RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> God



Message

hellohellohi -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/22/2008 8:52:19 AM)

Okay Nietzsche!

Seriously though, I was making a joke. I meant I hit my thumb with the hammer, and it hurts.

But what's wrong with flipping a coin?

Anyway, you seem arrogant, bye!



hellohellohi -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/22/2008 9:06:20 AM)

oops! I take the arrogant part back... i didn't notice a whole bunch of your post because it was mistakenly blocked as a quote within a quote, yknow it was under one of teh white blocks.

Actually, I can see that you value humility... and bristling you are![;)] but arrogant, no.
sorry :)



hellohellohi -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/22/2008 9:10:29 AM)

I think I was ENTJ, so maybe that means I'm bristling too? :)



Jhud -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/22/2008 12:35:48 PM)

quote:

Why would saying you saw a long eclipse be a warrant for your death. Such a long eclipse surely would have been seen by half of the world. This isn't to say that any notations of it would survive, but there would have been many places that wouldn't have associated such an event with the death of Christ in any way.


Well, as I said, it would be reason to think they saw “saw something of the sort”; that is they all witnessed a real occurrence that was similar to the darkness that occurs during an eclipse – and we need to be clear here, the Bible doesn’t specify that it was an eclipse at all, so this would just be your characterization of it.

But it is interesting to note that such a description is not unprecedented; here are a number of independent accounts of a similar event in 1239 AD

"On Friday at the beginning of June after the 9th hour, the Sun was covered with darkness and it became completely black. It remained like this for the space of an hour, and the Moon was in front of it. Almost all of the stars were manifestly seen in the sky and this appeared plainly to everyone. There was also a certain fiery aperture in the Sun's disc on the lower part. The Moon itself was on the 29th day. Night arose over the whole Earth. In verse:
Refers to a total solar eclipse in Cesena, Italy, of 3 June 1239.
From: Annales Caesenates .
Quoted in Historical Eclipses and Earth's Rotation, by F Richard Stephenson, Cambridge University Press, 1997, page 399.

"On the 3rd day before the Nones of June (Jun 3), on the same day that Christ suffered, namely the 6th day of the week (Friday), and at the same time that darkness occurred over the whole of the Earth at the Passion of our Lord, namely from the 6th to the 9th hours of the era 1237, there occurred a sign such has never happened since the Passion of our Lord until the present day. There was indeed night between the 6th and 9th hours and the Sun became as black as pitch and the Moon (sic) and many stars appeared in the sky. Then the receding of the darkness of night was followed by the receding and recovering of the Sun's original clarity. Many men and women assembled in the Church of the Holy Cross in Coimbra . . . everywhere the rays of the Sun penetrated into some hole."
Refers to a total solar eclipse in Coimbra, Portugal, of 3 June 1239.
From: Chronicon Conimbricense, III.
Quoted in Historical Eclipses and Earth's Rotation, by F Richard Stephenson, Cambridge University Press, 1997, page 399.

"On the 3rd day of June, the whole of the Sun was obscured at the sixth hour and it remained obscured for several hours and from day it became night and the stars appeared; so that many people ignorant of the course of the Sun and the other planets marvelled greatly. . ."
Refers to a total solar eclipse in Florence of 3 June 1239.
From: Storie Fiorentina, IV.
Quoted in Historical Eclipses and Earth's Rotation, by F Richard Stephenson, Cambridge University Press, 1997, page 399.

"On Friday at the 6th hour, the Sun began to be obscured as if by a veil and was covered in a clear sky. At the ninth hour it was totally obscured, whence it gave no light; and as if a dark night arose with the result that a starry sky was seen, as on a clear night. People lit lamps in houses and shops. After some space of time it gradually became uncovered and restored to Earth, with the result that before the evening hour is was restored to its brilliance."
Refers to a total solar eclipse in Siena, Italy, of 3 June 1239.
From: Archivo de Duomo di Siena.
Quoted in Historical Eclipses and Earth's Rotation, by F Richard Stephenson, Cambridge University Press, 1997, page 400.

"At the same time, AD 1239 on the third day from the beginning of the month of June, a wonderful and terrible eclipse of the Sun occurred, for the entire Sun was obscured, and the whole of the clear sky was in darkness. Also stars appeared in the sky as if during the night, and a certain greater star shone beside the Sun on the western side. And such great fear overtook everyone, that just like madmen they ran about to and fro shrieking, thinking that the end of the world had come. However, it was a Friday, the 30th day of the (lunar) month. And although the same defection of the Sun appeared throughout the whole of Europe, it was not however spoken of in Asia and Africa."
Refers to a total solar eclipse in Split, Croatia of 3 June 1239.
From: Thomae Historia Pontificum Salonitanorum et Spalatinorum.
Quoted in Historical Eclipses and Earth's Rotation, by F Richard Stephenson, Cambridge University Press, 1997, page 401.

quote:

Most of my beliefs are derived from the exact same place that Christians derive their beliefs from. We all draw from the common well of social experiences. Many personal experiences that we learn from are in no way unique and are many people lean from similar experiences. The only way my beliefs diverge from the average Christians view is that I don't derive my beliefs from the Bible.

Actually, scratch that; they're not derived from a literal view of the Bible. Biblical allegory is pervasive in western society. Phrases and concepts borrowed from the Bible can be found in many aspects of our culture.
The divergence point is that Christians accept the overarching premise that connects these stories, and I do not


There you go; the basis for your belief system would not seem to be any more objective or rational then those of any Christian.



hellohellohi -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/22/2008 4:47:02 PM)

Real_Solitude,
Thought more about it. I liked the idea of the rule of thumb being particular too. I would say my rule of thumb is Jesus, not as an example tho... It's true one can ask what would Jesus do? But sometimes you end up asking the deity rather arcane questions that way, as you can imagine, such as, should I drink Coke or Pepsi, for instance, to use your soda pop reference! So, not as an example, but rather as a MEASURE. I am taking back some of my deceptiveness [;)] (sorry) to say that I guess I do use a *criteria*, that of love -- though, as you do, I don't trust emotions exactly. I think Jesus is a great measuring stick for love! I'm sure you see where I'm going with that!

Reason is great tho.

You're all right [;)] Not that you need my input (on the contrary perhaps).

I don't really see anything wrong with your atheism exactly... but I don't think atheism is very reasonable. On the one hand, I don't think Christianity is a logical inevitibility at all, but atheism neither. I suppose reason suggests agnosticism, which I'm not! Call me a hypocrite!


Let's stick to reason ("I always was," I'm sure you'll say!) Basically, I'm just finding it a little refreshing to suppose that you are a reasonable interlocutor. Further, I should state AGAIN that yo uare not arrogant, nor
even as aloof as your name suggests since you are talking to folks about stuff that matters to you. As I can gather, you feel Christianity is in error and you are trying to explain or warn or express, depict how this is so! That perhaps is humility, or at least willingness to take a risk! (Now, I did say that I don't think atheism is reasonable, but maybe it is...)


Truly, most of the arguments you have experienced on these threads against you have probably been over hasty! Have you heard any interesting ones?


I have another question: Since reason is formed of propositions, which is formed of symbols, what is the purpose of having this secondary instantiation of the world, an interior redundancy known as consciousness? Why didn't evolution make us robots rather than sentient creatures? I do believe that this is a challenge to atheism, or at least an interesting question! But I don't expect you to nor would it be reasonable to embrace Jesus all of a sudden! If you do, obviously (or not), that's great. [;)] I'm just not insisting that I have reason on my side -- but I do think reason is worth a go!!

So please, if you will, tell me what you think about consciousness, the reasonability of consciousness -- doesn't it seem like it might be entirely SUPERFLUOUS? I'm looking forward to your response.



Real_Solitude -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/22/2008 6:49:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Well, as I said, it would be reason to think they saw “saw something of the sort”; that is they all witnessed a real occurrence that was similar to the darkness that occurs during an eclipse – and we need to be clear here, the Bible doesn’t specify that it was an eclipse at all, so this would just be your characterization of it.

But it is interesting to note that such a description is not unprecedented; here are a number of independent accounts of a similar event in 1239 AD [...]


I will grant that a solar eclipse is not explicitly stated. It still stands, however, patently impossible for a solar eclipse, caused by the moon, to last three hours. We can see that even the recorded events conflict in the following two quotations.

