Based on probability, if one had to make a choice, is it more reasonable to be an Atheist or a Theist

[Nixbits]

The mind is most definitely not the physical activity of the brain. The banking system and the sociopolitical realities of this world are not the electronic infrastructure. The brain is part of the physical structure of the person. The connections in the brain are in large part organized in accordance with mental phenomena. And, the mind is related to the person’s soul, the spiritual capacity to relate, to connect with what is other, perceptually, with our thoughts, feelings and actions, most perfectly seen in the giving union that is love.

I agree that we currently don’t have (and may never have) a completely accurate map of which physical structures and interactions within the brain are attributable to which mental states and perceptions. But the example you gave of the patient identifying the portion of her brain that was associated with her condition does not imply that there is necessarily anything beyond the physical. As far as I can see, your assertions to the contrary do not follow logically from the examples you’ve given, nor have you offered any other substantiation.

 

[inocente]

inocente;14067195:

btw the use of technology to detect a malfunction also proves the mind is the physical activity of the brain. Thanks for pointing that out.

Actually, it “proves” no such thing. It proves some kind of correlation between mind and brain, but it doesn’t prove the mind is the physical activity of the brain. If it did then the fact that a driver of an automobile moves their hands or feet every time the automobile changes direction or moves is “proof” that the driver is the “physical activity” of the automobile.

And if the driver dies at the controls, the car will lose control.

You say it proves a correlation between mind and brain. So there is no onus to prove that. Do you have a case which proves no correlation between mind and brain? If so let’s hear it, otherwise what’s the problem?

 

[Geist]

Based on probability, if one had to make a choice, is it more reasonable to be an Atheist or a Theist. Which is more likely to be true given human experience and the evidence.

Which way does the pendulum of probability swing and why.

Flip a coin.

 

[inocente]

The mind is most definitely not the physical activity of the brain. The banking system and the sociopolitical realities of this world are not the electronic infrastructure. The brain is part of the physical structure of the person. The connections in the brain are in large part organized in accordance with mental phenomena. And, the mind is related to the person’s soul, the spiritual capacity to relate, to connect with what is other, perceptually, with our thoughts, feelings and actions, most perfectly seen in the giving union that is love. There is no dualism; there is one person who can be understood from different perspectives. It is not dualistic thinking that a person is a taxpayer and a patient undergoing a medical procedure. The last sentence in the quote, to me suggests a dualistic understanding of the body and mind.

The last sentence you quoted was “Please explain how you think prodding you and asking where does it hurt has nothing to do with detecting the precise location using the patient’s subjective knowledge”. Subjective = “based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions”. I can’t work out why you think that has anything to do with dualism. Why do you think it does?

One does not eliminate dualism by eliminating one side. Mind and body are not separate entities and do not even intertwine. There is one person, one being, whom I see as 100% physical and 100% spiritual. The spiritual part is eternal, the physical transient, btw.

One definitely does eliminate dualism by eliminating one side. You’re left with either physicalism or idealism, depending on which you keep. Otherwise I agree, mind is looking top-down, brain bottom-up. Two-way street (neuroplasticity).

 

[Aloysium]

I agree that we currently don’t have (and may never have) a completely accurate map of which physical structures and interactions within the brain are attributable to which mental states and perceptions. But the example you gave of the patient identifying the portion of her brain that was associated with her condition does not imply that there is necessarily anything beyond the physical. As far as I can see, your assertions to the contrary do not follow logically from the examples you’ve given, nor have you offered any other substantiation.

We actually do have a very accurate map of the physical structures, including the tracts that link the various areas of the brain. The amount of information about the proteins that form the supporting structure and physiological activity of the functioning brain is astounding.

I’m not sure how one can communicate what should be obvious, that any discussion of physical components (such as the channels that allow for ionic exchange, receptors and neurotransmitters, the growth cones at the ends of axons which seek out their destination, guided by molecules produced by surrounding cells, etc, etc) is not about the reality of thought and perception. It is of a totally different order although they both tell us about what it means to be a human person.

How does one substantiate a perspective? If one stubs one’s toe on a table leg and needs substantiation that it hurts, they have intellectualized themselves out of reality. “It hurts” is different than talk of the nociceptors, and the prostaglandins, potassium, serotonin, bradykinin, histamine, and substance P, which are released to trigger a neurological resonse which cascades through the pain, fibres, spinal cord and brain. These physical substances do not produce pain; they are the physical reality of a person in pain. The neurotransmitter dopamine sitting in a jar is not ecstatic. Released by a psychoactive substance, within the brain, a person will feel good, for a time. The basic reality is of the person, multidimensional and made up of parts.

