RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded.

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

All Forums >> [Theology] >> God

Message

MusicianDad -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/25/2008 6:57:58 PM)
No problem. The thing is with so much of this stuff is that atheists, secular humanists, or "skeptics" try to have it both ways. They say there is no absolute truth, which they are absolutely sure of, and then make comparisons based on some kind of absolute morality. The hypocrisy of these jokers is truly amazing.

cognitivemagic -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/27/2008 6:17:02 PM)
quote: Actually, in many cases, we can make direct observations of the early universe. Wrong.....I can refer you to Irving Copi's "An Introduction to Logic", especially his sections on scientific reasoning, for a more detailed exposition than I made. No, you can't directly observe the conditions of the early "earth" or "universe" because you weren't there...but this point is moot to my main argument. quote: Further, humans are far from the only animals to posses many of the qualities you mention...Crows and certain primates have been shown to be able to 'create' tools by manipulating their environment. Many animals communicate. Many animal groups even show what we would recognize as basic tenants of morality. What animal has given us Shakesspearean sonnets? Or Da Vinci's "Mona Lisa"? Or Einstein's "general and special relativity theories"? Do scientist now communicate with animals or something? Was there some great intellectual and creative acheivements in the animal world that we all failed to miss? Plus, many of the creatures you mention existed well before human beings appeared; yet how do you account for why they failed to evolve creativity, in equal measure, with the human species? Again, they aren't even remotely close to human ingenuity. Any forthcoming explanations will be, at best, ad hoc. quote: prove to me that abstract qualities are not products of the physical. 1) That you are even bothering to debate with me. I don't have your brain and you don't have mine. Yet we seem to understand each other's ideas and points, albeit in disagreement; perhaps you believe that the chemicals in your brain and mine happened to transfer and transmit between us in some inexplicable way (like quantum tunnelling)....but this would be even more absurd than my points, if you even happen to think that my points are "absurd". 2) Ideas, theories and inferences are not even in the category of particles/matter/energy. Plus, ideas/theories/inferences possess no qualia (textures) whatsoever, unlike material objects (that evoke hardness/softness, bitter/sweet, rough/smooth, etc.). 3) Only like can produce like. Atoms, protons, electrons, forces, energy can only produce similar things. The laws of rational inference operate in a way that is wholly other than physics/chemistry. Inferences, and the laws that govern rational discourse, have nothing to do with curved space, electrodynamics, atomic stability, nuclear forces, magnetism, gravity, entropy, etc. 4) To put it a different way: why do you find it easy to believe that mind can arise from matter but not matter from mind? Both cases involve a miracle; yet, in the case of mind supervening on the configuration of the brain, a deeper puzzle emerges: the fact that human beings constantly alter/violate the "normal" operations of natural laws (like with technologies and medicine), including the structure of the brain's neural networks (i.e. for a good study of adult neuroplasticity, I recommend Shwartz and Begley's "The Mind and It's Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force"). 5) It is incumbent on you to show how it's even possible, under the naturalist umbrella, to begin to pull consciousness, agent causation, interpersonal communication, creative artistry, love, beauty, science, etc. out of a materialist hat. I have already provided enough explanations. If you have no answer other than "well, that's what happened", then I can only reply with "God did it and that's what happened." I doubt your conscience would be satisfied with a stalemate-by-stipulation. 6) Why is chopping a tree down morally acceptable, but chopping a human down not? What makes the human material constitution more priveleged than animals, trees, rocks, etc., if we are all just differing configurations of the same material stuff? quote: Who says the atheist will say the universe had no beginning? There are very strong indicators that space-time did indeed have a beginning. If this doesn't count as the universe beginning, I don't know what would. Then you have admitted to a unique, non-repeatable event that occured outside the parameters of existing scientific/natural laws....in other words, you have admitted of a miracle. quote: As to your question, I'm still not sold on the deity. I can not definitively say that only the natural exists, or that things followed a simply-to-complex schema, with humanity as one of its fruits. I can say that I have seen no compelling evidence for a creator. I can say that, from what I have seen, the simple-to-complex origin seems plausible. I am willing to be sold on the god concept, and even the God concept. But for this to happen it would require either evidence that contradicts what I know, or a new explanation that encompasses all that has previously been explained in a better way. The very creativity, ingenuity and inferences that you have made here on these posts has no parallel anywhere within the material cosmos. Neither crows, dolphins or apes can remotely accomplish even a single intelligible line of english, let alone an entire sophisticated defense of atheism!! Only humans debate this. Only humans can debate this. My aim wasn't to "prove" with absolute certainty that God exists. I don't even believe that you can "prove" (strictly speaking) that other humans or an external world exist. I was merely pointing out two main explanatory models, theism and atheism, and asking whether one or the other makes better sense, ontologically, of human beings. And of course, we know where we each stand on this issue. But I do want to say that Julian Baggini's "Atheism: A Short Introduction" is in agreement with me regarding the definition of atheism, as well as the onus of the atheist. He says that atheism is the rejection "of the existence of any God". Furthermore, he and I agree that atheism has to offer a plausible alternative metaphysic, in place of the traditional and non-traditional theisms, in order to qualify as rational. Debunking does not automatically prove atheism.

MusicianDad -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/27/2008 7:50:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic Then you have admitted to a unique, non-repeatable event that occured outside the parameters of existing scientific/natural laws....in other words, you have admitted of a miracle. Oh, that's a good one. Can I borrow that?

Real_Solitude -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/29/2008 5:53:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hellohellohi 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. True, but I'm not saying "eventually..." I'm saying, "Within X years." If, within the next century, there has not been a technological singularity it will cease to matter to me. If we don't advance much further than what we're at right now, I can expect to live (barring accident) to about 95. If the singularity doesn't happen, it will not only cease to matter to me, but the only reasons that it shouldn't happen are rather catastrophic, and would probably result in my death anyways. If there's a major catastrophe that sets our technology back a few hundred years, it's unlikely that humanity will ever progress to the point we're at again.(Because we've tapped out most of the easily-accessible oil, and crude oil seems necessary to getting where we're at. It may be a stepping stone to clean energy, but a necessary one.) So there's definitely a time limit on this happening. As for the question of "How does on live today?" As you saw in my first response to you, I have a few suggestions. The choices, however, is up to the individual. quote: 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" [...] (or, since that is debatable, to speak)? Not on any absolute scale, certainly. However, if my beliefs are evidence-based (as I hope they are), and I had more evidence available, I would hope that this would back my position. It wouldn't be 'proof', but it would be good enough to make a reasonable conclusion. quote: 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?" I believe that rationality, knowledge, logic, etc... are the most important things humanity can strive for. I believe that they are also very important for individuals. Experience, however, is what ties us together. Experience is how people relate to each other. Experience is how people grow to understand more, and from more viewpoints. Without allowing yourself to experience things, especially things outside of your comfort zone, you become a stilted person. quote: While considering past experiences, I'm always struck by the question "What does it mean [...] "Are these experiences, now, significant of anything, whether in my life, or... to who??") I'm not quite sure how you're using the terms "symbol" and "referent" here. How are memories symbols? How can there be a referent for a memory other than the experience itself? If you wonder how particular experiences have shaped you (or others), then that's a valid question, and one worth considering. However, looking for purpose, in the traditional sense, in every event is a bit meaningless. quote: 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!) For me, experience and wonder are two parts of the same whole. The reason that I like to experience things is because I have a sense of wonder about the universe. This is also the reason that I'm interested in all things science. If not for a sense of wonder, there couldn't really be science. Wonder at the universe is what gets people interested in exploring things. But I think we're using two different senses of the word wonder. I'm using it in the sense that Einstein used it; in that the universe is huge and small and simple and complex and, in general, really very interesting if you take the time to look at it. quote: 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! For a being that can store its memory in a separate location, apart from recall, repetition really doesn't have meaning. If you liked something the first time, simply store that memory in an external location and do the thing again. Repeat for endless fun. This isn't to mention that we'll only be limited by our creativity, and a vastly expanded creativity at that. Humans have 100 billion neurons with 1,000 connections per neuron performing 200 calculations per second per connection. This gives us 2x10^16 calculations per second. The average $1000 desktop should reach this speed by roughly 2023. The average $1000 desktop in 2049 should be able to match the speed of all 6 billions human brains working at once. How limited is the imagination of a being that can process things six billion times better, and six billion times faster than us? quote: Also, death is not epistemologically open. [...] (However, there is an interesting ongoing experience about near-death, out-of-body experiences... I forget where, Johns Hopkins? somewhere near there) Call it monism, call it naturalism, it's all the same. I've seen no indication that people survive death in any way. I've seen no indication that people are anything other than a brain with a body on. In my mind, once the brain dies, the person ceases to exist. Death is only open to examination if you've pre-subscribed to a metaphysical/dualistic worldview. Otherwise it's an easily solvable question. If a person's brain houses their consciousness/personality, and parts of that consciousness can be destroyed by destroying parts of their brain, destroying the whole brain will result in the cessation of the whole person. If we don't make any assumptions about consciousness, but destroying parts of the brain destroy parts of consciousness, we can assume a direct correlation between the two things. It's only pre-conceived notions that tell us different. (You can respond with "But what if there's just some undetectable thing controlling those parts of the brain." This, however, is as useless as asking "What if we're all part of the dream of a giant dung-beetle." It really doesn't help us understand things. This is where we apply Occam's razor.) If OBE's pan out to be anything other than vivid hallucination, new factors will have been added to the question, and it will have to be re-examined. Until new evidence is presented, the best explanation for what happens to 'you' after death is "nothing, because there is no more 'you'." At least from an atheist perspective.

