Inconsistencies with Atheism

[aonsquared 9]

29 minutes ago, mbohu said:

In a computer there is really nothing else but a large number of gates (which are physical objects that hold a physical state). These gates are connected in a way that certain results can be produced when the gates change their states. "Information" is simply an abstract concept that in essence describes the physical states of these gates.

How is this qualitatively different from a large number of neurons, connected in a certain way, producing results when certain neurons change their states?

"Consciousness" is simply an abstract concept that in essence describes the physical states of these neurons.

[gowlerk 1,903]

1 minute ago, aonsquared said:

"Consciousness" is simply an abstract concept that in essence describes the physical states of these neurons.

Does a dog have consciousness? Does it have morals? It certainly has behaviors with social rules. (This question is not solely directed at you.)

[mbohu 77]

25 minutes ago, jakee said:

Followers of the biggest religions in the world have the same problem, except more explicitly. If there is an omnipotent god and god has a will, we're all just meat puppets.

Of course. But, depending on which religion you talk about, that is often not their belief. Otherwise "surrender to God's will" would simply be a given and not a choice. Most believe that it is a choice and that THEY are making this choice but you and I aren't.

 

28 minutes ago, jakee said:

Actually, at this point I think you're shifting to the argument that being a conscious human in its entirety is incompatible with atheism, so tbh I think you've wasted a lot of our time by starting the conversation with the misleading and limiting reference to morality. Why didn't we just start here?

Not entirely my point. More that the belief system isn't quite as well thought-out as it presents itself and you can notice that in shows like Matt Dilahunty's and others, where the argument then usually shifts back to how idiotic the religious view is, whenever inconsistencies start to arise. 
I started with one concrete example rather than a generalization, because I find discussions stay a little more grounded that way ...but yes, in the end we went way beyond that.

[jakee 1,254]

23 minutes ago, mbohu said:

Of course. But, depending on which religion you talk about, that is often not their belief. Otherwise "surrender to God's will" would simply be a given and not a choice. Most believe that it is a choice and that THEY are making this choice but you and I aren't.

Which is an inconsistency in their worldview. And an inconsistency from you if you don't think it should be challenged.

 

Quote

Not entirely my point. More that the belief system isn't quite as well thought-out as it presents itself and you can notice that in shows like Matt Dilahunty's and others, where the argument then usually shifts back to how idiotic the religious view is, whenever inconsistencies start to arise. 

You really need to state your full point if you want to continue this discussion. Why don't you think the belief system isn't that well thought out? At present, as far as I can tell, you're arguing that if I don't believe god exists I'm not allowed to believe I exist. And, well, nah. Doesn't fly. All you're doing is restating a basic 'God of the Gaps' argument. Sorry.

Quote

I started with one concrete example rather than a generalization, because I find discussions stay a little more grounded that way ...but yes, in the end we went way beyond that.

No, you've confused it more than grounded it. Seriously.

Edited January 8, 2020 by jakee

[wmw999 2,116]

People with functioning brains (i.e. all the necessary chemistry) who are raised in complete or near-complete social isolation (there are very few examples, obviously) cannot seem to form the same types of concepts that those who are socialized. That would seem to imply, therefore, that conceptual thought is somewhat dependent on something besides physics.

Is the fact that what it's dependent on is resident in the conjunction of a lot of physics still keep it outside the "spiritual?" Or is it kind of like parallel processing of different computers. Note, however, that at least for now, computers start with externally-installed software. Not sure how much longer that's going to be the case; what is the difference between life and consciousness?

This is getting way away from "inconsistencies with atheism," so sue me.

But on the other hand, I think that we're getting deep into individual interpretations of individuals, who then assume that everyone else assumes the same way. Which is unlikely. 

Wendy P.

[mbohu 77]

23 minutes ago, jakee said:

Which is an inconsistency in their worldview. And an inconsistency from you if you don't think it should be challenged.

Oh, there are probably hundreds of inconsistencies, but we're not talking about any religious point of view here.

