the slow death of religion

[Cris]

Mshark,

What I think I understand that you said about free will is that it is an illusion caused by some sort of random number generator.

That's somewhat emotive and you have missed the point entirely.

Randomness is only involved when there is no better way to make a choice, i.e. when the choices are equally weighted.

As to free will being an illusion then I'm truly unsure. I would like to believe that I do have true free will but I know that that isn't true in many situations, more later.

I have often thought that athieism must be based upon this concept.

I don't see the link. Please explain.

Do you know if determinisim is a widely held position of athiests?

Atheists hold many different views. There are no tenets to atheism apart from a disbelief in gods. Actually I doubt that many atheists would consider determinism as true. But I'm no authority on what everyone else thinks.

For me the belief that I have free will is the foundation that I built my life on. Without belief in free will I don't understand how right and wrong could have meaning or even life itself.

Fair comment. More in a moment.

It certainly would be pointless to argue about weather or not free will does exist.

Wouldn't a realization that free will is not possible an important thing to understand?

Does your belief imply that we have no responsibility for our actions or is there something else?

If our every action down to the minutest detail, is the result of a long chain of causes and effects going back to the beginning of time then free will might well be a complete illusion.

But let's consider some examples. You have undoubtedly inherited some genetic traits from your parents. It is highly likely that significant parts of your personality, e.g. the way you think, the level of your intelligence, your academic abilities, are all largely influenced by your inherited genes. All of these properties will play a significant role in how you make decisions. So in a very real sense your perceived free will is already being controlled by your DNA, in a very similar manner that your DNA may make you more of less disposed to acquiring certain diseases, i.e. you have little choice in the matter.

Take another example of a murderer. How much was the decision to murder the result of true free will or the heavy influence of inherited genes coming down through a family that have always had a strong tendency towards violence. Is this individual truly responsible for his actions, or is it really just a matter of genetics?

I know that I have a unique personality and I know I have been influenced by events in my childhood and by my inherited genes, etc., etc. The decisions I make are heavily influenced by all these factors.

So does true free will exist? And what do I even mean by the question? But really and clearly true free will can't exist. Every decision we make has to be heavily influenced by everything that has gone before. Is it a valid way to make choices? I guess so since there seems little we can do about it. This is reality.

But it does imply that we shouldn't be quick to judge the actions and choices of others since they may just be behaving according to their particular personal history and have little choice in behaving any diferently.

 

[youngbiologist]

damnit

damnit, PEAR is such academic bullshit...ignore it okay? Besides, paranormal funding probably costs like 200 bucks. They just ask undergrads alot of questions, etc. If its not published, then its not worth mentioning.

Anyway, back to the whole soul thing. DO YOU HAVE ANY FREAKIN IDEA HOW INSANELY COMPLEX YOUR BRAIN IS?! DO YOU?! NO! YOU DON'T! Cause otherwise you wouldn't have to believe that you had a soul. Sure, believe that once your conscience is destroyed that maybe you go somewhere, but don't believe in a damn magical thingy that somehow manipulates your body.

Listen, theres this birth defect that happens sometimes...A baby is born but their cranium is just filled with spinal fluid, their higher brain never formed. NADA. So heres the question, did the baby ever die? If you don't have a third arm, then I can't cause you to loose your third arm cause you don't HAVE one. Likewise, if you don't HAVE a brain then you can't BE alive, since you gotta have a brain to think, learn, feel pain, be selfaware, etc. So now we have your "soul" restricted to your brain, and only your brain. Is your soul attached to the various molecules in the brain? Cause your body slowly replaces those atoms over the course of your lifetime, so are you flushing your soul down the drain? Neurons are simply logic gates, but by working in complex patterns they can create complex behavior. What causes a neuron to fire simply depends on the other neurons that link to it. This of course doesn't include sensory neurons. We don't need a soul, our conscience can easily be created by our brain!