Real_Solitude -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/29/2008 6:21:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hellohellohi 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." If you want my personal definition of consciousness, it's this. Consciousness is the overlying pattern that exists in interneural connections. It is a dynamic pattern that changes in response to new stimulus and experience. It is not the brain, it is the software that runs on the brain. It is not the neurons itself, but the configurations within them that are unique to you. Basically, consciousness is information. quote: 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. This is one of the basic differences between philosophy and science. Philosophy asks pointless questions, and generally doesn't get anywhere. Science, on the other hand, starts with some basic assumptions, and from these has gone marvelous places. The two assumptions are that "reality is real" (Basically, the universe exists), and "Reality follows patterns." These allow us to do a great many things. For instance, we can assume that a ball will always come down when thrown up simply because this is the pattern that balls thrown up follow. In the same manner, I can assume that everyone else is conscious to more or less the same extent that I am for two reasons. The first is that everyone else acts in the same (basic) manners that I do. The second is that everyone else was 'built' the same way that I was. If the process for building two people is the same, the result should be the same. Attempting to veer from these assumptions leads us to interesting-but-useless things like solipsism. The answer, I don't know that other people are conscious. However, all evidence points towards them being conscious. If they are simply automatons, then I would argue that they are sufficiently complex to be considered conscious anyways due to the complexity of their behavior. quote: 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 [;)]) The problem is how we tend to define consciousness. For some reason, people have a tendency to automatically assume that consciousness is beyond the physical. That is, that no matter how hard you probe, or no matter what you destroy, consciousness will remain. I don't know where you justified the agency, but it's no necessary for you to anyways. (Though highlighting the pertinent section would be helpful.) It is only in the abstract (read: philosophy) that infinite-recursion can happen. A simple computer simulations should do the trick of solving our problem. Well, a complex one, but here's the idea: Any sufficiently advanced computer should be capable of modeling the human brain to any degree of detail. As our ability to scan, in real-time, a human brain becomes better, we should be able to duplicate a person's current brain-state to a computer program. If the simulation is an accurate enough description of reality, there should be no difference between the original and the copy. If, at this point, the copy acts in a manner comparative with how the original acts, we can infer that consciousness is simply a product of the 'programming' of the brain. We can't currently perform this test, but we should be able to within twenty or so years.

hellohellohi -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/29/2008 9:38:49 AM)
Yes, take an exact replica or take the real thing and look for consciousness. TRULY, science is in the business of asking questions. "WHERE is consciousness..." may seem like it is in the realm of the physical. But, yes, I AGREE, it is completely NONSENSICAL to ask that. Therefore, it is also a bit nonsensical to think the answer "the brain" is adequate. WHERE is physical location. Consciousness is, precisely, and ENDLESS RECURSION. No computer can do an endless recursion. If it could it would have an end... thus... and please, don't suggest I am simply doing nonsense philosophy. I am applying sense and logic to nonsensical statements, just as you. I have no problem with the pragmatic view that the brain and cognitive neuroscience can tell us ABOUT consciousness and that we can REASONABLY infer that consciousness is what the brain does, ergo solipsism is silly. I also agree philosophers may veer into the silly more often than not. However, SCIENCE MUST as "How?" How does the brain "do" consciousness. Calling consciousness "complexity" or something such is obfuscation and does not advance inquiry. Perhaps I see contradictory! I can see easily that many questions concerning consciousness are nonsensical. However, I can also see that asking them (much as Einstein asked the nonsensical, What would it be like to ride a beam of light) may lead to interesting discoveries and insight. However, it will never erase the endless recursive and elusive question. All suggestions that it can be are "sleight of hand." Now, one final thing. Experience is not what unites people, it is communication. We SHARE experiences, whether its just through eye contact or hypothesis (that we experience the same thing, based on our similar actions) and observation, or through language. So, let's talk about language.

Real_Solitude -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/29/2008 8:02:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hellohellohi Yes, take an exact replica or take the real thing and look for consciousness. TRULY, science is in the business of asking questions. [...] Calling consciousness "complexity" or something such is obfuscation and does not advance inquiry. Consciousness can't really perform endless recursions either. It can simulate the possibility of an endless recursion, but can't do the actual processing. The actual processing is impossible because the resources available to use are also limited. We're limited to about two conscious thoughts per second. We can perform roughly 59,130,000 conscious thoughts in our lifetimes. (2 per second60 seconds18 hours [counting in 8 hours of sleep, which I'm assuming are non-conscious]356 days/year75 years [average life expectancy]) This is certainly not enough to perform an infinite number of recursions. We can conceptualize what it would be like to do so, but don't have the time or processing power to actually do it. Why is it nonsense to ask where consciousness is? If it's a physical event, it must happen in a physical location. Determining the location of the event helps us to study it. I also agree that we must answer the 'how' of consciousness. Our ability to analyze the brain in real time to determine how it works is improving at an every-increasing rate. If consciousness is "what the brain does," then we should know 'how it's done' within this century. But to argue that consciousness is non-physical without anything to back it up also halts inquiry. quote: Experience is not what unites people, it is communication. We SHARE experiences, whether its just through eye contact or hypothesis (that we experience the same thing, based on our similar actions) and observation, or through language. So, let's talk about language. I would disagree that communication is what unites people. Communication, to me, is merely a medium via which experience travels. Even without communication, even if we couldn't talk, it is experience that unites us. For a look at what I'm talking about, we can look at the meerkats. Meerkats engage in a form of play that is inherently dangerous. That is, while they're roughhousing, they are less aware of their surroundings, and therefore more likely to die. Since this is a disadvantage, it should have been selected against, and therefore shouldn't be a trait they have. However, their playing together does serve to form 'group bonds' that allow the meerkats to become familiar with one another. Basically, it allows them to form social bonds. This allows larger groups of meerkats to survive, and has therefore been selected for. Even without communication, experience is the common bond. Language allows for greater amounts of experience sharing, but is by no means necessary.

Real_Solitude -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/29/2008 8:16:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hellohellohi oh yes, and you were saying something like "I am not rebelling against natural selection -- I am transcending it" or succeeding it or something. [...] 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?? :/ The 'goal' of evolution is not, inherently, the survival of the fittest. The 'goal' of evolution is the propagation of genetic material. It is merely, as you say, a tautology that the fittest are the ones to do this. More genes are the end 'goal', better adapted species are merely the vehicle for doing this. To say that we are going to be taking this to the next step is not inaccurate. By making people, and therefore genes, immortal, we will be allowing them to copy themselves indefinitely. By transcending biology in favor of a tech-based body, we will be making the information of the genes a digital thing, allowing near-instant copying and near-infinite propagation. This is the most efficient viable form of spreading genetic information. quote: 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 I'm quite aware that Social Darwinism has nothing to do with actual Evolutionary theory. I'm not talking about Social Darwinism, however, because transcending our biology will still be dealing with propagating genetic information. (Not the genes themselves, because those are organic. The information contained in the genes, however, will likely sill be preserved as the primary method of making new people. Even if it's an A.I. developed via computer simulation, it will likely use what we know about genetics to accomplish this. That's still the genes doing their propagating, even if it's no longer 'natural'.)

Real_Solitude -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/29/2008 11:21:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MusicianDad 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. Not exactly correct. "Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of human nature, and that knowledge of right and wrong is based on our best understanding of our individual and joint interests." "Absolute" morality is based on the universals in human morality. quote: 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. No, he's assuming that if God makes a rule, God should have to follow it. If he doesn't, that makes him hypocritical. If morals are absolute "because God said so," then there's no reason they're any more absolute than if a human declared them. If they don't apply to everyone, including God, they're not absolute. quote: 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. Belief in the Bible may not inherently be self-serving, but a large number of people do use their belief in a self-serving manner. You can't really apply the same standards to a philosophy as you can a religion. Religion usually has rewards and punishments in place to bribe an coerce believers. A philosophy is a set of guidelines on how to live your life without either rewards or punishment attached. There is no penalty from breaking from humanism, but there is no reward given for following it. quote: quote: 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. "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: quote: 3 - Fossils would be sorted in ways that are convenient for skeptics. You mean the fossils that show the stasis of species? I believe he means fossils that show a rich evolutionary history. quote: quote: 10 - The Bible would not contain any supernatural claims that are easily verifiable. Like an emty tomb? "Subjective assessment. This is pure opinion and has no value other than that placed on it by the writer or others of like mind." Until you can provide evidence of the tomb being empty, or there ever having had been a tomb, for that matter. quote: quote: 11 - No Bible prophecy would be easy for the majority of the people in the world to verify. Try Daniel on for size. Link. quote: 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. "Subjective assessment. This is pure opinion and has no value other than that placed on it by the writer or others of like mind." There is no evidence that the historical Jesus was god, so saying that him preaching to people was people seeing God is useless. There is no reliable evidence for the 500 witnesses to the resurrected Jesus, which would, I assume, fufuill the type of even that this person's talking about. Further, Exodus is based on the claim that the Israelites were held in Egypt as slaves and then escaped. This is an even for which there is no evidence, and even evidence that would contradict the claim.

Real_Solitude -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/29/2008 11:25:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sunofone 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. Actually, he's probably just watched this (click the word "this") Sam Harris speech. For the same reasons, I'm not a fan of the term atheist, but it's a technically valid explanation that cuts out a bunch of useless clarification.

