The Paradox of Atheistic Art Appreciation

[kurros]

On the subatomic level it leans towards that. But at the level of humans and acts the probabilities are so astronomically small, the probabalistic nature of reality is considered moot in relation to our acts, beliefs, opinions.

For the most part, that's true enough, but actually there are some areas where pure quantum indeterminism can have huge and dramatic impacts on the course of our large scale reality.
We can contrive scenarios extremely easily, for instance I could become a quantum serial killer and decide who to kill based on the outcome of quantum events. These days the random numbers used in gaming machines are sometimes generated by quantum devices, so you could become rich or not purely on quantum chance.
On a more natural note, there are quantum processes which can give you cancer, for instance getting zapped by a cosmic ray or even just the usual UV light. Then of course there is the whole big bang singularity where all this seems to have come from.
The human brain isn't well understood either, quantum mechanics may certainly play some role in how we think. I don't think there is much evidence for it at the moment, but we don't know much either.
Ok so that wasn't much of an argument for it's impact on beliefs, opinions etc, but it should certainly be enough to convince you that we don't live in a deterministic universe that somehow emerges from a non-deterministic microscopic world. It is still plenty non-deterministic at our level, or at least it is if the microscopic world is truly non-deterministic.

Certainly it is possible for an atheist to be consistent on all of these things. To be as rigidly lean - occam razor-wise - in all categories as they chide the theist for not being in relation to theism. But I have never met such a creature.

Are you one?

I certainly try to be. Of course one can't always succeed, especially when one isn't aware of the inconsistencies, but the point is that one should always be open and willing to adjust their beliefs and world view to accommodate new evidence and knowledge as it is acquired. It seems to me that religions somehow teach people to not even try to do this, whether that is the intention or not.
Science of course doesn't have all the answers, in fact it has very few answers, but I personally prefer not to try and fill the gaps with some largely arbitrary and culturally determined beliefs. I think most atheists don't really care if theists choose to do this. They DO start to care when religious beliefs take precedent over scientific observations.
Although now we're a little off topic I guess.

 

[Doreen]

For the most part, that's true enough, but actually there are some areas where pure quantum indeterminism can have huge and dramatic impacts on the course of our large scale reality.

Actually I believe this. I know of two species that use quantum effects in core areas of their lives: certain birds with the Quantum Zeno Effect and certain photosynthesizing bacteria that use quantum parallel processing of photons to maximize the efficiency of their use of light. I am quite sure, though I can't prove it, that we will find many more examples. I find it very unlikely that our brains, which are vastly more complicated than bacteria do not also use these processes.

We can contrive scenarios extremely easily, for instance I could become a quantum serial killer and decide who to kill based on the outcome of quantum events. These days the random numbers used in gaming machines are sometimes generated by quantum devices, so you could become rich or not purely on quantum chance.

Sure, and the mainstream scientific community is not acknowledging it yet, researchers are getting consistent results from people trying to influence random number generators and then there's the global consciousness project that now has the support of a wide range of scientists convinced the mood of humanity as a whole affects RNGs.

The human brain isn't well understood either, quantum mechanics may certainly play some role in how we think. I don't think there is much evidence for it at the moment, but we don't know much either.

ah, look, our minds converged. Perfect.

Ok so that wasn't much of an argument for it's impact on beliefs, opinions etc, but it should certainly be enough to convince you that we don't live in a deterministic universe that somehow emerges from a non-deterministic microscopic world. It is still plenty non-deterministic at our level, or at least it is if the microscopic world is truly non-deterministic.

Sure, but now you yourself are getting a little fringy. Come on, admit it. Why now you and I could go out for a cup of tea and have a conversation most of the 'rationalists' here would find very irritating.

I certainly try to be. Of course one can't always succeed, especially when one isn't aware of the inconsistencies, but the point is that one should always be open and willing to adjust their beliefs and world view to accommodate new evidence and knowledge as it is acquired. It seems to me that religions somehow teach people to not even try to do this, whether that is the intention or not.

I do think religions often do this. The mass does not want to explore. They want answers, dammit. But my experience of scientists and intellectuals is not that they have open minds. Sure, on specific details, amassed empirical evidence will slowly sway them, though new ideas are met rather harshly if they seem to shift the paradigm in some area. But in terms of epistemology, nah, I see little openness there either. Awareness of built in unproven assumptions in the bulk of the scientific enterprise...again I see closed minds. In relation to criticism of Western medicine, rabid closed minds. I am generalizing, of course there are exceptions.

Science of course doesn't have all the answers, in fact it has very few answers, but I personally prefer not to try and fill the gaps with some largely arbitrary and culturally determined beliefs.

To me the point of this thread is that everyone does this. I do not see scientists withdrawing from politics nor do I see them as less gullible. For example. So real life conclusions that impact - for example Iraqi children - are reached via the same manipulations that, for example, the Christian right fall for. God, I wish scientists were less gullible. They actually could blackmail governments and stop certain actions.

I think most atheists don't really care if theists choose to do this. They DO start to care when religious beliefs take precedent over scientific observations.
Although now we're a little off topic I guess.

I don't see a reason to choose. I think most people have only a small subset of potential current knowledge. I don't have to decide to go with one or the other.

 

[iceaura]

I love Bateson, though more the books he wrote himself - - - but I don't think Bateson truly proposes free will.
----
I also loved ZEN. But, there's hardly an analysis of free will.
--- -
the mechanistic worldview is no longer dominant certainly in physics and to some degree in other disciplines. But I have not heard a solid case for free will anywhere in there either.

Dennett's stuff may appeal.

To unfairly and idiosyncratically synop: if you go up and down the logical levels of pattern-interaction, each level with its human rules of thumb for comprehension, at each level you hit that level's problems of prediction and ascription either forward or back in time. Quantum, Heisenberg, chaos amplification, the taking of "limits" in calculus, singularities, phase changes, etc etc - as Einstein put it: God does not do mathematics, God integrates empirically. The key observation is that the human rule of thumb "cause and effect" is always a simplification, and it only works on a given level of pattern. (That's where the Zen comes in).

One consequence of seeing that "cause" means nothing at the wrong pattern level - ink does not cause letters - is that we are forced to recognize that ideas cause ideas. There is a realm of ideas, patterns of patterns of patterns of neural firings, in which ascriptions of "cause" only apply to other ideas and stuff at that level - perceptions, images, etc, existing as patterns in the brain's activities at the right level. And at that level "cause" itself breaks down a bit (having been invented as a rule of thumb for far simpler situations) - we have to go with "cause/constraint" or "informing agent" or the like.

Now the stage is set for what let's call the Dennett's Inversion: that's a level "you" live on. At that level, there you are. So "you" are at least a potential cause/constraint originator of ideas, images, and other patterns at that level.

Now you've got something that waddles like a will, quacks like a will, and is as free - in the sense that it responds to and generates stuff on this level of ideas etc - as anyone can imagine. Literally.