 

[everneo]

Cris,
---
1. can the resurrected replica dream ?.

2. if me and my replica(s) exist at the same time, i wouldn't know what the other idiot (!) is thinking "now". we have common past and we have common character and common other personalities there ends the matter. from the point when the replica come into existence it is different . if i die then im dead for ever. u can again resurrect my latest digitised backup.. and another replica is going to spring up. it will look at the older replica and think "i am more orginal than him".!. may be it will have more sympathy for the guy (it is poor me) who gave everything to it. ( hell, i referring to "it" not "him"/"me"..!)

-----

I feel, the self is connected to the body and nature in unique way and could not be replicated.

 

[Jaxom]

Regardess of whether you believe there is a soul/spirit behind the mind or not, you still have to agree that a direct copy of a person will not help the original person, they still will cease to exist upon death, with no way to transfer their own awareness to the copy.

To keep the same awareness in the more "permanent" version, you would have to slowly replace the organic perishable part of the mind with some permanent version to hold the same "connections". But as pointed out, when if ever do "you" cease to be you, and the copy becomes aware?

Even if the version 2 of you is copied just in case as backup, you have the same problem. If you cease, the awareness is not the same. Or is it? Does it matter at that point?

Mindboggling.

 

[MShark]

Cris

The reason I thought that athieism is based on determinisim, or existance without free will, is because that model makes sense from a purely scientific point of view. From my understanding science generaly holds that if we know all of the inputs we can perdict the output. From my understanding free will if it exists would have to come from outside of the "natural" world.

I don't mean to be "emotive" I am interested in understanding different points of view and I don't usually mean to put people down. There are some comments that come up in these discussions where I can't help myself (none from you), but I do my best to be considerate.

For me a realization that I have no free will would be a brain twister that I don't think I could recover from.

 

[Cris]

everneo,

1. can the resurrected replica dream ?.

If you mean dream in the sense of imagination then that would clearly be a requirement of accurate replication.

If you mean dream as an activity during sleep then there would be no requirement for this function since there would be no need for sleep either. Both these functions strongly correlate with the replenishment of protein in the synapses in the brain. An act of refueling the brain if you like. There would be no such requirement in a fully non bio substrate.

2. if me and my replica(s) exist at the same time, i wouldn't know what the other idiot (!) is thinking "now". we have common past and we have common character and common other personalities there ends the matter. from the point when the replica come into existence it is different . if i die then im dead for ever. u can again resurrect my latest digitised backup.. and another replica is going to spring up. it will look at the older replica and think "i am more orginal than him".!. may be it will have more sympathy for the guy (it is poor me) who gave everything to it. ( hell, i referring to "it" not "him"/"me"..!)

Cloning will be an issue but there is a practical constraint. If your uploaded patterns are to be active then you will need a somewhat high quality and probably high cost processing device and appropriate software. I would imagine the cost would be similar to what we would currently pay for a house. If you clone yourself will you have the finances to provide the hardware and software? If you also want a high quality android style shell with all the high precision technology involved then that will also cost a significant amount.

As for the crossover from a bio being to a robosapien then I would favor some form of euthanasia once the upload process has been confirmed to be complete and accurate.

I feel, the self is connected to the body and nature in unique way and could not be replicated.

If you were to remove all your limbs and other organs and all that remained was your brain, ignoring the shock for the moment, would you still be you?

 

[spookz]

Originally posted by Cris
I would suggest that your hypothesis about a soul is extremely premature. When we fully understand the physiology of the brain we can then consider any remaining unexplained issues. At that time a hypotheses concerning souls might be appropriate. Until then your position and eagerness is little different to primitive people who assign anything unknown to an alleged supernatural cause.