Real_Solitude -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/30/2008 12:30:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic quote: Actually, in many cases, we can make direct observations of the early universe. Wrong.....I can refer you to Irving Copi's "An Introduction to Logic", especially his sections on scientific reasoning, for a more detailed exposition than I made. No, you can't directly observe the conditions of the early "earth" or "universe" because you weren't there...but this point is moot to my main argument. It has nothing to do with logic. Light has a set speed, some light from far away is just arriving to earth. Since it was far away, and light has a set speed, it is necessarily old. Since it has a set speed, and we can determine the distance of the origin based off of other methods, we can know how old the light we're seeing is. Since we're observing 'old light', it is, in fact, a direct observation of an older universe. We didn't have to be there, the light was. quote: Further, humans are far from the only animals to posses many of the qualities you mention...Crows and certain primates have been shown to be able to 'create' tools by manipulating their environment. Many animals communicate. Many animal groups even show what we would recognize as basic tenants of morality. What animal has given us Shakesspearean sonnets? Or Da Vinci's "Mona Lisa"? Or Einstein's "general and special relativity theories"? Do scientist now communicate with animals or something? Was there some great intellectual and creative acheivements in the animal world that we all failed to miss? Plus, many of the creatures you mention existed well before human beings appeared; yet how do you account for why they failed to evolve creativity, in equal measure, with the human species? Again, they aren't even remotely close to human ingenuity. Any forthcoming explanations will be, at best, ad hoc. I like how you basically accept my statement, but then say it's not good enough. This is called "moving the goalposts." Animals posses many of the qualities you mentioned. This shows that they are not unique to humans. The fact that they're not "enough" for your is irrelevant. Your original statement is defunct if even a single non-human shows even a single inkling of one of the qualities you mentioned. It requires either abandonment or revision. If you have to ask how I account for why they've failed to evolve human-equivalent rationality/creativity/etc... then you obviously don't understand evolutionary theory. Evolution does not inherently demand creativity, complexity, intelligence, etc... For humans, however, these things are necessary as they're our only benefit. We don't have any natural armor or weapons, we're fairly weak and fairly slow as far as animals go. Our brains our our only advantage, and are therefore more developed than a crows simply because the crow doesn't need them. It also shows that your views are entirely human-centric. Why should humans be the yardstick? How many humans have built something as intricate as a termite tower? How many people have weaved completely functional homes, out of twigs, using only their mouths? Why should human achievement be considered special in relation to the qualities you mentioned? quote: prove to me that abstract qualities are not products of the physical. 1) That you are even bothering to debate with me. I don't have your brain and you don't have mine. Yet we seem to understand each other's ideas and points, albeit in disagreement; perhaps you believe that the chemicals in your brain and mine happened to transfer and transmit between us in some inexplicable way (like quantum tunnelling)....but this would be even more absurd than my points, if you even happen to think that my points are "absurd". This proves nothing. If intelligence is the byproduct of chemical reaction, then the chemical reaction doesn't need to directly affect another mind to communicate with it. This is because the mind receives extrasensory data. We have ways of transmitting data through non-chemical means, so the understanding doesn't have to be direct. My chemical reactions transcribe their ideas via symbols onto a medium. Your eyes receive the data and translate it into chemical/electrical signals. Your 'chemical reactions' understand the message in a general way. The connection isn't direct, but it exists. quote: 2) Ideas, theories and inferences are not even in the category of particles/matter/energy. Plus, ideas/theories/inferences possess no qualia (textures) whatsoever, unlike material objects (that evoke hardness/softness, bitter/sweet, rough/smooth, etc.). This isn't evidence that favors you. You have yet to prove that ideas are not simply chemical/electrical. If they are, they are indeed built of matter/energy. Simply proposing that they are does not make them so. quote: 3) Only like can produce like. Atoms, protons, electrons, forces, energy can only produce similar things. The laws of rational inference operate in a way that is wholly other than physics/chemistry. Inferences, and the laws that govern rational discourse, have nothing to do with curved space, electrodynamics, atomic stability, nuclear forces, magnetism, gravity, entropy, etc. Again, prove it. Simply saying, "the mind is not the product of the physical," doesn't help prove that the mind is not a product of the physical. In all we've found, there has been no indication that anything else except matter/energy exists. There is no indication that the human mind is composed of anything except things we're familiar with. quote: 4) To put it a different way: why do you find it easy to believe that mind can arise from matter but not matter from mind? Both cases involve a miracle; yet, in the case of mind supervening on the configuration of the brain, a deeper puzzle emerges: the fact that human beings constantly alter/violate the "normal" operations of natural laws (like with technologies and medicine), including the structure of the brain's neural networks (i.e. for a good study of adult neuroplasticity, I recommend Shwartz and Begley's "The Mind and It's Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force"). Because mind from matter isn't a miracle. It is simply a result of the correct reactions. Mind is not a 'thing'. No one has proven that mind is anything other than very clever matter. We can not violate any 'laws'. We have never created anti-gravity. All of our technology falls strictly within the allowed realms of physics. Even if we were to create an anit-gravity machine, it would be because we were using the natural laws. Yes, we can alter our own neural pathways by thinking in specific ways. How does this violate any laws? Its' neat and a little surprising, but certainly not a break from natural law. quote: 5) It is incumbent on you to show how it's even possible, under the naturalist umbrella, to begin to pull consciousness, agent causation, interpersonal communication, creative artistry, love, beauty, science, etc. out of a materialist hat. I have already provided enough explanations. If you have no answer other than "well, that's what happened", then I can only reply with "God did it and that's what happened." I doubt your conscience would be satisfied with a stalemate-by-stipulation. Do you want me to go back to evolutionary explanation for morality, creativity, rationality, etc... Or do you want me to explain how matter can be self-aware? I can do the first, but not the second. The reasons I can't do the second are twofold. The first is that it is not completely understood yet. The second is that even if it were understood, explaining it in any detail would undoubtedly require a number of doctorates. I'm not saying "that's what happened." I'm saying "There is no indication that anything unnatural is happening, as all observations fit strictly within known physics." I don't have a burden to show exactly why or how it happens, simply that everything that does happen can be understood naturalisticly. I don't have to explain how all parts of a circulatory system work together in order to observe that all parts of the process happen naturally, why should it be any different for consciousness? Unless evidence is presented that something unusual is happening, there is no reason to attempt to prove that there is not. quote: 6) Why is chopping a tree down morally acceptable, but chopping a human down not? What makes the human material constitution more priveleged than animals, trees, rocks, etc., if we are all just differing configurations of the same material stuff? Because we evolved to have inclusive morality. Because our genes 'want' to propagate themselves, and to hell with anything else. Because it was beneficial to keep kin around, but sometimes trees needed to become fires in order to keep us alive. We value ourselves most highly because it kept us alive. It is an evolved trait. quote: Then you have admitted to a unique, non-repeatable event that occured outside the parameters of existing scientific/natural laws....in other words, you have admitted of a miracle. Half right. All known laws were created shortly after the expansion of the big bang. The big bang was the only one of its kind known. (Though there are others hypothesized, I shall not include them as there isn't sufficient evidence for them.) This does not admit to a miracle, as a miracle is defined as something that violates known laws. Since the known laws were not established, they could not have been violated. quote: My aim wasn't to "prove" with absolute certainty that God exists. I don't even believe that you can "prove" (strictly speaking) that other humans or an external world exist. But your definition and mine differ. If I see a ball lying on the ground and pick it up, I will have proven to myself that I am holding what I would define as a ball. If I see a person, shake their hand, and talk to them for awhile, I have proven to myself that they are, beyond all reasonable doubt, what I define as a person. If I saw a giant man floating in the sky without the aid of technology, hurling lightning at the people who said his name without reverence, I would have, beyond reasonable doubt, proof that what I define as a god exists. Obviously this is an unrealistic proof to expect, but it shows the sort of thing I desire. Observable, preferably testable, definitely verifiable. No sane person of sufficient schooling really doubts that the moon exists. We can't "prove" it in the philosophical sense, but doubting it is a quite dangerous thing to do if you're planning to fly a ship to it. quote: But I do want to say that Julian Baggini's "Atheism: A Short Introduction" is in agreement with me regarding the definition of atheism, as well as the onus of the atheist. He says that atheism is the rejection "of the existence of any God". Furthermore, he and I agree that atheism has to offer a plausible alternative metaphysic, in place of the traditional and non-traditional theisms, in order to qualify as rational. Debunking does not automatically prove atheism. If you propose that the reason that the sun moves across the sky is because it is pushed by The Giant Dung Beetle, all I have to do to be an abeetlist is to point out that there is, in fact, no beetle. I don't have to know about the big bang, astrophysics, and gravity in order to dismiss your notion that a beetle moves the sun. I don't have to offer you an alternate solution to why the sun moves across the sky, all I have to do is mention the copious lack of beetle in order to debunk you. Disproving the beetle 'proves' abeetlism, as abeetlism, in this case, is lack of belief in the existence of a giant, sun-pushing beetle. As mentioned before, absolute atheism is the complete rejection of any god. Atheism in general, however, is simply the lack of belief in a deity. Even Dawkins admits to a vanishingly small chance that there's a god. Is he no longer an atheist? I mentioned a sort of probability curve with two asymptotes as an illustration for agnosticism. Dawkins, and I'm in agreement on this, assigns the probability of god not existing as 99.999, 9-repeating. No truthful person can be a 100% against god atheist. However, it is possible to be so close that the distinction doesn't matter. I disbelieve in god like I disbelieve in The Giant Dung Beetle. I can't 'prove' it's not there, but I can offer so many contradictory facts that the existence of The Beetle is, beyond reasonable doubt, debunked.