"The Sun was obscured on Friday at the 6th hour of the day, and it lasted for a while between the 6th and 9th hours and it lost all its strength and there was as though night. There appeared many stars, and then the Sun grew bright again of its own accord, but for a long time it did not regain the strength that it usually has."
From: Anales Toledanos Segundos.
"While I was in the city of Arezzo, where I was born, and in which I am writing this book, in our monastery, a building which is situated towards the end of the fifth latitude zone, whose latitude from the equator is 42 and a quarter degrees and whose westerly longitude is 32 and a third, one Friday, at the 6th hour of the day, when the Sun was 20 deg in Gemini and the weather was calm and clear, the sky began to turn yellow and I saw the whole body of the Sun covered step by step and it became night. I saw Mercury close to the Sun, and all the animals and birds were terrified; and the wild beasts could easily be caught. There were some people who caught birds and animals, because they were bewildered. I saw the Sun entirely covered for the space of time in which a man could walk fully 250 paces. The air and the ground began to become cold; and it (the Sun) began to be covered and uncovered from the west."

From: Ristoro d'Arezzo, Della composizione del mondo

Both these quotations refer to a total solar eclipse in Toledo and Arezzo, Italy, respectively, of 3 June 1239.
Quoted in Historical Eclipses and Earth's Rotation, by F Richard Stephenson, Cambridge University Press, 1997, pages 385 and 397.

TQW "The total eclipse only lasts for a few minutes at that location, as the Moon's umbra moves eastward at over 1700 km/h. Totality can never last more than 7 min 40 s, and is usually much shorter: during each millennium there are typically fewer than 10 total solar eclipses exceeding 7 minutes. The last time this happened was June 30, 1973. Observers aboard a Concorde aircraft were able to stretch totality to about 74 minutes by flying along the path of the Moon's umbra. The next eclipse of comparable duration will not occur until June 25, 2150. The longest total solar eclipse during the 8,000-year period from 3000 BC to 5000 AD will occur on July 16, 2186, when totality will last 7 min 29 s."

The 250 paces recording fits well within the allowed time frame of a solar eclipse. It also seems to be the most detailed of the accounts available.

For the three hour darkness in the Bible to work, it would have to be something entirely different. Granted, a lunar eclipse can last that long, but unless they got the time of day wrong, that's not a viable explanation. For a three hour period of darkness to cover even a relatively small area of land there would need to be a massive, slow-moving that would pass fairly close to earth. Unless volcanic activity or dust kicked up from a meteor impact had occurred.

quote:

There you go; the basis for your belief system would not seem to be any more objective or rational then those of any Christian.

Did I ever say I got my beliefs via different methods than everyone else? There are a fairly limited number of methods by which people gather data. I use the same channels to learn things as anyone does. My beliefs, like anyones, are based off of the information I gather from these channels.
The content of the information is what's important though, not the channel through which it is learned. You can learn that the sky is blue due to Reyleigh scattering from a book, and you can learn that people are reincarnated as cows from a book. Obviously one of these can be confirmed, and the other is complete nonsense.
I base as many of my opinions on scientific understanding as possible. I would like to think that I have a more complete view of the universe than the average person because of this. Many of my views do become objective because they are rooted in testable science. Hypothetically, many of my views could be held by a scientifically advanced race who had never come into contact with humanity. The same is harder to say of Christianity. If an alien race were to have concurrent opinions about science, this wouldn't come as much of a shock, because science is (supposed to be) rooted in objective truth. If an alien race subscribed to the Christian religion (or their equivalent), however, this would be a truly miraculous event.
It's an odd criteria, I'll say, but it can be a good one. You can judge, at least in part, the objectivity of an opinion based on the ability of a control group to arrive at the same conclusion.



Jhud -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/22/2008 7:14:08 PM)

quote:

For the three hour darkness in the Bible to work, it would have to be something entirely different. Granted, a lunar eclipse can last that long, but unless they got the time of day wrong, that's not a viable explanation. For a three hour period of darkness to cover even a relatively small area of land there would need to be a massive, slow-moving that would pass fairly close to earth. Unless volcanic activity or dust kicked up from a meteor impact had occurred.


Well, as I point out, it appears historically that something that for all practical purposes appears like an eclipse can last for quite sometime – as you agree the Bible doesn’t say an ‘eclipse’, there is no reason to dismiss the claims on this basis.

quote:

Did I ever say I got my beliefs via different methods than everyone else? There are a fairly limited number of methods by which people gather data. I use the same channels to learn things as anyone does. My beliefs, like anyones, are based off of the information I gather from these channels.
The content of the information is what's important though, not the channel through which it is learned. You can learn that the sky is blue due to Reyleigh scattering from a book, and you can learn that people are reincarnated as cows from a book. Obviously one of these can be confirmed, and the other is complete nonsense.
I base as many of my opinions on scientific understanding as possible. I would like to think that I have a more complete view of the universe than the average person because of this. Many of my views do become objective because they are rooted in testable science. Hypothetically, many of my views could be held by a scientifically advanced race who had never come into contact with humanity. The same is harder to say of Christianity. If an alien race were to have concurrent opinions about science, this wouldn't come as much of a shock, because science is (supposed to be) rooted in objective truth. If an alien race subscribed to the Christian religion (or their equivalent), however, this would be a truly miraculous event.
It's an odd criteria, I'll say, but it can be a good one. You can judge, at least in part, the objectivity of an opinion based on the ability of a control group to arrive at the same conclusion.


Well, I agree it is an odd criterion if not an imaginative one.

Interestingly I think if you understood Christianity a little better (or even arguments for theism) you would understand notions of God are rooted in objective reality, and so there would be little reason to think a sentient alien race wouldn’t have the same notions about God that we do.



Real_Solitude -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/23/2008 5:54:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Interestingly I think if you understood Christianity a little better (or even arguments for theism) you would understand notions of God are rooted in objective reality, and so there would be little reason to think a sentient alien race wouldn’t have the same notions about God that we do.


I do understand that many of the attributes of all deities are rooted in observation. Generally this observation is followed by extremely strange extrapolation of what the observation must mean. Helios and his sun-chariot and all that.
What I was speaking about was more specific attributes of Christ. Born of a virgin, arguing scripture at a young age, tempted by the devil, sacrificed to redeem man, resurrected, that sort of thing. Just ascribing general anthropomorphic ideas to the universe wouldn't fit the bill.



Real_Solitude -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/23/2008 6:50:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi

Real_Solitude,
Thought more about it. [...] Call me a hypocrite!

Jesus would have drank Pepsi. Proven fact.

I think atheism, or more specifically atheists, can be very unreasonable. People are people, and unfortunately this means that sometimes they neglect reason in favor of emotional vindication. (E.g. being an atheist simply to rebel).
I would disagree that atheism, or Christianity for that matter, isn't a logical inevitability. I believe that if another person were to have lived my life, they would have come to the same conclusions I did. I expect that it's the same for many Christians. Living my life in an attempt to find truth brought me to atheism. While I don't know what it would be like to go back to Christianity, I suspect that many Christians have come to believe in Christ for the same reason, because that's where the evidence they've seen led them.
For either conclusion to be truly inevitable, every person would have to be able to see all of the data for themselves. Part of the reason I come to this site is because of this. I like to see how other people arrived at their conclusions. I like to know what things they've seen that I haven't that led us on divergent paths. I like to show others what I've seen and see how they react to it.

quote:

Let's stick to reason ("I always was," I'm sure you'll say!) [...]
Truly, most of the arguments you have experienced on these threads against you have probably been over hasty! Have you heard any interesting ones?


Ooh, interlocutor. That's a new word to me. I'm going to have to add that one to my vocabulary.

I'm actually on this side as a remnant of from when I was a Christian. I've been coming here off-and-on for the past eight or so years. When I started coming, I was a Christian. Now that I'm not, I still come for a few reasons. The first is habit. I saw no reason to abandon it simply because I didn't subscribe to the views of the site majority any longer.
The second is to play my ideas against those of Christians. Presenting an idea to a crowd that already agrees with me would be pointless. In order to find flaw in my thinking, I expose it to the opposing view.
The third is that it's fun. I enjoy debate. I enjoy being forced to research esoteric subjects in order to form a response to an argument I don't agree with.

As for interesting arguments:
That depends on how you define 'interesting.' I've certainly seen my share of completely wacky arguments on here.
Interspersed with those are arguments that are logically sound, and those are always fun.
I haven't seen an argument that would make me change my mind yet, but I definitely enjoy seeing where other people are coming from and how they think. I can't pinpoint any one argument that I've found most interesting though. Generally anything I respond to is something I find interesting.

quote:

I have another question: [...] I'm looking forward to your response.