Let's exhaust the natural and spend effort on things that are within human comprehension before we jump to superstitions.

i cannot believe you are suggesting that research into consciousness be put on hold! is it the usage of the word "soul" that turns you off? for the purpose of this discussion "consciousness" could be substituted for soul. in essence, you are say that all those that do not hold to the neurobiological theory of consciousness are a bunch of superstitious savages.

eyeball the sheer volume of research that have published to date. you would have this all swept under the rug? or is that only those that hold to the behaviorist/deterministic/elminativist/functionalist viewpoint are worthy of consideration?

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lormand/phil/cons/

http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/online1.html#gap

perhaps you would do me the honor and give me your explanation of how consciousness arises in an individual. i am not interested in the objective mechanisms of the cognitive system but rather why this shit should give rise to "experience". why does a physical process give rise to mental states? to simply accept that it happens or deny the subjective experience altogether; imho, is to be more dogmatic than the most recalcitrant theist.

i am incredulous that anyone would be satisfied with being a mere automaton.

 

[Cris]

spookz,

i cannot believe you are suggesting that research into consciousness be put on hold! is it the usage of the word "soul" that turns you off? for the purpose of this discussion "consciousness" could be substituted for soul. in essence, you are say that all those that do not hold to the neurobiological theory of consciousness are a bunch of superstitious savages.

eyeball the sheer volume of research that have published to date. you would have this all swept under the rug? or is that only those that hold to the behaviorist/deterministic/elminativist/functionalist viewpoint are worthy of consideration?

I'm suggesting that we use science which reaches conclusions based on observations and measurements. If you are suggesting that 'soul' is some form of material manifestation then that is a legitimate area for scientific investigation. If you are suggesting something immaterial that has no precedent then that is the jurisdiction of religion and not science. Let's use science where it has been proven to work well.

 

[spookz]

Originally posted by Cris
But humans also have the freedom to choose to be hit and killed by the car or to starve to death. This freedom to choose is how I would characterize free will. But why would a human choose to die instead of live, or why choose a perceived obvious good choice over a bad choice?

here it seems we have free will?

Originally posted by Cris
So does true free will exist? And what do I even mean by the question? But really and clearly true free will can't exist. Every decision we make has to be heavily influenced by everything that has gone before. Is it a valid way to make choices? I guess so since there seems little we can do about it. This is reality.

here we dont?

here is a little exercise. i do not figure into events in your life, nor any factor that i can think of (apart from this discussion). nothing in your life at this moment would give you cause to pick up a pin and prick your finger. but you are gonna do it simply because i suggested it right now. would not that pinprick constitute an act of free will in your part? what in your previous states would cause you to do a inane, spur of the moment, out of the blue type act?

 

[Cris]

spookz,

You do realize that my attempt to characterize free will and my analysis of whether it exists or not are two separate issues, right?

here is a little exercise. i do not figure into events in your life, nor any factor that i can think of (apart from this discussion). nothing in your life at this moment would give you cause to pick up a pin and prick your finger. but you are gonna do it simply because i suggested it right now. would not that pinprick constitute an act of free will in your part? what in your previous states would cause you to do a inane, spur of the moment, out of the blue type act?

What was the point you were trying to make? You seem to imply that a suggestion by you could trigger a chain of events in me. I agree. Isn't this consistent with a chain of causes and effects, or otherwise known as determinism. In which case does free will really exist.

But I didn't find your statements clear and I may have misunderstood what you were trying to say. Please try again.

 

[spookz]

Originally posted by Cris
spookz,
You do realize that my attempt to characterize free will and my analysis of whether it exists or not are two separate issues, right?

now i do

Originally posted by Cris
What was the point you were trying to make? You seem to imply that a suggestion by you could trigger a chain of events in me. I agree. Isn't this consistent with a chain of causes and effects, or otherwise known as determinism. In which case does free will really exist.

But I didn't find your statements clear and I may have misunderstood what you were trying to say. Please try again.

if you say my suggestion was a causal factor in your pin prick, that would indicate that was not an action taken out of free will. instead it was deterministic (as you said). ok what if you chose not to respond to my suggestion? would that not constitute an act of free will?

