"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist"

[revol68]

i think phildywers problem is that he mistakes materialism as giving no room for ideas. This is of course absurd as I know of absolutely no scientist living who holds ideas and human action to be somehow outside the material or a crude reflection of it.

Of course the reason he has invented this crude materialism is so it looks like we need another form to be able to deal with consciousness, that form of course for him is some sort of "spirit" bollocks.

There's really no point arguing with him, especially as he seems to think that MArx and Engels defence of human subjects and ideas equals a defence of dualism.

It's really quite simple, in the harder sciences people talk of "materialism" as inclusive of human ideas and thoughts, whilst in the social sciences "material" tends to be used juxtaposed to ideas, they are of course not claiming ideas to be non material.

 

[Fruitloop]

Well, the term "reductionism" has negative connotations--it typically involves "reducing" one pole of a dialectical opposition to the other, which is illogical. But it is certainly possible to have science without materialist monism. In fact, isn't it true that modern atomic physics no longer considers itself materialist, and prefers to be called "physicalist" instead? I have my own problems with the latter term too, but its definitely an advance on "materialism."

I don't think that reductionism is necessarily illogical. Scientific reductionism is a tendency of which I'm rather fond - it seems most likely that whatever the set of rules are that govern the behaviour of the observable universe , there will only be one set and it will apply to everything that is observable. On present evidence it also seems rational to believe that if these laws are amenable to our elucidation at all, then thsi will be by means of the processes of induction, falsification, etc.

I agree that physicalism is a better term than materialism, as the latter has been recycled a few too many times to mean different things to have any clarity these days.

 

[andrewwyld]

positive evidence for a deity

I think many theists' contention, and Dawkins's, is that without evolution, the entire universe could be regarded as positive evidence for a deity. While a spontaneous universe would obviously not be evidence of its creator, a created one would. Such a question is scientifically unanswerable, because there is no possibility of comparison, except in thought experiments.

So, people examine the properties of the universe to see if it is like what they imagine a created or spontaneous universe would be like. Actually, they don't -- mostly they just assume -- but they probably should.

Evolution allows an atheist to avoid a very difficult question (although not all very difficult questions -- answers do exist, but they are not evolution!) about the origin of life, and hence, humans. This is Dawkins's contention.

However, it is as specious an argument against God as the "argument by design" was before evolution was postulated. Neither argument is watertight, but it is the best we are going to get.

I think very few people really look hard at evidence for things which disconfirm their prejudices. An exception, to show you what I mean, would be Alan Turing -- a confirmed atheist, he nevertheless believed in ESP because of what he saw as a body of evidence too great to ignore (he treats ESP in his famous paper on artificial intelligence as a property of the mind it might be impossible to mimic with a computer). I am a theist who does not believe in ESP, but I admire, and try to emulate, Turing's rigour with his own beliefs (although I probably fail). Most people, confronted with evidence against their personal position, will assume it is either faked or ignores a wider context which explains it. Very few will actually bother to check.

 

[gurrier]

I think very few people really look hard at evidence for things which disconfirm their prejudices. An exception, to show you what I mean, would be Alan Turing -- a confirmed atheist, he nevertheless believed in ESP because of what he saw as a body of evidence too great to ignore (he treats ESP in his famous paper on artificial intelligence as a property of the mind it might be impossible to mimic with a computer). I am a theist who does not believe in ESP, but I admire, and try to emulate, Turing's rigour with his own beliefs (although I probably fail). Most people, confronted with evidence against their personal position, will assume it is either faked or ignores a wider context which explains it. Very few will actually bother to check.

I think you're being a bit hard on most people. I would have thought that very few people go through life with an unchanging view of the world and for most people it is evidence of one sort or another which prompts them to change their minds.

Also, just curious to know how god has escaped Occam's razor in your eyes?

 

[andrewwyld]

I think you're being a bit hard on most people.

Possibly. If so, I'm sorry.

Also, just curious to know how god has escaped Occam's razor in your eyes?

