Is atheism a belief?

[bennyboy]

@bennyboy

I enjoy both sides of this debate every time we have it here. I’m wondering; is there any reason or evidence that indicates consciousness, or subjective experience as we understand it could not follow complex information processing?

<3 thank you for the nice comment!

I'd start answering this question by asking what "information" means, as it may introduce a very subtle circularity.

The most basic transfer I know of is of the transmission of a photon from one atom in a body, and its subsequent reception by another atom in a different body.  You could say that even the fact of this simple transmission represents information: for example, about the existence of the sun, about a clear path from the sun to my face (accounting for bending of that path due to gravity of course), and about the existence of my face in a particular place and time.

Given the countless energetic interactions via photons, heat exchange, chemical interactions and so on, then I'd wonder: how would one differentiate between "processing of information" and "irrelevant stuff happening?"  Are the molecules in my face "processing" photons from the sun? If a charge builds up in a cloud, and lightning results, is this the processing of a lot of information about molecules with extra ions, with a resultant lightning behavior?  We normally wouldn't frame it that way, but this is not that different than a neuron works.

It seems to me either that information refers to all energetic interchanges in the Universe (and which would hint perhaps at panpsychism), or that "information" is a term which is selectively applied by a sentient agent onto states of systems which it arbitrarily deems more important than others.  In the latter, defining mind in terms of information processing seems suspiciously circular to me.

--edit--
I think I didn't really answer your question, but I felt I'd have to take this detour before I could respond to you with anything like the intelligence your question deserved. Hope it wasn't too text wall-ish.

[Bucky Ball]

I don't need to define it.  I just need to get out of bed in the morning, realize that I'm aware, and wonder why a universe with nothing but deterministic material objects and interactions would have mind as a property, under any system of organization, rather than not having it.

If you think mind isn't real, then I have to say that your motivations for typing on an internet forum are a little puzzling.

Such archaic medieval nonsense. The brain is real. Your religious assumptions are amazing and now you actually are saying you are a presuppositionalist. You really do know nothing about why evolution would produce awareness etc. Yes you do need to define it. You're claiming something exists, and yet you can't say what it is that exists, and what your DIRECT evidence is that there is such a a thing. A basic book on why evolution produced what it did might be a start for you. https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/evolu...hology.htm

You toe the party line loudly enough, to be sure, but what you haven't done is explain how you would determine that any physical structure or function would allow for subjective awareness.  Here's where I'm at, and you can tell me where our opinions diverge:

 
It's TOW the party line. LOL. "Toe the line", in-fucking-deed.
Do you have "subjective" experiences about things you have never experienced or learned ? No. It's all about learning and memory.
It's not my job to educate you on the basics of psychology and neuro-science. If you want to revel in scientific ignorance, that's your problem. 
It's very simple. You LEARN things, and remember things. Do you know ANYTHING about how memory works ? Apparently not. Do you know how memory is stored ? How memory is referenced ?
When you have an experience your new experience/input references the leaned memories. THAT is how subjective experience works. Again, it's not my problem you have no knowledge of neuro-science. 

1)  I know mind exists, because I experience ideas and feelings.

No. You have ideas and feeling because of brain chemistry, and a PET scan can watch that happening.

2)  I believe that other minds exists, because I'm a person, and other people (for the most part) seem to act like I do in certain situations.

No. Same fallacy as #1, just extended. All brains work in a similar way.

3)  I know that brains exist, and that the human mind has a very close connection to the brain.

No. You have not defined a "mind" in a way that could show it was DIFFERENT from a brain, nor have you stated or demonstrated what "close connection" is or means.

4)  I do not know how the brain or any other physical system can allow for subjective experience.

Then take a class on the subject.

5)  I do not know why a supposedly deterministic material universe would have something like mind at all.

It wouldn't. Evolution produced BRAINS in all sorts of animals, and apparently conscious brains in dolphins, some apes and humans.
Why ? It promotes survival. The better the brain, the better the chance of survival. Very obvious. Very simple.

You know nothing then. Brains exists and the functions of brains exist because they promote evolutionary survival. It's really very simple, and something a 3rd Grader could get. 
Your ignorance of the subject is astounding. See the link above.

Unless, in your pointing to the brain, you can demonstrate on what level of organization mind supervenes, I do not know whether the elements of mind supervene on the entire brain, or certain kinds of information, or certain chemistry, or whether panpsychism is true.  If panpsychism is true, then I would be tempted to say that the Universe itself represents both a massive mind AND a massive body, and I'd say that this would be so close to religious concepts of God that you could sensibly call it that.

Bla bla bla. I have nothing to demonstrate about a superfluous concept that is totally out-dated. Science knows that when various parts of brains are damaged the functions associated with that part stop working. You have no evidence for "mind". CT scans, MRI scans, PET scans demonstrate how brains work, and they have never once see or detected a "mind". "Mind" is superfluous left-over of philosobabble that has no meaning in 2019. Brains work because of brain chemistry. Nothing else. Psychology, psychiatry and neurology are replete with examples of what happens when brains are not working in a healthy way. Your woo of "mind" is ancient nonsense.

Just to sum up your arguments for mind and your "possible god in a box" : "I don't know, therefore woo".
"Mind" is nothing but another way woo-meisters posit "souls".

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archi...ed/485558/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...ciousness/

[bennyboy]

 
It's TOW the party line. LOL. "Toe the line", in-fucking-deed.