Actually, if my posthumanist hopes come to fruition, then humanity will indeed become robots. Not in the autonomous sense, but in the "made of non-organic material" sense. Evolution's not finished with us yet; though technology is taking over for biology.
As for 'why' evolution would make us sentient instead of robots:
One reason would be that evolution isn't a perfect architect. It ends up forming creatures that are better than other creatures in a particular niche, but in no way the best possible fit.
Another would be that robots tend to be terribly inefficient at a wide variety of tasks. Even the pseudo-intelligent robots we have today are bad at doing quite a number of things simply because they lack abstract thought. A being that were 'programmed' by nature to follow only set routines wouldn't' be able to cope with any sudden change. Seeing as we're on a spinning ball of rock hurtling through space at quite hight speeds, this would not end up being a good creature. Abstract thought allows us to deal with unique circumstances. It allows us to use prior experience as a (for lack of a better term) rule of thumb for future experience. If I had my guess, I would say that self-examination is merely an incidental result of this useful tool.



hellohellohi -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/23/2008 8:39:27 AM)

quote:

I believe that if another person were to have lived my life, they would have come to the same conclusions I did. I expect that it's the same for many Christians.


I probably won't discuss that quote right now, but it is interesting and infinitely open to debate (but ENDLESS debate isn't all that fun)!

.. YET, if you would like to live forever, perhaps ENDLESS debate is exactly your cup of tea!!

Seriously, you GOTTA read Possibility of an Island by Houellebecq if you didn't catch me say that before. Heck, I'll buy if for you. ;)

It's about living forever, as I said -- the title's gotta be interesting to you!! -- and, well, it's about people living forever through technological means. It's not that they incorporate INORGANIC material, components, "robot/cyborg-ish" parts ... but, among the neo-humans, mineral absorption becomes more important, the consumption of organic material is no longer necessary. So, there may be little difference between METALLIC robots and organic ones in the end anyway. WhatEVER Houellebecq's views are, and I'm not entirely sure, "post-humanist" is likely!

On to my response:
I think you misunderstood what I was asking about consciousness, about what I MEAN by consciousness.
You latched onto the word robot: But what I meant was not something inflexible, I just want something that is not SENTIENT. Why do robots have to be INFLEXIBLE? Some people, of course, would argue that once computers get sufficiently FLEXIBLE and intelligent, why, they must be sentient. I hope you will agree that all arguments in this direction are like water! "When it comes to consciousness, all bets are off," is what I have heard and I agree with.

Rather, why couldn't our "neural net," (or ANY animals for that matter!!) do all its learning and rapid exaptation (I assume you've read Jay Gould here), computation, without being conscious? -- conscious in the sense of being a REPRESENTATION of the world, not only, but in the sense of there being something that the world "is like" (I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase). Now, some symbols are "like" their referents, but there is no reason they have to be. A computer doesn't give two asymptotes [;)]what its symbols "look" like -- or, of course, that they are symbols at all. The representation in the system of a whole is simply a byproduct of its design to replicate, model, and make predictions about the world around it. As you say, so that it can adapt (exapt, if you want to be biologically rigorous, adapt in the Lamarckian sense though).

It's silly to say robots are poor today "simply because they lack abstract thought" -- IF THERE IS THE INFORMATION IN THE ENVIRONMENT, A COMPUTER CAN USE IT. Okay, see what I mean? And why can't part of that information be what is obtained through self-monitoring systems by which the robot learns from its mistakes! All I'm talking about it is, why does organic life not only use information through rapid organic computing for its Darwinian "goals" while also being conscious?

*I* have an idea (besides the quick jumping-up-and-down "God!!!"), but let's see what you can come up with. [;)]

Perhaps for being such an individual, you tend to be a little quick in relying on the thoughts of bookish authorities! [:D] Consider yourself nudged!

Oh yes, and I must throw one more quote back at you:
quote:

One reason would be that evolution isn't a perfect architect.

You are effectively agreeing with me that consciousness would be SUPERFLUOUS (a "spandrel", which is, of course, an architectural term -- have you read Gould?). I don't know if you want to do that. That territory would then be ripe to develop a WHOLE world of ideas, ideologies, etc. You have lobbed an easy one to all Christians! Don't even worry about "self-consciousness" yet, what about sentience ("its like")?


Provocations aside! I appreciate your CURIOSITY and frankness! That's nice you research things in order to form intelligent debates. I suspected as much since you seem to have well-though-out responses. But just because some expert has written a book doesn't mean they have said the last word! But, yeah, you are generous with your time and thought. How many people are willing to do the research!

What were the logically sound arguments for Chrsitianity, and why isn't soundness persuasiveness?

latah



Jhud -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/23/2008 10:54:22 AM)

quote:

I do understand that many of the attributes of all deities are rooted in observation. Generally this observation is followed by extremely strange extrapolation of what the observation must mean. Helios and his sun-chariot and all that.
What I was speaking about was more specific attributes of Christ. Born of a virgin, arguing scripture at a young age, tempted by the devil, sacrificed to redeem man, resurrected, that sort of thing. Just ascribing general anthropomorphic ideas to the universe wouldn't fit the bill.


Well, yes, exactly, and that is one of the things that sets Christianity apart; it's not simply about developing a mythology based on one's observations of natural phenomena. There were no ordinary Greek records of Helios interacting with the common folk, or Zues tromping about the countryside. There were certainly stories and beliefs that developed around such ideas, but never the kind of thing where an identifiable group of people actually interacted with someone who fit the description of the Greek and Roman gods.

This is quite unlike Chritianity, where we see a record of Chirst growing up in an identifiable place, at an identifibale time period, interacting with people whose writings we have. Even if you don't accept the New Testament Scriptures, there is no sense they are mythological in form. The authors appear to have actually believed they experienced what they wrote about.



hellohellohi -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/23/2008 12:37:41 PM)

Okay, so I thought about it more... I don't think I DO have an explanation for consciousness from an evolutionary standpoint, but it's not that I haven't tried to come up with one!

I was thinking that a self-replicating, information gathering system in competition with others would benefit from a capability for random action generation. If a system comes outfitted with a strategy, that strategy will lose effectiveness to the extent that it is predictable. Its rivals will develop strategies to negate or take-over (by consuming it) its advantages -- as in the predator-prey dynamic. Even if its a simple as "do I go left or do I go right" (under an ambiguous situation) if a system is rigid, as you were speaking of robotic behavior, it may consistently favor one over the other (though left-right may not be a completely indifferent dichotomy to biologically-"handed" organisms), making it predictable. How does a robot deal with ambiguity? Ambiguity may not actually exist in the physical world (but it may be built in, as many physicists are inclined to believe.) So, let's let animals be quantum systems!

Now, when the matter is simple as "left or right", the decision is usually being made instantaneously. However, long-range strategies can often remove the possibility of these last minute feints, attacks, or evasions. Long-range strategies can also be made quasi-unpredicatble, or difficult to match (as in 17-year cicadas), and why not wholly, fundamentally unpredictable or quantum? But even if a devilishly effective strategy is developed by evolution, isn't there a possibility that this information -- these instructions! -- could be extracted by another competitor (in REAL time rather than an evolutionary time-scale, because, if it has random components, moments of decision which are decidedly randomly but AHEAD OF TIME, so that further planning and projections -- "contingencies" -- could be developed, it is NOT developed by evolution but by the organism itself -- the point of its effectiveness is that it is "veiled" from the effects of natural selection, and thus protected from the possibility of adaptation of other organisms)? Now, if there is a possibility of extraction and an exigency to protect it, we can back-up and mention that a new concept has become relavant to, perhaps not evolution, but biology -- interiority! Interiority, however, doesn't HAVE to be consciousness -- right now it is just a technical term in a discussion!

I hadn't thought earlier about how interiority could be understood in the trivial, technical sense of things being hidden. So, I don't have an explanation for consciousness other than banal speculation, and let's not invent excuses for ending curiosity or sealing off the possibility of inquiry, such as "evolution is not perfect." It is certainly not scientific to consider inquiry closed. Science begins and ends and begins again ad infinitum with, inquiry.

Now, granted that we have established interiority and the exigency of keeping it interior, we can see that dishonesty and deception on the part of the interiority will sometimes be advantageous! (Sometimes honesty would, as in group co-operation.) However, deception is a new game! We have abandoned the game of natural selection, but have found ourselves in a new, equivalent one in REAL TIME. So, a solution, parallel to that of long-range, randomized plans (interiority) being threaten to exposure, is self-deception. You see, if interiority must be protected, but it is vulnerable because the plan HAS to be handed over to the REAL TIME actor or agency (that is, the organisms ability of choosing "left or right") eventually, then, might this information be contained in the interior, vulnerable to extraction by others? Now, it might be advantageous to allow that information (the long-range plans) out SOMETIMES -- whenever it would contribute to kin-cooperation! A group, obviously can out-compete individuals (giving rise to morality, etc, etc etc). So, while this channel (access to the long-range planning information) is open to some extent, it must not be extracted contrary to the benefits of reproductive success (otherwise it won't exist for very long, obviously!). Hence, the system may find it crucial to OBSCURE itself occasionally. Since I am talking about information that is otherwise interior and known, the moments or modes of deception of known information can be rationally termed SELF-deception, since the channel leading from the vulnerable self (random action agent) is closed, blocking off invasive information-seekers. So, too, beneficial communication would be best done in CODE. The meaning of the code (the long-range plan) need not even be apparent or revealed to the agents involved -- truly!! It just needs to be communicated. What good would it be to grant a random-action generator access to rational (okay -- utilitarian) information? Robots can communicate just fine.

