Why atheism is irrational

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

If you are looking for serious answers, this is about as much as I can give you. Google or wikipedia can get you up to speed pretty quickly.

-David Chalmers on the Easy & Hard Problems of Consciousness.
-I would also recommend Thomas Nagel's hated "Mind and Cosmos". Failing that, his NY Times editorial summarizing his ideas: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/201...smos/?_r=0

Both these guys are phylosophers.. none of them understand how the biological brain gives rise to awareness, or consciousness.... hence, jump the gun to some sort of non-corporeal consciousness external to the actual brain...

Add time, mix... some more time.... oh damn, the brain has been doing it all, all this time!
Philosophers can't understand that we can't yet understand mega-complex systems.... but maybe one day we will... Even if we don't, so what? It doesn't prove anything. only that it's not proven yet!
Until then, I keep as most likely the fact that consciousness arises in the brain, out of millions and millions of neuron interactions.... too many to count, each too small to measure... yet.
Why do I think this is the most likely case? well, I find nothing, except wishful thinking, suggesting that human or animal consciousness is independent from the physical human or animal brain.
Of course, I don't study neural activity, nor anything of the sort... but it seems those who do also posit this scenario as most likely.
http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/106/3/623.short
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/c...1889.short
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/im...1/art00008

So there's my mini-google search and reading skillz for you to read.
Enjoy

LOL

With all due respect, you're full of crap.

There's no way you can conclude that they don't know as much as there is to know. By definition, philosophers of mind MUST have a working grasp of contemporary conclusions in neuroscientific research. The only thing they don't do is the dirty work of the studies themselves.

Both Thomas Nagel and David Chalmers are in fact atheists. Even Sam Harris (whose name you may not recognize, in all fairness) agrees with Chalmers on the easy and hard problems of consciousness. (http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-m...ousness-ii).

It's one thing to say "I'm not familiar with this stuff. I'm going to be an agnostic."

But to deny something so well established as the problem of consciousness is like trying to deny evolution. It makes you look like a crackpot. Seriously, do some reading before you respond.

If you believe philosophy is the work of the "religious devils" or whatever, then at least read Sam Harris, who is, by the way, a neuroscientist.

PS- Your first source does not deal with the qualitative mental states of consciousness but brain states. Brain states are not the same as mental states.
Same with the second. Neural correlates of consciousness refers to brain states.
The third one looks VERY interesting. It risks being an appeal to quantum woo, but I think I want to look at it.

---

What are you even saying, bro? You don't get points for taking off your earrings and parroting your internet snark.

If you have any serious questions, I'm more than generous. Just put the whole real housewives of new jersey act back in your purse.

What constitutes a "serious question" for you, oh intellectual guru? If you don't like comments that don't consist of questions, then you have the option of putting us naysayers on ignore.

Come with me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...4j48s#t=40

---

One thing I won't do is spoonfeed people information. But I'm sure you'll feel the same way if you were in my shoes.

Well, I don't feel that way. If I want someone to understand something, I try to explain it to them instead of putting the responsibility on them. I asked you no questions- I simply answered yours. You're the one asking me questions.

If you are looking for serious answers, this is about as much as I can give you. Google or wikipedia can get you up to speed pretty quickly.

Again, I asked you no questions. I commented on your posts. If this information is that important to you to get across to folks, try a little instruction. I'm not particularly interested in the links of some guy on the internet.

I won't touch the deity or religion question. All I know is that engaging with the above two is enough to kick you off the science-only diet.

Nice generalization of my entire life. And I'm careful not to read anything that isn't approved by Richard Dawkins, too. Oh- and nothing not scientific is ever worth my time.

Why is it that so many of you think I need to get some information across to you?

I'm not here to "get information across". I'm just correcting bad reasoning.

---

One thing I won't do is spoonfeed people information. But I'm sure you'll feel the same way if you were in my shoes.

Moose-cock!!!

If you had any evidence for your deity you would be shoveling the shit out faster than what a spoon could handle. Yet, you hide behind some bullshit emotive that you can't handle spoonfeeding anyone. No shit! You have nothing to feed me, and certainly no evidence that could fill a spoon.

What deity?

cato123, you're imagining deities now! Time to up the dosage on your medication.

Where's that Nurse Ratched?