Why God doesn't exist

[earth]

To claim a consciousness exists at the atomic or sub-atomic level doesn’t have any backing from scientific research. At the quantum level science doesn’t measure or observe any conscious intelligence and it would be required to have cognitive abilities to pass as consciousness. Consciousness only exists in something alive.

Volition is actually an embedded into our brains learned trait of correctly choosing things that are beneficial.

Beneficial makes us happy.

 

[Sarkus]

To be able to choose you have to be alive. By scientific definition life is a condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms

From Wikipedia,
Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have self-sustaining biological processes ("alive," "living"), from those which do not either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as "inanimate."

Yep - note that it refers to it as "biological processes". A mere process nonetheless.

Do have a reference to the observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true that there is a consciousness at the macro level?

You are an example, I hope, of something that can be observed to be conscious. This should be sufficient to demonstrate that consciousness is at least a macro-level property.

This is where I should step back and examine the facts.
I can’t allow choice making without the one choosing living or in other words alive.
Otherwise we have inanimate objects doing choosing with volition developing.

Computers choose all the time. Some are rather proficient at it.
The only difference is that they are rather simplistic... they are bound by the rules of their programming. We humans are not that much different - other than the rules of our programming are far broader and far more complex.

Think about it further: what is "choice" on the macro level... it is the assessment of outputs from a given input and the selection of the desired output in line with given criteria.
With a computer the criteria are programmed and defined - so a computer will be deterministic (same input, same output).
Humans have a far more fluid and wider-ranging set of criteria... which channel you want to watch on telly being determined by your mood, what's on, how much time you have etc... an almost infinite variables.

But then all this is irrelevant if you can not demonstrate that choice exists on a micro-level.
If it doesn't - how can it exist on the macro-level?

Choice would therefore be nothing but illusion that our "consciousness" creates for us that makes us feel like we are more than a mere deterministic machine.
But are we?

To claim a consciousness exists at the atomic or sub-atomic level doesn’t have any backing from scientific research.

No one is saying it does! So why keep going on about it??


And why are you making multiple posts?? If no one has since added another post, can you not merely edit the last one?

 

[earth]

Computers choose all the time. Some are rather proficient at it.
The only difference is that they are rather simplistic... they are bound by the rules of their programming. We humans are not that much different - other than the rules of our programming are far broader and far more complex.

Computers don't have cognitive abilities and I doubt science will ever duplicate our evolutionary designed thinking with comprehension. Computers can't experience any thing or feel any pain. They can recognize, observe and manipulate but never experience.

With a computer the criteria are programmed and defined - so a computer will be deterministic (same input, same output).

Computers get their capability from organic brains like yours and mine. Computers brain process data while orgainc brains think and reason.

But then all this is irrelevant if you can not demonstrate that choice exists on a micro-level. If it doesn't - how can it exist on the macro-level?

Choice begins or happens in a living being. not inanimate objects. I don't need micro-level. Instead, I'm using natural selection as the causality.

Choice would therefore be nothing but illusion that our "consciousness" creates for us that makes us feel like we are more than a mere deterministic machine.

The world's data or facts are reality. Science examines the facts and attempts to explain their observations. We build the computers to analyze the facts.

Machines only know what orgainic brains tell them, one the master the other a slave. Organic brains choose while computer brains listen and comply. I'm materialistic enough to know machines work for me, I decide.

Originally Posted by earth
To claim a consciousness exists at the atomic or sub-atomic level doesn’t have any backing from scientific research. ”

No one is saying it does! So why keep going on about it??

Determinism hasn't shown how it happens.
Natural selection has had overwhelming evidence accumulating the past 100 years establishing it as mainstream science. Uncertainty is as sure as there is gambling going on. From the natural selection process combined with uncertainty we as a specie grew a volition where there was none with beneficial guiding. We as a specie are positioned correctly on the evolutionary path of survival. We have the best built-in tool natural selection can provide and that is "we know better and can recognize better as beneficial. It ensures an upward path of improvement for humankind in the long run. I’d like to think we can defeat every disease with this beneficial tied to our tails.

 

[Sarkus]

Computers don't have cognitive abilities and I doubt science will ever duplicate our evolutionary designed thinking with comprehension. Computers can't experience any thing or feel any pain. They can recognize, observe and manipulate but never experience.

What is it to "experience"?
I think you are throwing around words without actually understanding what you mean by them and thus limiting them to the activity of the conscious.

Computers get their capability from organic brains like yours and mine. Computers brain process data while orgainc brains think and reason.

What is to "think" or to "reason"?
If anything computers are far more reasonable than humans... they act only by the logic they are given - and can do nothing else. What is more reasonable than that?

Choice begins or happens in a living being. not inanimate objects.

Until you can adequately define so as to exclude inanimate objects...

I don't need micro-level. Instead, I'm using natural selection as the causality.

On a macro level evolution is not the cause of anything. Evolution is, for example, merely the survival of the property due to its fitness for purpose. It is not, in itself, a cause of anything, but the result.

