The Limitations of Atheism.

Cris,

"I think all those sensations are the result of hormonal, chemical, and electrical changes in the brain. In that sense they are very physical."

Is that how you see the world around you...inside you?

"I don't know about switching colors but I know that there are those that can hear colors. There are recorded cases where due to some interesting sensory 'cross-overs' in the brain people hear what they see. The subjects are quite normal otherwise."

And there are those who are color blind. That which mentioned sounds more like a bad trip. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon11.gif">

My thought was that maybe some are less tuned to their world than others. Maybe.

<hr>

Boris,

What do you mean, "no physical properties"?

In the sense that they cannot be touched or handled for mutual consideration. They can be expressed, but they are not something which can be held such as a rock. They are very substantial, however. They are a product of thought, much like the notion of "God."

"And as far as bottling goes, can we bottle spacetime as we can water? Does that imply that spacetime is supernatural?"

With out a doubt, you can bottle space and time. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon12.gif"> Here's is my question: What is empty space? It is, yet it isn't...


------------------
It's all very large.
 
Bowser,

So...feelings, perceptions, emotions, etc. are not palpable. But neither is the program in your computer that is letting you communicate with the rest of us. You can look at the binary code that constitutes the program; you can look at the source code for that program, but there is always something missing in such examinations -- the "thought" behind the program. This you can only fill in by being a thinking being yourself.

The perceptions we experience are similar. On the surface, they take the shape of electrochemical pulses propagating through the cortex. But the inner experience is not described by such an examination; you have to be a perceiving being yourself to comprehend the sensation.

At least this is how it's been until now. Thing is, science is currently encroaching upon the very mystery of how the stream of consciousness and perceptions -- the self -- arises. Once we can decipher the exact processes involved, things like thought and perception will be completely reduced to mere flow of information. I'm not claiming it's going to happen tonight, but rest assured that it <u>will</u> happen -- perhaps even within our lifetimes.

Yes indeed, thoughts and feelings are substantial. Just as substantial as the bits of information encoded in the voltage levels of capacitors making up your computer's RAM. Thing is, in itself information is neither right nor wrong -- it is merely a representation of state, or belief (depending on the context.) And therefore, you could say that beliefs are substantial and physical things indeed. They can also be right, wrong, accurate, inaccurate, justified and arbitrary.

To state that God is a product of thought, therefore, does not amount to much. Yes, the idea of god is ultimately information representing a belief. But the belief is unsubstantiated and arbitrary. As such, it ranks right up there with the idea that Santa Claus has a wife.

What is empty space? It is, yet it isn't...

Heh, good question. I wonder myself. To hear modern physics tell it, vacuum is a coordinate system containing a superposition of fields. Personally, I'm not very satisfied with such a definition. You ask what a field is, and the answer you get is: a mathematical entity represented by a matrix of partial derivatives. Right. It's kind of like describing my chair as a group of surfaces encompassing a volume. But, well, until we find ways to separate empty space into its constituent building blocks, we'll have to settle with an ordered set of tensors. :p



------------------
I am; therefore I think.
 
"...but there is always something missing in such examinations -- the "thought" behind the program. This you can only fill in by being a thinking being yourself."

Interesting analogy... So is it reasonable to conclude that there was a programmer who had written the program? All things to seem to have an origin.

"But, well, until we find ways to separate empty space into its constituent building blocks, we'll have to settle with an ordered set of tensors."

The coordinate system is the limit of our understanding, I suppose.


------------------
It's all very large.
 
Bowser,

From Bowser.
"I think all those sensations are the result of hormonal, chemical, and electrical changes in the brain. In that sense they are very physical."

Is that how you see the world around you...inside you?

Through my experiences with Transcendental Meditation many years ago, I learnt something that stands out: Allow things to happen, don’t resist. Effortlessness seems to be extremely effective in many situations. Sayings like, go with the tide, bend with the wind, etc. all seem to be very true of how best to deal with life.

