Any suggestions to refute atheism

[AirLiner]

@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).

I have already acknowledged that scientists don’t accept a few atom as producing consciousness and have already acknowledged the existence of subatomic particles.

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.

fetal examination, stem cell research and human cloning will help us figure out consciousness? Well discovering consciousness in fetuses or clones isn’t exactly explaining how they are sentient now is it?

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).

Thinking that a lizard is an automaton is a logical conclusion.

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.

Why not just state that your dog is a very complex automaton capable of many reactions to various stimuli?

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

. If I wasn’t experiencing consciousness then there would be no reason for me to see the human brain as merely an extremely complex automaton having millions of responses to various stimuli.

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

Well in this way you can explain what goes on due to consciousness but not how it is produced.

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.

You are giving me the history of the brain which still manages to avoid coming even close to telling me how it produces sentience.

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.

Well, yeah that’s basically what I was saying.

 

[AirLiner]

You posted a link to a thread and requested comments. You got them. If you had wanted something else, you should have specified.

Do you remember my link? I talked about the argument from consciousness and asked if anyone wanted to refute my points. Use context please.

See above. If you wanted someone to focus on only a part of the post, you should have specified.

Use context please.

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.

The brain is right in front of you. We know what its made of and its basic structure. Yes there are areas which we don’t know the function of, but that relates to how the brain controls the body and not how consciousness is produced.
True a good argument has accuracy and good reasoning, but being obvious isn’t exactly a bad thing either.

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.

Don’t get ahead of yourself, let’s just stick to dualism for now. All I’m trying to prove is that the mind is immaterial. I do believe that can lead to the existence of God, but let’s just concentrate on just dualism for now.

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.

You mean my statement of the consensus on artificial intelligence? Well, in none of the books on philosophy I have ever read does it state that artificial intelligence has been achieved yet. I’ve seen the Chinese Room story mentioned and such. I have not heard one claim on the news or scientific writings yet either that artificial intelligence has been reached yet.

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.

I affirm what you have heard and you think its part of my argument? That “I disagree” was aimed towards your statement that I don’t understand the theories of cognition.

You seem to be confusing reason and speculation. You’ve made many speculations.

Speculating unlike reasoning merely involves guessing.

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.

Oh come on, my point was that simple systems gradually move towards complex systems. So a system is basically the same as its predecessor. Since consciousness does not occur in the simpler structures the its appearance was very sudden in one generation (yes this could have been a simple primitive consciousness). Which shouldn’t have happened given the gradual changes. So basically what I was trying to say is that consciousness should occur in all the brains right down to the simplest one, it should correspond to the matter that supposedly produces it. However this is simply not the case indicating that sentience is something more than material.

Yes, evolution is about adding a few atoms at a time. :banghead:

I guess I should’ve said proteins? But see my previous statement.

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.

Sounds more like an insult than a valid point.

Hey you didn’t answer my last question.

 

[AirLiner]

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.

Well, that makes some sense.

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 kind of got lost here. Computers code’s are complete, animals are incomplete? Sorry could you clear that up a bit.

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?

Listen, I’ll tell you what I told Sideline, let’s just concentrate on dualism of the mind right now. I don’t see how matter can produce consciousness so logically I accept dualism of the mind. That’s what I’ve been discussing so far. We live in a material world, your mind obviously uses the brain as a medium of communication, so what happens to your brain affects your mind. So I see the brain as the minds method of accessing the world, but due to aforementioned reasons I don’t see how it can be the source of the mind itself.

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.

Like I stated let’s just stick to the concept of an immaterial mind for now. I can argue its logical implications later.

Science is a product of the human mind. If we can’t possibly comprehend something then its intangible to science.
Furthermore, science is an empirical method of research. If its immaterial, then you can’t use science to figure it out. You can’t use science for the immaterial such as morals, values, mathematics, and of course the mind. This is where logic and reason comes in.

