Why do atheists ask for evidence for God?
- Thread starter VitalOne
- Start date
Consciousness = awareness of experience.
So your saying the evidence of consciousness is that which is displayed when one is conscious? Um, don't ever accuse anyone else of circular reasoning again.
No, we don't know this. This is an assumption. "Materialism of the gaps."
No, we don't have evidence of this. Do we know that people in comas are not self-aware? No, we don't.
What exact chemicals are these? I want some.
FIrst, what exactly are my inaccurate assumptions?
I don't necessarily disagree with this. But I would point out the fact that consciousness has no physical properties and defies measurements we can make of physical things suggests it is not material.
But, is consciousness not understood because we've been ignoring it as a phenomenon simply because it is not subject to the scientific method as we currently understand it.
What is this evidence?
Explain to me exactly what my assumptions are and what my logical fallacies are.
Consciousness = awareness of experience
How is my argument worded in a logically flawed way?
Nice try though.
Reread, my post now that I have provided a def. of consciousness. (Although if you were confused about the definition you could have googled it).
OK.
heliocentric
Registered Senior Member
You do not need a brain to be conscious - or at least to 'display' behaviour that appears conscious.
Many organisms (and some would argue even particles) can display self-agency and awareness of environment with no neural net whatsoever.
Yes and no
Consciousness is affected when the brain suffers rapid damage, however damage that occurs gradually over time can actually end up not effecting cognitive functioning in the slightest.
There is particular condition (forget the name but can find out if needs be) where the brain errodes gradually over time. Victims of this condition can end up with a thin slither of brain tissue lining their skull but essentially theyre walking round with heads that are almost entirely empty.
The incredibly thing is - these people dont seem to be impaired in anyway, some even have very high IQs.
As someone who reads consciousness theory in their spare time, grover is actually pretty spot on here actually.
Most debates at consciousness conferences atended by scientists and philosophers alike useally hinge around these key points.
- Those who believe consciousness is an emergent property/process and those who believe consciousness goes 'all the way down' (panpsychism).
There is also an ongoing debate as to whether we can ever really understand consciousness - some believe we can, others believe we can't, and some believe it is simply beyond rationalism and can only be understood through more visceral ways of knowing.
That is like saying you don't need a brain to have memories. It's really meaningless, and I wonder why you would say such a thing.
There is a difference between having highly evolved parts of the brain, and an ant going about it's job. Humans have developed the ability to betray their genes, eg. suicide, abstinence... whereas the ant is just going on auto pilot. In fact I think it's up for debate how conscious humans really are... Are we really 'conscious' or are we really just going on auto pilot... albeit a little more advanced way than the ant.
But maybe our difficulty in understanding 'consciousness' is because we have difficulty understanding how all parts of the brain work together simulataneously.
And how can anyone say consciousness is immaterial? The brain has billions of cells, and it's common sense that consciousness does not occurr 2 feet to the right of your head, does it?
That's just it. How do we know ants are just going about their job? How do we know that they aren't conscious?
What an incredibly strange "ability" for evolution to create. Survival of the fittest actually created something that works against survival?
We don't really know if ants are on auto-pilot or conscious. But it also raises the intersetsing question of why consciousness is in human brains at all since mental functions can occur without consciousness and since consciousness actually acts against survival (suicide, abstinence).
Buddha would agree
There's no reason I can see why different parts of the brain working together causes consciousness. You don't see it either since it seems since you think it's plausible that ants have no conscious experience and yet have brains.
Does it make sense to speak of consciousness occuring anywhere in physical space at all?
Their behaviour is hardwired into their genes. Just watch a nature documentry on these creatures, and their behaviour is very complexed, but really they are just on auto pilot. There's no evidence of any consciousness displayed by ants, or any need for them to have consciousness.
To paraphrase Dawkins... A moth looks pretty stupid when it keeps crashing into a lightbulb, but it still benefits the species as a whole to fly by a bright light (the moon?) even if a few fly into a flame as a result of it's evolutionary trait. Same with humans, their increased intelligence or 'consciousness' means they have more of a choice over things, even a choice to live or die, or refrain from sex, to be antisocial... these all sound like things the human species can do without... but does that mean the human species as a whole suffers as a result of increased brain size? Very few people commit suicide, so it stands to reason evolution would still favour whatever trait backfires to cause suicide.
Yes we do, because they have no choice in how they behave. Ants are no more conscious than an ipod.