I now find myself able to experience my emotions as if I am an outside observer: Embarrassment, fear, anger, concern, sadness, and frustration, etc. I feel the initial physical effects, recognize the emotion, and then I simply stop and allow the sensations to subside. I usually verbalize such events, as “hmm that was interesting”.

During a recent high visibility project I had to work closely with a partner who I felt showed his emotions far too easily. He would range from deep depression, ready to give up, to intense excitement with high-fives all round. It seems I didn’t outwardly react much at all during these times. We analyzed each other at the end regarding our emotionality. There is a simple chart technique that grades emotionality. I graded myself as normal and in the center while I placed him in the very emotional position. He placed himself in the center normal position and put me in the very unemotional position. Very interesting we both said. In my teenage years I would have been seen as an emotional wreck.

I perceive humans as comprising two primary mental components: Emotionality, and intellect.

Emotions allow us to survive at the instinctive level. The so-called flight or fight theory, and the pull of mating instincts. But they are all the result of sensory stimuli and tend to bypass the intellect. They all generate physical changes to the internal body mechanism; hormonal, chemical messengers, electrical pulses, etc. I suspect all animals experience the same instinctive mechanisms.

Many animals will react to a mirror image of themselves as if they are seeing another animal. Our intellect allows us to rise to a higher level of abstraction. With recognition and practice our intellectual potential allows us to rise above the instinctive nature of our emotions. We can’t as yet divorce ourselves from our evolutionary generated basal instincts, but we can learn to recognize and control them.

So Bowser, I see the world around me in purely physical terms. Many external physical events cause my physical brain chemistry to generate instinctive physical reactions. Another part of my brain via the physics of electricity and other chemical messaging mechanisms recognizes the instinctive physical bias and can react to neutralize those reactions.

There are many people who are controlled by their emotions. There are others who have learnt how to control their emotions. But every action we take, and every thought we experience is physical in every way.

With this worldview I see no need for non-physical entities like souls or gods, and neither do I see any evidence that suggests that such entities have ever existed or do exist.

Oh well, time for lunch.

Cris


[This message has been edited by Cris (edited December 24, 2000).]
 
Bowser,

Sometimes I suspect you don't read what I have written with an intent to understand what I mean, but rather that you seek to discover any possible chinks in my armor to poke a blade through. Take that bit about information, for example. I was talking about a material reality behind state or belief. But you found a way to twist that thought into an argument about creation. Inventive, granted -- but what are you trying to accomplish via such mental acrobatics?

Yes, computer programs on this planet are written by humans -- at least in a great majority (of course, a tiny portion of those programs are written by other programs.) In general, the artifacts of human civilization have indeed required the human civilization to be brought into existence. But that's not the point. The point is that you are confusing artifacts of human civilization with artifacts of nature. While human artifacts are indeed imbued with purpose (at least as perceived by their creators), the "purpose" of nature's artifacts (including humanity itself) can be basically summed up in two and a half words: maximization of entropy.

And as for limits of understanding, you would be prudent to observe that of late they have been receding at an ever-faster pace. I leave you with this: stay tuned.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.
 
"Sometimes I suspect you don't read what I have written with an intent to understand what I mean, but rather that you seek to discover any possible chinks in my armor to poke a blade through."

Boris,

I appreciate your thoughts, but I must question everything, including popular beliefs. Stabbing at the armor of an idea might yield some blood for further consideration.

I wanted to take that program thing a bit further. It appears that all things have a purpose and a beginning and an end.

"The point is that you are confusing artifacts of human civilization with artifacts of nature."

Humanity is nature's creature. I see all things human as being tethered to nature. In nature's pond called "Humanity," Theism hit the surface like a bowlder. The ripples have been pounding our shores since the beginning of--and probably long before--recorded history.

My thought is that man cannot create anything independent of nature; Therefor, Theism is as natural as any other natural process. It must have a purpose.

"...the "purpose" of nature's artifacts (including humanity itself) can be basically summed up in two and a half words: maximization of entropy."

That is the way of nature. As for humanity, there doesn't seem to be any escape from that end.




------------------
It's all very large.
 
Bowser,
“My thought is that man cannot create anything independent of nature; Therefor, Theism is as natural as any other natural process. It must have a purpose.”