When logic doesn’t apply we should keep using the scientific method? I’m sorry, but I don’t think you understand the scientific method very well. Science involves observation, proposing a hypothesis, and then confirming that theory whether through testing (chemistry, physics) or from evidence in nature (geology, evolution, astronomy). A theory is merely an idea that the current evidence indicates to be true. Without logic you can’t use evidence to confirm hypotheses. Hence no logic no science.
You’re last sentence was just strange, a new field that will be greater than science? You mean there’s another way to search for truth other than human reason? Wait that does not make sense. Reason is the only way we have to search for truth and its applied to every single field of truth seeking.

 

[PoliSciProf]

Atheism is a perennial problem of the human condition. There are those who come to Christianity by means of the intellect (books, logic, etc.) but there are other ways, call them graces if you will. Among the best I think is living as a good Christian. This is the “They will know we are Christian by our love” approach. It was a good approach after the Resurrection and it is a good one today. And, there is a more mystical approach. Sometimes there is a deep religious awareness that there is a loving God. Protestants often call this being 'born again." St.Paul had such an experience on the road to Tarsus. Catholics sometimes have trouble with this which sounds very fundamentalist Protestant. I know people who have such an experience. In my experience, atheism is more of an act of the will than reason. Therefore, I am not sure that any single recommended reading will work for most atheists. I for one would try to convert by example, not logic or readings.

 

[Sideline]

Don’t get ahead of yourself, let’s just stick to dualism for now. All I’m trying to prove is that the mind is immaterial. I do believe that can lead to the existence of God, but let’s just concentrate on just dualism for now.

Look, do whatever you like. You said you thought the best argument for God was consciousness. You then went about argument in such away that suggested an utter lack of understanding of the subject you were discussing.

I pointed out that it would it would be more convincing if you demonstrated an understanding of the things that you are talking about it.

If you don’t want to take my advice don’t. If you want to be hand held through a discussion, then you have the wrong guy.

You asked for opinions, here is my opinion: You are trying to build a strawman argument, and you aren’t doing a convincing job of it.

 

[Sideline]

***Hello Everyone, ***

I’m going to be taking a break from posting on this site for awhile. I have a bunch of extremely stressful things going on in my life right now, and reading some of my posts on this thread, it’s becoming clear to me that I’m not handling them as well as I think I am.

So, good luck to everyone, and sorry about any hurt feelings. I’ll try returning when I’ve found my patience.

 

[mich2]

.

Don’t get ahead of yourself, let’s just stick to dualism for now. All I’m trying to prove is that the mind is immaterial. I do believe that can lead to the existence of God, but let’s just concentrate on just dualism for now.

We do know that everything is made up of matter/energy duality.
E=m c^2 or Quantum’s description of particle/wave duality. I would understand life as having the same properties as well,in that life could be viewed in terms of molecular biological synthesis or that it could be viewed in terms of consciousness, however leaving the two different concept separate.

Oh come on, my point was that simple systems gradually move towards complex systems. So a system is basically the same as its predecessor. Since consciousness does not occur in the simpler structures the its appearance was very sudden in one generation (yes this could have been a simple primitive consciousness). Which shouldn’t have happened given the gradual changes. So basically what I was trying to say is that consciousness should occur in all the brains right down to the simplest one, it should correspond to the matter that supposedly produces it. However this is simply not the case indicating that sentience is something more than material.

I personally would aslo agree with most of your above argument, except, in that I would give the essence of consciousness to every form of life however basic the level of consciousness might be, even plant life since it clearly responds to environmental influences…

I strongly agree that a system is taken from a preceding one having the same properties. I personally would believe that consciousness did not evolve in a vacuum but the essence of consciouness pre-existed counscious levels found within life.

Andre

 

[mich2]

***Hello Everyone, ***

I’m going to be taking a break from posting on this site for awhile. I have a bunch of extremely stressful things going on in my life right now, and reading some of my posts on this thread, it’s becoming clear to me that I’m not handling them as well as I think I am.

So, good luck to everyone, and sorry about any hurt feelings. I’ll try returning when I’ve found my patience.

Take care of yourself, Sideline.