The world's data or facts are reality. Science examines the facts and attempts to explain their observations. We build the computers to analyze the facts.

Machines only know what orgainic brains tell them, one the master the other a slave. Organic brains choose while computer brains listen and comply. I'm materialistic enough to know machines work for me, I decide.

And all you seem to be saying is "I know I have choice. I consider choice to be a property of the conscious." But in none of it are you actually arguing against the points made - just trying to reinforce your ideas to yourself.

At a micro/atomic level, what distinguishes the workings of our brain from a deterministic machine?

Determinism hasn't shown how it happens.

I haven't said it has. But if determinism holds at the micro level (where we agree consciousness does not exist) but determinism does not hold at the macro level (where consciousness can exist) what is being introduced between the micro and the macro level that gives rise to this "consciousness"?

Most rational people who accept determinism at the micro-level would say that it is an emergent property of the complexity of the brain. i.e. the deteminist micro-level gives rise to a massively complex interconnectedness that, on the micro-level, enables patterns to emerge - one pattern being "consciousness".

Natural selection ... I’d like to think we can defeat every disease with this beneficial tied to our tails.

I really can not see why you bring natural selection into this. How is it relevant? Do you think natural selection is an alternative view to determinism?? :shrug:

 

[mike47]

Determinism does not affect all the people in the same way . You find two siblings from the same parents, under the same circumstances of life but they turn out to be quite different . I have been following this thread and I can not see any scientific or logical conclusion why there is no god or why there are no gods .

 

[Enmos]

Determinism does not affect all the people in the same way . You find two siblings from the same parents, under the same circumstances of life but they turn out to be quite different .

Yes it does.
And that they are siblings, or even identical twins, has got nothing to do with anything.

 

[mike47]

Yes it does.
And that they are siblings, or even identical twins, has got nothing to do with anything.

Can you explain further what you exactly mean and if possible with some examples ?.

 

[earth]

When using scientific methods of establishing truth within a framework of honesty comparable to religion, then religion is less than best. I think I would rather believe in alien technology masquerading then at least there is a possibility.

 

[earth]

Determinism does not affect all the people in the same way . You find two siblings from the same parents, under the same circumstances of life but they turn out to be quite different . I have been following this thread and I can not see any scientific or logical conclusion why there is no god or why there are no gods .

Is determinism a force? How does determinism work? Can I determine things into existence and if not why?

 

[earth]

............

You have your methods which are acceptable to you, however, your methodology is not mine or science‘s.

If want to make a case using your methods then go ahead. You haven't made a case yet. You have introduced your opinion which is fine.

The using of "determinism" where the word has the exact same meaning as "exist" doesn't make a case for or against anything.

Applying inanimate objects as though they have a mind and somehow have gained control is the illlusion of your methodology.

I determine reality exists. Since the belief is God dwells beyond time and outside reality I determine God isn't determinism and not found existing in spacetime.

If there were evidence of a God existing in spacetime then I think it would be his atoms standing out among the crowd because of the purity, accordingly. Does it sound like bullshit reasoning?

 

[earth]

Originally Posted by Sarkus,
we have actually made no "choice" at all - but our conciousness gives us that illusion - or perhaps our consciousness IS that illusion.

I think the conclusion your methods imply of an illusional consciousness is about right given inanimate objects don't have a mind.

 

[Sarkus]

The using of "determinism" where the word has the exact same meaning as "exist" doesn't make a case for or against anything.

Earth, if you think all I'm doing is using "determinism" instead of "exist" then you clearly have not understood a word I've been saying - and I am not going to beat my head continually against a wall.

I determine reality exists. Since the belief is God dwells beyond time and outside reality I determine God isn't determinism and not found existing in spacetime.

You don't understand what is meant by determinism - as it is meaningless to say "God isn't determinism".

I have tried to explain to you what "determinism" is: the philosophy that given the same inputs to a process you get the same outputs. If that holds then the process is said to be deterministic.
This has been amended slightly with "probabilistic determinism", where the output is the same probability function.

When you understand this perhaps we can move on?

 

[Sarkus]

Determinism does not affect all the people in the same way . You find two siblings from the same parents, under the same circumstances of life but they turn out to be quite different .

Determinism does affect everyone the same way - accepting probabilistic variety.

Your view of determinism is in the macro-level - the large objects. Unfortunately what appears non-deterministic in this realm (e.g. the existence of choice, free-will) hides the deterministic interactions at the micro-level.

I have been following this thread and I can not see any scientific or logical conclusion why there is no god or why there are no gods.

That's because god(s) is not a scientific concern - i.e. the concept puts it beyond the realm of science - it is unfalsifiable, unverifiable etc.
As for logic - you would need to define your flavour of god before logic has a chance.
But usually it is merely rationality (and mostly Occam's Razor) that persuades people.