hellohellohi -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/31/2008 1:25:37 AM)
1) Look for me with an AK-47, gathering new, shared (dreadful) experience. 2) Im not saying consciousness is not physical.. I just think its a cop-out to say it arises out of "complexity." Perhaps yes, perhaps no. Still, "how." I don't say this is a fruitless question, only a peculiar one if it seeks to reconcile the "subjective" with the objective and the "interior" with the outwardly observable. I'm also QUITE happy if YOU and anyone else ignores this question (but don't make up new obfuscatory definitions of consciousness. Don't ask me for an explanation. Don't supply me with a definition. Don't tell me what you think. Don't think you have transmitted any sort of communication or thought. Don't think that your life has been anything but "inheritance." You are the heir to thought, a walking summary.) 3) whatever 4) blah blah 5) What 6) huh 7) ####### 8) art show 230-98203-98320-938094280-9720940-297-2974-2947-2948294987924729

hellohellohi -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/31/2008 11:22:39 AM)
And what is this "singularity" that you keep speaking of? I suppose it is a metaphorical use of the word. "Point", perhaps as in "point of view," sounds like a reasonable interpretation. The problem with your thinking and participation in this forum is that you are so impressed by science, technology, and EXPERTISE that you believe that the old (probably irrational or absurd) questions have been answered or there answers are an inevitability. Rather, I contend that science should continue to do its business of rationality without making itself ridiculous in believing that it has conquered the irrational. I think monism is the only reasonable hypothesis under which science can be conducted. It is also the most parsimonious -- which is SCREAMINGLY obvious. And, indeed, it must answer the question, "What is nonexistence," with, "nothing." THAT IS, to ask "What IS it?" is being difficult and irrational from a scientific perspective. However, is it rational to FILL death with NOTHINGNESS, with blankness? No, it is rational to stay silent. Science may be beautiful to the human observer, but it is not poetry. To speak of death being blankness is poetic; to speak of it as nothing OUGHT to be understood as equivalent to saying "I don't know." YOU SEE, the physical world is the KNOWABLE, that which is amenable to observation. Now, it is a HYPOTHESIS that death will also be the eventual object of observation, but not a scientific one. In very plain scientific terms, if every experiment involves an OBSERVER (which it does) then an experiment on the extinguishing of the observer will not be possible from that POINT OF VIEW, for the observer will be removed from the ability to REPORT. (Otherise you are talking about communicating with the dead. Will we perhaps be able to observe SOMETHING about what happens at death or how much, say, a THOUGH weighs? Perhaps. Will that tell us if "point of view" survives? Will we gain insight into what such an experience is like? Not unless we have forfeited science for spiritualism.) When we notice that the question is specifically about "point of view," we have found that experiment is impossible. I DO NOT say that this is proof of Christianity or even PERSUASION in that direction. I just think some philosophers and futurists are being very stupid and obscure. They are not participating in rational dialogue, but are instead excited about POETRY, about the possibility that the grandeur of the accomplishments of science can win ANY argument. In their (YOUR) haste, you have overlooked that the question of what is consciousness (What is it "like") is not a scientific question. I don't say that means it is nonetheless important. My argument was that it is an inevitable question only if curiosity gets bored with the known and knowable. There is no reason to think that scientists won't find EVERYTHING ABOUT consciousness, addressing point of view from the EXTERIOR. Will that satisfy everyone who is curious about point of view itself? Only if everyone has resigned simple, deductive logic. Science may find "where" the point (or mathematically modellable correlate) is, answer many questions about "what" the point is, but can science answer what is on the "interior" of this point? Can math ask what is the essence of an object? No, NOR SHOULD IT CARE. If logical, this question is probably poetic and nothing more. If poetic, science is not being science but fancy or, worse, journalism. My accusation to you is that you are a journalist and not a scientist. A reporter and not a thinker. A summarizer, but not a peer. Excited about science? Do science. Excited about technology? Invent something. Struck by the broad powers of programming? Start writing code. Worse, you could be the heir of journalism and not even a member of that crowd. And if you believe yourself to be solitary and self-made, which you probably don't, it would be a sorry irony. Have I finally planted an elbow in your kidney?

Real_Solitude -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (6/1/2008 10:57:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hellohellohi And what is this "singularity" that you keep speaking of? I suppose it is a metaphorical use of the word. "Point", perhaps as in "point of view," sounds like a reasonable interpretation. The technological singularity is not a scientific term with a well-defined usage. It's not usually proposed as a single event so much as a paradigm shift for humanity. Kurzweil defines it as "Technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history." Basically, it's the point in time in which new technology will be emerging so rapidly that a person from today's perspective won't be able to keep up. A point beyond which we can not reasonably speculate about, because the technology will be so advanced as to seem to us (today) to be 'like magic.' quote: The problem with your thinking and participation in this forum is that you are so impressed by science, technology, and EXPERTISE that you believe that the old (probably irrational or absurd) questions have been answered or there answers are an inevitability. Rather, I contend that science should continue to do its business of rationality without making itself ridiculous in believing that it has conquered the irrational. quote: That's not really what science has done. Generally it has instead shown that the irrational really was always rational, but people were too stupid, or too obstinate, to understand what was happening. The sun is a ball of nuclear reaction, the moon is a ball of rock, and neither of them require anything irrational to keep on doing their thing. I think monism is the only reasonable hypothesis under which science can be conducted. It is also the most parsimonious -- which is SCREAMINGLY obvious. And, indeed, it must answer the question, "What is nonexistence," with, "nothing." THAT IS, to ask "What IS it?" is being difficult and irrational from a scientific perspective. However, is it rational to FILL death with NOTHINGNESS, with blankness? No, it is rational to stay silent. Science may be beautiful to the human observer, but it is not poetry. To speak of death being blankness is poetic; to speak of it as nothing OUGHT to be understood as equivalent to saying "I don't know." quote: Why do you see "nothing" as the answer to, "What happens after death?" to be ridiculous. If you asked "What is taste?" and I responded, "Taste is a function of the central nervous system. With receptor cells for taste found on the surface of the tongue, along the soft palate, and in the epithelium of the pharynx and epiglottis. Etc. Etc. Etc." and went on to describe all of the various pathways and methods by which taste is experienced. Sure, it may not do justice to actually eating a strawberry, but would remain a perfect description of exactly what taste is, an experience of the brain received by the respective sense organs. Why is it different than responding to "What is death?" with, "The cessation of electrical activity in the brain." Why, other than tradition, would you assume that life is anything except a physical event, or death anything but its end? quote: YOU SEE, the physical world is the KNOWABLE, that which is amenable to observation. Now, it is a HYPOTHESIS that death will also be the eventual object of observation, but not a scientific one. In very plain scientific terms, if every experiment involves an OBSERVER (which it does) then an experiment on the extinguishing of the observer will not be possible from that POINT OF VIEW, for the observer will be removed from the ability to REPORT. (Otherise you are talking about communicating with the dead. Will we perhaps be able to observe SOMETHING about what happens at death or how much, say, a THOUGH weighs? Perhaps. Will that tell us if "point of view" survives? Will we gain insight into what such an experience is like? Not unless we have forfeited science for spiritualism.) When we notice that the question is specifically about "point of view," we have found that experiment is impossible. I DO NOT say that this is proof of Christianity or even PERSUASION in that direction. I just think some philosophers and futurists are being very stupid and obscure. They are not participating in rational dialogue, but are instead excited about POETRY, about the possibility that the grandeur of the accomplishments of science can win ANY argument. In their (YOUR) haste, you have overlooked that the question of what is consciousness (What is it "like") is not a scientific question. I don't say that means it is nonetheless important. My argument was that it is an inevitable question only if curiosity gets bored with the known and knowable. If it is untestable, unobservable, and unknowable, why bother to speculate about it? Why throw in religion as an answer? Why assume it exists at all? Remember, it is your belief that death is unknowable, not mine. And yet you're the one positing that things happen after death, with no real reason to back up your belief. quote: There is no reason to think that scientists won't find EVERYTHING ABOUT consciousness, addressing point of view from the EXTERIOR. Will that satisfy everyone who is curious about point of view itself? Only if everyone has resigned simple, deductive logic. Science may find "where" the point (or mathematically modellable correlate) is, answer many questions about "what" the point is, but can science answer what is on the "interior" of this point? Can math ask what is the essence of an object? No, NOR SHOULD IT CARE. If logical, this question is probably poetic and nothing more. If poetic, science is not being science but fancy or, worse, journalism. Why assume that we can only find out about the 'exterior'? Why assume that object have essence? Why add anything that is not necessary, or look for things that have shown no hint of existing? Why assume that anything different happens in the 'interior' than the 'exterior'? If we can model and understand everything about how thought happens, and how it originates, and how it interacts with everything else to produce consciousness, why assume that there's anything else? For that matter, what differentiates the interior from the exterior? What, in your mind, is the breaking point between physical events and consciousness? quote: My accusation to you is that you are a journalist and not a scientist. A reporter and not a thinker. A summarizer, but not a peer. Excited about science? Do science. Excited about technology? Invent something. Struck by the broad powers of programming? Start writing code. I'm learning science, learning technology, and learning code. Things have advanced to the point where it's quite difficult to simply pick up something and do it. We are no longer in the infancy of science, technology, or programing. To do anything meaningful you need years of schooling (or equivalent learning.) And I am learning, and I am studying, and I am preparing myself to do as much as I can in all three areas. I'm not standing idly by and discussing it, I'm attempting to learn as much as I can about what I talk about. Unfortunately, in today's world, one must specialize to get anywhere. If I chose to be a chemist, I must be a chemist, and can not switch to neuroscience in a day. If I choose to build robots, I must learn about robots, and can not turn around and use that same information to build airplanes. To be a scientist you mist be a summarizer and a journalist. You must accept that most things must be learned out of books in which other people have put the fruits of their long years of research. To be an inventor you must use others inventions. To be a programmer, you must build upon the structures already in place. You can discover, invent, and program new things, yes, but they are built upon the shoulders of those who came before.