Andre

 

[reggieM]

Atheism is a perennial problem of the human condition. There are those who come to Christianity by means of the intellect (books, logic, etc.) but there are other ways, call them graces if you will. Among the best I think is living as a good Christian. This is the “They will know we are Christian by our love” approach. It was a good approach after the Resurrection and it is a good one today. And, there is a more mystical approach. Sometimes there is a deep religious awareness that there is a loving God. Protestants often call this being 'born again." St.Paul had such an experience on the road to Tarsus. Catholics sometimes have trouble with this which sounds very fundamentalist Protestant. I know people who have such an experience. In my experience, atheism is more of an act of the will than reason. Therefore, I am not sure that any single recommended reading will work for most atheists. I for one would try to convert by example, not logic or readings.

Very good points here - I agree. Atheism is more an act of the will than a question of argumentation. In the same way, faith in God requires an act of will also - a surrender to God, even just to the idea that there is a supreme being, a God who is greater than the self.

The arguments can help a little bit. But after a while that approach breaks-down to mental games. Or there can be anger and insults. It also gives the impression that the Catholic faith is primarily a set of logical theorems. The arguments can open up some doors but the mystical experience or at least a basic encounter with transcendence is something that goes beyond the arguments (even the simple act of prayer is an experience that goes beyond arguments).

As an act of will, atheism is not something that is “refuted” but is rather “overcome” by the divine realities that Catholics proclaim.

I think it’s important to study the attitudes and mental patterns of atheists, but it’s difficult to heal the person with a focus on that area alone. It’s really a matter of the personal committment to the search for God and eternity.

 

[AirLiner]

Look, do whatever you like. You said you thought the best argument for God was consciousness. You then went about argument in such away that suggested an utter lack of understanding of the subject you were discussing.

I pointed out that it would it would be more convincing if you demonstrated an understanding of the things that you are talking about it.

If you don’t want to take my advice don’t. If you want to be hand held through a discussion, then you have the wrong guy.

You asked for opinions, here is my opinion: You are trying to build a strawman argument, and you aren’t doing a convincing job of it.

Dualism is the best argument for the existence of God, but before you go from immaterial mind to God, you have to accept the idea of an immaterial mind in the first place. I thought it would be better to concentrate on the latter idea for now, for convenience and to have our discussion be more specific.

Stop with you pointless vague insults! You can call me ignorant all you want but that doesn’t refute my statements. I already refuted everything that you claimed was ignorant in my arguments. Have more specific and intelligent responses. Fighting atheists on those silly IMDB forums has me sick of this thing already.

And you still haven’t responded to that last question in my earlier post that I asked you to answer.

 

[edwest2]

Atheism is a perennial problem of the human condition. There are those who come to Christianity by means of the intellect (books, logic, etc.) but there are other ways, call them graces if you will. Among the best I think is living as a good Christian. This is the “They will know we are Christian by our love” approach. It was a good approach after the Resurrection and it is a good one today. And, there is a more mystical approach. Sometimes there is a deep religious awareness that there is a loving God. Protestants often call this being 'born again." St.Paul had such an experience on the road to Tarsus. Catholics sometimes have trouble with this which sounds very fundamentalist Protestant. I know people who have such an experience. In my experience, atheism is more of an act of the will than reason. Therefore, I am not sure that any single recommended reading will work for most atheists. I for one would try to convert by example, not logic or readings.

Hold on. Christ spoke about being born again. What happened to St. Paul was something different. Jesus was speaking to a learned man when He told him he had to be born again. The learned man could only say, Do I have to crawl back into my mother’s womb?

Jesus told him, What is born of the flesh is flesh. What is born of the spirit is spirit.

Catholics should ask atheists why they reject the concept of god and take it from there. I heard a priest on Catholic Radio talk about how a Catholic mother sent her teenage son to him after he said to her he was an atheist. The priest sat down with him and asked if he had read the Church fathers. He hadn’t. He asked him if he knew the proofs of God as taught by the Church. He didn’t.

The Catholic Church teaches that man can know God through non-religious reason.