So, we have a fair depiction of human biological inheritance from a deductive point of view?

Now, I say that random-action generation is valueless. I for one would like to REBEL against this. The pitfall is that my method of enlisting members in the rebellion (My question of rebellion is: Why can't we just take care of things ourselves? -- Just as you wish for humans to usurp natural selection's reign through technology.) is to use language, which could be that code I mentioned (the meaning of which is hidden even from myself!!) and I might STILL be unwittingly carrying out the orders of reproductive expediency! OR, I might be WITTINGLY carrying out the orders, while concoting an elaborate description of my own morality -- with umpteen degrees of irony!! -- to justify it. (This is parallel to the concept of sin I believe.) In the "end" natural selection is indifferent to the dichotomy of infinite replication or destruction and infinite forgetfulness -- erasure of biology.

Now to sin:
You see, sin is dumb (dishonest, mute or perhaps infinitely ineffectively chattering at the question of its own intelligibility- check), its a lie (deception- check); it puts us in a contrary position to the symbolic world -- the symbolic world -- and if not the symbolic world, the world of ideas and language -- what else could humanity do with itself! Isn't language the arena in which any rebellion could take place? -- Sin, let me back-up, is this ambiguous (!) situation we find ourselves in, in which we find it preferable to rebel against (or usurp) biology -- we don't know if we are up to the task or if the joke will ultimately be on us, as far as natural selection is concerned! Or as far as nobody is concerned, to be honest. As far as "the mute" is concerned. "The mute" I say would be the question that would follow us for ETERNITY (in our immortality, if we attained it technologically). FOR, if we survive for eternity (via technology) it will be by the grace of our facility with symbols -- AND, thus, we will still ba able to talk.

My question to you is, what will we talk about?

OUR! question for Christians is, "If technology was developed to live forever.." would you choose life or DEATH! The Christian must choose death. The immortal (you [;)]) must chose chattering for eternity with the POSSIBILITY!!! that anything these SYMBOLS, which, sure, are useful for doing math, calculation, prodecition, technology, and which may SEEM to have OTHER REFERENTS ultimately do not. Hmm, let me explain, or say something about what I mean: Do electrons "exist" just because we have found them useful in equations? No. The referent "electron" may not precisely exist. In fact, it is very useful, but it may be merely shorthand for something else. But, we could go dividing the electron, parsing our symbols -- that might indeed fill up eternity!! NAMING THINGS. Does that even prove that the SELF exist? (Aside from -- hey, perhaps we CAN confirm its redundancy with random-action generation) Does that answer the question whether it MIGHT be better to FORSAKE the KNOWN (the NAMEABLE!!) world and enter DEATH? Does it answer the inevitable, obvious (but we must still thank Shakespeare!!!!) question which is a result of joining common (though perhaps suspicious symbols) together -- to be or not to be! Might CURIOSITY get the better of you in the end? But, curiosity in death is ULTIMATELY not subject to rational investigation or debate (and we have entered the realm of Xtianity, we have entered the realm of the unknown-unknowable!!), and we find that we have become IRRATIONAL!! Thus, those referents (God, existence, etc.) which science must deem dubious become very interesting, and you will have to contend with them (as long as your curiosity gets you). In the end "the mute" will be SCREAMING at you, and you may find it a relief to call on something to help you -- some WORD!! -- that is beyond reason and rationality -- which dwells in the realm of irrationality! -- which is nevertheless REAL -- which is nevertheless has the backing of an actual REFERENT! -- which is true!, as trivial as the naming of an electron MAKES it an electron, but perhaps less so because come with it will be finality (I mean -- that's what you will CRY out for as long as "the mute" screams at you! relief!) unlike the endless task of epistemology.



hellohellohi -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/23/2008 12:57:27 PM)

oh yes,
Since I must affirm that is completely FORBIDDEN for the Christian to commit suicide, it won't make sense for one to do that, faced with endless, dubious chattering. Hence the understanding that God could (why not??) end time... thus the difference between eternity and Eternity and the possiblity for a righteous, undespairing, unironic, undubious death. (Oh yes, I forgot to mention -- one might be very parsimonious to understand scientific inquiry as systematic doubt -- not to say either doubt or science are bad!! You see, science can be driven by curiosity, but its method is inquiry --statement, question, statement, question...-- systematic doubt.) One might find diversion in epistemology (naming things) until (perhaps?) the point that we find that the inexhaustibility of inquiry is merely the inexhaustability of creating sets or divisions from the Universe -- looking at it in ever greater detail (which carries with it the question, is this ever going to enable a full understanding -- could a computer be contrsucted that would take ALL the theories, ALL the information, ALL the observartions into account in order to model it and predict it? Perhaps the energy itself to process this information would equal that of the Universe, and it obivously STILL wouldn't answer the question

"where is the observer?" ...

Hey, this impossible observer of the universe is the mute (it's probably our dad-gum selves! [;)] -- You see, perhaps evolution took the use of these random-action generators which accidentally on its part (but by God's design... I mean, uh.. you make your own assessment) had a consciousness attached --an observer. Eventually, the observer models the whole Universe (not really) and still can't find itself.

The rest of the questions deal with the unknown-unknowable (as do all questions concerning the self!)

Maybe.



Real_Solitude -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/23/2008 11:02:21 PM)

I'm going to respond to this one before I even read the next one, simply because it's a lot of text.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
Seriously, you GOTTA read Possibility of an Island by Houellebecq if you didn't catch me say that before. Heck, I'll buy if for you. ;)

I'll see if I can find it next time I go to the library. As it is, I have something on the order of 40 library books up in my room, and those should occupy me for about a month.

quote:

On to my response:
I think you misunderstood what I was asking about consciousness, about what I MEAN by consciousness.
You latched onto the word robot: But what I meant was not something inflexible, I just want something that is not SENTIENT. Why do robots have to be INFLEXIBLE? Some people, of course, would argue that once computers get sufficiently FLEXIBLE and intelligent, why, they must be sentient. I hope you will agree that all arguments in this direction are like water! "When it comes to consciousness, all bets are off," is what I have heard and I agree with.

Robots are, by literal definition, "a machine that resembles a human and does mechanical, routine tasks on command." Robots are intrinsically limited by this. There is a popular conception of robots based off of movies like Star Wars of iRobot, but these are fantastic representations that don't mesh with reality. The possibility for higher-form A.I., and even sentient computing does exist. At that point, however, we'll either need a new word, or adapt the current vocabulary. I think we can agree that consciousness is not a routine task, so robots can not be conscious.
I'm not sure, exactly, what you mean by "all bets are off," in relation to artificial consciousness. If you mean that, no matter how sophisticated a system, it will never be conscious, then I must disagree with you.
I believe that by the end of this century there will be machines that are not only conscious, but surpass humans in all respects. As an atheist, I don't believe in a soul. Consciousness, therefore, is a physical process. I see no reason that a sufficiently fast computer, with proper programing, would not be indistinguishable (as far as self awareness and the like) to a human.
But if this is the case, then A.I. will likely be capable of abstract thought, and not limited to understanding tasks mathematically. They will be able to understand things like we do, and yet also be superior in the 'hard' areas such as math.

quote:

Rather, why couldn't our "neural net," [...] adapt in the Lamarckian sense though).


To go any further, we're going to have to have a proper definition of consciousness. Unfortunately, there are many, and none of them seem to convey the fullness of the word.
One is awareness of ones own existence. Another is mental activity of which one is aware. A third is that consciousness is the collective thoughts and feelings of an individual.

I would say that any (for lack of a better word) intelligence that has the ability to make internal models of the world will, by definition, be conscious. This is because it's ability to model will not only be limited to those things around it, but also to be able to model itself. If a thing can model itself, it is self-aware. This could be why humans are self-aware. We have sufficient hardware to make intricate, mailable models of reality. We also have the ability to make intricate, mailable models of ourselves. This is self-reflection, self-awareness, and therefore, consciousness. Modern computers are no conscious not only because they lack the hardware, but because they lack the ability to freely intake sensory data and make predictions on that data.

quote:

It's silly to say robots are poor today "simply because they lack abstract thought" -- IF THERE IS THE INFORMATION IN THE ENVIRONMENT, A COMPUTER CAN USE IT. Okay, see what I mean? And why can't part of that information be what is obtained through self-monitoring systems by which the robot learns from its mistakes! All I'm talking about it is, why does organic life not only use information through rapid organic computing for its Darwinian "goals" while also being conscious?