hellohellohi -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (6/2/2008 9:35:24 AM)
I am not saying anything about what comes after death. I'm not advocating Christianity. I just think you are not thinking about consciousness. You don't seem to read what I say very closely either. I don't mind any number of "operating" definitions of consciousness that you offer. However, they certainly don't include anything about it (and experience) being "qualitative", "subjective," "interior" and so on, and, so, aren't normal usages of the word to say the least. Your way of talking about consciousness represents a peculiar redefinition. I think it would be more respectable for scientists and speculators to say "I don't know," rather than saying, well, maybe I don't, maybe WE don't, but we WILL and so on. And it would be preferrable if in redefining the word, you used a different word, "intelligence" is an adequate replacement for your consciousness consisting merely in information processing. (Intelligence need not assume consciousness -- interiority, etc.) For instance, when you say: quote: "Taste is a function of the central nervous system. With receptor cells for taste found on the surface of the tongue, along the soft palate, and in the epithelium of the pharynx and epiglottis. Etc. Etc. Etc." and went on to describe all of the various pathways and methods by which taste is experienced. It is perhaps silly to disagree that taste is "a function" of the nervous system. But, as usual, you use the term "experience" -- This term has not been described objectively. The problem is, though correlation can be drawn between brain states and subjective REPORTING, there is no way to know OBJECTIVELY whether the subjectivity vanishes when REPORTING is no longer possible. Similarly, it is impossible to know whether subjectivity actually exists. This I DO NOT say is proof of religion or anything. Rather I am suggesting a proper way to say "I don't know." It is not that death would be NOTHING in the sense of blankness, merely, "it is beyond existence, ergo..." or "It is beyond knowledge, ergo..." that is, there is nothing to say about it one way or the other objectively. I DO NOT say this lends evidence to the assertion that there is SOMETHING, rather I am trying to ensure that you don't make the NOTHING into a SOMETHING. (I do not know if you do, though. I am just talking about things that interest me here. ALSO I am puzzled by your language. Really, I think it is lazy, and hence that you are to some extent a lazy thinker. Prove me wrong.) I must remind you that it seems you believe that the brain produces consciousness merely in being "complex." You see, I am NOT suggesting we take up discussions of ESSENCE and so on; merely that consciousness and EXPERIENCE are thought of as being interior. You see, I grant that you have an earnest enjoyment of life and experience, and it seems that the sharing of that experience is also important. But wouldn't you agree that the sharing is CONTINGENT? It may or may not happen. It is possible to have an entirely obscure experience, take schizophrenia, or supply your own examples. It is also possible to share experience as you say. I grant that! If sharing of experience is contingent, then you have found the concept "interiority." Reread my other post for I think the best treatment of interiority and agency from a scientific view (that I know of). A question: Do you prefer "pleasurable" experience among the experiences that you pursue as your raison d'etre? I prefer horrible experiences, fear and TERROR. Anything wrong with that? As far as the singularity... I agree that there could be a kind of epistemological "bottleneck" created by self-replicating technology, which we could see into no more easily than into biological systems. There is no basis for explaining the subjectivity of living things and there would be equally zero evidence for the consciousness of novel entities. If we grant one, may as well grant the other. It is not a rational question, however. So, I do not advocate granting consciousness (that is, rights) to technology now or ever. The question would eventually run into ethics and philosophy, and if it stemmed from a quasi-scientific origin, the discussion would be dangerously clouded. In the case of robots I say, "kill 'em all and let God sort them out." Why not? In general, I would describe your unwillingness to listen to any useful word for consciousness along the lines of "interiority" as paranoid. You seem to believe that if you grant any superfluous concept, your objectivity will be compromised. That is commendable perhaps. However, I would contend that WHAT WE EXPERIENCE AS INTERIORY, call it what you will, is SUPERFLUOUS. Please reread my other post. (I can even account for a useful conception of agency, attached to a physical observer, but I do not find a use for that subjectivity beyond the informational alert "your turn!". It seems like it "came along with the bargain" to me. Agency is superfluous except when deciding the epistemologically ambiguous or actionably ambivalent) Why can't some thing be superfluous to science? Death, I would say, is superfluous to science. It's not that science says it IS NOTHING, rather it doesn't say anything. That is science's great virtue! It speaks only when it has something to say. Now, I have no problem if you NEVER talk about subjectivity and logical paradoxes like nothingness. I say they will be taken up only if one gets BORED. Christianity, I am granting very enthusiastically!, is entirely superfluous to life. One can live very well without it. (A Christian would say, "one better not die without it.") However, how can one vaunt experience as a virtue if one doesn't believe whole-heartedly in consciousness? Perhaps that is your problem, your inconsistency. What's so great about experience? Or, perhaps you are celebrating the superfluous (grace -- it is gratis, extra, i.e.: synonymous with superfluous) just as Christians do? I would have no problem with that. To say, "given all the majesty of science," and so on, "I am most impressed with the fact that in a addition to there being something quantifiable, there is something qualitative;" celebrating the superfluous. "I am thoroughly impressed with science's ability to describe the experience of tasting a strawberry as a series of causes and effects in the nervous system, however, I am looking forward to tasting them again and again." Or, "I hate strawberries," whichever. That would be fine with me. What I have a problem with is obscurantism in the guise of intelligence, ignorance, and an inability to communicate. Atheism is great! Stupidity is not. Hopefully, there is an atheism which is not simple obscurantism. I believe there is, if it is as I have just described, to grant value and express thanks for the superfluous qualitative aspect of life. Or even to say that all one cares about is epistemology and "naming." Or even to say "I don't know, I don't care." That is fine. (Yes, I am a Christian, but that is superfluous to the discussion as well. I only mentioned so that I would not be playing a game with you.)

hellohellohi -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (6/2/2008 12:00:03 PM)
Hello, looking at your other discussion which is somewhat similar I see... This is the type of comment that I call obscurantist, if you are wondering what I am talking about. quote: I can do the first, but not the second. The reasons I can't do the second are twofold. The first is that it is not completely understood yet. The second is that even if it were understood, explaining it in any detail would undoubtedly require a number of doctorates. It shows that you don't really care what the truth is but are willing to suppose your irrational propositions will be answered simply because SOMEONE somtime somewhere will not only claim to answer the superfluous questions but will have a few Ph.D.s too. I don't envy that kind of trust! Science is inquiry (and peer review). Are you going to be a peer or a journalist? There is much to learn ABOUT consciousness! I contend that aspects of (consciousness) what gives theologians and metaphysicians alternately glee and consternation, like agency and subjectivity, can be explained using evolutionary logic. Perhaps quantum physics will also be an important tool for understanding! But ultimately the question that I call superfluous will remain. There will be no proof that interiority exists since the only evidence for it is REPORTING. That doesn't mean we should not ask subjects questions and look for correlates and find everythign we can ABOUT it. And so on. Get some humility, and get over it. Don't cover one unknown with another (consciousness with complexity and the future). THAT is obscurantism. Now, does Christianity cover one unknown (death) with another (God)? Yes, but then it says "no" by redefining "know." Whatever. Not that interesting right now. To say that the question of consciousness is all but a done deal is to say that it is more interesting that the universe is the way it is than that there is someone to observe it. I think they are both pretty interesting. So, the question, why? Try evolutionary logic, because, surely, you will grant that consciousness as we know it is the product of biological entitities, or at least likely associated with their structure , their physics and physical capabilities somehow ("product" is not a "done deal"). What PHYSICALLY sets apart biological and physical structures? Complexity, i suppose, but, really? And if so, so what? I grant physicalism. Dualism is a can of worms. What is contrary to the notion that subjective consiousness is superfluous, perhaps an inevitable but useless accident or coincidence, from the standpoint of evolution?