I can't explain the existence of sentience (very much as opposed to intelligence!) in the universe. It seems mysterious, whereas intelligence has obvious evolutionary benefits (although we would say that). I cannot conclude that it came from anywhere in the same way that intelligence did, so I think it is a property of the universe that sentience is possible, whether or not it be restricted to intelligent systems (this because I can imagine a universe physically identical to this one but lacking sentience -- and I mean identical, i.e. where alternate-me was typing this into the computer but without any awareness of why).

I find the single infinite mystery of a God who planted sentience in the universe preferable to the billions of very small mysteries floating in human heads which any alternative view seems to require. Moreover, I cannot see any way of demystifying this concept, because sentience is not objectively measurable, even though all the attendant brain-activity is -- so although we will probably explain the whole brain and how each bit plays a part in sentience, we will never explain why there is any sentience at all, IMO (some would regard this question as irrelevant, of course).

Edit: of course this cannot be used as a defence of any specific religion.

 

[gurrier]

I can't explain the existence of sentience (very much as opposed to intelligence!) in the universe. It seems mysterious, whereas intelligence has obvious evolutionary benefits (although we would say that). I cannot conclude that it came from anywhere in the same way that intelligence did, so I think it is a property of the universe that sentience is possible, whether or not it be restricted to intelligent systems (this because I can imagine a universe physically identical to this one but lacking sentience -- and I mean identical, i.e. where alternate-me was typing this into the computer but without any awareness of why).

I don't think that I follow you, or perhaps I don't understand what you mean by 'sentience'? As I understand it 'sentience' means having access to the senses (touch, sight, etc) and there are many good evolutionary reasons why this came about. Maybe you mean what I would call 'consciousness'?

I also think that if you look at critters with simple enough nervous systems, you will find that they are sentient (in that they have access to physical data about the world through their senses) but are not 'conscious' (in that they have a hard-wired, deterministic stimulus-response loop). How far 'down' the evolutionary chain that you have to go to find this, I don't know (and nor does anybody really as far as I know) but I'd put ants somewhere near the demarcation line.

My own working hypothesis on consciousness is that it is a logical necessity for any animal whose behaviour can not be described entirely as a set of stimulus response rules. Consciousness being the functional sub-system which receives a high-level summary of sensory data and memory data, transmits this to the planning centres, performs an emotional weighting of the resultant predicted outcomes and acts upon the one that comes closest to an emotionally stable / desirable state.

I don't understand why such explanations aren't superior to ones that involve god.

 

[kyser_soze]

I can't explain the existence of sentience (very much as opposed to intelligence!) in the universe.

Piece of piss - ultra rare random events. Humans have a need to place patterns and order on the universe so that it makes sense within their life narrative hence, in part, the existance of religion before modern science cos it explained away the 'big' questions in one easy 'It's all down to the volcano/wolf/bloke with beard/multi-limbed elephant/human hybrid' answer.

IME people have real difficulty in accepting things that are (seemingly) random, and to accept that

A. We probably don't have the 'reality capacity' to understand what came before the BB/Creation/whatever - we're beings of this universe and this reality so my guess is that we wouldn't be able to copmprehend, even as a theory, what the universe was 'before'.

B. I believe that in it's current form the brain has a physical limit on our capacity for knowledge and understanding.

 

[andrewwyld]

Humans have a need to place patterns and order on the universe

You're missing the point. That is a property of intelligence, the problem-solving capacity. The fact that any of us *notice* this is the issue. It could just not be there and the universe would trundle along as before. Nobody expects rocks to care about their environment, and all we are really is extremely complicated rocks.

 

[kyser_soze]

You're missing the point.

So what is 'the point'?

 

[ZWord]

I don't think that I follow you, or perhaps I don't understand what you mean by 'sentience'? As I understand it 'sentience' means having access to the senses (touch, sight, etc) and there are many good evolutionary reasons why this came about. Maybe you mean what I would call 'consciousness'?