24 minutes ago, jakee said:

At present, as far as I can tell, you're arguing that if I don't believe god exists I'm not allowed to believe I exist.

No. I made that very clear before: I am not talking about existence of god or not. That wasn't the definition I'm interested in.
I am looking at the view of "nothing but proofable physical reality exists" (again, in essence--please don't attack this simplified statement as we already went through the process of clarifying that above)

 

As for "the existence of god". That would be an interesting discussion, but the way I would approach that is to first look at what possible definitions of "god" there could be. Then we could look at each of them and see if any of them are at least theoretically possible, and what inconsistencies these ideas of god may have.
That would be another good discussion.

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

Oh yeah? Sez who? That is a giant leap you've just made there. One that you can't back up. You can't have a mind without an oxygen and glucose consuming physical brain with neurons firing across synapses. If concepts do not exist within the brain then they simply do not exist at all.

Another way to argue this is that a computer cannot have data existing in it, because that data is electronic 1s and 0s, hence they don't exist in reality.

[gowlerk 1,903]

8 minutes ago, mbohu said:

As for "the existence of god". That would be an interesting discussion, but the way I would approach that is to first look at what possible definitions of "god" there could be.

In terms humans can understand, is god the creator, or the overseer? Kind of a straw boss. And if so, who does She report to? Actually God is the woman who put the land on the back of the turtle. We are all on Turtle Island. And it will be the Truth if I decide so.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle_Island_(North_America)

Edited January 8, 2020 by gowlerk

[mbohu 77]

1 hour ago, aonsquared said:

How is this qualitatively different from a large number of neurons, connected in a certain way, producing results when certain neurons change their states?

Yes. As seen from the outside that is exactly true. 

 

1 hour ago, aonsquared said:

"Consciousness" is simply an abstract concept that in essence describes the physical states of these neurons.

The "problem" with consciousness is that it is not just a concept describing something from the outside. We EXPERIENCE it from the inside. When I talk about consciousness it is that experience from the inside that I am talking about.

And of course, as someone (I believe jakee) pointed out, I can't even know that you experience it from the inside, I can only know that I do, but it's an assumption I'm willing to make.

[turtlespeed 212]

2 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

In terms humans can understand, is god the creator, or the overseer? Kind of a straw boss. And if so, who does She report to? Actually God is the woman who put the land on the back of the turtle. We are all on Turtle Island. And it will be the Truth if I decide so.

I knew you would understand one day!

I'm so proud of you!

[jakee 1,254]

4 minutes ago, mbohu said:

I am looking at the view of "nothing but proofable physical reality exists" (again, in essence--please don't attack this simplified statement as we already went through the process of clarifying that above)

Then as far as I'm concerned not only are you not really talking about morality, you're not really talking about atheism either. You're defining your own artificially restrictive worldview in order to create the inconsistency you're then moaning about. Again, nah. Doesn't fly. 

 

And even then, I'll say again that all you have is a god of the gaps rehash. You don't know exactly how the brain creates consciousness, so you assume it can't and therefore the spiritual realm is required. No. Sorry. Didn't work for lightning, doesn't work for this. It's an old argument, it's been dealt with many times.

[jakee 1,254]

5 minutes ago, mbohu said:

The "problem" with consciousness is that it is not just a concept describing something from the outside. We EXPERIENCE it from the inside. When I talk about consciousness it is that experience from the inside that I am talking about.

That's not a problem.

[mbohu 77]

3 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

In terms humans can understand, is god the creator, or the overseer?

Yes, and there are many more:

God as initial creator who stands outside her creation and then does not interfere

God as creator, standing outside who DOES interfere but only rarely

God as immanent in creation and pretty much identified with it

God as immanent in creation but also transcending it in some way
(for example, we may be a part of "God's body, just like cells are part of our body and physical laws would be the way that god's body operates--but then he would also have an individual consciousness that can not be explained by the physical actions of "his body")

...

[mbohu 77]

3 minutes ago, jakee said:

That's not a problem.

Well, it makes it an undeniable reality for the one who experiences it. You cannot explain it away by reference to externalities. If you say it's a "concept", it doesn't explain why you experience it.