A person thinks and feels and sees. A person acts. A person is whole, one. That wholeness holds together all the neuronal functioning that exists in relation to the physical world of which it is a part. The universe is composed of entities having specific forms, comprised of parts that form the particular whole and can also be isolated. They themselves are parts of the rest that is totality of creation, and with which they are continuous. Although our body may be understood to be like some noodle in a cosmic minestrone. our consciousness is not. We as persons are individual, separate, existing in relation to and capable of giving ourselves to all other being. This wholeness, separation and capacity to connect is the possibility of love.

 

[Nixbits]

Have you ever observed, in the entirety of your experience, something coming from nothing?

You asked me a very similar question once before in another thread. You may recall that I answered that, as far as I can tell, I had not experienced this. I also pointed out that my experience of the universe is extremely limited in terms of time-scale, physical scale, types of substances, range of perception and the parts of the universe of which I have direct experience. In particular, my experience of the occurrence of any universe coming into existence is zero. Given such a narrow experience, I’m not willing to make sweeping statements about the nature of the universe throughout the whole of space and time. To do so risks committing the black swan fallacy.

Having said all that, I don’t understand what relevance your question has to the topic of this thread. I don’t think it possible to assess the relative probability of the universe coming into existence by non-theistic ‘natural’ means compared to it being created by the intentional act of a divine power. None of us have sufficient data of either case for such an assessment.

But who says that the theistic “explanation” relies upon something that we cannot understand?

I do, amongst very many others. To be an explanation for the universe classical theism has to show how the universe came to be. How did God create everything? Vague assertions that God spoke and things came into existence is not an explanation in terms that any of us can understand. Classical theism does not provide an explanation to any of the ‘how’ questions.

 

[Nixbits]

“It hurts” is different than talk of the nociceptors, and the prostaglandins, potassium, serotonin, bradykinin, histamine, and substance P, which are released to trigger a neurological resonse which cascades through the pain, fibres, spinal cord and brain. These physical substances do not produce pain; they are the physical reality of a person in pain. The neurotransmitter dopamine sitting in a jar is not ecstatic. Released by a psychoactive substance, within the brain, a person will feel good, for a time. The basic reality is of the person, multidimensional and made up of parts.

I don’t think that “It hurts” is a different thing to the description of the process of feeling pain that you have given. It’s the same thing, just described at two different levels. The sum of all the individual electrochemical interactions in the body is the experience of pain.

Similarly, of course the dopamine in a jar does not experience anything. But as part of a chain of responses in a human body it adds up to the feeling of ecstasy. What you’re claiming is evidence of something immaterial is just a mischaracterisation of the physical effect at the macro level of physical changes at the micro level.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

John Eccles was a trialist, rather than a dualist as to the mind-brain question. Here is an introduction to his thought.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Eccles_(neurophysiologist)#Philosophy

 

[PRmerger]

You asked me a very similar question once before in another thread. You may recall that I answered that, as far as I can tell, I had not experienced this. I also pointed out that my experience of the universe is extremely limited in terms of time-scale, physical scale, types of substances, range of perception and the parts of the universe of which I have direct experience.

Yes, I do recall.

And IIRC, I asserted that it sounded so very much like a Science of the Gaps ideology.

In particular, my experience of the occurrence of any universe coming into existence is zero. Given such a narrow experience, I’m not willing to make sweeping statements about the nature of the universe throughout the whole of space and time. To do so risks committing the black swan fallacy.

And this sounds so very…unscientific.

I find this especially curious, given your background as a science-advocate.

 

[Aloysium]

I don’t think that “It hurts” is a different thing to the description of the process of feeling pain that you have given. It’s the same thing, just described at two different levels. The sum of all the individual electrochemical interactions in the body is the experience of pain.

Similarly, of course the dopamine in a jar does not experience anything. But as part of a chain of responses in a human body it adds up to the feeling of ecstasy. What you’re claiming is evidence of something immaterial is just a mischaracterisation of the physical effect at the macro level of physical changes at the micro level.

I give up.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t think that “It hurts” is a different thing to the description of the process of feeling pain that you have given. It’s the same thing, just described at two different levels. The sum of all the individual electrochemical interactions in the body is the experience of pain.

In other words you are suggesting that a person doesn’t exist!