I also think that if you look at critters with simple enough nervous systems, you will find that they are sentient (in that they have access to physical data about the world through their senses) but are not 'conscious' (in that they have a hard-wired, deterministic stimulus-response loop). How far 'down' the evolutionary chain that you have to go to find this, I don't know (and nor does anybody really as far as I know) but I'd put ants somewhere near the demarcation line.

My own working hypothesis on consciousness is that it is a logical necessity for any animal whose behaviour can not be described entirely as a set of stimulus response rules. Consciousness being the functional sub-system which receives a high-level summary of sensory data and memory data, transmits this to the planning centres, performs an emotional weighting of the resultant predicted outcomes and acts upon the one that comes closest to an emotionally stable / desirable state.

I don't understand why such explanations aren't superior to ones that involve god.

As far as I could tell. He was using -intelligent- where you use -sentient- and -sentient- where you use conscious. But the problem with your explanation of consciousness, though I don't exactly disagree with it, is that it's not an explanation. Why can't an organism have a functional subsystem of the brain which receives a high level summary of sensory data etc etc. and the organism still not be conscious?

 

[andrewwyld]

As I understand it 'sentience' means having access to the senses (touch, sight, etc) and there are many good evolutionary reasons why this came about. Maybe you mean what I would call 'consciousness'?

Possibly. The terms are pretty loosely applied because the subject is so intractable. I am mainly concerned, however, with sentience, which -- yes, --we assume most animals also possess. Specifically I am concerned with the qualia of sentience -- the subjective phenomenon of being aware of anything at all (or "what it feels like").

My own working hypothesis on consciousness is that it is a logical necessity for any animal whose behaviour can not be described entirely as a set of stimulus response rules.

No it isn't, because all of the properties you describe are either already possessed by computers -- which may be conscious, of course, but are not like people -- or presume the existence of consciousness, which makes the argument circular. Certainly the conscious "ego" appears to be as you describe it, but there is absolutely no necessity for it to be aware, as it could run perfectly happily without awareness. everything would then be meaningless, of course, but there would be nobody there to care.

I don't understand why such explanations aren't superior to ones that involve god.

They explain the wrong thing. They explain rationally how the mind evolved. This is the problem of intelligence, which, although not yet fully explained (understatement!) is, I am fairly confident, explicable -- even if we, as humans, never do manage it. I am concerned with why we are aware at all.

To clarify the distinction, the question I am asking is not "why do humans have access to information about their sensory state?" The answer to that is pretty obvious. I am concerned with the question, "what is this thing I call 'I' which has access to my sensory state, and why does it exist?"

You may consider that it exists for no reason, which is perfectly possible. However, I am capable of something I can only refer to vaguely, as "meaning" -- certain experiences have this quality of "meaning" for me. If I did not have experiences, but rather processed data in a way which looked externally exactly the same, this quality would not exist (although I would still say it did). However, I do find things meaningful, and as such, the universe contains meaning, because I am part of it.

I may, I still admit, be the full extent of meaning in the universe! More likely, humans and intelligent animals may be its full extent. However, because we have this quality, and the universe could get along quite happily without it, it seems logical to ask why it is here. I think the ability to mean things is a suggestive ability, leading at least to a humanistic, if not a theistic position. Others think it doesn't mean anything at all, but simply exists. Actually a lot of people scarcely even notice it as distinct from other things, but that does not mean it is not real -- like proprioception.

 

[andrewwyld]

So what is 'the point'?

[sigh]

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3506075&postcount=458
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3506187&postcount=461

 

[Azrael23]

Because it makes us feel less special

To be concious is to be aware and seeing as even the very atoms of matter are aware of eachother it could even be said that everything is concious to a degree. I wonder what level we`re on?

 

[ZWord]

maybe kyser isn't conscious, and that's why he miss the point.

 

[andrewwyld]

it could even be said that everything is concious to a degree.

It could, and it's probably true -- however, this sort of supports my idea that consciousness is a property of the entire universe, suggesting it's always been here, which is (to me) suggestive.