 

[earth]

Originally Posted by Sarkus
So if individual atoms etc can not make choices... how can you scale that up to the macro and be sure that choices are made

At the Micro level atoms do not think therefore can’t make a choice. At the macro level we have thinking happening and choices are made. I scale up to the macro level by observing the choosing happening. Uncertainty of the outcome of any given situation when there is more than one option insures choices are available. The option is to do nothing and let determinism run its course (don’t need a mind for that) or use thinking skills and choose something available that’s possibly beneficial.

I really can not see why you bring natural selection into this. How is it relevant? Do you think natural selection is an alternative view to determinism??

There is no agreement over whether determinism is true or false, it’s a philosophy. Natural selection is one of the cornerstones of modern biology. My method is to use something known by science to be true like theory of evolution by natural selection. I don’t have to build a foundation of facts to support the theory, it already exists.

In the quantum mechanics of a subatomic particle, one can never specify its state, such as its simultaneous location and velocity, with complete certainty. Scientists refer to the universe at the atomic level as randomness. I don’t get determinism when there is observable uncertainty. The use of "probability" helping form your conclusions says there is uncertainty.

At a micro/atomic level, what distinguishes the workings of our brain from a deterministic machine?

The difference is between living and animate non-living.

Evolution is, for example, merely the survival of the property due to its fitness for purpose. It is not, in itself, a cause of anything, but the result.

Evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution. In reality through this mechanism of natural selection evolution and uncertaintly did the developing of a will in us to choose things that are beneficial.

 

[earth]

From - http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/text/determin.htm

Jean Paul Sartre and other contemporary philosophers have argued that determinism is controverted by introspection, which reveals actions to be the result of our own choices and not necessitated by previous events or external factors.

This view has been modified within the scientific community, however, with the enunciation of the Uncertainty Principle by the physicist Werner Heisenberg. Ramifications of his work in quantum mechanics led Heisenberg to assert that the scientist, as much a participant as an observer, interferes with the neutrality and very nature of the object in question.

Determinist and Heisenberg were in disagreement. Heisenberg was speaking about his observations as a scientist and he wasn't buying into the determinism philosophy.

Sarkus,
We agree God doesn't exist and I accept that. I think you're on shaky ground by using determinism in your methodology.

 

[Sarkus]

Sarkus,
We agree God doesn't exist and I accept that. I think you're on shaky ground by using determinism in your methodology.

I don't agree that God doesn't exist - I am an agnostic atheist - I don't have the belief that he does exist - but I don't discount it as an impossibility. I just don't know. And in many ways I see it as a non-sensical concept.

I am merely using determinism to point out some things that you might take for granted (choice, free-will etc) and to give an alternate view on them.

As said - at the micro-level you accept there is no choice/free-will.
At the macro-level there clearly is - or at least what we currently call "choice / freewill".

What is it between the micro-level and the macro-level that gives rise to consciousness / life etc?


Another way of looking at it:
The micro-level event = a brick/piece of timber/glass etc.
The macro-level event = a house.

At what point does the collection of micro-level events turn into a house?
And would you not agree that the "house" is built from nothing more than micro-level events?

Whatever process (e.g. evolution) gave rise to the building of the house, or to the development of our brain / consciousness from the individual micro-level events, we are merely that - a collection of micro-level events.

However, if the "brick" is (probabilistically) deterministic, is not the whole "house" also deterministic, regardless of what else it might appear to be?

Or at what point in the complexity from "brick" to "house" does something lose its deterministic property? And how?

This of course all assumes acceptance of determinism (at leat probabilistically so) at the micro-level.

 

[Doreen]

I am merely using determinism to point out some things that you might take for granted (choice, free-will etc) and to give an alternate view on them.

As said - at the micro-level you accept there is no choice/free-will.
At the macro-level there clearly is - or at least what we currently call "choice / freewill".

What is it between the micro-level and the macro-level that gives rise to consciousness / life etc?

And how does this 'choice' whatever it is, affect the micro components? It sounds a bit like the problems of mind body dualism systems. How does the non-corporeal mind interact with the body? How does this freedom get in there and change the probabilities or the cause effect chains?

Another way of looking at it:
The micro-level event = a brick/piece of timber/glass etc.
The macro-level event = a house.

At what point does the collection of micro-level events turn into a house?

At the point someone thinks of them that way. And so the question becomes, is free will just the way we think of processes that are not free.

A house in a universe without humans is not a house.

And would you not agree that the "house" is built from nothing more than micro-level events?

Whatever process (e.g. evolution) gave rise to the building of the house, or to the development of our brain / consciousness from the individual micro-level events, we are merely that - a collection of micro-level events.

However, if the "brick" is (probabilistically) deterministic, is not the whole "house" also deterministic, regardless of what else it might appear to be?

Or at what point in the complexity from "brick" to "house" does something lose its deterministic property? And how?

This of course all assumes acceptance of determinism (at leat probabilistically so) at the micro-level.

Or to take another tack,
If I am 'probablistic' is this freedom?
If I am not probablistic am I not utterly determined?
What is the third category?