Why atheism is irrational

[downbeatplumb]

The reason people used to believe in god is because they had no understanding of the way the universe really worked and injected dieties to try and pretend they weren't ignorant.

With all due respect, you don't know that to be a fact. There is no way anyone could know that to be a fact.

It seems to me that you have developed a notion that 'fits' what you understand. It makes sense to you given the limits of your understanding, even though it is completely unsubstantiated.

Sound familiar?


MM

I've met people and this is what they do.

[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?

[pocaracas]

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.

LOL
Ever since my early years, I've regarded philosophers as crackpots.
People who earn their lives just thinking about something...
Of course, each and every one of them is subject to their personal biases, which renders their neutrality a bit into question.
And Sam Harris isn't immune to it!
What to do?....
democracy!
poop

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.

With all due respect, you fail to understand complex systems.
Philosophers can fail too.

You say these two are atheists... well, I remember hearing this guy say something about god, like if it's obvious it exists... (~3:20)




The other guy is indeed an atheist, but, as many atheists, thinks that our brain and our personality are two separate entities.
I see it as personality arising from the brain structure and mechanics. In a very complex and very difficult to accurately ascertain way.
I wish we could build a machine that transfers a person's personality into another body... It would be great.
But I don't think it's possible to have any mental processes without the brain.
AND my guess is that "brain states" == "mental states", we just can't measure either very well, can we? Until such measurements are indeed available, this is an unsubstantiated claim, although in tune with the rest of reality and all the evidence available where neurological damage leads to personality alterations.
You may want to start learning about simpler systems. The brain is far too complex. Look into artificial neural networks. See how many "neurons" are required to perform a simple operation. See how new information can be continuously incorporated into the network. See how an extrapolation of such "simple" ANNs to the millions of neurons can generate a system capable of amazing operations.
Think that what we call consciousness can be nothing more than a bunch of such operations, in parallel.
The human brain can thus easily be seen as a fully deterministic biological machine, which is in continuous change, not only due to the constant torrent of input data (aka senses), but also due to the information that it generates (aka, thinking).

And those two philosophers fail to realize this detail... the brain is a machine. The product of the inner workings of this machine is our consciousness. There are many levels of abstraction layers between the individual neurons and the happy emotion, but there's no where else that emotion can come from.

Look at how Harris puts his case:

But couldn’t a mature neuroscience nevertheless offer a proper explanation of human consciousness in terms of its underlying brain processes? We have reasons to believe that reductions of this sort are neither possible nor conceptually coherent. Nothing about a brain, studied at any scale (spatial or temporal), even suggests that it might harbor consciousness. Nothing about human behavior, or language, or culture, demonstrates that these products are mediated by subjectivity. We simply know that they are—a fact that we appreciate in ourselves directly and in others by analogy. - See more at: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-m...CkRHe.dpuf

I'm very well aware that this hasn't yet been studied as it should.
Not from the neuroscientist's perspective... but perhaps from the computer model perspective we can get there?...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_consciousness
Even your pal Chalmers has pitched in here... [surprisingly] I wonder what's going on in that mind of his to claim one thing and it's opposite...

[Zazzy]

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

Well, I guess I thought that, Vinny, because you asked me to look at your links. That would qualify as trying to communicate information to me.

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

Yet you never said where my reasoning was bad. See, that's how this works. If I say something you disagree with, you tell me specifically what that is and why you think so, instead of quoting my entire post, addressing nothing, and then saying I am a poor reasoner. You asked me a BS question and then totally dismissed my response, and then told me I'm a science robot. Those are the tactics of someone who does not want to engage. Not that I blame you.

[Creed of Heresy]

This thread is still going??

[Airyaman]

This thread is still going??

I think I've learned the key to thread popularity: post something that is absurd and then continue to argue as if it makes sense.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

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.

LOL
Ever since my early years, I've regarded philosophers as crackpots.
People who earn their lives just thinking about something...
Of course, each and every one of them is subject to their personal biases, which renders their neutrality a bit into question.
And Sam Harris isn't immune to it!
What to do?....
democracy!
poop

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.

With all due respect, you fail to understand complex systems.
Philosophers can fail too.

You say these two are atheists... well, I remember hearing this guy say something about god, like if it's obvious it exists... (~3:20)




The other guy is indeed an atheist, but, as many atheists, thinks that our brain and our personality are two separate entities.
I see it as personality arising from the brain structure and mechanics. In a very complex and very difficult to accurately ascertain way.
I wish we could build a machine that transfers a person's personality into another body... It would be great.
But I don't think it's possible to have any mental processes without the brain.
AND my guess is that "brain states" == "mental states", we just can't measure either very well, can we? Until such measurements are indeed available, this is an unsubstantiated claim, although in tune with the rest of reality and all the evidence available where neurological damage leads to personality alterations.
You may want to start learning about simpler systems. The brain is far too complex. Look into artificial neural networks. See how many "neurons" are required to perform a simple operation. See how new information can be continuously incorporated into the network. See how an extrapolation of such "simple" ANNs to the millions of neurons can generate a system capable of amazing operations.
Think that what we call consciousness can be nothing more than a bunch of such operations, in parallel.
The human brain can thus easily be seen as a fully deterministic biological machine, which is in continuous change, not only due to the constant torrent of input data (aka senses), but also due to the information that it generates (aka, thinking).

And those two philosophers fail to realize this detail... the brain is a machine. The product of the inner workings of this machine is our consciousness. There are many levels of abstraction layers between the individual neurons and the happy emotion, but there's no where else that emotion can come from.

Look at how Harris puts his case:

But couldn’t a mature neuroscience nevertheless offer a proper explanation of human consciousness in terms of its underlying brain processes? We have reasons to believe that reductions of this sort are neither possible nor conceptually coherent. Nothing about a brain, studied at any scale (spatial or temporal), even suggests that it might harbor consciousness. Nothing about human behavior, or language, or culture, demonstrates that these products are mediated by subjectivity. We simply know that they are—a fact that we appreciate in ourselves directly and in others by analogy. - See more at: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-m...CkRHe.dpuf

I'm very well aware that this hasn't yet been studied as it should.
Not from the neuroscientist's perspective... but perhaps from the computer model perspective we can get there?...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_consciousness
Even your pal Chalmers has pitched in here... [surprisingly] I wonder what's going on in that mind of his to claim one thing and it's opposite...

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

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.

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.

By the way, I wish I could thumbs up your post twice, because the video you used was from the program "Closer to Truth". I'm glad you are watching a program like that. It shows intelligent atheists and intelligent theists, and in my opinion is one of the most stimulating programs I have ever watched.

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.

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!

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?

---

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

Well, I guess I thought that, Vinny, because you asked me to look at your links. That would qualify as trying to communicate information to me.

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

Yet you never said where my reasoning was bad. See, that's how this works. If I say something you disagree with, you tell me specifically what that is and why you think so, instead of quoting my entire post, addressing nothing, and then saying I am a poor reasoner. You asked me a BS question and then totally dismissed my response, and then told me I'm a science robot. Those are the tactics of someone who does not want to engage. Not that I blame you.

My bad.

What were we even talking about?

[Bad Writer]

We've jumped into Enrico territory. Great.

[Zazzy]

My bad.

What were we even talking about?

Nothing interesting. Wow, what a waste of time.

[Airyaman]

Must be good weed to forget the conversation.