?

 

[everneo]

Originally posted by Cris
There would be no such requirement in a fully non bio substrate.

any requirement of any type that the biological body & brain demands now will not be there. sleep, hunger, thirst, bath (?) etc etc - not part of our life. is it a life? then, may be we can have designer requirements as we like. this is not a big issue.

Cloning will be an issue but there is a practical constraint. If your uploaded patterns are to be active then you will need a somewhat high quality and probably high cost processing device and appropriate software. I would imagine the cost would be similar to what we would currently pay for a house. If you clone yourself will you have the finances to provide the hardware and software? If you also want a high quality android style shell with all the high precision technology involved then that will also cost a significant amount.

i'm not bothering about cost and model etc. what i was trying to say is :

if myself and my replica co-exist i (or the replica) cannot feel having 2 bodies and 2 brains - existing in 2 places at the same time. i would be still unaware of the replica's mind and feelings and thoughts. both are different now. if i get head-ache he may not feel that. do u think i will believe that he is me ?! he might think so.

As for the crossover from a bio being to a robosapien then I would favor some form of euthanasia once the upload process has been confirmed to be complete and accurate.

Cris, now tell me honestly if someone tells u "yeah u are ready there.. and u can die here now.." will u buy that words ? he shows all the reports and data indicating the uploading is complete and accurate. still will u accept euthanasia.. don't tell me that i have seen it works..cuz there is none to confirm that "i switched over successfully" but the replica that tells from the past memory, exact neural patterns etc that he is so and so earlier...

If you were to remove all your limbs and other organs and all that remained was your brain, ignoring the shock for the moment, would you still be you?

i can tell u anything only if i start dissecting and rejecting my organs one by one ! (no pun intended !). to be fair i can still survive for a shortwhile without limbs, liver, digestional organs, face alongwith eyes, nose, ear (hell still im alive), for couple of minutes without respiratory organs (if still blood circulation is there for brain). but im not sure about heart, spinal cord. what gives live to body is yet to be determined. thats why i wanted an answer to brain transplantation in my earlier question.
back to dissection. now no heart, spine. brain is completely cut-off from the out-side world (no more sensory inputs). i stopped bothering about ur world. without any outside interference and desire my thinking is very moderate. now there is no thinking at all. without blood circulation i feel dizziness (believe me) and now i lost the brain too. Trust me. I'm still there..! and I am only there all of myself. Come on.. Cris , I am there and im not brain and im not the thought ...!

warning : this is just an imagination only. if anyone try really they do so at their own risk.

 

[spookz]

Originally posted by Cris
spookz,

I'm suggesting that we use science which reaches conclusions based on observations and measurements. If you are suggesting that 'soul' is some form of material manifestation then that is a legitimate area for scientific investigation. If you are suggesting something immaterial that has no precedent then that is the jurisdiction of religion and not science. Let's use science where it has been proven to work well.

what about this quote from chroot

Quantum mechanics, for example, is one of the most successful theories in the history of physics. An extension, quantum electrodynamics, might well be labeled THE most successful theory of all time. Yet none of the machinery really makes any physical "sense." QM deals with complex wavefunctions and complex operators -- and out pop real answers at the end of the calculation. It's tough to ascribe any physical reality to the wavefunction, or to the operators -- or to the postulates such as "all operators corresponding to physical observables must be hermitian."


assuming this is relevant to what we are talking about, would you then suggest that science not have concerned itself with matters such as the one chroot pointed out but rather let religion or some other pseudoscience deal with it?

(i am kinda feeling my way around this so please be patient chris!)


???

 

[Cris]

spookz,

if you say my suggestion was a causal factor in your pin prick, that would indicate that was not an action taken out of free will. instead it was deterministic (as you said). ok what if you chose not to respond to my suggestion? would that not constitute an act of free will?

No. The issue is that you made a suggestion that I had to consider. Your action directly caused me to choose between one of two possible paths.

