Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Tercel · 04-29-2003, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amaranth
The hypothises has no evidence. Why bring it up?

Because people believe it, and it's relevant to the subject.

Quote:

I presented a theory? Where was I when I did that? Can I get a copy?

You appear to subscribe to a materialistic-only hypothesis. Such a hypothesis has no evidence for it either. It isn't superior to the dualistic hypothesis in terms of evidence.

Quote:

Science has no evidence for or against The 5th Dimensional Hamster Theory, not will any gained in the forseeable future help. It has no evidence, just like your theory.

And similiarly, like the materialistic theory.

Quote:

As such, my theory is just as good as yours, if not better,

Not at all, it flunks big-time at parsimony.

Quote:

I assume you mean what they aren't yet? Or is this yet another case of man hasn't done it yet, and therefore never will? It's still an argument from ignorance - You're claiming conciencness cannot be created by man because it hasn't been yet.

I didn't say consciousness will never be able to be created by man, I merely said computers are not currently conscious or remotely close to it and that I do not believe consciousness is materialistic.

Starboy · 04-29-2003, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by emotional
Argumentum ad Ridiculum. Ignored.

Tit for tat. You make a silly claim you get a silly response. You claim that mind animates matter but it appears that the only matter it is able to animate is the body it appears to inhabit. Now you could explain the bodies animation by claiming there is a thing you refer to as a mind that can exist independently of the body or you could explain the mind as an effect of a particular kind of body. The fact that all matter doesn't appear to have a mind and the mind appears to disappear from the body when parts of the body no longer appear to function is better explained by the latter explanation than the former. Add to this that the mind changes as changes are made to parts of the body and the more likely explanation is the mind is an effect of the body. Speaking of which, have you gotten any help for your mind problem. I suspect that a treatment to your body will greatly reduce the obsessions of your mind.

Starboy

mike_decock · 04-29-2003, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tercel
Because God doesn't have arbitrary properties such as "pinkness" or "fluffiness" or "shape". All God has is purpose or awareness or consciousness - whatever name you happen to like for the phenomina.

Most people assign arbitrary properties like "good", "loving", "omniscient", etc. to God. None of those are necessary properties. They are arbitrarily chosen to suit the theist.

"Pinkness" and "fluffiness" are sacred properties of the pink, fluffy bunny because pinkness is the most perfect color and fluffiness the most perfect texture.

Quote:

Oh, yeah, the magical "none at all". How could I possibly forget that?

It's just one of the many possibilities. I don't profess belief in any of them.

Quote:

Why is it atheists are so sure that consciousness is nothing mysterious despite the fact that we struggle to even describe it properly, never mind explain it.

It may be complex, but there is no need to assume a supernatural cause. Science has had a long history of unraveling the "mysterious". Why assume that it can't do the same for consciousness?

Quote:

That doesn't magically solve the problem of logic and true propositions. Mathematical theorems etc which can be proved true based on logical argument, are not material and hence technically "don't exist" according to a purely materialistic view of reality. And yet they are universal truths, which not only are real, but are real everywhere.

As far as we know, the truths appear to be universal. Only time will tell if they are real everywhere.

It's a good question, though. I'll have to think about it.

Why do you see this as a problem?

Quote:

The predicable standard cop-out.
I see... laws don't "govern matter"... matter has nothing controlling it, it just magically governs itself... this magic causes matter to always behave in a way which conforms to these laws "describing" matter.

Would you expect matter to behave in a random fashion if it wasn't "magically" governed?

Quote:

I'm afraid I've never really understood why something with nothing governing it, would "just so happen" to act in complete accordance with certain formula which might well be "mistaken" for actual rules governing it.

How about: "The universal laws of physics are the probabilistic effects of an uncaused universe."

-Mike...

SimplyAtheistic · 04-29-2003, 09:04 PM

Where to being, where to begin.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tercel
Just to extend the argument slightly...

The other important consideration in a 'first cause' would be "why does it exist?". Since we are talking about the first cause here, the answer obviously can't be "another entity created it". But is the only alternative "that question has no answer"? I don't think so.

Well, that solves it, you don't think so. For a second there I swear I actually thought about using logic to determine my answers. Fact is, it doesen't have an answer. Matter has always existed just like your supposed god, there is no more reason for either, but more evidence for the former.

Quote:

And if we can find an alternative to "that question has no answer" then we should prefer the alternative on the basis that systems with gaping holes in the form of questions-with-no-answer should be discarded in favour of systems where the questions have answers. (That seems to be the point of science anyway: to do that and thereby get more answers)

Ok, so if it fits the deity you are hoping there is, then it is more logical, whoa was I way off.

Quote:

Now, the obvious alternative answer to the question is "it couldn't not have existed". In other words, its non-existence was logically incoherent. In other words there was something about the very concept of the first cause's existence which meant that it had to exist - that it couldn't not have existed.
To state it bluntly:
the very idea of its existence was equivalent to its existence.

It non-existance may be incoherent to you, but I have no problem accepting the fact that it never existed.

Quote:

Clearly matter flunks this test. The idea of matter existing is not the same as it existing. (eg I can imagine unicorns � they don�t exist because of it) Obviously, whatever is going to meet this criteria is going to be conceptual in nature, since it must be something about the concept of it that makes it exist. A mathematical formula perhaps? But this also fails - we can derive mathematical formula which don't correspond to reality. Any theorem can be true or false, and is not made to exist by it's mere conception.

You're right, matter exists because we can observe it. As for your god.... And this idea that the very concept has to equal its actual existance.... wtf?

Quote:

The solution to this is to take the problem above literally. "The idea of existence of x is equivalent to the existence of x":
x = the idea of the existence of x.
In other words X is a self-referential idea of its own existence. We are entirely familiar with this concept and have a term to describe it: Self Awareness.
A Self Awareness solve the problem � you can�t have the idea of something existing without having a �Mind� for that idea to exist in, can you?

Yah, but where did the concept for the mind originate for the mind to have the concept of god.... you see where this is going.

Quote:

Thus a Self Awareness as a 'first cause' answers the question of "why does it exist?" with a "it couldn't not have because the very idea of it existing is the same as its existence". It solves the pink-fluffy-bunny question of "why couldn't it have been just slightly different?" with a "there are no properties or attributes of it for it to be able to be 'slightly different', it must either exist or not exist at all".

Ok, now I agree it does exist. It exists as a delusion in your mind. Of course if you think of it, it will exist in your mind, but that doesen't mean it will exist in our physical world or have uniform abilities that you describe.

Quote:

[aside]
As an aside, it's seems clear that any other attempted explanation for everything is destined to fail, here's why:
An attempt to explain that reality is at a base level "rational" (ie "to do with reason itself", which is what my attempt here comes under, since I conclude a rational being is reality) is going to be something that logical argument likes since logical (aka "rational") argument likes things that are rational. An attempt to explain that reality is at a base level something other than "rational" (eg "materialistic", "no ultimate explanation" etc) is going to be inevitably subject to the accusation (in some form or argument) that it is irrational! Because, when it comes down to it, such a system is not rational, favouring something else over reason. And hence reason is going to object to this.

So our universe must have a purpose to be rational? That is an invention of man, it has no purpose and yet it is rational and has governing laws that follow a logical pattern. No one is pulling the strings here.

Quote:

Us rationalists are going to win be default because logic is on our side. Of course the non-rationalists could ignore logic at a certain arbitrary point and say that their system supersedes logic. (Which they usually do) That's fine they're entitled to do that, so long as they realise that in doing so they have just lost their claim to be "logically superior" to any unthinking fundamentalist�s illogical system of thought. (Which they usually don't.)
And in the greatest irony yet, the only true rationalists who are happy to follow the god of "logic" through to it's final conclusion are the believers who accept that reality itself is rational Being.
[/aside]

No, you mistakenly think you win because you have the wrong definition of logic. You think logic is "having a purpose". Sadly that isn't it.

Quote:

I really do sound like a salesman� ~sigh~ It�s only because I can�t understand you guys, here we have this really nice hypothesis with nothing against it and everything for it, logically sound and pretty much proven, oodles of explanatory power and simplicity as a hypothesis, something who�s nature we are all entirely familiar with since everything we�ve ever observed has been done from a conscious view-point and every second we remember we�ve had one, not even to mention big emotional benefits to us because of it�s existence (an afterlife, a meaning to life, a foundation for morality etc)�
And you guys want to chuck that all away for �nothing really has any explanation�, �everything is pointless�, �matter is all there is�, �that question has no answer�, �I can assume the universe as a first cause if I want to�, (I can assume pink fluffy bunnies as a first cause too if I want to) �I want to assume that matter (something I can�t even prove exists: eg the matrix or hallucinations etc) is the ultimate reality�.
ARE YOU GUYS NUTS?

I should ask the same of you. I am sorry but you have about everything going against your theory. It is your own delusional fantasy just to comfort your fears of no afterlife. I have no problem with my death because I won't realize it! And that is fine!

Quote:

You could have everything, absolutely everything anyone every wanted out of their beliefs. You could do so much good to religion and to the world. You could work with me to sweep away the tides of ignorance in religion in favour of logically coherent, unbigoted beliefs, imagine how much effect your combined brainpower could have on religious believers! You could work with a real meaning in the world, helping others and helping humankind grow in love under a framework which says there is an ultimate meaning to everything and that we are something eternal and something more than just atoms and molecules! You could do so much, and you guys have just thrown that all away in favour of nothing! (Yes I know some of you insist you think life still has �value� and �meaning� and whatever, but it�s a damn pale reflection of the theistic version!)

I think that is really what drives me to post here. You guys could be doing so much good! WHY NOT, DAMN IT!?
[/rant]

Thank you for listening to radio Tercel� I hope you enjoyed the show.

Good is telling our species to live for their life now, because they won't have one after death. That is good. Good is not making them hate their life and themselves so they can make it into this fairytale heaven. I am sorry, there is no purpose in our universe, and that is why your whole theory is flawed. You seem to think our universe needs a purpose, it does not. The original existance of matter needs no purpose, as purpose is an invention of man. You need to stop wishing so much that it blinds your own logic.
Jake

emotional · 04-30-2003, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beyelzu
well, I also think that your reasoning is flawed.

I don't care. I must believe in life after death, even if I have to shut out the eye of reason. Either there is life after death, or I might as well commit myself to the lunatic asylum right away!

Quote:

emotional, you might do better to remain and not bring up the subject of life after death until you are better prepared to either take the criticism or respond to it. that way you get to hang out and joke around and make fun of xians and what not.

hell, I dont agree with your beliefs but they are much better than xianity.

I didn't bring the subject of life after death this time; it was in the OP, at the bottom line ("...when you die you cease to exist..."). It's seeing things like this that makes me think I shouldn't be around here at all in the first place. My belief is awfully fragile.

Starboy · 04-30-2003, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by emotional
I didn't bring the subject of life after death this time; it was in the OP, at the bottom line ("...when you die you cease to exist..."). It's seeing things like this that makes me think I shouldn't be around here at all in the first place. My belief is awfully fragile.

I agree. This place is not healthy for you in your current condition.

Starboy

Stephen T-B · 04-30-2003, 05:52 AM

Emotional - I hope there is no-one here who would attempt to deny your right to believe whatever you need to believe.
I like you. I don�t like the idea that you might be harmed.

I think it is the case that beliefs stem from need, just as un-belief stems from absence of need.

Justifying those needs and lack of needs is one of the reasons we come to Infidels; poking fun at them is another and while there are some seemingly robust people whose beliefs I am happy to scoff at (ignoring, I admit, their needs,) yours aren�t one them.

SimplyAtheistic · 04-30-2003, 09:37 AM

It seems that emotional shouldn't be in these boards. The people of these boards shouldn't bend for his comfort. If what we say challenges his beliefs and he goes insane, whatever, then it is not our fault but his own fragile state to blame.
Jake

Ronin · 04-30-2003, 10:06 AM

Quote:

It seems that emotional shouldn't be in these boards. The people of these boards shouldn't bend for his comfort. If what we say challenges his beliefs and he goes insane, whatever, then it is not our fault but his own fragile state to blame.
Jake

You do what you have to, Jake.

Dad taught me how to behave when I hear Uncle.

tribalbeeyatch · 04-30-2003, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JakeJohnson
How can you not believe that consciousness is something the brain is directly responsible for? When you severely damage the brain you can lose consciousness, so am I to believe that the brain isnt responsible for it?"When you hit a radio with a hammer it stops working, therefore there is no such thing as intangible 'radio-waves'"

Quote:

Originally posted by Tercel
"When you hit a radio with a hammer it stops working, therefore there is no such thing as intangible 'radio-waves'"
Like the analogy, the evidence of apparent loss of consciousness proves nothing.

Were the evidence that JakeJohnson mentioned our only indication of a link between the brain and consciousness, then your analogy would be appropriate. However, that is far from the case. Our current evidence establishes a causal link between brain function and consciousness:

Correlation Anatomically restricted increases in electrical activity are correlated to aspects of consciousness, with different brain regions implicated in different conscious behaviors.

Necessity As JakeJohnson pointed out, lesions produce deficits in conscious behavior, with the type and extent dictated by the anatomical location and extent of the lesion.

Sufficiency Electrically stimulating the brain is sufficient to evoke conscious states. For example, this stimulation can trigger particular imagery, it can trigger memory recall or it can can cause the subject to speak seemingly random words.

Given these three lines of evidence, I think that we are perfectly justified in tossing the "brain as a radio tuned to the mind station" hypothesis. In fact, I think that we are justified in tossing the idea of a mind-separate-from-the-brain altogether; it seems to be a perfectly useless construct that adds nothing to our understanding of consciousness.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-30-2003, 05:52 AM	#67
Stephen T-B Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Leeds, UK Posts: 5,878	Emotional - I hope there is no-one here who would attempt to deny your right to believe whatever you need to believe. I like you. I don�t like the idea that you might be harmed. I think it is the case that beliefs stem from need, just as un-belief stems from absence of need. Justifying those needs and lack of needs is one of the reasons we come to Infidels; poking fun at them is another and while there are some seemingly robust people whose beliefs I am happy to scoff at (ignoring, I admit, their needs,) yours aren�t one them.

04-30-2003, 09:37 AM	#68
SimplyAtheistic Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Omaha, Nebraska Posts: 503	It seems that emotional shouldn't be in these boards. The people of these boards shouldn't bend for his comfort. If what we say challenges his beliefs and he goes insane, whatever, then it is not our fault but his own fragile state to blame. Jake

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.