And please, let’s stick to the Bible and quit bringing up this Catholic / Protestant thing.

Hope this helps,
Ed

 

[spectrm]

Part 1 of 2

I have already acknowledged that scientists don’t accept a few atom as producing consciousness

But once again, science is in agreement that consciousness is COMPOSED of atoms.

and have already acknowledged the existence of subatomic particles.

that was for pedancy - just so we don’t leave anything out.

fetal examination, stem cell research and human cloning will help us figure out consciousness? Well discovering consciousness in fetuses or clones isn’t exactly explaining how they are sentient now is it?

Sure it does. We can closely monitor brain activity, physical development, mental development, reaction to stimuli. Less from fetal examination (that’s more a matter of what order neural clusters form). But this data would be integral to explaining how consciousness (don’t change the goal to sentience…we’re talking consciousness…they’re not interchangeable) arises.

Thinking that a lizard is an automaton is a logical conclusion.

…

Why not just state that your dog is a very complex automaton capable of many reactions to various stimuli?

The same way I can tell when an ‘intelligence’ I’m talking to on line is a computer or a person. Reaction cues, behavior patterns, etc.

. If I wasn’t experiencing consciousness then there would be no reason for me to see the human brain as merely an extremely complex automaton having millions of responses to various stimuli.

except that we are capable (much like my dog) of determining reactions to stimuli we haven’t yet experienced, and can even fathom how we WOULD react to a new stimuli, or will react differently to an old stimuli. Our mere experience of consciousness drives us to see and feel consciousness in other lifeforms.

Well in this way you can explain what goes on due to consciousness but not how it is produced.

no - I was explaining the components of consciousness. It’s always a good idea to define the terms you’re using.

You are giving me the history of the brain which still manages to avoid coming even close to telling me how it produces sentience.

This history of the brain IS the road to consciousness…understanding how the brain developed and evolved will show how consciousness arose.

Well, yeah that’s basically what I was saying.

Not really. You clam and seem to demonstrate a knowledge of biology and how evolution works, but still miss that the process IS the method and vice versa. Evolution is what’s call a recursive feedback loop. Each iteration is run with all the results from the previous N iterations with the difference in environment E and various other variables we don’t have yet. The function isn’t complete without the next set of variables and the last. This means there isn’t really a single point at which consciousness sprang forward. It happened gradually amongst a population, likely with various members developing different processes.

Quote:
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 kind of got lost here. Computers code’s are complete, animals are incomplete? Sorry could you clear that up a bit.

Sure. Scientists can see parts of how mental development works in the scaffolding that’s left over. A new mental process will need to be scaffolded (much like a building) before it can start being erected. This is done with computing frameworks (like the phpBB you’re using right now) and it works much the same in the development of an organism. Best is an example.

Nearly all humans have a ‘sweet-tooth’. This plays against us nowadays, as nearly all sweets made in the world are sugary and lack true nutrition. In the evolutionary environment, this ‘sweet-tooth’ was a major plus. Raw sugarcane, fruits and sweet grains are packed with nutrients. A ‘sweet-tooth’ was a natural attraction to nutrition (as we can perceive sweetness, but not nutrition)…now it’s a drive towards obesity. We now understand, through higher processes, the importance of nutrition and why we should eat fruit (the mental drive/process we’re striving for). As the ‘sweet-tooth’ (the scaffolding that got us there in the old days) doesn’t lead to nutritious eating, it is largely unnecessary. It still remains, however, as it’s in the genetics of a far greater portion of the population. It’s in traits like this that we can see the way these attributes develop - and sometimes mis-develop.

 

[spectrm]

Part 2 of 2

Listen, I’ll tell you what I told Sideline, let’s just concentrate on dualism of the mind right now. I don’t see how matter can produce consciousness so logically I accept dualism of the mind. That’s what I’ve been discussing so far. We live in a material world, your mind obviously uses the brain as a medium of communication, so what happens to your brain affects your mind. So I see the brain as the minds method of accessing the world, but due to aforementioned reasons I don’t see how it can be the source of the mind itself.

And that’s what I’ve been trying to explain. It’s not material and immaterial - it’s matter and energy - electricity in the brain. One is the framework, the other is the task processor - or hardware and software…whichever you like. The only difference is that the feedback loop in this PC is comprehensive enough to program itself (with the right seed, of course - I’m pretty sure that’s where behavioral genetics comes in).

Like I stated let’s just stick to the concept of an immaterial mind for now. I can argue its logical implications later.

Do you think I type for my health? I was addressing the discrepancy of the material brain and the immaterial mind (though once again - energy, energy has properties…it may not be matter, but it has properties and can be transformed into matter E=mc2).

Science is a product of the human mind. If we can’t possibly comprehend something then its intangible to science.
Furthermore, science is an empirical method of research. If its immaterial, then you can’t use science to figure it out. You can’t use science for the immaterial such as morals, values, mathematics, and of course the mind. This is where logic and reason comes in.

science is a broad term that includes portions of: mathematics, ethics, biology, physics, etc. science ~= philosophy because, really, science is merely technological application of the socratic method.

When logic doesn’t apply we should keep using the scientific method? I’m sorry, but I don’t think you understand the scientific method very well. Science involves observation, proposing a hypothesis, and then confirming that theory whether through testing (chemistry, physics) or from evidence in nature (geology, evolution, astronomy). A theory is merely an idea that the current evidence indicates to be true. Without logic you can’t use evidence to confirm hypotheses. Hence no logic no science.

If you’re going to nit-pick my semantics that’s fine. But tell me…what did people call the television in 1776? I can only use existing terms to describe things, even if I’m describing something that doesn’t yet exist (read: has been discovered and named). I’m talking of a thinking method, mental process, something that will be a revolutionary advance in the way human beings process information. Ever heard of the ‘Age of Aquarius’?

You’re last sentence was just strange, a new field that will be greater than science? You mean there’s another way to search for truth other than human reason? Wait that does not make sense. Reason is the only way we have to search for truth and its applied to every single field of truth seeking.

At present. But before abstract though, creature’s had a way of calculating how hard they’d have to throw a rock to hit an opponent. At this point, the mental calculations of distance, wind-viscosity, would be nothing but static and white noise. After the advent of abstract thought, a strict dependence on instinct to defeat an enemy would seem preposterous and a misuse, or lack of use, of a faculty that has developed for a d@mn good reason. What I’m suggesting is the same but instead of from instinct to logic, it will be logic to something else. Each iteration adds something more. Right now, observation, hypothesis, and the like are parts of the scientific method. The next method will build upon scientific thinking in a way that will completely change the face of it (and with more invested in viagra research than curing AIDS, I’d say it needs a bit of a facelift).

 

[AirLiner]

But once again, science is in agreement that consciousness is COMPOSED of atoms.

They tell me it happens yet I don’t’ see anything near an explanation. Thats a problem.

Sure it does. We can closely monitor brain activity, physical development, mental development, reaction to stimuli. Less from fetal examination (that’s more a matter of what order neural clusters form). But this data would be integral to explaining how consciousness (don’t change the goal to sentience…we’re talking consciousness…they’re not interchangeable) arises.

Ah, so you want to see how consciousness develops in a fetus. I’m telling you all your going to find is matter in motion, which puts us back where we started. Anyways what’s the difference in your view between consciousness and sentience, to avoid semantics issues.

…

Nice rebuttal. Your glorious use of reason brought me to my knees.

The same way I can tell when an ‘intelligence’ I’m talking to on line is a computer or a person. Reaction cues, behavior patterns, etc.

How do you know you’re just witnessing complex reactions to stimuli. (no consciousnesses, merely atoms moving around)

except that we are capable (much like my dog) of determining reactions to stimuli we haven’t yet experienced, and can even fathom how we WOULD react to a new stimuli, or will react differently to an old stimuli. Our mere experience of consciousness drives us to see and feel consciousness in other lifeforms.