The effect was that I had to make a decision. The cause was your action of making the suggestion. Hence cause and effect - i.e. determinism.

 

[Jaxom]

To sort of paraphrase another's post on I think another one of the threads (I want to say it was chroot, but not sure):

Even at the basic levels of neuron interaction and connections, you either have true free will through the randomness of nature (quantum) or there is determinisim, but even here is so complex that it might as well be free will. At this level and above, there is effectively no observational difference.

 

[Cris]

everneo,

any requirement of any type that the biological body & brain demands now will not be there. sleep, hunger, thirst, bath (?) etc etc - not part of our life. is it a life? then, may be we can have designer requirements as we like. this is not a big issue.

The objective is to transfer yourself to a more resilient and more advanced substrate.

As bio life we have to eat and drink because of the limited ability of bio life to maintain energy reserves. We sleep because the brain has a limited activation cycle before it must refuel. But we also have to defecate and urinate, and our bodies are constantly battling against viral and bacterial infections. We also need to consume oxygen which if not available also means we cease to exist. All these limitations and weaknesses are removed in a robosapien paradigm.

But there would be other implications to having an unlimited lifespan; sex and reproduction would be unnecessary. Species survive, even though individuals die, by the individuals having strong instincts to reproduce, i.e. sexual desire. Actually there is no instinct to reproduce there is only sexual desire. It is only our intellect that allows us to make the connection. All other animals only know sexual desire and cannot link the later resultant reproduction to the act of sex.

If humans become robosapiens and have unlimited lifespans then the species survival is assured and no longer needs to reproduce. In which case sex becomes a redundant activity. However, if the pleasure of sex is considered desirable then presumably those neural networks that create that pleasure could be activated when desired in the robosapien, and perhaps even amplified.

So what is life? To survive, to experience, to explore, to learn, to evolve, etc.

if myself and my replica co-exist i (or the replica) cannot feel having 2 bodies and 2 brains - existing in 2 places at the same time. i would be still unaware of the replica's mind and feelings and thoughts. both are different now. if i get head-ache he may not feel that. do u think i will believe that he is me ?! he might think so.

Indeed you would be two entirely separate individuals. However at the moment of replication both of you would be you. But from that moment onwards you would begin to experience different sensory information and you would then diverge into two separate lives, if that were desired.

Cris, now tell me honestly if someone tells u "yeah u are ready there.. and u can die here now.." will u buy that words ? he shows all the reports and data indicating the uploading is complete and accurate. still will u accept euthanasia.. don't tell me that i have seen it works..cuz there is none to confirm that "i switched over successfully" but the replica that tells from the past memory, exact neural patterns etc that he is so and so earlier...

My objective is to survive and cheat the ravages of pain, and eventual death that comes with old age. Perhaps until the technology is fully proven the robosapien version and the bio version would need to survive side by side until the bio version eventually dies of natural causes. What better, dedicated nurse could one possibly imagine?

Once the process has been well proven then it would seem more civilized to avoid the unnecessary pain and suffering by terminating the unwanted bio version at the moment of successful replication.

now there is no thinking at all. without blood circulation i feel dizziness (believe me) and now i lost the brain too. Trust me. I'm still there..! and I am only there all of myself.

Once your brain dies, you are dead. What reason do I have to trust you that you still exist once you are dead?

Come on.. Cris , I am there and im not brain and im not the thought ...!

What are you if you aren't your brain? Without the memory provided by your brain you will have no identity. Without any structure that allows you to think then you would be no different to an inanimate rock. If you are somehow happy existing like a rock then fine I'll believe that you continue to exist after death.

 

[Cris]

sppokz,

assuming this is relevant to what we are talking about, would you then suggest that science not have concerned itself with matters such as the one chroot pointed out but rather let religion or some other pseudoscience deal with it?