This is only true to an extent. For much of computing, computers have very limited environments (e.g. the data put into them.) This intrinsically limits them. Genetic algorithms do enter new data into the environment without intervention, but only in a limited way.
Simply being able to monitor oneself is not enough for consciousness. One must also be able to reflect upon that data.

quote:

*I* have an idea (besides the quick jumping-up-and-down "God!!!"), but let's see what you can come up with. [;)] [...] Don't even worry about "self-consciousness" yet, what about sentience ("its like")?


You can't really separate sentience and consciousness. The definition of sentience is "a conscious mind."
I would argue that consciousness and self-consciousness are also inseparable. If an individual is able to make internal, mailable models of reality based on free use of sensory data, it will be conscious sentient, etc...

Consciousness is obviously superfluous, as there are living creatures without self-awareness. Take amoebas for example. They're basically only concerned with eating and splitting. Both of these are (from my understanding) based purely in chemical reactions.
However, consciousness does have benefits, and therefore can be useful for out competing other creatures. So while it's not necessary to existence, it is beneficial, and therefore can be selected for.

No, I haven't read Gould.


quote:

Provocations aside! [...] What were the logically sound arguments for Chrsitianity, and why isn't soundness persuasiveness?

latah


An argument can be completely logically true, and yet still not real. Some come in the form of "If God exists then X." It may be a true statement, but it fails to address if the statement is applicable to reality. Their internal logic may be sound, but its ability to be used in reality rests on an unproved premise. Still, since there are so many completely broken arguments floating around, one that even reaches the point of logical soundness is a step in the right direction.



Real_Solitude -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/23/2008 11:56:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
Now, I say that random-action generation is valueless. I for one would like to REBEL against this. The pitfall is that my method of enlisting members in the rebellion (My question of rebellion is: Why can't we just take care of things ourselves? -- Just as you wish for humans to usurp natural selection's reign through technology.) is to use language, which could be that code I mentioned (the meaning of which is hidden even from myself!!) and I might STILL be unwittingly carrying out the orders of reproductive expediency! OR, I might be WITTINGLY carrying out the orders, while concoting an elaborate description of my own morality -- with umpteen degrees of irony!! -- to justify it. (This is parallel to the concept of sin I believe.) In the "end" natural selection is indifferent to the dichotomy of infinite replication or destruction and infinite forgetfulness -- erasure of biology.

I do not wish to usurp natural selection's reign through technology. I believe that natural selection has provided a species with the ability to create and expand itself (find a way to better propagate its genes, basically) while still alive. I believe that the coming technological singularity is the next step in human evolution. It is genetics giving up the burden to intelligence, a much faster way of adapting and expanding.
This end is not he usurpation of the legacy of genetics, but the ultimate fulfillment of it.

quote:

Now to sin:
You see, sin is dumb (dishonest, mute or perhaps infinitely ineffectively chattering at the question of its own intelligibility- check), its a lie (deception- check); it puts us in a contrary position to the symbolic world -- the symbolic world -- and if not the symbolic world, the world of ideas and language -- what else could humanity do with itself! Isn't language the arena in which any rebellion could take place? -- Sin, let me back-up, is this ambiguous (!) situation we find ourselves in, in which we find it preferable to rebel against (or usurp) biology -- we don't know if we are up to the task or if the joke will ultimately be on us, as far as natural selection is concerned! Or as far as nobody is concerned, to be honest. As far as "the mute" is concerned. "The mute" I say would be the question that would follow us for ETERNITY (in our immortality, if we attained it technologically). FOR, if we survive for eternity (via technology) it will be by the grace of our facility with symbols -- AND, thus, we will still ba able to talk.


This is an example of the type of logically sound argument I was talking about above. You're saying that sin is the desire to rebel against biology, but in this you're begging the question that said sin exists.

quote:

My question to you is, what will we talk about?

OUR! question for Christians is, "If technology was developed to live forever.." would you choose life or DEATH! The Christian must choose death.


I have some very good ideas about what we'll do with ourselves for eternity. We'll talk about everything, learn about everything, this is true. However, there are forms of entertainment closed to us at the moment that we could engage in. One of the more obvious is virtual reality. We could create seemingly real worlds with rules completely different than those of our own. We could even take away our own memories so that we believe that the worlds we played in were the real world.
We could terraform planets, seed them, and watch over billions of years as new life develops.
In a world where the individual is not constrained by death, and has power traditionally associated only with deities (The ability to freely manipulate matter [via nanites]) there's really no limit except imagination to what we can do.

It won't be forever either. In no proposed scenario does the universe last forever. Whether we suffer a big crunch or a heat death, even matter will one day perish. Unless we find a way to tunnel to other universes, even someone who lives for years uncountable will eventually die.

I disagree that the Christian will choose death. The Christian is charged with spreading the gospel as throughly as they are able. By allowing yourself to transcend your biology, you are giving yourself more time to spread said message. To refuse to do this would be to refuse the task laid upon you by God. The Christian has no choice but to accept physical immortality. It may cause the Christian pain to stave off their eternal reward, but they would be doing God's work in doing so.

quote:

The immortal (you [;)]) must chose chattering for eternity with the POSSIBILITY!!! that anything these SYMBOLS, which, sure, are useful for doing math, calculation, prodecition, technology, and which may SEEM to have OTHER REFERENTS ultimately do not. Hmm, let me explain, or say something about what I mean: Do electrons "exist" just because we have found them useful in equations? No. The referent "electron" may not precisely exist. In fact, it is very useful, but it may be merely shorthand for something else. But, we could go dividing the electron, parsing our symbols -- that might indeed fill up eternity!! NAMING THINGS. Does that even prove that the SELF exist? (Aside from -- hey, perhaps we CAN confirm its redundancy with random-action generation) Does that answer the question whether it MIGHT be better to FORSAKE the KNOWN (the NAMEABLE!!) world and enter DEATH? Does it answer the inevitable, obvious (but we must still thank Shakespeare!!!!) question which is a result of joining common (though perhaps suspicious symbols) together -- to be or not to be! Might CURIOSITY get the better of you in the end?

How much is there to know in the universe? How many unsolved questions?
Even if one is curious about death, one must also be curious about everything else that exists. As death seems to be inevitable, even for the practically immortal, should that not be the question that you save for last? Finding the answer to what lies beyond death is easy, most of the people who have ever lived have done it. To find out what life offers, however, has barely been scratched.

quote:

But, curiosity in death is ULTIMATELY not subject to rational investigation or debate (and we have entered the realm of Xtianity, we have entered the realm of the unknown-unknowable!!), and we find that we have become IRRATIONAL!! Thus, those referents (God, existence, etc.) which science must deem dubious become very interesting, and you will have to contend with them (as long as your curiosity gets you). In the end "the mute" will be SCREAMING at you, and you may find it a relief to call on something to help you -- some WORD!! -- that is beyond reason and rationality -- which dwells in the realm of irrationality! -- which is nevertheless REAL -- which is nevertheless has the backing of an actual REFERENT! -- which is true!, as trivial as the naming of an electron MAKES it an electron, but perhaps less so because come with it will be finality (I mean -- that's what you will CRY out for as long as "the mute" screams at you! relief!) unlike the endless task of epistemology.


How is death not subject to rational investigation. For the monistic person the question of death does become elementary. If we have no soul, and the physical is all that exists, then when one dies, one ceases to exist. It becomes not an object of curiosity, but something easily solved.
If all there were were epistemology, I would have already forgone this world. It isn't purely the pursuit of knowledge that drives me to desire a physical immortality, but the desire for experience. Things like thought, love, happiness, sorrow... human experiences may be able to be described mathematically, but they are still worth experiencing. There are so many experiences and sense that we do not have access to, and so many that are worth revisiting time and time again that I doubt boredom will ever be a problem.
If it does prove to be a problem, and I wish to experience what happens when consciousness ceases, as a being made not of cells but of intricate machinery I will be able to turn myself off, and re-activate later. Death will not be a final statement, but merely another thing to experience.
We define death as final because the body decays, and the pattern that defines a person is lost. Artificial do not face this problem. Your computer can be rendered defunct simply by removing the power cord, yet when you replace it you have restored its function. There is no reason this should not be possible for a post-human.