You don't experience software. The computer doesn't experience software either. But you do experience consciousness. The question is where that experience comes from. 

8 minutes ago, jakee said:

you're not really talking about atheism either.

Agreed, according to your definition...and I started with that footnote in my very first post to make clear what I meant.
But: If I'm not talking about atheism, then neither is Richard Dawkins, because he uses that same definition...and the reason I posted it here was that it seemed to me that at least some here held a similar worldview (and it does seem to be supported with posts like "consciousness = brain", etc.) It was that worldview that I wanted to explore and challenge, and the topic of morality seemed like an easier entry than ontology.

[gowlerk 1,903]

4 minutes ago, mbohu said:

Yes, and there are many more:

God as initial creator who stands outside her creation and then does not interfere

God as creator, standing outside who DOES interfere but only rarely

God as immanent in creation and pretty much identified with it

God as immanent in creation but also transcending it in some way
(for example, we may be a part of "God's body, just like cells are part of our body and physical laws would be the way that god's body operates--but then he would also have an individual consciousness that can not be explained by the physical actions of "his body")

...

All of which leads me to decide simply that god is a myth, a creation of man to serve the needs of man. I have no need of a god and no need to worship. Therefore there is no god, except as a debate topic. And one I am quickly tiring of. And of course the last straw, the very last item that makes me comfortable, is the fact that even a creator has to have a origin in any kind of logic I am capable of. Which leads me straight to the conclusion that we can never answer these questions no matter how evolved our science becomes. Peace.

[jakee 1,254]

14 minutes ago, mbohu said:

You don't experience software.

Duh.

Quote

The computer doesn't experience software either.

How do you know that?

Quote

But you do experience consciousness. The question is where that experience comes from. 

It comes from the brain and nerve stimuli to it. Change the stimuli, change the conscious experience. Change the brain, change the nature of the consciousness itself. We know this, we can experiment on it, we can even find where certain aspects of consciousness are housed within the physical brain, and we can even create repeatable effects on minds with repeatable actions on brains. Just because we don't know everything about it yet doesn't mean it isn't happening.

 

Quote

But: If I'm not talking about atheism, then neither is Richard Dawkins, because he uses that same definition...and the reason I posted it here was that it seemed to me that at least some here held a similar worldview (and it does seem to be supported with posts like "consciousness = brain", etc.) 

I'm pretty sure you're interpreting it in a different way. Anyway, provable isn't the same thing as proven. The idea that the mind is entirely a product of the physical brain is surely provable. So what's the problem? Where's the inconsistency?

 

Quote

It was that worldview that I wanted to explore and challenge, and the topic of morality seemed like an easier entry than ontology.

That was a mistake.

Edited January 8, 2020 by jakee

[mbohu 77]

2 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

I have no need of a god and no need to worship. Therefore there is no god, except as a debate topic.

That is an entirely reasonable conclusion.

The one primary reason I do not subscribe to it myself is because it closes down a huge avenue of experience. I have no problem, for example, to sit in on a traditional latin catholic mass with Gregorian Chants and have a deep internal (spiritual?) experience of reverence and power and peace (and if you asked me at that very moment if I believed in the power of god, I'd probably say "sure!") and then to get up and not base my worldview on any 2000 year old stories.

I can then spend 12 hours chanting bhajans to Shiva and have an even deeper experience of changed consciousness. 

Then I can go back to my lab, put on a white coat and cut open brains to determine how they work (ok, I haven't done that in decades)

Spiritual experiences, to me, are undeniably true. They cannot be argued away by references to externalities.

Believe systems, be they religious or objectivistic, are ALWAYS limiting. They cut you off from the mystery of life, no matter what they are. 
It is also possible that it's impossible to live without belief systems in this world. Our psyche seems to want something to hang on to, in order to feel grounded and safe, BUT I think it's best to question them all--and particular one's own (rather than just pointing out how superior one's own belief system is to everyone else's--and yes: i'm fully aware of the potential irony of this statement!)