Bowser, hold on a second, take a step back and look at the above sentence. It is a non-sequiturs. I agree that man cannot create anything independent of nature. Ultimately, our brains follow the laws of physics as does the rest of the universe. In the chemical reactions in our body, entropy always increases, gas flows from areas of high pressure to areas of low pressure and mass is conserved.

What I do have a problem with this idea of the human mind as being infallible. How can you conclude that because nature caused your brain, it cannot misinterpret nature or delude itself? You can’t because, as we all know, people do make mistakes.

The important thing to remember is that realty is totally independent of belief. A belief may be influenced by reality but will not always accurately reflect it. The structure of your brain is entirely natural but you can still make logical mistakes. (Like the assumption that your theism has a purpose – Implying, of course, intent. )


"I don't know about switching colors but I know that there are those that can hear colors. There are recorded cases where due to some interesting sensory 'cross-overs' in the brain people hear what they see. The subjects are quite normal otherwise."

It's called synaesthesia:). It can result from a rare kind of neurological disorder and the use of some tryptamines. It can occur with between any senses. (But color/sound is especially common.)
 
synaesthesia,

Re synaesthesia: That is priceless. That was a random memory I recalled from a TV programme many years ago. I had no idea it had such a designation. Interesting cooincidence. I just thought your username was just a long awkward imaginative creation.

OK. You are clearly a scientist, what is your field?
 
"I don't know about switching colors but I know that there are those that can hear colors. There are recorded cases where due to some interesting sensory 'cross-overs' in the brain people hear what they see. The subjects are quite normal otherwise."

It's called synaesthesia:). It can result from a rare kind of neurological disorder and the use of some tryptamines. It can occur with between any senses. (But color/sound is especially common.)

Synaesthesia,

That's interesting - I've heard of synkinesia, but not synaesthesia. But now that you mention it, I have always associated music with color. I often describe music as being either "colorful" (hypnotic, moving, etc.) or being "beige" (blah, uninteresting), and it's difficult to explain to others who are perhaps more "normal" than myself. And in my case, mushrooms are not involved. :D

~Emerald

------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.
 
Just checking to see if the board still works. Is there anybody out there?

~Emerald

------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.
 
Nope, I'm not here.

I know people take a break from work but they shouldn't take a break from exosci - I mean, priorities!!! :D

I guess I could have posted some more but it felt like no one was there. And, like where are all the anti-Christians? I thought we were in the majority here. It's Christmas - kinda conected with Christianity I think. We don't celebrate Christmas do we? We aren't hypocrites are we?



[This message has been edited by Cris (edited December 27, 2000).]
 
“OK. You are clearly a scientist, what is your field?”

Thanks for the compliment. I’m just a seventeen year old kid– although I do aspire to become a scientist.

Regards
Synaesthesia
"The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality."
-George Bernard Shaw
 
Syn,

I don’t think age is a limitation to critical thinking. I’m nearly 3 times your age but judging from your posts you can already out-think me. But then I’m not too bright so perhaps that isn’t such a great compliment.

Now about this quote -
The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality."
-George Bernard Shaw

It feels intuitively obvious, but as I study it closely I find I have difficulty in applying an example. Do you have such an example?

Regards
Cris
 
The context of the quote was:

"The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality."
-George Bernard Shaw
 
synaesthesia,

<hr>
“My thought is that man cannot create anything independent of nature; Therefor, Theism is as natural as any other natural process. It must have a purpose.”
<hr>

"Bowser, hold on a second, take a step back and look at the above sentence. It is a non-sequiturs. I agree that man cannot create anything independent of nature. Ultimately, our brains follow the laws of physics as does the rest of the universe. In the chemical reactions in our body, entropy always increases, gas flows from areas of high pressure to areas of low pressure and mass is conserved."

I want you to know that I had to work to find a definition for...

<hr>
non se·qui·tur n. frml. (Latin for) it does not follow; a break in the logical development of s.t., such as a series of facts, dates, events, or ideas: His next statement seemed to be a non sequitur.
<hr>

<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

"...Ultimately, our brains follow the laws of physics as does the rest of the universe."