Edit: Raymond Smullyan, who is a professor of logic and major league Taoist, points out that trying to prove the Tao exists is pointless when you can just enjoy it. I think this may be along the same lines as what I am saying -- consciousness (or sentience) itself is a property which we could consider Tao-like or God-like, and can be enjoyed and celebrated, even though we can't prove it is real! I am just too curmudgenonly to leave it there ...

 

[Fruitloop]

even the very atoms of matter are aware of each other

No they're not.

 

[andrewwyld]

No they're not.

How do you know? Have you asked them?

My brain atoms are definitely aware of something.

 

[ZWord]

oh, well, same question.

 

[Fruitloop]

My brain atoms are definitely aware of something.

Not on their own they aren't.

 

[ZWord]

It's odd you're so certain. If the energy in atoms is powerful enough to destroy a city, which is odd in itself, then they must be remarkable thingamajigs.

And then there's the non-local connection. Which all you "scientists" seem to be unable to comment on.

 

[andrewwyld]

Not on their own they aren't.

Heh -- I see what you mean. However, lots of complex systems built from atoms are, like parts of my brain and of your brain. However, you may have heard of Freud's crutch -- he imagined the subconscious parts of the brain to have awareness. Well, we are not aware of them, so this idea is largely ignored, but there is no evidence that they don't. As for the Occam's razor argument, which assumes more things -- that systems in the universe are conscious, or that only systems embodying certain key properties are conscious? I use the word "conscious" in an insanely broad sense here, of course.

 

[Fruitloop]

Are you talking about spooky action at a distance? It's an effect of the embeddedness of the observer in the world that they're observing - counter-intuitive maybe, but perfectly explicable.

 

[andrewwyld]

Are you talking about spooky action at a distance? It's an effect of the embeddedness of the observer in the world that they're observing - counter-intuitive maybe, but perfectly explicable.

I'm not sure I understand this bit -- "action at a distance", to me, means things like entangled particles having opposite spin simultaneously at great distances. Given the relativistic failure of simultaneity, nobody has managed to explain to me what, precisely, they mean by "simultaneously" in this case. However, I don't know what this has to do with either the mind, consciousness, or God (or lack thereof) -- not that it isn't interesting, mind you.

(If anybody knows about the simultaneity thing, I really want to know! Thank you.)

 

[kyser_soze]

Andrewwldlyld

Ever hear of a thing called a succint answer, which is generally what a point it, not half an essay.

And you missed my point - all humans create a narrative, a self story, of which our understanding of where, how and why we and the universe came into being. The idea that it was somehow completely random chance is too much for most people IME - there has to something more 'satisfying' - viscerally and intellectually, and something that makes us feel like there is a 'proper' reason for the existance of lifem the universe and everything.

Actually, looking at it like that, Douglas Adams was right - you can't know the answer and question at the same time...mmm...maybe a late observation, but do you think he was allusing to the problems of measuring the quantum realm where you can know an objects position/velocity but not both at the same time?

OOOOOO

 

[Fruitloop]

I'm not sure I understand this bit -- "action at a distance", to me, means things like entangled particles having opposite spin simultaneously at great distances. Given the relativistic failure of simultaneity, nobody has managed to explain to me what, precisely, they mean by "simultaneously" in this case. However, I don't know what this has to do with either the mind, consciousness, or God (or lack thereof) -- not that it isn't interesting, mind you.

(If anybody knows about the simultaneity thing, I really want to know! Thank you.)

Oops, sorry, I was talking to Zword - we posted at the same time.

 

[ZWord]

oh right. Thanks. just a min.

 

[ZWord]

Are you talking about spooky action at a distance? It's an effect of the embeddedness of the observer in the world that they're observing - counter-intuitive maybe, but perfectly explicable.

Well that's interesting. But I don't totally understand it. Do you reckon you could unpack it a bit?

 

[Azrael23]

It could, and it's probably true -- however, this sort of supports my idea that consciousness is a property of the entire universe, suggesting it's always been here, which is (to me) suggestive.