Real_Solitude -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/24/2008 12:04:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi

oh yes,
Since I must affirm that is completely FORBIDDEN for the Christian to commit suicide, it won't make sense for one to do that, faced with endless, dubious chattering. Hence the understanding that God could (why not??) end time... thus the difference between eternity and Eternity and the possiblity for a righteous, undespairing, unironic, undubious death. (Oh yes, I forgot to mention -- one might be very parsimonious to understand scientific inquiry as systematic doubt -- not to say either doubt or science are bad!! You see, science can be driven by curiosity, but its method is inquiry --statement, question, statement, question...-- systematic doubt.) One might find diversion in epistemology (naming things) until (perhaps?) the point that we find that the inexhaustibility of inquiry is merely the inexhaustability of creating sets or divisions from the Universe -- looking at it in ever greater detail (which carries with it the question, is this ever going to enable a full understanding -- could a computer be contrsucted that would take ALL the theories, ALL the information, ALL the observartions into account in order to model it and predict it? Perhaps the energy itself to process this information would equal that of the Universe, and it obivously STILL wouldn't answer the question

"where is the observer?" ...


You again seem to focus only on rational investigation, as if you assume we will loose our humanity in becoming more than human. If anything, abandoning our bodies will open us to new experience that we couldn't have dreamed of. Abandoning humanity will enhance our humanity. We will not be cold and calculating machines as depicted in the Asimov stories, but something sublimely more than human.

I suspect that for an artificial being, finding where the observer resides will be an easy task. Simply switch off various parts of your processor until you no longer experience consciousness and you have found the observer. Again, for the monist this is not a problem. There doesn't need to be an ethereal man watching the theater in your head. The head watches the theater in itself.

quote:

Hey, this impossible observer of the universe is the mute (it's probably our dad-gum selves! [;)] -- You see, perhaps evolution took the use of these random-action generators which accidentally on its part (but by God's design... I mean, uh.. you make your own assessment) had a consciousness attached --an observer. Eventually, the observer models the whole Universe (not really) and still can't find itself.

The rest of the questions deal with the unknown-unknowable (as do all questions concerning the self!)

Maybe.


Like I said above, I see consciousness simply as modeling software that has free access to any type of data it can get its hands on. Once something is capable of modeling itself, and deriving data from that model, it has become self-aware. It doesn't need someone at the controls.



hellohellohi -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/24/2008 1:43:59 AM)

Basically you are hoping for "what dreams may come" -- you BELIEVE in the unknown.

Since death could come at any moment, I am interested in the unknowable-unknown rather than experience (or epistemology).

Further, don't tell me the definitions of words -- I can define them perfectly well within the context of an individual text, thanks! Don't state the OBVIOUS. What's the point? It's not communication.


You can make any number of unverifiable, un-debatable statements about the future -- but such is NEITHER inductive nor DEDUCTIVE reasoning, so what is it? Hope.


I agree that I introduced Sin abruptly, but it was my organization that was convoluted rather than the argument (but it was my fault for presenting it out of order). The argument was probably obscure and inarticulate.


You seemed to have passed over, missed, or probably failed to understand at the moment much of what I said. hmm.


You know, it is possible to SAY new things as well as experience them?


I'm not sure what I think about the notion of living for new experiences (though I'm inclined to ridicule using hope as one's primary value). Maybe it's all right.


see ya


(malleable)

(i think you are using the JOURNALISTIC definition of "begging the question." What you referred to as "begging the question" was simply abruptly introducing a premise. Begging the question actually means to engage in circular reasoning, rather than "raising a question" or new premise. Why should raising a question be fallacy, even if it might be sophistical? It would have to have something manipulative about it, otherwise, it would just represent an abrupt transition -- bad writing! Now, that use of "begging the question" is all over TV, but it is not related to logic, only to fashion it seems to me. Start with wikipedia: "In logic, begging the question has traditionally described a type of logical fallacy (also called petitio principii) in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises" At the very worst, I was raising a "perhaps" about sin and something arising from evolution being one-in-the-same.)



hellohellohi -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/24/2008 1:51:26 AM)

quote:

we don't know if we are up to the task or if the joke will ultimately be on us, as far as natural selection is concerned!


Also, sorry for seeming to say that Sin is rebelling against biology. (It sure seemed like that's what I was saying!)

I shouldn't have brought up Sin at all (too soon in the discussion!) probably.

Whateva



Real_Solitude -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/24/2008 5:59:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi

Basically you are hoping for "what dreams may come" -- you BELIEVE in the unknown.


In the same way that I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow. Ray Kurzweil (in The Singularity is Near) does a great job of laying out reasons for expecting a technological singularity. They are based in observations of past technological trends, and the accelerating pace of current developments. While a bit of it is simply a romanticized hope for the future, most of my Singularitarian views are rooted in observation of these trends. Barring some massive nuclear war/meteor impact/supernova or something else which would either decimate or destroy humanity, a technological singularity seems imminent.

quote:

Since death could come at any moment, I am interested in the unknowable-unknown rather than experience (or epistemology).

Further, don't tell me the definitions of words -- I can define them perfectly well within the context of an individual text, thanks! Don't state the OBVIOUS. What's the point? It's not communication.

Sorry if it seemed like this is what I was trying to do. I find that many times, in discussions about things like consciousness, the soul, etc... there arises a lot of conflict of opinion simply because two people have differing definitions for a term. It's especially prevalent in this type of discourse simply because of the elusive nature of the subjects. For this reason I try to establish what definitions I'm using when I use a certain word.

quote:

You can make any number of unverifiable, un-debatable statements about the future -- but such is NEITHER inductive nor DEDUCTIVE reasoning, so what is it? Hope.

Is a statement about the future really ever unverifiable? Right now, sure, but there's a fairly easy way to see if it'll turn out to be true.
Anyways, like I said above, the basis for my beliefs about the future are rooted in observation, not blind hope.

quote:

I agree that I introduced Sin abruptly, but it was my organization that was convoluted rather than the argument (but it was my fault for presenting it out of order). The argument was probably obscure and inarticulate.

You seemed to have passed over, missed, or probably failed to understand at the moment much of what I said. hmm.

Honestly, it was a mixture of failure of understanding, and style of presentation.
Up until the portion about rebellion it seemed like you were establishing a premise/putting forth an idea, followed by sections that you wished to discuss directly. I understood the basics of the premise, but I'm not sure I really understood the main points you were trying to get across. The style of presentation made me believe it was unnecessary to respond to that section, and the lack of full comprehension prevented me from doing so even if I'd wanted to.

quote:

You know, it is possible to SAY new things as well as experience them?

True, but I prefer to feel the wind instead of talking about it. If I had a body that could heal extensive damage, I would prefer to jump off a cliff rather than talking about jumping. The wonder and discovery of new experience or insight is what gives life its 'spice' for me.

quote:

I'm not sure what I think about the notion of living for new experiences (though I'm inclined to ridicule using hope as one's primary value). Maybe it's all right.

see ya

If not for new experiences, or repetition of good experiences, why bother living at all? If you're simply doing the same things over and over you're just living autonomously.

quote:

(malleable)

Lol, not sure how mailable slipped past my mental filter in place of malleable. Then again, I do tend to leave some words half-finished while typing, so I suppose it's not that big of a surprise. If it's any consolation, it all comes out eloquently in my head. :)

quote:

(i think you are using the JOURNALISTIC definition of "begging the question." What you referred to as "begging the question" was simply abruptly introducing a premise. Begging the question actually means to engage in circular reasoning, rather than "raising a question" or new premise. Why should raising a question be fallacy, even if it might be sophistical? It would have to have something manipulative about it, otherwise, it would just represent an abrupt transition -- bad writing! Now, that use of "begging the question" is all over TV, but it is not related to logic, only to fashion it seems to me. Start with wikipedia: "In logic, begging the question has traditionally described a type of logical fallacy (also called petitio principii) in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises" At the very worst, I was raising a "perhaps" about sin and something arising from evolution being one-in-the-same.)