Consciousness is just a result of certain parts of the brain being highly evolved... and I already explained there is good reason why we evolved these things even if it does result in unique behaviour, often unfavoured.
Consciousness is just a single brains ability to recall memories, have emotions, personality, thoughts... and when you look at how neuroscientists have mapped out the brain, it's easy to see why humans stand out in this reguard, and also why consciousness is dependant on physical activity in the brain.
Does it makes sense to speak of a pulse without a heart? Does it make sense to speak of consciousness without a brain?
Not true. Ants teach their young.
What do you mean their is no evidence of consciousness? How do you know they aren't conscious? That's the entire point - there's no scientific way of determining this. They don't need consciousness? Why do we again?
Intelligence and consciousness are not synonomous. Take another look at your first point - you are saying ants develop complex (seemingly intelligent) behavior and yet you claim that there is no consciousness, so consciousness and intelligence are not synonomous.
How do you know this? It's assumption.
Again, how do you know this? What is the scientific evidence? What are the exact parts of the brain that cause consciousness. And your assertion that it is "certain parts" is in direct conflict with your assertion that it is an emergent phenomenon of "different parts work together."
I must have missed it. What is the "good reason?"
No, that's not what consciousness is. Ants have memories but no consciousness of them (presumably). The overwhelming majority of whats going on in our brains occurs unconsciously. Stop confusing the term consciousness with all mental phenomenon.
No, actually, it isn't easy to see why. Neuroscientists have mapped out the brain - they can say where higher thinking takes place, fear, language, etc. and yet they are at a total loss to explain how the brain causes consciousness (if that's the case at all).
No, it doesn't - science can explain exactly what it is about the heart that gives rise to a pulse. When scientists say the brain cause consciousness it's "materialism of the gaps."
Don't know. But what is true is that right now some people claim to have consciousness after death. We also have no idea how brains give rise to consciousness. We have no way of determining if living creatures have consciousness or are automatons. In light of the fact that living creatures can survive perfectly fine as automatons but consciousness causes seemingly anti-survival behavior it is unclear why evolution would cause consciousness.
heliocentric
Registered Senior Member
Well i think all forms of experience and consciousness are bound by limitations in expression to varying degrees.
Alot of people like to invoke 'free-will' which for me is slightly pointless as you can never have complete self-agency or autonomy.
It's just your options and choices for self expression increase the higher up the ladder of complexity you go.
Teaching is a stretch of a word to use, but importantly for this debate: are 'teacher' ants aware of what it is doing, or is it just following it's genetic instructions passed on from countless generations which show this type of behaviour is favoured for the benefit of the species?
Why does an ant need to be aware of what it is doing to survive? What about Mayflies... do they consciously make the decision to come out to mate at the exact same time, or are they on autopilot thanks to their genetics? I think the answers are obvious.
I agree.. and ants I would suggest have neither. They are biological robots. That's what's so amazing about nature, because with very small animals to display such behavior (such as mayflies seemingly 'knowing' when to mate) you wonder how it is possible, but it requires an understanding of their genetics rather than them being intelligent or consciously aware of anything.
A rather safe assumption, yes. I can't remember what documentary I saw this on, but a worker ant/bee (whatever) was showing aparent care to it's queen, and David Attenborough said words to the effect of "It does this not out of love for it's Queen, but because it is following it's biological blue print".
By 'certain parts', I mean that with humans, the brain did not simply increase in size, but rather certain parts increased in greater proportion to that of ancestors. I think so anyway, without reading up on it now, these areas are responsible for 'higher order' consciousness.
Good reason to be more consciously aware... such as how to fashion tools to better aid our survival. As you can tell, I am no expert, but I think I am along the correct lines.
But it proves that consciousness is physical at least - that is the evidence. Can science even explain how the brain tells us we are hungry for example?
Nope, there is sound evidence as to what causes consciousness and without it, there would be none... yes, it's the brain.
Then they were never truely dead. I'm sure there must be some brain activity for a short amount of time after a person is 'dead'. But ask someone who has had their brain liquified if they had consciousness after death...
That's pretty much true... We have little to no idea of how the brain does most things.
Yes, the line can be blurred but I think very few species can be defined as being genuinely conscious. I remember footage where scientists placed a big white sticker on the side of the head of an Elephant, and when the Elephant seen itself in the mirror wondered what that thing was on it's head and touched it's head with the trunk. Now that is consciousness.