The quantum events can be detected; they are physical events, even those where the effect precedes the cause which suggests a faster than light transition. How these events occur remains a matter of significant research. These events are real but the causes are unexplained. Science cannot say anything further beyond that.

The problem with the pseudoscience that you've quoted is that the alleged researchers go beyond science and speculate that the unexplained is explainable, i.e. perhaps a soul exists. That isn't science but human speculation, i.e. philosophy, or religion in this case.

Consciousness is simply a symbolic label used to describe something that we haven't yet fully researched. Until we understand more about how the brain operates it is very premature to reach any conclusions about the effects we can't yet explain.

(i am kinda feeling my way around this so please be patient chris!)

Hey no problem.

 

[everneo]

Cris,

If u have to make people believe that the subject in question (he/she) continues to live after replication then :

Prove that both the bio-version and robosapien version are one and same (not similar), in respect of awareness, by having both (even for shorttime will do). It is not fair to finsh off the bio-version and resurrect the robosapien and tell the people that the subject (he/she) continues to live. People may verify with questioning roboversion about the past, likes and dislikes and observe the mannerism etc. They may eventually come to the conclusion that the subject continues to live. The roboversion, reasonably believes (could remember past, with similar neural structure and function) that he/she continues to live.


What about the subject (he/she) in question ?

He was not made to realise that he/she would continue live by making him experience the robo-version life even when he/she is alive and aware in his/her bio-version. Without doing this u are giving the same promise of eternity as the religion gives. It is not the subject (he/she) who is going to live, but the robosapien is going to live - live in the uploaded past, live in present and future. Are u not denying the subject (him/her) the chance to tell the truth to the people. Robo-sapien version may be of great relief to family and friends (the robosapien too honestly believe, as i mentioned above) but not the subject (he/she) for the reason - he/she is dead for ever and the rest of the world is not aware of this reality.


In my speculative imagination , i just imagined for fun. If i really do that in front of observers like u and with help of surgeons, it will not make any difference. At the end of the process, when the brain is dead and ur brain activity monitoring unit goes silent u all will conclude that there is nothing leftout. Even if (hell, i never liked this "if" in such situtations) im aware of my existence at that time i have no means of communication to prove that im still there. I think this is the core of the issue. Even if it is reality, u've no means to observe it. Reality could be different from what is observed. I'm not saying "It is different" but "could be". Hope science will come out with the exact nature of brain in foreseeable future.

 

[Cris]

everneo,

….when the brain is dead and ur brain activity monitoring unit goes silent u all will conclude that there is nothing leftout. Even if im aware of my existence at that time i have no means of communication to prove that im still there. I think this is the core of the issue.

Even if it is reality, u've no means to observe it. Reality could be different from what is observed. I'm not saying "It is different" but "could be". Hope science will come out with the exact nature of brain in foreseeable future.

"Could be" implies pissibility yet we simply have nothing that indicates that a soul is possible.

The idea of a soul is a leftover vestige from a time when the brain was a complete enigma, and only explanations of a mystical nature seemed appropriate. As we delve deeper into how the brain operates we find the usual physical causes and effects. Those that cling to the idea of a soul do so out of a desperate hope and significant ignorance of what we now know about this incredible organ. The idea of a soul was never derived from observations or measurement of such a thing but purely from irrational speculations. There is no reason to believe that such a thing exists or is even possible, it is for the moment a fantasy, and I strongly suspect it will never be anything else.

And of course the implications for theistic religions are that if there is really no soul then gods become quite irrelevent. The concepts of heaven and hell would be meaningless if they would be forever empty.

 

[biblthmp]

questions religion raise that aren't raised outside religion?

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
which special questions does religion raise then that aren't raised outside religion?

The whole area of morals and ethics, is totally irrelevant, outside the realm of religion. Withbout a God, Morality is simply survival of the fittest, who can kill the other first.

Ethics simply becomes one humans ideas are better than another, there is no supreme standard in which to compare.