Nope, I was using the traditional form.
From what I gathered, your argument was basically "Suppose we wish to rebel against biology. Sin is the desire to rebel against biology. Therefore, sin exists."
This would have fit the definition because the conclusion is in the premise. It wouldn't have actually established the existence of sin, as defined.
Apparently this isn't what you meant, but my use of beg the question was (from what I can tell) correct.



hellohellohi -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/24/2008 10:20:07 AM)

cool

true, statements about the future ARE verifiable, but it might also represent an infinite "putting off" of such ... "wait for it, wait for it, , pretty soon... " Predictions are ALWAYS verifiable, but it would be better if a specific date was set. One could argue that Christianity is real because Jesus is coming, looking at different prophecies. One could also argue that there is lots of evidence and trends that civilization will collapse. Ultimately, the question will still linger, "How does one live today?" It's a truism that death could happen at any moment, but nonetheless true.

thanks for your honesty.


also, i could see how you were thrown off by the 'sin' section. It was not well-thought out. (I was waiting or my next thoughts --thinking out loud -- and should have deleted it really). yours was not an unreasonable reading. i think it could be ignored without loss of cohesion overall?


oh yes, back to your statement to the effect "I believe anyone would believe as I do if they had had my experiences and knowledge" ... 1) That is a certainly an unverifiable hypothetical. 2) I would argue (and perhaps I did) that even if you yourself were to look at ALL information available about your life (forgotten and remembered) you would still not be able to VERIFY the sensibility of your REFLECTIVE beliefs. You see, that's what we are trying to do in a small way right now. For decisions to be universal results from a set of criteria, there has to be sense in the criteria. I would contend that NONSENSE is in fact a real thing -- and where does it come from? Why would one take concrete experience, using abstract symbols, and construct an incoherent and nonsensical reflection of it from which to make decisions (or, since that is debatable, to speak)?

Is there nonsense among your criteria? I suppose that's my reason for starting a discussion -- in other words, I'm just saying "that's debatable."


Finally, I would summarize further your beliefs -- looking back, I was struck by your earnest dis-emphasis of rationality (though you certainly value it) -- by first calling attention again to your ultimate raison d'etre of experience. Like, I said, I may not be able to really argue against that straight off. It sounds pretty nice actually (but not from a Christian point of view). Except, if I was YOU ([:D]) I would ask myself, "Why do I want to collect experiences -- so I can catalog them, put them under glass and admire them?" While considering past experiences, I'm always struck by the question "What does it mean?" and while I understand that THIS question is probably nonsense, I feel that I AM being suggested to look for a REFERENT (meaning, I would suggest the question may start off, nonsensically, being the question of whether something has a purpose. That's a fair question, but why not ask that? I would like to change (through sleight of hand? so be it) the meaning of "meaning" to strictly, "What is a symbol's referent." It is perhaps a manipulation or evasion on the part of the answer (of "What does it mean?") to say, well, it doesn't HAVE to have a purpose. "Sure," but what is its REFERENT? You see, whenever experience and memory are examined, they are done so by an observer -- an observer who is used to using symbols and for whom 2+2= the question, "Are these experiences, now, significant of anything, whether in my life, or... to who??")


But, what do you think, can it be said by extension that you live out of a sense of WONDER? (In that you would answer the question, "What's the point," with "I don't know." WHICH IS FINE! Does that make you agnostic after all? Can it be said that you live "as if..." -- that the question of meaning is, understandably, unimportant to you? (I think I might have to label it nonsense! But FUN nonsense!)

And could you really abide an eternity (or, rather, long time) of REPETITION? Is repetition even possible given that further experience will be different simply for being subsequent to earlier experience -- or how about, given CHAOS? --, or are they different in their numeration only? "one... two........ three..." -- It WOULD sound like you were building a collection!

Also, death is not epistemologically open. How silly! One might think that philosophy can tell us something about it, but really what it does is set up hypotheses (such as monism). Death is an unknowable-unknown -- rather concise, don't you think? I'm not saying one HAS to believe one way or the other about death, I'm just saying consideration of it moves one from rationality to irrationality. Logic can subsequently "reengage" following any leap though. (However, there is an interesting ongoing experience about near-death, out-of-body experiences... I forget where, Johns Hopkins? somewhere near there)

That was true what you said about people having different definitions causing confusion. It is better though to let a text speak for itself, don't define the words in your own court and then assume the discussion can then be advanced. One must read closely and decide what definition the AUTHOR is employing in order to approach intelligibility.

later


p.s.: yeah, i have some WEIRD typos myself sometimes.



hellohellohi -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/24/2008 11:01:59 AM)

One more thing. You are being evasive about consciousness -- and so are many other scientists and futurists who are content with the explanation, paraphrased, "Oh, its what the brain does."

What and why is there something "it is like..." to "be"? Did you see I replaced the word consciousness above with a more useful discussion about information and interiority?

Consciousness may or may not be simply "self-awareness" -- though I certainly agree that self-awareness is the precise context which gives rise to the (possibly) nonsensical question of consciousness.

Consciousness -- let's try a new rigorous definition! -- is what happens when a rational system (that can manipulate symbols) finds itself able to pose the (possibly) nonsensical question, "If this is "totality", what would it be "like" to not be." It is the suspicion that even "total" modeling has failed to reveal its own essence (if it has one or not is not important) -- or its own place in the whole. WHY! is there something it "is like"? This is related to your interest in experience -- you appreciate the fact (and little else??) that there is something it "is like" to "be." I grant that evolution could create self-monitoring systems (self-aware, if you like) but WHY "sentient?" I'm risking sounding like a broken record, of course. WHERE is consciousness? ("Oh, the brain" -- very precise! (note sarcasm).) For instance!! (And this is the idiotic Turing test turned on its head) how do we KNOW if other people are conscious and not automatons (with all the same actions but nobody "home" -- nothing interior to them of which it could be said it "is like" to be)? Don't tell me the hardware of the brain does it when we don't know how -- and when the question itself is not even APPARENTLY sensible. Neuroscience is great! But the honest neuroscientist will agree "all bets are off" -- one cannot even place a likelihood on consciousness being explained because it is asking us to become observers of ourselves observing -- which is certainly possible, but consider wouldn't we have to do that AD INFINITUM in order to actually "catch" ourselves in the act? It's not sensible to say that the information "What is the observer" can be obtained by the observer itself -- if by observing others, we will find that we run up against the impossible question, "Is there really anybody home (solipsism)?" and if we observe ourselves, we find only that endlessly recurring loop -- What other possibilities are there? I think we MIGHT even be able to find a more precise location for where agency impinges on the brain (and don't ask me to justify the concept of agency because I did very carefully in the last post! -- I gave EVOLUTION and physicalism its best POSSIBLE shot at explaining consciousness. Please don't give me trite definitions after that! Just re-read it and give me a response.) I think consciousness is NONSENSE, out of the realm of rational criteria. Enter the irrational (and then we may take up logic once more [;)])



hellohellohi -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/24/2008 11:28:42 AM)

oh yes, and you were saying something like "I am not rebelling against natural selection -- I am transcending it" or succeeding it or something. Sounds like a quibble to me. You are saying, thank you biology, we'll take it from here. If you say that you are still in line with natural selection's goal, you are mistaken. This may interest you! To say that natural selection or evolution has a goal is to mistake "survival of the fittest" for something profound rather than trivial. The elegance of evolution is that it is trivially true. If traits are heritable and traits confer (relatively) greater reproductive potential, then more will be around. Thanks Darwin, you immortal Sherlock! I don't see what the fuss is about. However, if you want to say evolution has the goal of seeing the fit survive, you are falling into the imprecision of the tautological phrase "survival of the fittest" -- You see, the fittest are those that survive, and those that survive are the fittest. It is really a poor slogan!! Evolution certainly does not have goals other than in a colloquial or metaphorical or IMPRECISE sense. It is valueless. What would "survival of the fittest mean?" Why are they "fittest"? (because they survived) What made them survive? (fitness) So -- WHAT can we say we have arrived at?? :/

Evolution is not teleological. (duh)

Social Darwinism (in the sense of taking up evolution as a value not in the sense of considering competition among human cultures and memes) is a ridiculous fallacy. If you disagree, you might as well buy a shortwave radio and start stockpiling!! (because you are ignorant) (don't forget a can opener!)

(Sociobiology or evolutionary biology and physical anthropology and so on are its reasonable, rational, scientific replacements.)

p.s: survival of the fittest



sunofone -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/25/2008 12:29:36 AM)

I wonder what you guys make of these arguments found on a atheist site here:
Fundies believe that God wants them to spread the Gospel message. However, there is not any credible evidence that God has every personally told anyone about the Gospel message. This means that God only wants people to hear about the Gospel message if another human tells them about it. That does not make any sense. If God did not have anything to do with the spread of the Gospel message, that explains why the people who had the best chance to hear it lived closer to Palestine. A loving God would certainly not play favorites based upon geography, or based upon any other factors. Kosmin and Lachman wrote a book that is titled "One Nation Under God." The authors provide a lot of documented evidence that shows that in the U.S., the primary factors that influence what people believe are geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, and age. Those factors are obviously secular factors. Kosmin and Lachman show that a much higher percentage of women become Christians than men. This means that either God discriminates against women, or that that is to be expected since women are generally more emotional than men are, and since emotions are an important part of religous beliefs. The authors also show that when people become elderly, they are much less likely to change their minds no matter what they believe. This means that either God discriminates against elderly skeptics, or that it is genetically normal for elderly people to become set in their ways.