Similarly, of course the dopamine in a jar does not experience anything. But as part of a chain of responses in a human body it adds up to the feeling of ecstasy. What you’re claiming is evidence of something immaterial is just a mischaracterisation of the physical effect at the macro level of physical changes at the micro level.

How do you explain our** awareness** of our thoughts and feelings?

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t think that “It hurts” is a different thing to the description of the process of feeling pain that you have given. It’s the same thing, just described at two different levels. The sum of all the individual electrochemical interactions in the body is the experience of pain.

Similarly, of course the dopamine in a jar does not experience anything. But as part of a chain of responses in a human body it adds up to the feeling of ecstasy. What you’re claiming is evidence of something immaterial is just a mischaracterisation of the physical effect at the macro level of physical changes at the micro level.

The term “experience” gives the game away! It implies the existence of an** individual **rather a set of electrochemical interactions. What is the source of unity?

 

[Aloysium]

The last sentence you quoted was “Please explain how you think prodding you and asking where does it hurt has nothing to do with detecting the precise location using the patient’s subjective knowledge”. Subjective = “based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions”. I can’t work out why you think that has anything to do with dualism. Why do you think it does?

One definitely does eliminate dualism by eliminating one side. You’re left with either physicalism or idealism, depending on which you keep. Otherwise I agree, mind is looking top-down, brain bottom-up. Two-way street (neuroplasticity).

It goes back to your view that “the mind is the physical activity of the brain”.

The quote referred to above concerns the subjective experience of the person and the brain being prodded. It suggests a dualism of mind and body, which is done away with by implying that the mind is ultimately the brain. I’m telling you how it reads.

What I am proposing is that no dualism exists in the reality of the person, one unified being who perceives, thinks, feels and acts as a physical entity. Brain does not produce or eminate mind and mind does not move the body. The simplicity of this very moment is the ultimate reality of the person.

There is one person who is being operated on and who senses and speaks. Categorizing what is happening along the broad dimensions of matter and spirit, does bring to light the complexity that we are. However, considering them as interactive or dependent parts overcomplicates the matter.

Neuroplasticity physically involves the release of chemicals facilitating the growth of connections between neurons and also the efficiency of their neurotransmitter communications with one another. These are not random processes within the healthy person, but happen in accordance with mental activity. One tries to enhance a skill and with repetition physical changes ensue. All this activity is the reality of the person in the world.

Analogies tend to create as many problems as they may solve. That said, consider how two gases combine to form water. As the wave crashes on the shore, hydrogen does not push oxygen and oxygen does not push hydrogen. If you want to break it down into components, the behaviour of the oxygen and the hydrogen seem correlated. If one could detect hydrogen atoms using one technique and oxygen atoms by another, one might be able to locate the wave where the two meet. Each remains as one water molecule, everywhere in the wave.

 

[PRmerger]

Classical theism does not provide an explanation to any of the ‘how’ questions.

This is true. But that’s not the job of classical theism. Classical theism answers the “what” (or the “who”) and the “why”.

That’s something that atheism has no answers for.

(Not to mention it also doesn’t have the answer for the “how” questions either).

What you are doing is like faulting poetry for not explaining how bunsen burners are needed to heat chemicals in a high school lab.

 

[Nixbits]

I asserted that it sounded so very much like a Science of the Gaps ideology.

I don’t know what you mean by a ‘Science of the Gaps ideology’. Please explain.

And this sounds so very…unscientific.I find this especially curious, given your background as a science-advocate.

It’s not at all unscientific to recognise the limits of the evidence available and to refrain from drawing conclusions from a sample set that is clearly far too small. It is entirely scientific to admit “We don’t know.” What is unscientific is to assert that something is universally true because it has never been observed within a tiny set of experiences.

 

[Nixbits]

This is true. But that’s not the job of classical theism. Classical theism answers the “what” (or the “who”) and the “why”.

I agree. For this reason I consider classical theism to offer assertions but no explanation. Hence my disagreement when theists insist on the ‘explanatory power’ of their beliefs.

That’s something that atheism has no answers for.(Not to mention it also doesn’t have the answer for the “how” questions either).

This is true. But that’s not the job of atheism. And that’s fine because I’ve never heard an atheist assert that their rejection of the God-claim had any explanatory power.

What you are doing is like faulting poetry for not explaining how bunsen burners are needed to heat chemicals in a high school lab.