Okay...so, when traveling near the speed of light our perception of time changes. When does the reality of physics and the perception of mind come into play here?

The thing that I ponder is the perception that we are somehow seperate from our external universe, and that we are the first and last thought.

"I do have a problem with this idea of the human mind as being infallible. How can you conclude that because nature caused your brain, it cannot misinterpret nature or delude itself? You can’t because, as we all know, people do make mistakes."

If we are to assume that some things have no purpose, then we can conclude that mistakes have no purpose.

"The important thing to remember is that realty is totally independent of belief. A belief may be influenced by reality but will not always accurately reflect it."

That looks like a paradox that can be applied to everyone.

"A belief may be influenced by reality but will not always accurately reflect it."




------------------
It's all very large.
 
One of the things we're arguing seems to be reality and how it interacts with our perceptions thereof.

* If a tree falls in a forest, and there's nobody around to hear, who the Hell cares?
* Do six-billion wrongs make a right?
* If we're truly "capitalists", and enact ourselves to our full "naturally competitive" potential, and achieve the condition of being, literally, the Last Man Standing, what have we gained?

It is not that if we don't see or recognize it, it doesn't exist. But my conscious self cannot do anything about whatever subtle effects Cosmic Background Radiation has on me, so it filters it out of the environment. Why don't we "hear" the Big Bang? We do, but we just don't notice, as such.

That we had slaves in the US doesn't change the fact that such human bondage is wrong. Equality didn't become "right" only after people argued for it.

Bowser mentioned the speed of light and how we humans perceive the Universe in relation to it. Regardless of the specifics, such ideas only affect anything because we're here to conceive them. The speed of light is the speed of light. What happens to our physical bodies and thus our perception is primarily relevant to us and only us.

If a rocketship makes lightspeed, and there's nobody around to observe the effects, who cares? It's not like there's a record of it if there's nothing to record it. And it's not like the record matters if there's nobody there to perceive it.

What if there was no Universe? I assert that we cannot describe the condition because there would be no condition to describe, and no conditions under which any condition of the conditional Universe could explain the condition.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
 
Bowser,

Okay...so, when traveling near the speed of light our perception of time changes. When does the reality of physics and the perception of mind come into play here?

First of all, when travelling at any speed our perception of time does not change. It is a founding principle of relativity that physical laws are independent from inertial frame of reference. Time flows differently for objects that move differently, but that merely underscores the fallibility of the original (and primitive) concept of "time" as we used to know it.

The perception of mind is one and the same with the reality of physics. Minds are physical. Perceptions are physical processes. Information flow is a physical concept. Mind is not separate from matter; it <u>is</u> matter.

In that light,

The thing that I ponder is the perception that we are somehow seperate from our external universe, and that we are the first and last thought.

We are part and parcel of the universe. We consist of it.

If we are to assume that some things have no purpose, then we can conclude that mistakes have no purpose.

Purpose is subjective. Things have a purpose because humans force purpose onto things. Regardless, mistakes do happen; I hope that much at least you understand.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.
 
"One of the things we're arguing seems to be reality and how it interacts with our perceptions thereof."

That does bring the whole argument into focus. Does anyone really hold all the answers? At best, we can make assumptions based on our individual perceptions. An atheist depends on tactile perception. The theist, then, must looks at life with mind?

------------------
It's all very large.
 
"First of all, when travelling at any speed our perception of time does not change. It is a founding principle of relativity that physical laws are independent from inertial frame of reference. Time flows differently for objects that move differently, but that merely underscores the fallibility of the original (and primitive) concept of "time" as we used to know it."

Please, Boris, tell me more. I am interested in this concept of relativity.

"...physical laws are independent from inertial frame of reference."

So, time does not slow for those traveling near the speed of light relative to those not traveling at such speeds? Are you saying that physical laws slow down near the speed of light. Maybe our tools for measurement grow longer or shorter?

I'm digging for more details, Boris.



------------------
It's all very large.
 
Back
Top