hellohellohi -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (6/2/2008 12:48:07 PM)
Either way, the question of consciousness is being swept under the rug. On the one hand it is concealed under the cloak of complexity and the future (and with dubious consequences like fealty to the cult of experts) and on the other it is filed indefinitely in the dustbin of "non-scientific." Under the former, however, inquiry is discouraged, if only under a spirit of complacency, procrastination, or a "the experts will handle it" attitude. Now, if the question of consciousness is the product of the same INCLINATION toward methodic, perhaps irrational, doubt as is SCIENCE, then we have found a satisfying irony. (We are capable of asking questions (poetically) that have no answers it seems.) If consciousness is driven to INFINITELY bring up new ways to ask the same circular question (regardless have how advanced our knowledge gets) it will perhaps answer itself with the circle in REVERSE, "How else would you know so much if you weren't asking all these ridiculous questions, finding out everything except what you were asking for, or even demanding, "Why?") For instance, even if it settled fairly rigorously that an OBSERVER is just the sort of thing to make decisions under epistemologically AMBIVALENT circumstances. That is, perhaps an OBSERVER is the type of physical PARTICLE (even, or perhaps it IS only manifested by a complex set of physical conditions) that can alter UNCERTAINTY, to disambiguate so that action/reacion can take place. But, still, the ridiculous question, "Why does the observe have, yknow, observe" Why can't it just DO what it does without being US? This question does not lend itself to any scientific hypotheses, you see. It is simply not scientific. It is even dubious from a linguistic point of view! I am also enthusiastic about the probability that language is even DESIGNED (by evolution) to produce nonsensical statements in order to create a circumstance where information that is supposed to be concealed even from the self can nonetheless be transmitted, apparently, in code to kin(so the self cannot blow it by revealing it ahead of the moment it may be useful. Read my other post.). I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE THOUGHT THIS FAR. If agency is called upon by evolution for the task of disambiguation, perhaps it can go too far and alter ambiguous physical circumstances within the hereditary information itself. Sounds quasi-Lamarckian (though without purpose.) Perhaps disambiguation only occurs in COMPETITION from an OTHER. Perhaps a biological system need only respond unpredictably to a system with INTENT in order to APPEAR to have intent or agency itself. Then, what is the OTHER that would set all of these in motion? Clearly, I am venturing into murky epistemological territory, but it is inquiry that is taking me here. I like asking questions, and if I have found that I believe in God (Christian) it is only because I can't stand the taste of a dogma in my mouth and I have found Him to be the only God that would banish the incessant claims "to know" what one is talking about while nevertheless allowing the questions to continue (perhaps some would disagree, Christianly, and I invite them to speak to that. perhaps also I am wrong.) I want to discuss science, not philosophy. There is no one more infuriating than a philosopher, because THEY ARE ALL trying to do the impossible task of outdoing Socrates, and have been since Socrates, in his wisdom. They are all committing a TERRIBLE irony in that they have forgotten Socrates' only wisdom was admitting ignorance, thus giving birth to science as we know it (contributions by mystics, though, should be acknowledged), whenever they believe they have built on his foundations. We have not built a structure of knowledge, thus, but have simply become ever-more refined in our questions. THAT is science!

Real_Solitude -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (6/5/2008 2:54:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hellohellohi I am not saying anything about what comes after death. I'm not advocating Christianity. I just think you are not thinking about consciousness. You don't seem to read what I say very closely either. I read everything you say, most of it more than once. You use language in a way I'm not familiar with. The internet is not the clearest of mediums by which to communicate. Quick, verbal communication would undoubtedly clear things up, but as it stands, I understand the words you use, but not the way in which you use them. Your grammar is often ambiguous, with ideas running into each other as will happen in conversation. This make it hard for me to do any real responding to points that you make, and instead limits me to interjecting wherever possible. I'm not sure if you're communicating in an esoteric fashion, or if I'm simply not used to the manner in which you communicate, but it results in a bit of a communication barrier either way. quote: I don't mind any number of "operating" definitions of consciousness that you offer. However, they certainly don't include anything about it (and experience) being "qualitative", "subjective," "interior" and so on, and, so, aren't normal usages of the word to say the least. Your way of talking about consciousness represents a peculiar redefinition. I think it would be more respectable for scientists and speculators to say "I don't know," rather than saying, well, maybe I don't, maybe WE don't, but we WILL and so on. And it would be preferrable if in redefining the word, you used a different word, "intelligence" is an adequate replacement for your consciousness consisting merely in information processing. (Intelligence need not assume consciousness -- interiority, etc.) Intelligence really wouldn't work though. Intelligence (as I understand it) has to do with ability to retain/access though, speed of thought, ability to connect thought, etc... basically, the management of information by the conscious and unconscious. Consciousness, on the other hand, has not only to do with the management of known facts, but also with being aware of the information. That is, consciousness is the thing that decides what information to use, how, and when. So while intelligence might tell you that sticking a knife into your own hand is a bad thing, consciousness is the things that decides whether of not to do it anyways. Consciousness is governed not merely raw knowledge, but also by sensory and emotional input, by past experience, etc... quote: It is perhaps silly to disagree that taste is "a function" of the nervous system. But, as usual, you use the term "experience" -- This term has not been described objectively. The problem is, though correlation can be drawn between brain states and subjective REPORTING, there is no way to know OBJECTIVELY whether the subjectivity vanishes when REPORTING is no longer possible. Similarly, it is impossible to know whether subjectivity actually exists. This I DO NOT say is proof of religion or anything. Rather I am suggesting a proper way to say "I don't know." It is not that death would be NOTHING in the sense of blankness, merely, "it is beyond existence, ergo..." or "It is beyond knowledge, ergo..." that is, there is nothing to say about it one way or the other objectively. I DO NOT say this lends evidence to the assertion that there is SOMETHING, rather I am trying to ensure that you don't make the NOTHING into a SOMETHING. (I do not know if you do, though. I am just talking about things that interest me here. ALSO I am puzzled by your language. Really, I think it is lazy, and hence that you are to some extent a lazy thinker. Prove me wrong.) The problem, as mentioned above, is that only about half of your message is being received. I can only really respond to the ideas that (I think) I understand. I'm using the word 'experience' to mean the information that flows through the conscious awareness. That is, you don't generally experience breathing. You do generally experience smell. They're both governed by the brain, and you can consciously experience breathing, but it happens even without you really being aware of it. It is in this manner that I'm saying that death is nothing. Most of our lives are the result of our sensory intake. To be able to use the senses requires organs, nerves, neurons, etc... The rest of our lives is absorbed by thought. Thought has been shown to be able to be taken away by disabling various parts of the brain. The same goes for memory. If one is without thought, and one is without sense, and one is without memory, one is without. There is nothing left to take away. Even if there were some substance that had controlled the brain in life, it is definitely not conscious in death as there is nothing we could recognize left. If something continues to exist, it is beyond the physical. If it is beyond the physical, it is pointless to assume it exists. If it is beyond study or knowledge, why believe it exists. Believing that consciousness can exist apart from the body (e.g. that a soul exists) is as pointless as believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You can't disprove it, but its an idea that can be discarded because there is no evidence to suggest it exists. quote: I must remind you that it seems you believe that the brain produces consciousness merely in being "complex." You see, I am NOT suggesting we take up discussions of ESSENCE and so on; merely that consciousness and EXPERIENCE are thought of as being interior. You see, I grant that you have an earnest enjoyment of life and experience, and it seems that the sharing of that experience is also important. But wouldn't you agree that the sharing is CONTINGENT? It may or may not happen. It is possible to have an entirely obscure experience, take schizophrenia, or supply your own examples. It is also possible to share experience as you say. I grant that! If sharing of experience is contingent, then you have found the concept "interiority." Sharing is contingent on what? On being shared? So... what? Inferiority is the "facade" square on the Johari window? (unknown to others, known to self.) quote: Reread my other post for I think the best treatment of interiority and agency from a scientific view (that I know of). It didn't really help. That was the post I didn't understand in the first place. If you could find an link that succinctly explains your ideas I'll read it, but I didn't really comprehend what you wrote. quote: A question: Do you prefer "pleasurable" experience among the experiences that you pursue as your raison d'etre? I prefer horrible experiences, fear and TERROR. Anything wrong with that? If fear is what you prefer, fear is your pleasure. I take an even hand of both. I like the experience of feeling the sun on me cheek, or playing a game. Conversely, I enjoy the 'darker' side of experience as well. Like I said, if I knew I'd come through in one piece, I'd jump off a cliff. quote: As far as the singularity... I agree that there could be a kind of epistemological "bottleneck" created by self-replicating technology, which we could see into no more easily than into biological systems. There is no basis for explaining the subjectivity of living things and there would be equally zero evidence for the consciousness of novel entities. If we grant one, may as well grant the other. It is not a rational question, however. So, I do not advocate granting consciousness (that is, rights) to technology now or ever. The question would eventually run into ethics and philosophy, and if it stemmed from a quasi-scientific origin, the discussion would be dangerously clouded. In the case of robots I say, "kill 'em all and let God sort them out." Why not? Why? Should the fish have killed the mammals simply because they were more intelligent, more adaptable? Why not pass the torch on to the better and the brighter? The fact that we'll be able to transcend our biology via this technology will muddle things a bit. If a person were to replace their body with technology, would you still grant them rights, even if they're just a brain in a robotic body? What if they replace half of their brain with machinery? 75% 99.9% 100%? Why should a mechanical person be considered any less of a person than people are? For that matter, let's look at biotechnology. If we were to create a super-smart cat that was fully conscious and as smart as a human, should it not be granted rights? If we are to create an intelligent machine, it will, very quickly, be better, smart, and 'more' conscious than we are. It will be our better in every respect. Why should it not be granted the rights we are? I don't mean to sound rude, but you seem to have a lack of vision. The imbuement of our technology with intelligence, comprehension, and consciousness will be the greatest leap forward mankind has ever achieved. To stop this because is may have some uncomfortable moral or ethical implications is quote: In general, I would describe your unwillingness to listen to any useful word for consciousness along the lines of "interiority" as paranoid. You seem to believe that if you grant any superfluous concept, your objectivity will be compromised. That is commendable perhaps. However, I would contend that WHAT WE EXPERIENCE AS INTERIORY, call it what you will, is SUPERFLUOUS. Please reread my other post. (I can even account for a useful conception of agency, attached to a physical observer, but I do not find a use for that subjectivity beyond the informational alert "your turn!". It seems like it "came along with the bargain" to me. Agency is superfluous except when deciding the epistemologically ambiguous or actionably ambivalent) Why can't some thing be superfluous to science? Death, I would say, is superfluous to science. It's not that science says it IS NOTHING, rather it doesn't say anything. That is science's great virtue! It speaks only when it has something to say. Re-reading something I didn't understand the first time didn't help. Why can't something be superfluous to science? Well, things can be useless. That doesn't mean they can't be known. It's also possible that there are things that can't be known, but then it's useless to speculate about it at all. You'd simply be engaging in what-ifs? While idle speculation can certainly be entertaining, it doesn't serve any practical purpose, and you certainly shouldn't shape your life around them. quote: Now, I have no problem if you NEVER talk about subjectivity and logical paradoxes like nothingness. I say they will be taken up only if one gets BORED. Christianity, I am granting very enthusiastically!, is entirely superfluous to life. One can live very well without it. (A Christian would say, "one better not die without it.") However, how can one vaunt experience as a virtue if one doesn't believe whole-heartedly in consciousness? Perhaps that is your problem, your inconsistency. What's so great about experience? Or, perhaps you are celebrating the superfluous (grace -- it is gratis, extra, i.e.: synonymous with superfluous) just as Christians do? I would have no problem with that. To say, "given all the majesty of science," and so on, "I am most impressed with the fact that in a addition to there being something quantifiable, there is something qualitative;" celebrating the superfluous. "I am thoroughly impressed with science's ability to describe the experience of tasting a strawberry as a series of causes and effects in the nervous system, however, I am looking forward to tasting them again and again." Or, "I hate strawberries," whichever. Why would I not believe in consciousness? I am conscious, I experience consciousness, it exists. Why is it not enough for consciousness to exist in the physical, transient world? Why do we have to add spiritual, metaphysical, etc... aspects to it? I like experience because I believe that all knowledge is worth having. I believe knowledge itself to be valuable, and experience is a form of knowledge. I also believe that pleasure/fulfillment/happiness are worthy goals. Therefore, repetition of enjoyed experiences is a good thing. To call something superfluous implies that it has some intrinsic purpose. To say that experience is superfluous to life supposes that life itself is not superfluous. I've said before that I consider life to be incidental. If life has no purpose but that which we create for ourselves, then experience can be said to be no more superfluous than anything else. So I suppose, yes, I delight in the unnecessary. quote: What I have a problem with is obscurantism in the guise of intelligence, ignorance, and an inability to communicate. Atheism is great! Stupidity is not. Hopefully, there is an atheism which is not simple obscurantism. I believe there is, if it is as I have just described, to grant value and express thanks for the superfluous qualitative aspect of life. Or even to say that all one cares about is epistemology and "naming." Or even to say "I don't know, I don't care." That is fine. (Yes, I am a Christian, but that is superfluous to the discussion as well. I only mentioned so that I would not be playing a game with you.) How is atheism obscurantism? Absolute atheism, perhaps, but not the practical atheism that most people hold, which states that there is enough contrary evidence to suggest that no god exists.

Real_Solitude -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (6/5/2008 3:21:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hellohellohi Hello, looking at your other discussion which is somewhat similar I see... This is the type of comment that I call obscurantist, if you are wondering what I am talking about. quote: I can do the first, but not the second. The reasons I can't do the second are twofold. The first is that it is not completely understood yet. The second is that even if it were understood, explaining it in any detail would undoubtedly require a number of doctorates. It shows that you don't really care what the truth is but are willing to suppose your irrational propositions will be answered simply because SOMEONE somtime somewhere will not only claim to answer the superfluous questions but will have a few Ph.D.s too. I don't envy that kind of trust! Science is inquiry (and peer review). Are you going to be a peer or a journalist? Not really. Simply because no one can, in detail, describe every aspect of a process does not mean that we can't know that everything in the process is following known laws. We could, hypothetically, describe everything that happens in your brain on an atomic level. This wouldn't help us at all. We need to know how the systems work together to understand the brain, but we can still know that nothing supernatural is happening because we can describe things at a molecular level. To suppose that something unnatural is happening without any evidence that this is so is what I find as a mockery of truth. The proposition that everything that happens happens within the laws of physics has always proven to be true. It may be disproved in the future, but until that point, we must operate as if it does because this is the only manner in which we may progress. I don't really know what your obsession with the 'peer of journalist' thing is. Nor why it'd be insulting if I were to choose to be a journalist. But even to be a peer requires you to trust in the process. It requires that you accept the findings of people in fields other than yours because those findings have been through the peer-review process. One person can not know everything, we must trust that what others find is true, but we have a basis (peer-review) for allowing this trust. quote: But ultimately the question that I call superfluous will remain. There will be no proof that interiority exists since the only evidence for it is REPORTING. That doesn't mean we should not ask subjects questions and look for correlates and find everythign we can ABOUT it. And so on. Get some humility, and get over it. Proof is an awkward word to use in this context. We can't prove that gravity exists, there's merely enough evidence to make doubt stupid. The same applies to (what I understand you to mean by) interiority. If my Johari window explanation is what you're talking about when you say 'interiority', then we can know it exists simply because there are things that people know about themselves, but that other people don't know. To be honesty, I'm still not entirely clear what you're talking about, why it would require humility, or why you keep taking weird little pop-shots at me, instead of my arguments. quote: Don't cover one unknown with another (consciousness with complexity and the future). THAT is obscurantism. You're the one who's been calling consciousness complexity, not me. Granted, you've been doing it by saying that I said it, but I never did. The only thing I've said even close is that a way to prove that other people are conscious in the same way that I am is to look at their behavior. My behavior is 'complex', so it theirs. If they are autonomous, so am I. There is no difference between them and me, and if I am conscious, so must they be. This is not saying that consciousness=complexity, far from it. It merely says that certain complex actions (thinking, holding conversations, writing blogs, or whatever.) are indicative of consciousness. quote: To say that the question of consciousness is all but a done deal is to say that it is more interesting that the universe is the way it is than that there is someone to observe it. I think they are both pretty interesting. So, the question, why? Try evolutionary logic, because, surely, you will grant that consciousness as we know it is the product of biological entitities, or at least likely associated with their structure , their physics and physical capabilities somehow ("product" is not a "done deal"). What PHYSICALLY sets apart biological and physical structures? Complexity, i suppose, but, really? And if so, so what? I grant physicalism. Dualism is a can of worms. Aren't biological structures physical structures? From all I've learned, biology is just matter acting in clever ways. If biology is just matter, and consciousness is the product of biology, can't we reasonably say that consciousness is a physical construct? quote: What is contrary to the notion that subjective consiousness is superfluous, perhaps an inevitable but useless accident or coincidence, from the standpoint of evolution? Theism, I would suppose. The idea that consciousness is a necessary part of existence.

Real_Solitude -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (6/5/2008 3:51:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hellohellohi Either way, the question of consciousness is being swept under the rug. On the one hand it is concealed under the cloak of complexity and the future (and with dubious consequences like fealty to the cult of experts) and on the other it is filed indefinitely in the dustbin of "non-scientific." Under the former, however, inquiry is discouraged, if only under a spirit of complacency, procrastination, or a "the experts will handle it" attitude. Now, if the question of consciousness is the product of the same INCLINATION toward methodic, perhaps irrational, doubt as is SCIENCE, then we have found a satisfying irony. (We are capable of asking questions (poetically) that have no answers it seems.) If consciousness is driven to INFINITELY bring up new ways to ask the same circular question (regardless have how advanced our knowledge gets) it will perhaps answer itself with the circle in REVERSE, "How else would you know so much if you weren't asking all these ridiculous questions, finding out everything except what you were asking for, or even demanding, "Why?") How am I trying to obscure consciousness? All I'm saying is that we're not going to discern anything profound by just talking about it. I know this is true because people have been talking about it for ages untold, and still we're at square one. What I'm saying is to get anywhere meaningful is going to require a scalpel, or a high-resolution EEG, or whatever. We're not going to determine the nature of consciousness by just blowing hot air. The only way to find out what it is will be to put it under the proverbial (or literal) knife. What I'm saying is that we've given philosophy its due time to figure out what consciousness is, and it has, as the kids today said, resulted in an epic fail. It's time to turn the question over to the neuroscientists. quote: For instance, even if it settled fairly rigorously that an OBSERVER is just the sort of thing to make decisions under epistemologically AMBIVALENT circumstances. That is, perhaps an OBSERVER is the type of physical PARTICLE (even, or perhaps it IS only manifested by a complex set of physical conditions) that can alter UNCERTAINTY, to disambiguate so that action/reacion can take place. But, still, the ridiculous question, "Why does the observe have, yknow, observe" Why can't it just DO what it does without being US? This question does not lend itself to any scientific hypotheses, you see. It is simply not scientific. It is even dubious from a linguistic point of view! ??? Are you speaking about the scientifically defined observer (That which causes wave-functions to collapse) or the philosophical observer (A conscious entity)? The scientific observer need not be conscious. It can be an electron bouncing off of a photon, or whatever. If you're asking why a physical system produces consciousness, this is an odd question. The physical system of our brains produces us because this is how the physical system acts. It is like asking why carbon has four-way bonding. It ends up being a question of "why is the universe the way it is?" This is a good question, but one we're far from answering. quote: I am also enthusiastic about the probability that language is even DESIGNED (by evolution) to produce nonsensical statements in order to create a circumstance where information that is supposed to be concealed even from the self can nonetheless be transmitted, apparently, in code to kin(so the self cannot blow it by revealing it ahead of the moment it may be useful. Read my other post.). I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE THOUGHT THIS FAR. I still don't understand you. I couldn't comprehend your first post, and I don't know what you're talking about now. I think you're seriously overestimating what evolution does. Verbal language is not really subject to biological evolution. Biological evolution gave us the capability for speech, and the brain to use it, but the information exchanged is pure software. Evolution alters hardware, not software. The meaning of statements must be agreed upon in order to contain meaning. The only information you transmit that you don't mean to is non-verbal. quote: If agency is called upon by evolution for the task of disambiguation, perhaps it can go too far and alter ambiguous physical circumstances within the hereditary information itself. Sounds quasi-Lamarckian (though without purpose.) What do you mean by 'agency'? How can it be called upon by evolution? How can physical circumstances be ambiguous? How can information be hereditary? Clarify your statements, please! Assume that I know nothing about what you're talking about, and we might actually get somewhere. Assume that I'm a complete ignorant fool, and lay things out all simple-like. I can't read your mind, and I'm not going to attempt to respond if I don't know what you're talking about. quote: Perhaps disambiguation only occurs in COMPETITION from an OTHER. Perhaps a biological system need only respond unpredictably to a system with INTENT in order to APPEAR to have intent or agency itself. Then, what is the OTHER that would set all of these in motion? I'm not even going to attempt to finish my response to this post. You speak in odd contemplation and esoteric conversation. If I may, I ask a boon of you. Lay out every post as if you were arguing with me, or as if we were having a debate. Give me points I can respond to, not a single flowing dialogue. Do not give me your musings, give me the final product of your thoughts. Sorry if it sounds harsh, but I can't continue in this manner.

hellohellohi -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (6/5/2008 10:20:52 AM)

Your comments were very appropriate. Sorry for being obscure. My reason for
being obscure is that I am paranoid that other people are being obscure and say
things that they claim to believe without actually believing them (that is what a journalist would do -- "unbiased") (or when their
statements are purposefully but subtly irrelavant); so I seek to put them in a
state of confusion so that they can reexamine their words. Poor excuse
perhaps. (Basically, perhaps I am attempting a synthesis between post-modernism and the Enlightenment, since they both have good aspects?)

You said lots of things I agree with and only one thing (that I recall) that I
considered suspicious or dubious.

Here are some that I agree with:

quote:

If something continues to exist, it is beyond the physical. If it is
beyond the physical, it is pointless to assume it exists.

Yes, I think I agree with that. I would hope that Christians don't believe out
of assumption either (as in supension of disbelief or accepting religion
as a supposedly reasonable hypothetical).
I consider it very pragmatic to call consideration of what comes after
death as pointless.

That's why I am equally pleased that you said:

quote:

So I suppose, yes, I delight in the unnecessary.

That, to me, is a very reasonable (or honest, anyway) atheism. (Also, as a
side, I wasn't saying atheism is obscurantism. I was making a personal
accusation, which I was also trying to infer I didn't KNOW to be true. I was
just making it just in case.)

Then, the stuff about advanced AI. I was trying to tell you I agree that (true)
AI could be realized (rather than that defined by the Turing test) following a
singularity, as you say, or a "bottleneck" as I say. Same thing -- that is, a
point in technology that we cannot see into any more well than we can see into
current biological, complex systems. If machines are designed to
self-replicate and an imperfection similar to the possibility of mutation is
built into the process, I think it is very reasonable to believe that something
remarkable will come of it: yes, intelligence and we would have to say,
consciousness. Now, I was being partly facetious when I said "Kill all
robots," but I appreciate your challenge to everyone that, within our lifetimes
or not, come AI, we will have to consider some hard ethical questions. Some of
these questions will also appear to challenge Christianity greatly, but not in
my opinion. I appreciate you exhorting me to grant robots their place in
society as well. I should be more charitable. I don't really care if human
society survives anyway! Either way is fine, that is.
In the end, the only "just war" that humanity could ever wage -- alas, it
won't be against super-smart robots -- would be zombies. Velociraptors would
be nice, but that is probably too much to hope for. Of course, it wouldn't be
just to wipe out velociraptors either.

Oh yes, I was trying to emphasize the point that if we don't KNOW how
consciousness is produced there is no reason to assume that we will ever. I
agree that philosophy has had its chance, though. But I am grateful that
philosophers (if they do) emphasize the insolubility of the problem. I was
trying to emphasize as well that the paradoxical questions of consciousness will remain paradoxes even while science finds everything ABOUT consciousness.

I agree with :

quote:

Why can't something be superfluous to science? Well, things can be useless. That doesn't mean they can't be known. It's also possible that there are things that can't be known, but then it's useless to speculate about it at all. You'd simply be engaging in what-ifs? While idle speculation can certainly be entertaining, it doesn't serve any practical purpose, and you certainly shouldn't shape your life around them.

Except your last statement. I thought you were saying you celebrate the unnecessary? It's true, don't shape your life around idle speculation, such as "aliens exist," or even "God exists," if you understand it speculatively. In fact, that's why I say the notion of "God's existence" has nothing to do with Christianity, both in the obvious sense of it referring to any God and none in particular and in the more "obscure" sense that existence is something that objects (things that full under empirical investigation) exhibit. It (existence) is a synonym, I say, for the awkward property "objectness." I'll speak more cogently (I hope) about this below. Because I suppose perhaps my only point in all of this is about the definition and connotations of knowledge.

quote:

Why would I not believe in consciousness? I am conscious, I experience consciousness, it exists. Why is it not enough for consciousness to exist in the physical, transient world? Why do we have to add spiritual, metaphysical, etc... aspects to it?

I agree. We don't have to nor would I recommend granting unknowns like God existence. Except for, of course, God would be said to exist as Jesus. However, Jesus was a human, a consciousness. Even without being God, a human is a paradox and an unknown. However, I'm sure we ought to grant humans existence! So, I must extend the definition of existence to "subjects" as well. I guess it is the category that covers "subjects" and "objects." The paradox of consciousness is that it seems that one could always doubt whether descriptions of objects, however refined, are also effectively describing a subject. Get it?

quote:

To say that experience is superfluous to life supposes that life itself is not superfluous.

Yes, I guess I was saying by implication that life is superfluous as well (in the sense of lived-life, not biological definitions). But superfluous to what? That is vague word when used out of a specific context. I was saying that consciousness is superfluous from an evolutionry point of view. This is perhaps one of the things that I have failed to articulate/ you have failed to comtemplate properly. You see, I think it deserves a shot. It seems to me that consciousness is a paradox, yes, but the way I phrase it is that any supposed solution is always open to doubt. That is precisely equivalent to saying that science has an inexhaustible project for itself! I don't think that is a bad thing, because science ought to be inexhastible...

Which brings me to what I wanted to get at... (I looked again and I couldn't remember what I considered suspicious, only that it is relevant somehow to this):

And part of this is a correction of myself.

What do you think? It seems to me that knowledge, to science, is one-in-the-same-as the naming of things. One could say scientific knowledge is "descriptive." I was saying that science is, therefore, not a structure of knowledge, but I'll leave that aside. Science is the naming of objects and patterns displayed by objects. So, basically, I have a problem when science or anyone takes a "subject" for an object. This question is (probably infinitely) open to doubt. That is, I invite science to continue is task of refining its questions as, well, the structure of all names of objects becomes more sophisticated. But unless it can ask a question about consciousness (rather than asking questions OF consciousness, in the sense of requesting subjective reporting) itself (rather than associated with it) it cannot rule on whether it "exists" or not. Only the subject can assert whether s/he exists or not, and even that is open to doubt, very often. This I think is what Christianity is really about, is asking whether or not one actually "exists" (i.e.: is the I an object before some OTHER consciousness -- perhaps, for instance, other people.) Now, there is such a thing as existentialism, which you seem to espouse, that holds that we exist right off and then goes on to address what that means in a personal way. I suppose we would need to discourse under that context then.

As far as science goes, though, I believe the question of consciousness (all the questions that can be generated by the limitless dubiousness surronding the concept) should be pursued thoroughly and relentlessly. I don't believe that the task of naming things will ever be complete. Naming things, too, could be one-in-the-same-as Christianity, as long as one is honest. For if God is who he says he is (existing in the sense that Jesus exists) then perhaps we will stumble across an impression of him, and no different than we are to name ANY other subjectivity, we will name him.

Sorry for being inarticulate and stream-of-consciousness.

Also, related to this is the question of obscurity. I believe science's drive is, really, a constant paranoia (like mine) that statements are, if not obscure, sometimes too ham-handed and must be refined constantly. This paranoia is not to be criticized though, but could be viewed as a humility, in that it shrinks from the sweeping statements and is always willing to admit that there is much more to know (to name, I say).

For example, the concepts of the ether and phlogiston (I assume you are familiar since they are so often cited as examples) were attempts at naming objects in the universe. Now, these weren't concepts to be refined so much as thrown out (inspiring