What we have here is that God wants people to hear the Gospel message, but only if another person tells then about it.

Do fundies consider the spreading of the Gospel message to be more important than the spread of a cure for cancer? If so, it is too bad that God doesn't.

James says that if a man refuses to give food to a hungry person, he is vain, and his faith is dead, and yet God refused to give food to hundreds of thousands of people who died of starvation in the Irish Potato Famine. This means that God is only concerned with people having enough food to eat if another human gives them enough food to eat. That does not make any sense either.

What we have here is that God wants people to have enough food to eat, but only if another person gives them enough food to eat.

In both cases, God is more concerned with METHODS than he is with RESULTS. That is an utterly outrageous conclusion, but fundies have no choice except to make that conclusion. The best conclusion is that if a God exists, he is not the God of the Bible.

Why do fundies suppose that God inspired James to write that if a man refuses to give food to a hungry person, he is vain, and his faith is dead?

Fundies' supposed interest in evidence is not valid. If the Bible said that God will send everyone to hell, fundies would not be supporting it. They would be using some of the same arguments against it that skeptics use. Why is that? Well, the answer is quite simple. It is because their emotional, perceived self-interest has caused them to accept any conclusion that is ultimately favorable to them, and reject any conclusion that is ultimately not favorable to them. Whether or not God is all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect and infallible does not really have anything to do with fundies' beliefs. They would be quite content to accept a comfortable, eternal life from any source if they believed that no other source was available. They are merely trying to use God as a means to achieving and end, the end being a comfortable eternal life.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, that explains a lot of things. Following are some examples of what the case would be if the God of the Bible does not exist.

1 - God would never make any tangible personal appearances in front of everyone in the world, or in front of anyone in the world.

2 - God would never show up in person to mediate disputes between Christians.

3 - Fossils would be sorted in ways that are convenient for skeptics.

4 - The Gospel message would be distributed in ways that mimic a naturalistic universe, meaning according to the prevailing secular means of communication, transportation, printing, and translation of a given time period, and always by humans, never personally by God. A similar argument is that chance and circumstance would determine what people believe, not God.

5 - The first people to hear the Gospel message would have been people who lived closer to Palestine.

6 - Fossils would be sorted in ways that are convenient for skeptics.

7 - All tangible benefits would be indiscriminately distributed at random according to the laws of physics without any regard for a person's needs, worldview, or requests.

8 - No one could ever ask God for a tangible need and be assured that he would receive it. I am referring to things like food, safety, and healing.

9 - The only kinds of benefits that Christians could ask God for and expect to receive would be subjective spiritual benefits.

10 - The Bible would not contain any supernatural claims that are easily verifiable.

11 - No Bible prophecy would be easy for the majority of the people in the world to verify.

12 - Even Christians who sometimes kill each other regarding disputes over interpretation.

13 - God would never be available for public, visual, audible group discussions. Too many eyewitnesses at the same place at the same time spoil the broth of the soup of deception. It is not difficult for some Christians to sometimes get away with claiming that they saw an angel, or that God told them something, but large group encounters with God at the same place at the same time are very rare, if not non-existent. Why is that? Is God bashful in front of groups? Of course not, even though large group encounters would be much more convincing than single encounters.

14 - The Bible would invite dissent instead of encouraging dissent. If God inspired the Bible, it would have been easy for him to inspire the Bible writers to write more clearly.
Johnny Skeptic is offline Request Mod Action
Reply With Quote



MusicianDad -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/25/2008 5:57:17 PM)

Wow, that's a lot of malarkey to wade through, but I'll take a couple whacks at it

quote:


However, there is not any credible evidence that God has every personally told anyone about the Gospel message.


Subjective assessment. This is pure opinion and has no value other than that placed on it by the writer or others of like mind.



quote:


A loving God would certainly not play favorites based upon geography, or based upon any other factors.


The writer is not the arbiter of what constitutes a loving God. In fact, humanism states that there are no absolute moral values. He's borrowing from the Christian worldview and trying to have it both ways.

quote:


James says that if a man refuses to give food to a hungry person, he is vain, and his faith is dead, and yet God refused to give food to hundreds of thousands of people who died of starvation in the Irish Potato Famine. This means that God is only concerned with people having enough food to eat if another human gives them enough food to eat.


The writer is making assumptions based on his belief that he knows the whole mind and all the puroses of the Creator and that God is answerable to a standard of morility that is higher than Himself; a morality that he also denies the existance of.


quote:


Fundies' supposed interest in evidence is not valid.


Pure opinion.

quote:


If the Bible said that God will send everyone to hell, fundies would not be supporting it. They would be using some of the same arguments against it that skeptics use. Why is that? Well, the answer is quite simple. It is because their emotional, perceived self-interest has caused them to accept any conclusion that is ultimately favorable to them, and reject any conclusion that is ultimately not favorable to them.


Total speculation. In fact, one of the big differences between belief in the Bible and secular humanism is that the former is not self-serving. One has to take the pleasant with the unpleasant.

quote:

They are merely trying to use God as a means to achieving and end, the end being a comfortable eternal life.


Close. It's true that no man chooses God out of pure motives. In our fallen state, we have no totally pure motives. God chooses us and teaches us how to love him, but we cannot love him in an unsaved state.

quote:

If the God of the Bible does not exist, that explains a lot of things. Following are some examples of what the case would be if the God of the Bible does not exist.

1 - God would never make any tangible personal appearances in front of everyone in the world, or in front of anyone in the world.


Too late. He's already done it. He appeared in front of the population of the entire planet in the Garden of Eden.

quote:


3 - Fossils would be sorted in ways that are convenient for skeptics.


You mean the fossils that show the stasis of species?

quote:

4 - The Gospel message would be distributed in ways that mimic a naturalistic universe, meaning according to the prevailing secular means of communication, transportation, printing, and translation of a given time period, and always by humans, never personally by God. A similar argument is that chance and circumstance would determine what people believe, not God.


Lol! Who is this guy, anyway? I think the Creator can distribute His meassage any way He sees fit.

quote:

5 - The first people to hear the Gospel message would have been people who lived closer to Palestine.


Is he now trying to support Mormonism?

quote:

6 - Fossils would be sorted in ways that are convenient for skeptics.


Repeating himself. It's not any more convencing the second time.

quote:

7 - All tangible benefits would be indiscriminately distributed at random according to the laws of physics without any regard for a person's needs, worldview, or requests.


See #4

quote:

8 - No one could ever ask God for a tangible need and be assured that he would receive it. I am referring to things like food, safety, and healing.


A sovereign being is not at the command of His creation. He must have God confused with Santa Claus, a mistake many Christians make as well.

quote:

9 - The only kinds of benefits that Christians could ask God for and expect to receive would be subjective spiritual benefits.


Actually, Christians ask for and expect real physical blessings everyday. God , being a sovereign being and not a candy dispenser, doesn't always grant all requests.

quote:

10 - The Bible would not contain any supernatural claims that are easily verifiable.


Like an emty tomb?

quote:

11 - No Bible prophecy would be easy for the majority of the people in the world to verify.


Try Daniel on for size.

quote:

12 - Even Christians who sometimes kill each other regarding disputes over interpretation.


Huh?

quote:

13 - God would never be available for public, visual, audible group discussions. Too many eyewitnesses at the same place at the same time spoil the broth of the soup of deception. It is not difficult for some Christians to sometimes get away with claiming that they saw an angel, or that God told them something, but large group encounters with God at the same place at the same time are very rare, if not non-existent. Why is that? Is God bashful in front of groups? Of course not, even though large group encounters would be much more convincing than single encounters.


Again, too late. Christ appeared in front of thousand of people. Ditto for pillar of fire and glowing cloud in Exodus.

quote:

14 - The Bible would invite dissent instead of encouraging dissent. If God inspired the Bible, it would have been easy for him to inspire the Bible writers to write more clearly.


The writer assumes that he's the arbiter of how God should have communicated.



sunofone -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/25/2008 6:23:26 PM)

quote:

Lol! Who is this guy, anyway? I think the Creator can distribute His meassage any way He sees fit.
Thanks for the lengthy response.He is a former believer.I know that word may not apply here.But he is a person who is said to have once been a person of faith,even serving as an Evangelist.

Again I know this means nothing as to proof that he was ever born again if you will. I've spoke with him through the forum a couple of times,but he is like some sort of a savant.

He just repeats these mantras or diatribes over and over again.This is but one of them.He says he does it because fundies have no good response to them.

I know he's hurting as he will not label himself,or let anyone label him an atheist,he only wants to be considered a skeptic,hence the name. I think he just wants something or someone to give him a reason to believe again.

I brought his arguments here since I know most would not go there to deal with him and others like him.



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI