a way that it will be viewed as information by sentient beings? yes like a calculator or a bug’s brain. Should this logically affect its ability to produce sentience itself? No
Like I said if it wasn’t for the human brain atheists would never acknowledge that matter could produce consciousness. It just doesn’t make sense. Its absurd. Hence, Sam Harris states that the only way to figure out whether an organism produces conscious thought is through reportability.
Let’s examine this in a different way. Let’s say an atheists is shown a structure, he knows the movement of every atom, proton, neutron and electron in this structure. He knows where each atom and subatomic particle is moving to. Can he tell me whether it can produce consciousness?
A
AirLiner
Guest
You as an atheist do you accept the possibility of an immaterial mind?
Now, I’m insulted, dualism of the mind involves much reasoning and philosophy.
What would you need to see as evidence of an immaterial mind? An undiscovered force? The movement of every subatomic particle in the brain? Honestly I don’t see how either of those will get you any farther than you are now in knowing the brain is matter in motion.
S
spectrm
Guest
@AirLiner:
I don’t know a single biologist who would say that a collection of atoms (as you described) would create consciousness. But each of those biologists would say that consciousness IS made up of atoms. It has to be, as it exists. Now, by atoms, we’re neglecting the sub-particles that make up atoms (there are 7 or 8 different varieties of quarks) and the sub-particles that they are composed of (there are 3 varieties, but I can’t recall the name of the particle).
But it’s interesting that the only methods we can use to figure out consciousness; fetal/embryonic examination and stem-cell research and human cloning are banned after shouts from groups that have a stake in consciousness not being proven scientifically.
The process of developing a consciousness is much more complex than you described. Clearly, a reptile brain involves little of what we would call consciousness. Almost all of the activities can be nearly directly related to baser instincts (mechanics, if you will). A dog or cat, on the other hand, may be largely instinctual, but there is definitely something more than mere mechanics occurring. Sure, my dog knows that I feed her and pet her, which all bring her pleasure. But she gets excited when I come home, or say her name or play fetch with her. The derivation of pleasure adds to her consciousness. While she may not be self-aware (usually the difference between recognizing an ‘I’ and a ‘they’ vs. merely ‘is’), she is definitely thinking on a level above the mere mechanics of existing. Then on to the human brain. For one, a large difference is the size and complexity of the frontal lobe. There are numerous neurons in different arrangements so as to form different clusters in various parts of the tissue. Each of these clusters is active during particular activities or during particular memory recollections. There is even a part of the brain that lights up when you are recalling a memory, though there is nothing to suggest that this is where ALL memories are stored. Here we have, in both thought and material process, a concept we call logistics. These are usually the ideas we talk about (in philosophical circles) when we refer to consciousness:
self-awareness and logistical abilities with mechanical implications
So a computer with AI but no mechanical implements to interact with the real world is not conscious. A body with mechanical abilities and logistical abilities that is not self-aware is no conscious (such as a robot). The development of such a device can be milestoned, as I just did, or understood in the little steps taken: a neural stem-cell kicks off the growth of clusters. It has a specific set as defined by it’s genetics which is replicates - arrangement and all. In the genetics is stored this list. It’s possible to add things to the list via anomaly, copy mistake, random ‘effectiveness’ of ‘junk-dna’…there are a million different ways genetics can be effected and that doesn’t include the natural mutation that occurs inside the gamete producers (mom and dad). These effects are seen all the time - down’s syndrome, palsy, schizophrenia but also in good ways heightened immunity to disease, advanced intelligence, physical/co-ordinational prowess, etc - it’s how the entire process (as atheist usually describe it) works. There’s no big mystery of HOW - plenty of ideas are being tested as I type…it’s really the mystery of WHAT and WHICH.
The first brain was the cell nucleus - it contains all the information needed to run the cell and can communicate it effectively to it’s body. From there, each larger/more-complex organism has been a ‘to-scale’ version of that original design.
I don’t know a single biologist who would say that a collection of atoms (as you described) would create consciousness. But each of those biologists would say that consciousness IS made up of atoms. It has to be, as it exists. Now, by atoms, we’re neglecting the sub-particles that make up atoms (there are 7 or 8 different varieties of quarks) and the sub-particles that they are composed of (there are 3 varieties, but I can’t recall the name of the particle).
But it’s interesting that the only methods we can use to figure out consciousness; fetal/embryonic examination and stem-cell research and human cloning are banned after shouts from groups that have a stake in consciousness not being proven scientifically.
The process of developing a consciousness is much more complex than you described. Clearly, a reptile brain involves little of what we would call consciousness. Almost all of the activities can be nearly directly related to baser instincts (mechanics, if you will). A dog or cat, on the other hand, may be largely instinctual, but there is definitely something more than mere mechanics occurring. Sure, my dog knows that I feed her and pet her, which all bring her pleasure. But she gets excited when I come home, or say her name or play fetch with her. The derivation of pleasure adds to her consciousness. While she may not be self-aware (usually the difference between recognizing an ‘I’ and a ‘they’ vs. merely ‘is’), she is definitely thinking on a level above the mere mechanics of existing. Then on to the human brain. For one, a large difference is the size and complexity of the frontal lobe. There are numerous neurons in different arrangements so as to form different clusters in various parts of the tissue. Each of these clusters is active during particular activities or during particular memory recollections. There is even a part of the brain that lights up when you are recalling a memory, though there is nothing to suggest that this is where ALL memories are stored. Here we have, in both thought and material process, a concept we call logistics. These are usually the ideas we talk about (in philosophical circles) when we refer to consciousness:
self-awareness and logistical abilities with mechanical implications
So a computer with AI but no mechanical implements to interact with the real world is not conscious. A body with mechanical abilities and logistical abilities that is not self-aware is no conscious (such as a robot). The development of such a device can be milestoned, as I just did, or understood in the little steps taken: a neural stem-cell kicks off the growth of clusters. It has a specific set as defined by it’s genetics which is replicates - arrangement and all. In the genetics is stored this list. It’s possible to add things to the list via anomaly, copy mistake, random ‘effectiveness’ of ‘junk-dna’…there are a million different ways genetics can be effected and that doesn’t include the natural mutation that occurs inside the gamete producers (mom and dad). These effects are seen all the time - down’s syndrome, palsy, schizophrenia but also in good ways heightened immunity to disease, advanced intelligence, physical/co-ordinational prowess, etc - it’s how the entire process (as atheist usually describe it) works. There’s no big mystery of HOW - plenty of ideas are being tested as I type…it’s really the mystery of WHAT and WHICH.
The first brain was the cell nucleus - it contains all the information needed to run the cell and can communicate it effectively to it’s body. From there, each larger/more-complex organism has been a ‘to-scale’ version of that original design.
S
Sideline
Guest
You posted a link to a thread and requested comments. You got them. If you had wanted something else, you should have specified.
See above. If you wanted someone to focus on only a part of the post, you should have specified.
If you wanted to avoid “I don’t know” arguments, then speak of things that are known. Being obvious has nothing to do with it. Good arguments are about accuracy and good reasoning, not about whether things are obvious.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that I am completely clueless about consciousness. Let’s say I have never taken a single course on the subject, have never read a book on it, and have no clue what it is all about. So what?
All you would have proved is that I am ignorant. I thought you were trying to prove that consciousness was proof that there is a god. You haven’t. You’ve only stated an opinion. It’s not up to me to educate you about consciousness. It is up to you to make your argument.
You claimed something about the study of consciousness. It is, as far as I can tell, an inaccurate description of the field of study. If you want to discuss our understanding of consciousness further, you should provide some evidence that you are making true claims.
Yes, and that demonstrates that you’ve heard of someone making paradoxical claims. I thought you were trying to prove that God exists, not that there are people who hold paradoxical positions.
You seem to be confusing reason and speculation. You’ve made many speculations.
Sorry, when people start adding “a few atoms at a time” to complex systems to try and make their point, that’s where I get off. You clearly need to read up on this, if you want to be taken seriously.
Yes, evolution is about adding a few atoms at a time. :banghead:
Sorry, learn about biology and chemistry before you make claims about how they work. Or psychology. Or even take a course on the philosophy of the mind. Just read something on the subject.
S
spectrm
Guest
In the same way that I as an IT person accept that there is computer hardware and there is computer software. Some things are merely frameworks for other things. Some of the scaffolding is gone, but much of it is still there. For instance, if you feel depressed for non-clinical (read: chemical) reasons (death in the family, break up with a SO, etc), your body is more prone to disease and illness than if you are happy and active. This is direct bodily feedback to process that happen at the software level. With computers, that scaffolding has been removed because the code is complete, the feedback is no longer necessary. With animals, it’s still a system in development, so feedback is largely required.
I agree…but at what level? You already assume the nature of that dualism, now you’re thinking on it’s character and implications. I’m still curious what the source of a perceived dualism is. If it is really dualism, I’ll be happy to accept it and learn how to interact with that other plane of existence. But all my forays into such endeavors have turned up fruitless. So far, I have found nearly all effects to have physiological sources, and have had good luck running with my theories on it. Eating healthy, ‘recreation’ time, etc. What reason do I have to believe there is anything ethereal to it?
I’ve already conceded that I perceive something ethereal in the form of the mind. I just don’t think it’s the result of a ‘soul’ or a god. I believe it’s possible that the atoms in us carry a property that we can’t perceive. That these atoms inherently form something greater than just a collection of atoms (eg. us). But I’m far from convinced that this is something completely intangible to science. The biggest barrier we have is the limitation of our mind. The brain is obviously not binary - it’s not like a computer. Sure, there is ‘synapse fire’ or ‘synapse quiet’, but there are more than 14 inherent neurotransmitters in the brain alone (that we produce) and another few thousand we can ingest. Some can traverse the blood-brain barrier, some can’t. So it’s clear that our brain computes in much more than just 2 numbers (0 and 1). I don’t believe that logic and reason are the end all be all. But I DO reason, that when reason is no longer applicable to still be following the scientific method, it will be because logic as we know it has transcended in such a way as to make a whole new branch that will dwarf even science, the way science has dwarfed religion, in knowledge discovered.
- Status