Why atheism is irrational

[Creed of Heresy]

My bad.

What were we even talking about?

Nothing interesting. Wow, what a waste of time.

I figured that out about five pages ago.

Vinnie argues that subjectivity proves objectivity, argues ad populum, argues strawman, argues non-sequitur, and argues that science is inferior to philosophy, when the only meaningful thing philosophy has ever produced to society is a bunch of questions that are unanswerable and therefore not worth bothering to consider. Somehow he leaps to the conclusion that because I cannot prove my red is his red that therefore this is tantamount to the evidence of a deity in some weird half-baked cake of non-logic wherein he thinks that because the claim has been made and, ad populum, children grow up believing it [carefully forgetting to remember that they also believe in Santa Claus and BOTH subjects are taught by the parents, not inborn knowledge] and also lots of people believe it ergo it must be true.

Red herrings all over the place, a bunch of philosobabble, logical fallacies all but erupting from his ass like an exploding volcano of irrationality, and finally complete and total blissful ignorance that he continually shoots himself in the foot at every attempt he makes to "prove" he is correct.

Vinnie is an intellectual trainwreck. His avatar fits him perfectly.

Creed's recommendation: Don't waste your time.

[pocaracas]

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...

[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.

[pocaracas]

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.

I never said I know any of this stuff.... But I may be aware of a point of view that they may not follow too easily, because... let's face it... if you can follow something related to computer science, you don't get a degree in philosophy.

Mankind is building machines in the hopes that they will, one day, mimic a real human... I've pointed out a wiki article about artificial consciousness, now, one on robots and their learning:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...-learning/

Current work is still a bit rudimentary, but it is picking up pace. I find it may be quite easy for a sufficiently complex machine to acquire consciousness similar to humans.

People are even incorporating emotions into their artificial neural networks...
http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/fi...ch122.html

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

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.

I never said I know any of this stuff.... But I may be aware of a point of view that they may not follow too easily, because... let's face it... if you can follow something related to computer science, you don't get a degree in philosophy.

Mankind is building machines in the hopes that they will, one day, mimic a real human... I've pointed out a wiki article about artificial consciousness, now, one on robots and their learning:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...-learning/

Current work is still a bit rudimentary, but it is picking up pace. I find it may be quite easy for a sufficiently complex machine to acquire consciousness similar to humans.

People are even incorporating emotions into their artificial neural networks...
http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/fi...ch122.html

Somehow I'm still skeptical that CS can explain it.

But I'm eager to hear your explanation. Tell me how abstraction layers can go to explain qualia. I'll tell you if I think it works or not.

[pocaracas]

Somehow I'm still skeptical that CS can explain it.

But I'm eager to hear your explanation. Tell me how abstraction layers can go to explain qualia. I'll tell you if I think it works or not.

Somehow, I think you didn't even bother reading the link I gave you which explains what an abstraction layer is...

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Somehow I'm still skeptical that CS can explain it.

But I'm eager to hear your explanation. Tell me how abstraction layers can go to explain qualia. I'll tell you if I think it works or not.

Somehow, I think you didn't even bother reading the link I gave you which explains what an abstraction layer is...

I did, and I've already formed an opinion on it based on the nature of how an abstraction layer would look in a computer network, as opposed to a mind.

I'm just looking to see if you can develop an argument of your own. I'm looking to engage the person, not the wikipedia link.

[pocaracas]

the nature of how an abstraction layer would look in a computer network, as opposed to a mind.

Are those two that different?

As far as we can tell, the brain is a massive network of neurons.
Some artificial neural networks try to emulate this behavior of the brain... albeit... with much much less neurons, due to hardware restrictions...
Maybe one day, we'll get there.
And then we may have all the proof required to show how a sufficiently complex neural network gives rise to the high level phenomenon that we call consciousness. Or not... We'll have a neural network much larger than any brain and it will just be a stupid thing...
We'll see.
My bet goes to the first option, but I bet little. I don't like to lose.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

the nature of how an abstraction layer would look in a computer network, as opposed to a mind.

Are those two that different?

As far as we can tell, the brain is a massive network of neurons.
Some artificial neural networks try to emulate this behavior of the brain... albeit... with much much less neurons, due to hardware restrictions...
Maybe one day, we'll get there.
And then we may have all the proof required to show how a sufficiently complex neural network gives rise to the high level phenomenon that we call consciousness. Or not... We'll have a neural network much larger than any brain and it will just be a stupid thing...
We'll see.
My bet goes to the first option, but I bet little. I don't like to lose.

The two are fundamentally different, yes. Because every operation in a computer is wholly reducible to a common type, or kind of function.

This is not true of a mind.

And artificial neural networks emulating brain behavior resolves nothing of the problem. This has been a well-accepted philosophical possibility for a long time.

Rather, the issue is nothing you have said, not even an abstraction layer, can explain the irreducibility of qualia to the functioning of the brain. Before you deny this, think about the sentence carefully. The answer is not "qualia is reducible to neural behavior", because qualia is not chemistry, it is sense experience.

[pocaracas]

Are those two that different?

As far as we can tell, the brain is a massive network of neurons.
Some artificial neural networks try to emulate this behavior of the brain... albeit... with much much less neurons, due to hardware restrictions...
Maybe one day, we'll get there.
And then we may have all the proof required to show how a sufficiently complex neural network gives rise to the high level phenomenon that we call consciousness. Or not... We'll have a neural network much larger than any brain and it will just be a stupid thing...
We'll see.
My bet goes to the first option, but I bet little. I don't like to lose.

The two are fundamentally different, yes. Because every operation in a computer is wholly reducible to a common type, or kind of function.

This is not true of a mind.

And artificial neural networks emulating brain behavior resolves nothing of the problem. This has been a well-accepted philosophical possibility for a long time.

Rather, the issue is nothing you have said, not even an abstraction layer, can explain the irreducibility of qualia to the functioning of the brain. Before you deny this, think about the sentence carefully. The answer is not "qualia is reducible to neural behavior", because qualia is not chemistry, it is sense experience.

yeah... you keep your delusion, I'll keep mine.
Live long and prosper.

If you see a machine displaying qualia in the future, remember me...