If you are going to be insulting, you might want to spend about 3 seconds with google to make sure you're right first. Or, better yet. . . just don't be rude at all.

Your ignorance of the subject is astounding.

I've tried to make my posts as lucid as I'm able, but you seem to be taking this discussion into a negative place. I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in going there with you.

[LadyForCamus]

@Bucky Ball

Uh, no; it is indeed “toe”.

How embarrassing for you.

[Bucky Ball]

 
It's TOW the party line. LOL. "Toe the line", in-fucking-deed.

If you are going to be insulting, you might want to spend about 3 seconds with google to make sure you're right first.  Or, better yet. . . just don't be rude at all.

OR, instead of being ignorantly judgemental AT ALL, by assuming that what I post is not my own idea, you could stop your insulting rude judgemental posts. You do not have the moral high-ground here, after posting what you did.

I see you are totally ignorant of the subject and unable to support your position.
Just as I thought. No science background.

---

@Bucky Ball

Uh, no; it is indeed “toe”.

How embarrassing for you.

No more embarrassing than the woo posted here.

[Cod]

This reminds me. I must cut my tow nails.

[The Grand Nudger]

What we've seen is exactly what we would expect.  Some people reject categorization for reasons™ other-than the accuracy of that categorization.  Whether this is an atheist who doesn't identify as an atheist, or an atheist expressing a gnostic position.

We can repeat this experiment with quantum cats or mind (or any other object) and we're likely to get precisely the same results.

[EgoDeath]

The only thing this thread is evidence of is that some debates are not worth having. People will hold on to their personal definitions of things instead of allowing facts to flourish. On one hand we have a guy who is an agnostic atheist, but because of some personal hang-up refuses to recognize himself as such, on the other we have man who went his entire life thinking that the expression was "tow the line."

And then there are the theists who are trying to convince us that we're on equal footing with them and their belief in a supernatural sky man who watches you poop.

To be honest, I'm just utterly terrified by gorillas.

[Mister Agenda]

If I see a pregnant woman and don't hold the belief that she is a pregnant with a boy, yes, I am an a-boyist. I am without a belief that she is carrying a male fetus, it could be a female fetus, or a harder to determine the sex of fetus. But I don't hold it to be true (which is what a belief is) that she is pregnant with a male fetus. We don't have a very good prefix for a person who is certain she is not carrying a boy. Anti-boyist is more like whether she's carrying a male or a female fetus, you're against it being a male. 'Dis-boyist' maybe connotes a stronger position against the likelihood of it being a boy. Agnostic/gnostic is about what you don't or do know. Atheist/theist is about what you don't or do believe.

That said, I'm inclined to make the distinction between agnostic as an adjective that can modify a belief state; and agnostic as a noun for someone who believes that the existence of God is unknowable and refuses to take a position on their personal belief about whether some sort of God exists or not; that is, the common understanding of an agnostic as being between an atheist and a theist.

Gnostic Theist
Agnostic Theist
Agnostic (or, as I like to call this position, Agnostic Agnostic)
Agnostic Atheist
Gnostic Atheist

There are people who waver between belief and disbelief, and rather than expecting them to call themselves atheists or theists from moment to moment depending on which way they happen to be leaning at the time. it's reasonable to just call them agnostics. IMHO.

[LadyForCamus]

@bennyboy

I enjoy both sides of this debate every time we have it here. I’m wondering; is there any reason or evidence that indicates consciousness, or subjective experience as we understand it could not follow complex information processing?

<3 thank you for the nice comment!

I'd start answering this question by asking what "information" means, as it may introduce a very subtle circularity.

The most basic transfer I know of is of the transmission of a photon from one atom in a body, and its subsequent reception by another atom in a different body.  You could say that even the fact of this simple transmission represents information: for example, about the existence of the sun, about a clear path from the sun to my face (accounting for bending of that path due to gravity of course), and about the existence of my face in a particular place and time.

Given the countless energetic interactions via photons, heat exchange, chemical interactions and so on, then I'd wonder: how would one differentiate between "processing of information" and "irrelevant stuff happening?" Are the molecules in my face "processing" photons from the sun?  If a charge builds up in a cloud, and lightning results, is this the processing of a lot of information about molecules with extra ions, with a resultant lightning behavior?  We normally wouldn't frame it that way, but this is not that different than a neuron works.

It seems to me either that information refers to all energetic interchanges in the Universe (and which would hint perhaps at panpsychism), or that "information" is a term which is selectively applied by a sentient agent onto states of systems which it arbitrarily deems more important than others.  In the latter, defining mind in terms of information processing seems suspiciously circular to me.

--edit--
I think I didn't really answer your question, but I felt I'd have to take this detour before I could respond to you with anything like the intelligence your question deserved.  Hope it wasn't too text wall-ish.

It’s not a “text wall” at all, Benny.  I always enjoy your contributions. 

Just to preface, I’m no scientist, so if I’m using scientific terms or phrases incorrectly please feel free to course correct. To your first question, I think that the difference between ‘processing information’ and ‘irrelevant stuff happening’ is in the eye of the beholder, so to speak. I would say an atom “processing” a photon is not fundamentally different from a brain processing sensory input.  The difference in relevance is matter of degree. Despite sharing similar fundamental ‘energetic interchanges’, as you called it, brains are brains, and not storm clouds. They do what that highly specialized organ has evolved to do, which is process input.  So, is there a reason to think that processing at this level of complexity could not yield consciousness?