I already explained before... evolution can cause a bee to be attracted to bright objects that are not flowers... does that mean bee's should never have been evolved to be attracted to flowers? No, it still benefits the bees.
Why can't a robot be conscious?
Cause a human has to build it.
We have no idea if the ants are aware or not. That's the point, there's no way of testing this.
Yes, the answer is obvious that ants don't need consciousness to survive. That doesn't answer whats really being asked here, which is are ants conscious? And, what purpose does consciousness serve since it is apparently very easy for us to see how superfluous it is to survival.
Making assumptions and guesses is not science. Point me in the direction of evidence.
And how exactly does Attenborough know the ant doesn't love the queen. What exact test do that supported this hypothesis?
We have no idea how/if the brain makes consciousness so its ridiculous to start making assumptions about that certain areas create it. There is not one iota of evidence to support this claim.
Why do we need consciousness for that? We can't that just be instinctual behavior?
How does it prove that? I think science can explain hunger - messages being sent by nerves to the brain etc, certain chemicals like serotonin, etc. They can get specific about whats going on with hunger in a way they cant when it comes to consciousness. There are actual scientists coming up with actual science about the physiology of hunger. There is no actual science on consciousness.
How do you know brains aren't receivers of consciousness? Or how do you know that consciousness isn't actually synonomous with being?
Oh, you're sure...well I guess I'll take your word on faith since you're sure.
We know how the brain does alot of things. We have no idea how brains give rise to consciousness.
No it isn't. That is an elephant instinctually reacting to a white sticker on its head.
But, I'm still unclear how consciousness is a benefit. Additionally, consciousness seemed to bring with it alot of baggage like awareness of death, and then apparently evolution had to build into us illusions like religion and near-death experiences. Let's appy Occam's razor.
1) Evolution caused consciousness, which is an emergent phenomenon of purely material processes, even though consciousness has questionable ability to aid the organisms ability to survive and even seems to cause some anti-survival behavior and awareness of death so evolution then had to build in the conscious organism beneficial illusions like religious belief and near-death experiences so that the conscious organism would not be overwhelmed by mortality even though consciousness provided no survival value to begin with. Or;
2) Near-death experiences occur because consciousness is an immaterial phenomenon and at the time of death the physical body dies but consciousness does not.
How do you go about making a robot that is self-aware?
Because robots aren't made of the same materials that cause consciousness...obviously...whats so hard about this to understand? If I took an action figure and made it look like it was talking, thinking, walking, etc....is it really conscious or was it only made to appear so? Similarly, robots are only made to appear human-like...
Your logic is fatally flawed..."if something just doesn't sound right, then its definitely not true"....which discoveries in science really sound rational? Does it seem like an electron can exist in superposition? Does it seem like millions of years ago gigantic monster-like species existed on Earth? I'm sure if I told you any of these things before they were discovered to be true in science, you would say they weren't true simply because "it just doesn't sound right"....
But why ask for evidence if you know you're going to reject any type of evidence and already say that you can't gather evidence?
Atheists should just come out and say they'll never believe in God no matter what and that atheism is just another belief system based purely upon faith alone....
Last edited:
Gently Passing
Registered Senior Member
Atheism is functional. If you build a house of straw and there is no tornado to come and blow it down, you will never conceive of building a house of bricks.
Atheism is like a tornado. Once the current religious dogma is completely destroyed, perhaps we will have a shot at constructing a more appropriate replacement.
That is to say we aren't getting rid of God, just the structure surrounding our current belief.
I would compare it to a young person rejecting the culture and values they grew up with so they can construct a more resilient Self. You are rich, you live in a suburb, you are Lutheran, you like the Broncos, you drive a Ford...
Throw that shit out the window!
If anything, atheists are closer to finding God (if there is one) than most believers are.
Atheism is like a tornado. Once the current religious dogma is completely destroyed, perhaps we will have a shot at constructing a more appropriate replacement.
That is to say we aren't getting rid of God, just the structure surrounding our current belief.
I would compare it to a young person rejecting the culture and values they grew up with so they can construct a more resilient Self. You are rich, you live in a suburb, you are Lutheran, you like the Broncos, you drive a Ford...
Throw that shit out the window!
If anything, atheists are closer to finding God (if there is one) than most believers are.
Last edited:
There has been no evidence to reject, thus far.
Just for clarification, would that be a Christian never believing in a Muslim god, or the other way round?