[jakee 1,254]

1 minute ago, mbohu said:

Believe systems, be they religious or objectivistic, are ALWAYS limiting. They cut you off from the mystery of life, no matter what they are. 

I think that is ironic. You are cutting yourself off from the possibility that a squidgy grey organ is entirey and solely responsible for the existence of you. Unravelling how that really works is surely one of the most fascinating mysteries of all.

[gowlerk 1,903]

2 minutes ago, mbohu said:

I can then spend 12 hours chanting bhajans to Shiva and have an even deeper experience of changed consciousness. 

That's what LSD is for. Personally I experience my sense of peace and oneness with everything simply by knowing what I am made from and where it came from. I am one with the universe. Even if there is a creator I am one with her as well. After that it does not matter. Ron needs what he needs, I need what I need, you need what you need.

[mbohu 77]

Just now, gowlerk said:

That's what LSD is for

Certainly does the trick as well.

[gowlerk 1,903]

6 minutes ago, mbohu said:

The one primary reason I do not subscribe to it myself is because it closes down a huge avenue of experience. I have no problem, for example, to sit in on a traditional latin catholic mass with Gregorian Chants and have a deep internal (spiritual?) experience of reverence and power and peace (and if you asked me at that very moment if I believed in the power of god, I'd probably say "sure!")

Marc Cohen in "Walking In Memphis" (He is Jewish)

 

Now Muriel plays piano
Every Friday at the Hollywood
And they brought me down to see her
And they asked me if I would
Do a little number
And I sang with all my might
She said
"Tell me are you a Christian child?"
And I said "Ma'am, I am tonight"

 

[Rick 67]

3 hours ago, aonsquared said:

It exists in information. Our mind exists in the firing patterns of our neurons. I highly suggest looking up Information Theory to answer some of your questions.

this reminds me of the 21 grams experiment or some other theories about where the energy in our bodies go when we die. We know energy cannot be created or destroyed but can only change form. Is this what some would call the soul? 

[gowlerk 1,903]

7 minutes ago, Rick said:

this reminds me of the 21 grams experiment or some other theories about where the energy in our bodies go when we die. We know energy cannot be created or destroyed but can only change form. Is this what some would call the soul? 

You do realize that those experiments have been completely and thoroughly debunked, right? They have never been repeated and are considered to be inaccurate. It it gives you comfort or make you wonder, fine. But it was flawed science. I would also note that he weighed dying dogs as well and found that they had no soul. I would say that the killing of these 15 dogs to do this experiment makes me think the good Dr. definitely had no soul.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/weight-of-the-soul/

Edited January 8, 2020 by gowlerk

[SethInMI 145]

8 minutes ago, mbohu said:

The one primary reason I do not subscribe to it myself is because it closes down a huge avenue of experience.

I just waded through 3 pages of discussion. I will throw a 2c in here and then duck out again.

I see I largely agree with gowlerk and take a pragmatic view of morality. Humans form social contracts that govern our behavior and that is all morality is to me. I like the PJ O'Rouke quote that Kristen (god I hope I got her name right) had as a sig:

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences."

As far that pragmatism limiting my ability to experience certain things, shrug. I have been moved to tears by singer singing a song or just walking in a building (la sagrada familia) or viewing an outdoor vista. Would I call that level of emotion a spiritual experience? Probably, but to me it just means a deep level of feeling.

My pragmatic "what are we living for" answer is: to have fun, find happiness, and try to leave the world a little better that when I entered it.
 

[Rick 67]

Just now, gowlerk said:

You do realize that those experiments have been completely and thoroughly debunked, right? They have never been repeated and are considered to be inaccurate. It it gives you comfort or make you wonder, fine. But it was flawed science.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/weight-of-the-soul/

oh yeah I understand that I was just saying that I was reminded of it by that post.

sorry I was not clear

I was raised in the Lutheran church but I am not a believer now.

I just find this interesting "We know energy cannot be created or destroyed but can only change form."  

So what happens to the electrical energy in our bodies when we die?