No, because in theory you could be merely seeing again a really complex automaton. There’s no reason why they couldn’t behave as if they were sentient. That’s the concept of the philosophical zombie.

no - I was explaining the components of consciousness. It’s always a good idea to define the terms you’re using.

okay

This history of the brain IS the road to consciousness…understanding how the brain developed and evolved will show how consciousness arose.

I’ve already gone through this. Unless you willing to admit that the most primitive brain experienced consciousness then you end up with the fact that consciousness arose suddenly and inexplicably. Following this train of thought then you realize that consciousness didn’t correspond to the matter which was supposed to contain it thus leading to the conclusion that the mind is immaterial.

Not really. You clam and seem to demonstrate a knowledge of biology and how evolution works, but still miss that the process IS the method and vice versa. Evolution is what’s call a recursive feedback loop. Each iteration is run with all the results from the previous N iterations with the difference in environment E and various other variables we don’t have yet. The function isn’t complete without the next set of variables and the last. This means there isn’t really a single point at which consciousness sprang forward. It happened gradually amongst a population, likely with various members developing different processes.

Well, you are not the typical atheist. Agreeing with my not serious statement that consciousness came about gradually. Seriously accepting the possibility of a very unorthodox sort of dualism of the mind, what’s next? But anyways back to the former statement. This actually makes this argument easier. First i have to ask. How simple does a structure have to be to have consciousness?

Sure. Scientists can see parts of how mental development works in the scaffolding that’s left over. A new mental process will need to be scaffolded (much like a building) before it can start being erected. This is done with computing frameworks (like the phpBB you’re using right now) and it works much the same in the development of an organism. Best is an example.

How are computers complete then but animals not? They both seem to have fully working brains to me.

Nearly all humans have a ‘sweet-tooth’. This plays against us nowadays, as nearly all sweets made in the world are sugary and lack true nutrition. In the evolutionary environment, this ‘sweet-tooth’ was a major plus. Raw sugarcane, fruits and sweet grains are packed with nutrients. A ‘sweet-tooth’ was a natural attraction to nutrition (as we can perceive sweetness, but not nutrition)…now it’s a drive towards obesity. We now understand, through higher processes, the importance of nutrition and why we should eat fruit (the mental drive/process we’re striving for). As the ‘sweet-tooth’ (the scaffolding that got us there in the old days) doesn’t lead to nutritious eating, it is largely unnecessary. It still remains, however, as it’s in the genetics of a far greater portion of the population. It’s in traits like this that we can see the way these attributes develop - and sometimes mis-develop.

You’re telling me a theory on the development of the brain, you’re telling me how an extremely complex automaton acquired more stimuli. More matter to trigger more matter to move in a certain way. It does in now way explain how this matter in motion can produce consciousness.

Its late now, I want to do other things, I’ll answer part II later.

 

[spectrm]

They tell me it happens yet I don’t’ see anything near an explanation. Thats a problem.

Then believe that “God did it” - that’s your prerogative.

Ah, so you want to see how consciousness develops in a fetus. I’m telling you all your going to find is matter in motion, which puts us back where we started.

I don’t think that. I think we’ll find distinctive differences in the series of signals sent in each mind - slightly different arrangements in different clusters. I think these differences will explain enough about the basis of consciousness that we can duplicate it (just as we have/will do with every other phenomenon).

Anyways what’s the difference in your view between consciousness and sentience, to avoid semantics issues.

Sentience usually infers a ‘will’

How do you know you’re just witnessing complex reactions to stimuli. (no consciousnesses, merely atoms moving around)

nihilism is beneath both of us, I think.

No, because in theory you could be merely seeing again a really complex automaton. There’s no reason why they couldn’t behave as if they were sentient. That’s the concept of the philosophical zombie.

see above

I’ve already gone through this. Unless you willing to admit that the most primitive brain experienced consciousness then you end up with the fact that consciousness arose suddenly and inexplicably. Following this train of thought then you realize that consciousness didn’t correspond to the matter which was supposed to contain it thus leading to the conclusion that the mind is immaterial.

no, no, and no. A brain is an organ, one of the most primitive of which is that of an earthworm. I doubt very seriously that a worm is conscious by the philosophical definition. I most certainly believe there is a gradient of consciousness. Some creatures are aware of their body, others their body and mind, others still their body, mind, and thoughts. I would try to explain it, but the Dalai Lama does it much better. Pick up a copy of “The Universe In a Single Atom: The Convergence of Reason and Faith”. It’s a good read, and the man has a fantastic sense of humor.

Well, you are not the typical atheist.

you would do well not to pigeon-hole people.

Agreeing with my not serious statement that consciousness came about gradually. Seriously accepting the possibility of a very unorthodox sort of dualism of the mind, what’s next?

I don’t know - maybe next I’ll tell you I breath oxygen!!! Can you believe!!! I wash myself with water!!! It doesn’t even make me melt!!!

But anyways back to the former statement. This actually makes this argument easier. First i have to ask. How simple does a structure have to be to have consciousness?

I believe I hinted earlier that I’m in IT…what makes you think I have the answer to a question like that? Anyway, I don’t believe it’s a matter of mere complexity. The complexity usually disappears once an organelle has finished it’s development. This is the importance of my earlier ‘scaffolding’ argument.

How are computers complete then but animals not? They both seem to have fully working brains to me.

A computer and it’s software works as it’s released. It doesn’t ship with the scaffolding that developers and testers use to run it. It’s ‘complete’. Several organs in animal systems are complete - the heart, the lungs, various digestive organs - and go figure, they’re some of the most basic and essential in our breed of ‘life’ (in the comsological way). But we can still see the scaffolding in place, particularly in the digestive tract - the gall bladder, spleen, appendix. We see much of the same in mental->physiological reactions. If by complete you mean ‘working’ - sure…all of the code I work on works (more or less - and there are plenty of failed human specimen in history)…but I wouldn’t ship it with the scaffolding…performance would be unpredictable, slow, and inaccurate in real use-cases.

You’re telling me a theory on the development of the brain, you’re telling me how an extremely complex automaton acquired more stimuli. More matter to trigger more matter to move in a certain way. It does in now way explain how this matter in motion can produce consciousness.

Once the ‘matter in motion’ can assemble complex instructions (like hardware running software), then the consciousness likely ‘runs’ one level above the hardware. Your perception of my stance is like saying I can run adobe photoshop without Windows or Mac…I’m saying your ignoring a stratum.

Its late now, I want to do other things, I’ll answer part II later.

I welcome it.

 

[StAnastasia]

you get the point. According to evolution everything started as single-celled organisms

Actually, it began before this.

 

[spectrm]

Actually, it began before this.

Very true - virii are an important part of the ‘life’ story. The popular categorization of bacteria is as a ‘single celled organism’ - this is true, to an extent, but it’s lack of a nucleus demonstrates it’s stop-gap relationship to virii.

It’s much easier to understand how a single-celled organism came to be us once you understand how the single-celled organism came to be in the first place.

Thnx for broadening the point.

 

[StAnastasia]

Very true - virii are an important part of the ‘life’ story. The popular categorization of bacteria is as a ‘single celled organism’ - this is true, to an extent, but it’s lack of a nucleus demonstrates it’s stop-gap relationship to virii. It’s much easier to understand how a single-celled organism came to be us once you understand how the single-celled organism came to be in the first place. Thnx for broadening the point.

You’re welcome!. Too often these arguments take place on the assumption of cartoonishly simple views of biology.

 

[AirLiner]

Then believe that “God did it” - that’s your prerogative.

That’s a terrible comparison. Scientists tell me they know what the brain’s made of and its basic structures yet there is nothing near an explanation. Here I am offering evidence for the existence of God. And you have yet to offer me anything more than I could find in a science book well except for those unorthodox views.

I don’t think that. I think we’ll find distinctive differences in the series of signals sent in each mind - slightly different arrangements in different clusters. I think these differences will explain enough about the basis of consciousness that we can duplicate it (just as we have/will do with every other phenomenon).

Let’s say we do, let’s say a fetus produces brain waves, well they do, but anyways all that tells us is that a fetus’ brain produces brain waves. The matter in the fetus’ brain produces electricity interacts with a force and releases waves. An electromagnetic wave is no evidence of conscientiousness, just of matter moving. Are you forgetting the importance of reportability? Like I said all your going to find is matter moving. It’ll be interacting with force maybe in different ways but its still the same basic process. And we will be nowhere closer to finding out how those processes produce consciousness.

Sentience usually infers a ‘will’

Then in that case I’m talking about consciousness.

nihilism is beneath both of us, I think.

Don’t delude yourself. Atheism is inherently nihilistic. Are you forgetting the implications of no free will? Even Dawkins has stated how morals are human illusions. If they evidence indicates, it accept it don’t deny it. What we know does indicate that animals are nothing more than extremely complex automatons. Their behavior as you have stated may indicate some form of consciousness but that is in now way conclusive.

no, no, and no. A brain is an organ, one of the most primitive of which is that of an earthworm. I doubt very seriously that a worm is conscious by the philosophical definition. I most certainly believe there is a gradient of consciousness. Some creatures are aware of their body, others their body and mind, others still their body, mind, and thoughts. I would try to explain it, but the Dalai Lama does it much better. Pick up a copy of “The Universe In a Single Atom: The Convergence of Reason and Faith”. It’s a good read, and the man has a fantastic sense of humor.

If an earthworm is any bit aware of its environment instead of just a machine responding to it then it has consciousness.
Now from what we see, animals brains are all function in basically the same way. Since all of these brains arrangements of nerves how can anyone possibly say which animals are conscious, or self aware? It just doesn’t make sense.

you would do well not to pigeon-hole people.

I’m just pointing out an observation, I mean don’t you remember sideline? He accepted no form of an ethereal mind whatsoever, now that’s what you see in the mainstream.

I don’t know - maybe next I’ll tell you I breath oxygen!!! Can you believe!!! I wash myself with water!!! It doesn’t even make me melt!!!

No, no, no, from what I see mainstream science accepts both oxygen breathing and the water proof properties of human skin.

I believe I hinted earlier that I’m in IT…what makes you think I have the answer to a question like that? Anyway, I don’t believe it’s a matter of mere complexity. The complexity usually disappears once an organelle has finished it’s development. This is the importance of my earlier ‘scaffolding’ argument.

Not a matter of complexity? fine then if I have a pile of matter what is the least amount i could do to it to have the matter produce consciousness?

A computer and it’s software works as it’s released. It doesn’t ship with the scaffolding that developers and testers use to run it. It’s ‘complete’. Several organs in animal systems are complete - the heart, the lungs, various digestive organs - and go figure, they’re some of the most basic and essential in our breed of ‘life’ (in the comsological way). But we can still see the scaffolding in place, particularly in the digestive tract - the gall bladder, spleen, appendix. We see much of the same in mental->physiological reactions. If by complete you mean ‘working’ - sure…all of the code I work on works (more or less - and there are plenty of failed human specimen in history)…but I wouldn’t ship it with the scaffolding…performance would be unpredictable, slow, and inaccurate in real use-cases.

You’re right I meant fully working.

Once the ‘matter in motion’ can assemble complex instructions (like hardware running software), then the consciousness likely ‘runs’ one level above the hardware. Your perception of my stance is like saying I can run adobe photoshop without Windows or Mac…I’m saying your ignoring a stratum.

This sounds much like speculation. I don’t think the workings of the immaterial mind are what were discussing here but rather its existence. So let’s just finish this talk about how the mind interacts with the brain. I want to discuss instead the existence itself of an immaterial mind.

I am busy in the week, and i’ve read part II so let’s just continue the conversation.

 

[Logos385]

Suggestions on refuting Atheism?

Well… since it is the negative position… it seems the only way to prove the God Hypothesis is to scientifically demonstrate that the positive position is the most probable idea.

…Good luck.