Why atheism is irrational

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Nice that you are taking the time to look it up and learn about the discussions. Kudos.

Errr.... thanks!

At 3:20 in the video, Chalmers is referring to a thought experiment. Describing it or discussing it doesn't mean the interlocutors believe it is true. A good example would be Hilbert's Hotel. Or Zeno's paradox. Or Mary the color blind scientist. Or the Chinese Room. Or the Trolley Problem. So David Chalmers might refer to God, or p-zombies (philosophical zombies), but he doesn't commit himself to their existence.

How do you know it's a thought experiment? I didn't get that vibe, but I only watched that 10 minute video...

He is, in fact, an atheist. You can contact him yourself to find out. PM me and I will give you his contact info. Or better yet, I'll contact him myself, since I'm concerned that you might be as rude with him as you are with me.

Rudeness is inherent to the internet. Enjoy it.

About your attempt to resolve the problem of consciousness, I respect your right to have a view, but I'm sorry that I cannot take it seriously.

The reason I cannot take it seriously is that you fail to even properly understand it. Or specifically, the distinction between brain states and mental states.

Two different abstraction layers...
What you call "brain state" is a lower layer more related to the actual electrical impulses... the "mental state" is a higher layer more related to a given thought.

To get a better understanding of it, first you need to understand what philosophers call qualia. Here is a neuroscientist, VS Ramachandran, explaining qualia. By the way, note how this neuroscientist takes crackpot philosophers and their talk of "qualia" seriously.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTWmTJALe1w

I prefer to let you watch videos because I think nobody reads anything I recommend they read.

Once you understand what qualia is, you will see that your background assumptions about the ontology of "personality" and brain structures themselves are false. It's ironic considering you're telling me I fail to understand complex systems. You made me laugh with that one!

yep, qualia... another abstraction layer.
Maybe these people need to learn what an abstraction layer is...

You also made me laugh when you tried to tell me these foolish philosophers don't understand the brain, and proceed to lecture me on your theory.

So, first step- figure out what qualia is. Then look at your theory, and tell me if you still agree with it, okay?

Yes I do.
And it seems your buddy Chalmers agrees... or agreed...
From the wiki page on my previous post:

However, other theorists are more sanguine about the plausibility of AC. For some theorists (e.g., functionalists), who define mental states in terms of causal roles, any system that can instantiate the same pattern of causal roles, regardless of physical constitution, will instantiate the same mental states, including consciousness (Putnam, 1967). Along these lines, some theorists (e.g., David Chalmers) have proposed that consciousness can be realized in properly designed and programmed computers.

Now, about agape...

You can know Chalmers is talking about a thought experiment because he is referring to p-zombies.

But you're saying you know more than neuroscientists and philosophers. Sounds like atheist bullshit to me. But I'm willing to hear you out on your level of expertise in the matter.

Tell me why you think your view of abstraction layers is more accurate than the current views in these fields.