I disagree. What I am doing is pointing out the fault when poetry-lovers claim that poetry explains how Bunsen burners can be used to heat chemicals. ‘Poetry’ itself does not provide this explanation and those that claim it does are misguided.

 

[Nixbits]

In other words you are suggesting that a person doesn’t exist!

No. I’m not claiming this. I don’t understand why you reached that conclusion.

How do you explain our** awareness** of our thoughts and feelings?

I don’t. What has that got to do with the existence of anything non-physical?

 

[Nixbits]

The term “experience” gives the game away! It implies the existence of an** individual **rather a set of electrochemical interactions.

How do you define an ‘individual’ such that it cannot be equated to ‘a set of electrochemical interactions’ (and the physical matter in which these interactions occur)?

What is the source of unity?

I don’t know what you mean by this. Please explain.

 

[inocente]

It goes back to your view that “the mind is the physical activity of the brain”.

The quote referred to above concerns the subjective experience of the person and the brain being prodded. It suggests a dualism of mind and body, which is done away with by implying that the mind is ultimately the brain. I’m telling you how it reads.

I still can’t see your point, since it would make a dualist out of even the most hard-nosed card-carrying materialist doctor.

“In the philosophy of mind, dualism is the theory that the mental and the physical—or mind and body or mind and brain—are, in some sense, radically different kinds of thing.” - plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/

The doctor hypothesizes that mind is the physical activity, and so alters the activity which the patient relays back to him. I can see nothing in the procedure which indicates the doctor believing “in some sense, radically different kinds of thing”. Quite the opposite.

*What I am proposing is that no dualism exists in the reality of the person, one unified being who perceives, thinks, feels and acts as a physical entity. Brain does not produce or eminate mind and mind does not move the body. The simplicity of this very moment is the ultimate reality of the person.

There is one person who is being operated on and who senses and speaks. Categorizing what is happening along the broad dimensions of matter and spirit, does bring to light the complexity that we are. However, considering them as interactive or dependent parts overcomplicates the matter.

Neuroplasticity physically involves the release of chemicals facilitating the growth of connections between neurons and also the efficiency of their neurotransmitter communications with one another. These are not random processes within the healthy person, but happen in accordance with mental activity. One tries to enhance a skill and with repetition physical changes ensue. All this activity is the reality of the person in the world.

Analogies tend to create as many problems as they may solve. That said, consider how two gases combine to form water. As the wave crashes on the shore, hydrogen does not push oxygen and oxygen does not push hydrogen. If you want to break it down into components, the behaviour of the oxygen and the hydrogen seem correlated. If one could detect hydrogen atoms using one technique and oxygen atoms by another, one might be able to locate the wave where the two meet. Each remains as one water molecule, everywhere in the wave.*

To me you’re now changing the rules by saying that “the broad dimensions of matter and spirit” is not dualism. Unless you’re saying matter and spirit are not “radically different kinds of thing” then surely by definition it is dualism.

To take another definition of dualism: “In philosophy of mind, dualism is the position that mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical, or that the mind and body are not identical”. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(philosophy_of_mind

Someone who says “the mind is the physical activity of the brain” is saying that mind is looking top-down at the same thing looking bottom-up, whereas surely thinking in terms of matter and spirit is thinking that “mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical, or that the mind and body are not identical”.

Anyhow, we seem to be well off-topic, as would appear possible to take either position and still be a theist or an atheist.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t know what you mean by a ‘Science of the Gaps ideology’. Please explain.

It’s the corollary to the atheist’s “God of the Gaps” objection.

“Science of the Gaps” --“we don’t know now, but Science will figure it out”.

It’s a faith-based assertion, which is especially egregious coming from someone who eschews faith-based assertions.

It’s not at all unscientific to recognise the limits of the evidence available and to refrain from drawing conclusions from a sample set that is clearly far too small.

This is true.

And it limns quite clearly the limits of science.

It is entirely scientific to admit “We don’t know.”

Of course.

What is unscientific is to assert that something is universally true because it has never been observed within a tiny set of experiences.

Indeed.

But to say, “Well, it’s possible for something to come from nothing, even though…in my entire experience…in the entirety of all human knowledge that has existed…in the domain of empirical science…not a single time I have known this to occur…nor has anything ever been demonstrated to come from nothing…EVER…”

–that paradigm is begging for an explanation, no?

You can see how the Believer would be head-scratching that an atheist could consider to be true the idea that something can come from nothing…

unless the atheist is a believer in magic, right?