Edit: Raymond Smullyan, who is a professor of logic and major league Taoist, points out that trying to prove the Tao exists is pointless when you can just enjoy it. I think this may be along the same lines as what I am saying -- consciousness (or sentience) itself is a property which we could consider Tao-like or God-like, and can be enjoyed and celebrated, even though we can't prove it is real! I am just too curmudgenonly to leave it there ...

I agree but in order for more people to enjoy it there must be discussion.

 

[gurrier]

No it isn't, because all of the properties you describe are either already possessed by computers -- which may be conscious, of course, but are not like people -- or presume the existence of consciousness, which makes the argument circular. Certainly the conscious "ego" appears to be as you describe it, but there is absolutely no necessity for it to be aware, as it could run perfectly happily without awareness. everything would then be meaningless, of course, but there would be nobody there to care.

I'm not, really I'm not. None of this is possessed by computers in any meaningful way and I'm describing full blown consciousness with no need for a pre-existing consciousness. To my mind, if consciousness really is as I describe it, one would expect it to be experienced much as we experience life. I really can't think of any aspect of consciousness that can't be described as part of such a model. Of course most people are going to find this type of description unpleasant, but the more that we know about the brain the more likely such explanations become.

They explain the wrong thing. They explain rationally how the mind evolved. This is the problem of intelligence, which, although not yet fully explained (understatement!) is, I am fairly confident, explicable -- even if we, as humans, never do manage it. I am concerned with why we are aware at all.

It explains consciousness both as how the mind may have evolved and explains why we (or more accurately our consciousnesses) are aware. For my model to work at all, our consciousness needs to have access to (high level) sensory data. It needs to self-identify with our whole and see itself as one with the person's being. I have never come across a quality of awareness or consciousness that isn't the sort of thing one would expect if the model is accurate.

To clarify the distinction, the question I am asking is not "why do humans have access to information about their sensory state?" The answer to that is pretty obvious. I am concerned with the question, "what is this thing I call 'I' which has access to my sensory state, and why does it exist?"

The thing that you call 'I' is your consciousness. It has access to your sensory state because without that it wouldn't be able to do its job. It exists because evolutionary pressures have driven us to evolve extraordinarily complex brains in order to produce better survival behaviour. It exists because at a certain stage of evolution (which as I say I'd put somewhere near the ant), there is no point in simply accumulating connections in the brain and we are much better served by having a high-level functional unit which guides behaviour on the basis of measurements of emotion rather than stimulus response. Once something like that evolves, selection pressures can act upon our emotions rather than our behaviour directly.

You may consider that it exists for no reason, which is perfectly possible. However, I am capable of something I can only refer to vaguely, as "meaning" -- certain experiences have this quality of "meaning" for me. If I did not have experiences, but rather processed data in a way which looked externally exactly the same, this quality would not exist (although I would still say it did). However, I do find things meaningful, and as such, the universe contains meaning, because I am part of it.

It exists for a reason, but it is an engineering one rather than a mystical one. Things must have meaning for your consciousness or else it would not be able to estimate the emotional desirability of the predicted outcomes of the brain's planning processes and hence would not be able to come up with survival behaviour in such a complex environment. Things have meaning because evolution has identified them as important variables in our survival and hence has attached emotional weight to them.

I may, I still admit, be the full extent of meaning in the universe! More likely, humans and intelligent animals may be its full extent. However, because we have this quality, and the universe could get along quite happily without it, it seems logical to ask why it is here. I think the ability to mean things is a suggestive ability, leading at least to a humanistic, if not a theistic position. Others think it doesn't mean anything at all, but simply exists. Actually a lot of people scarcely even notice it as distinct from other things, but that does not mean it is not real -- like proprioception.

There are lots of things that the universe could get along quite happily without and it doesn't mean that they are anything special.

 

[C S Lewis]

But it doesn't make any sense to say, simple nervous systems aren't conscious, and brains that are sufficiently complex to analyse and select their sensory input for further processing just are. Why should they be? It's still just a highly complex biological mechanism. What need for the consciousness if it doesn't actually do anything? Or if it does do something, how does it do it?