excreationist

ManM:
Our deepest beliefs are beyond logic. It is nonsense to call them illogical or logical. As such they are not externally imposed on us. Our value motivates choice, not reason.
Well that's what I think too really. We have deep instincts and drives - as well as learnt preferences that are associated with those foundational drives. e.g. we might think playing with toy trains is good - and our real reason might be that it gives us a good balance of familiarity/coherence/connectedness as well as newness/stimulation.

I find your reconciliation between naturalism and freedom to be unconvincing. We experience freedom because we do not know the future? But we really aren't free...
And random number generators on computers aren't actually random. (They generate numbers based on the current time) But the numbers appear to be random to us because of our lack of knowledge about the current time (in milliseconds) and the formula used to compute the random number.

It seems to me you are simply claiming that our freedom is an illusion. Have you thought about the philosophical repercussions of tossing out real freedom?
Are you saying that it can't be true since it is such a horrible thought? That is like someone saying that heaven must exist and our earthly life can't be all there is simply because the alternative is too depressing.

While this is a perfectly rational explanation, I find it counter-intuitive.
Ok, you agree that it sounds rational... but remember that many things such as quantum physics and the earth rotating around the sun can seem counter-intuitive.

I do not choose naturalism for the same reason I do not choose solipsism.
"Intuition"? Is that the only reason?

...As far as reason goes, all we can honestly say is that we are undecided about elves. As far as value goes we can say we have no need for a belief in elves. Hence we choose not to believe in them.
But can someone choose to believe in elves - just to prove a point? That is the question. If they can't, then atheists can't be expected to be able to believe in God at the drop of a hat.

I do not have to place the highest value in simplicity. I may have another value that trumps simplicity altogether. Naturalism is very simple, but I find myself drawn away from it because I find it inhuman and repulsive.
Well I believe that one of our main fundamental drives is coherence/connectedness/familiarity/resonance. It motivates things like altruism, environmentalism, seeking order, security, completeness, etc.
In theism, a conscious God is present across all of the universe and personally created it. God would be like family who is always with you. With naturalism, this constant conscious presence is gone. Suddenly there is an aloneness in many parts of the world rather than being in the constant presence of God. I think this drive is very strong and if we can't satisfy it I think it can drive people into depression and suicide.
On the other hand we also have a drive to explore and discover - to seek challenges and newness. (I call it the "newness" desire) These two drives kind of balance one another... otherwise you'd end up with a repetitive conservative person or a thrill-seeker.

For some reason I suspect sensory deprivation would not bother a meditating monk in the least.
But a meditating monk is trying not to have desires or thoughts or self-awareness... they'd just be ignoring the waking dreams. So they wouldn't really gain much knowledge while being sensorily deprived for a long time.

Determinism denies our experience of choosing.
What do you think AI programs do? (Although they currently only do it on a level comparable to lower mammals)

When I say something is irrational I mean it in an objective manner. Under determinism my declaration has the same meaning as an apple declaring an orange to be wrong. It is nonsensical.
Convictions would just involve desires or beliefs. Both of them are often used in AI projects...
Beliefs just involve uncertain or probabilistic knowledge. i.e. they are theoretically capable of changing. (even someone's belief that 2+2=4 is theoretically capable of changing - if they joined the appropriate cult, etc)
And desires would be either fundamental desires (e.g. jerking your foot away from the fire or sucking on something) or desires that are associated with fundamental desires. They are the goals.
I'm not saying that having those 2 things are all that is needed for awareness though... but they can exist in a deterministic environment.

Jamie_L

Well, that explains things, but it seems a somewhat presumptive way to determine truth. Basically, you have rejected an explanation of things based on the fact that you don't like it. That seems like a poor criteria to use when seeking truth.

The universe may, in fact, be inhuman and repulsive to us, whether we like that or not.

I don't know about anyone else, but I have thought about this. I am not a strong determinist, but I am drifting more that way. It is a strange notion to think that our choices are dictated by the universe, but at the same time it makes some sense. And furthermore, even if I only perceive free will, but have none, it doesn't really change my day-to-day life any. So I'm not torn up over the prospect that my free will may be illusory.

Jamie

Jamie_L

Potentially relevant tangent:

I just read a post in the Philosophy forum that made me think of our discussion about how experience dictates outlook and belief. Follow the link below and check out LoopHooligan's post about people with severe memory loss. The second case is enlightening (or confusing).

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000313" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000313</a>

Jamie

ManM

Jamie_L and excreationist,
2+2=5
If we are determined, my assertion that 2+2=5 is nothing more than a manifestation of the laws of nature, just like an apple. Would you tell me that an apple was nonsensical? How then can you justify telling me that 2+2=5 is wrong? Ah, but you don't have to justify it, for your counter-claim is nothing more than a manifestation of the laws of nature, just like an orange. But how can anyone say an apple is any more true than an orange? Any objective claim of truth becomes meaningless, and this includes the validity of reason and logic. Determinism itself cannot be excluded from this conclusion. A belief in determinism renders itself meaningless (in an objective sense). But that doesn't matter anymore. Everything is simply a manifestation of the laws of nature.

Since determinism destroys the line between humanity and nature, I find it inhuman. Since it can be used to justify anything, be it bad logic or bad behavior, I find it repulsive. So yes, I don't like it, and therefore I reject it. Now why are you all so willing to accept determinism? Is it because you know that real human freedom is incompatible with naturalism? Since you find my criteria for truth to be lacking, what do you propose I use? Reason can't do the trick. What then do you propose is a good criterion for truth? If you admit the answer is value, how can you criticize me for rejecting a theory because I don't like it?

excreationist,
I do not expect atheists to be able to believe in God at the drop of a hat. I also do not expect atheists to claim that they have no choice but to believe in naturalism.

Jamie_L,
I'd love to jump in on more discussions but I fear I already use up all my time just thinking about the few I am already in!

Jobar

It seems to me that we can delineate a continuum of 'held ideas' here. Opinions are held less firmly than beliefs; beliefs are held less firmly than faiths. ManM, and all those who think we choose our beliefs- do you think we can choose our opinions? Do you agree that opinions are more subject to change than beliefs- and that a change of opinion must be triggered by some new fact(s) or experience(s)? (I allow that some experiences are internal- deeply pondering some specific belief may lead us to change that belief, because we organize facts we already hold in new ways.)

I say that individual opinions/beliefs are formed as a result of all our previous experiences and beliefs, plus new experiences. Instead of 'choosing our beliefs' we 'believe our choices'- that is, our choices are made according to our beliefs and opinions (plus our ongoing experiences), instead of vice versa.

As an aside- ManM, most physicists consider philosophical determinism a dead horse, due to the implications of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. (In fact, Bell's Theorem seems to prove that there are no 'hidden' or unknown variables which, if known, would allow precise prediction of physical reality at the quantum level.) Indeterminacy, far from being forbidden by a naturalistic worldview, instead seems to be required!

DRFseven

That's just the point; it doesn't work that way! You have to experience something about elves first before you can think anything about them. What you are probably going to experience first in this culture are words, pictures, stories, parental explanations - all in a rich, emotionally-laden context, and all happening before you are old enough to form any kind of "bullshit detector", except for the preverbal kind that says, "This ball will not fall up when I roll it off the table and if it does I will show my disbelief by staring at it, transfixed by my inability to place that bit of data." Much of your experience is going to be indirect; you will be told all kinds of things about elves (and everything else), including what opinion to have about their existence. At any point during your preschool years, a trusted adult could convince you otherwise, by only telling you s/he was being truthful; you wouldn't require any hard evidence at that point. But by the time you were seven, though, it'd be a different story. You'd have some sort of a handle on "real" things that populate the world, and though you'd still be heavily influenced by emotional connotations associated with thinking this or that were true (such as who else thought it, was it "babyish" to think so, etc.), you'd want to see some kind of evidence or at least be told how it made sense. There is simply NO foundational believe before experience. There is sucking, grasping, and crying (and even those extinguish in the absence of responsive stimulation), but no conceptualization.

Well, thanks for attributing it to me, but I have to admit my only motive was to shed some light on the old "God gave us the free will to believe" baloney. It's demonstrably wrong, now, thanks to nothing having to do with "God", but to neuroscience, and I'm tired of everyone, atheists included, buying it. Everyone in neuroscience knows that it is useless to speculate on beliefs except as embedded in a cognitive framework, physically located in the neurostructures of our brains. Everything we think is memory; even WE are memory (the "self", the "I-ness" we perceive), and memories are recorded experience.

Well, then, you have surprised me. I'm like the toddler who sees the pretty ball (helium baloon) "fall" up. I believed you thought "God" gave us the freedom to choose to believe or not. Now that I have had THIS experience with you, however, I no longer believe this about you. Still, my elves are nondiscriminatory; they'll shoot down anything that tries to put belief ahead of experience.

Does that, to you, constitute a reason to think processes are not determined? Are you actually saying that because it would prevent us from agreeing, it can't be true? I'm asking because I've had people say "I don't believe in free will because then I'd have to excuse criminals." We, of course, DON'T have to excuse criminals, but that is beside the point. What if accepting determinism meant we had to turn into green chickens; would that make it untrue?

No, rather, determinism provides the way by which we are able to select options that cater to our experiences, instead of being arbitrary.

Why do you think there is a mechanism by which we think, but only sometimes? How else do you suppose the thought gets built? What is there to build it of but memories of experiences? Finally, how do you explain the imaging studies that always show memory cells firing away? How does that ghost sneak in there past the neural underpinnings and make to the behavioral levers?

I don't know what you mean by these sentences. What does meaning something in an objective manner mean? Since intuitive beliefs are proved wrong all the time, I don't know why you seem to be presenting it as evidence of something.

And the reason you suspect a monk would react differently is because you know that monks are trained to undergo deprivation. Once again, experience is the enabler.

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: DRFseven ]</p>

lcb

why not try it? feed some hungry children, help the medical missionary doctors heal sick people, take communion to some elderly shut-ins and brighten their day, ...and see if it gives you any additional insights into this debate......perhaps there really is an experiential component to it all.didnt you ever experiment with pot as an undergraduate? why?

joedad

Maybe that's because we honestly or perhaps subconsciously don't "believe" at all. Instead we "observe," and simply decide which observation is most satisfying, which in itself in just another observation. Belief becomes just another ether through which observations propagate. Belief isn't really there.

For example, it is not necessary to "believe" that there is a mountain to my front if I have observed it to be there repeatedly. On another level I may wish to examine the "why" implications of such an observation, but am I really "believing" anything or simply adding to the sum of my "observations?" That's pretty simplstic but it does work for me.

To get back to the original "god belief" question, to so choose is analogous to choosing to believe that I can flap my arms and fly, or jump to the Moon. Perhaps I CAN choose to BELIEVE that, but that renders the whole notion of "beliefs" nonsensical, perhaps even moot. Beliefs become wierd and surreal in such a usage. If it is possible to believe that I can jump to the moon or flap my arms and fly around like a bird, this only demonstrates how unimportant, even dangerous, it is to have any "beliefs" at all.

joe

excreationist

joedad:
Nah... I'd say we have beliefs... beliefs would (usually?) involve inferences - that have the possibility of being mistaken.
Observations seem to be more about things that involve the senses directly or they involve a lot of analysis. And the term "observation" doesn't really imply that there is a real possibility that the belief is mistaken.
e.g. a belief might be that the falling apple I'm watching will continue falling until it hits the ground, then it would make a noise. But maybe it is actually tied to some nylon and won't in fact hit the ground. It is a belief that it will hit the ground - I don't think saying it is an "observation" makes much sense.

DRFseven

I agree that we have been using the term "believe" imprecisely. I think that, as someone posted earlier, "conclude" is a better term, or even "compute" (which would really provoke resistance!), because of the burgeoning scientific understanding of dopamine's computational role in decision-making. See one such reference <a href="http://www.bcm.tmc.edu/baylormed/04_98/page_07.html" target="_blank">here</a>, in a Baylor Medicine Newsletter.
But what causes you to say "yes" in a decision-making situation? There has to be more than a simple accumulation of events; there must be a stimulus for the appropriate alternative to be singled out; one that seems most likely to match some outcome that is predicted by prior experience.

Yet, surely, there is a place for the concept of belief? What if I say to you, "When I was in Chicago on July 4th, 1969, it snowed.."? It seems that if you are able to accept this information as true, It is more of a belief than an observation.

[ August 03, 2002: Message edited by: DRFseven ]</p>