Science vs. Atheism

[Divine Insight]

[youtube][/youtube]

I agree with this view in general. I personally don't see science as supporting atheism actually.

Now it's true that I am extremely atheistic toward the Abrahamic religions. But not for scientific reasons. I reject those religions based on their own self-contradictions and absurdities. When it comes to spirituality in general I'm definitely open-minded and agnostic. I even intuitively lean toward the spiritual. Albeit confessing that I can't know it to be true.

I just thought I'd post this here to see how others view this topic.

So please share your views.

[instantc]

The mind IS a manifestation of a working brain.

I reckon I need a metaphor here. Ok, so if you break the engine on a car it won't go.

You need an engine for a car to go. But you also need a gearbox, transmission shaft and wheels.

Analogies are useless unless you explain what each item is analogous to. That's exactly where people who don't accept that the mind is a product of the brain fail. They can't explain the analogy. Its just superficial but falls apart under scrutiny.

I think the analogy is valid here. Goat suggested that since altering or damaging A correspondingly and equally alters or damages B, it should then follow that A and B are the same thing. Simple analogy with a radio and a song that it plays, for example, shows that that does not follow from those premises alone at all. I agree with KP, Goat's argument alone is clearly a non-sequitur and also highly insufficient for drawing any conclusions regarding reductionism.

[keithprosser3]

@DI. I will assume the gist of your post is:

Computers are not conscious so logic gates can't produce consciousness. Neurons are like logic gates so brains can't produce consciousness, at least not via their neurons in any reductionistic sort of way.

If I have understood DI correctly (which seems unlikely) DI would say the argument really goes the other way, starting with the notion of non-reductive consciousness and ending with the conclusion computers can't be conscious.

I won't do the usual thing and dissect di's argument line by line, because it isn't fallacious, it's just not rigorous. Now an argument doesn't have to be rigorous to reach the right conclusion. But it does need to be rigorous to know it reaches the right conclusion, and a non-rigorous argument can lead to a false conclusion.

So I feel completely justified in thinking the conclusion - ie that computers cannot be programmed to be conscious - is very likely wrong.

(it might be that DI is arguing only that consciousness can't be explaied reductively rather than a computer cannot be programmed to be conscious, but that doesn't seem to alter anything substantially).

Anti-scientific types are content to form a superficially plausible argument then sit down do nothing constructive ever again. Failure by their scientific opponents can and will be sneered at. Right up to the point where they finally succeed when the anti-scientist changes position as if they knew it was possible all along. And probably claim credit for predicting it, I shouldn't wonder!

[keithprosser3]

@DI. I will assume the gist of your post is:

Computers are not conscious so logic gates can't produce consciousness. Neurons are like logic gates so brains can't produce consciousness, at least not via their neurons in any reductionistic sort of way.

If I have understood DI correctly (which seems unlikely) DI would say the argument really goes the other way, starting with the notion of non-reductive consciousness and ending with the conclusion computers can't be conscious.

I won't do the usual thing and dissect di's argument line by line, because it isn't fallacious, it's just not rigorous. Now an argument doesn't have to be rigorous to reach the right conclusion. But it does need to be rigorous to know it reaches the right conclusion, and a non-rigorous argument can lead to a false conclusion.

So I feel completely justified in thinking the conclusion - ie that computers cannot be programmed to be conscious - is very likely wrong.

(it might be that DI is arguing only that consciousness can't be explaied reductively rather than a computer cannot be programmed to be conscious, but that doesn't seem to alter anything substantially).

Anti-scientific types are content to form a superficially plausible argument then sit down do nothing constructive ever again. Failure by their scientific opponents can and will be sneered at. Right up to the point where they finally succeed when the anti-scientist changes position as if they knew it was possible all along. And probably claim credit for predicting it, I shouldn't wonder!

[keithprosser3]

Indeed you did. I think Goat made the same point as well, which I think I can sum up as asserting consciousness is almost certainly tied in with the brain in some unspecified way.

The problem of consciousness is half solved solved already. We have the where, now we just need the how.

[scourge99]

@DI. I will assume the gist of your post is:

Computers are not conscious so logic gates can't produce consciousness. Neurons are like logic gates so brains can't produce consciousness, at least not via their neurons in any reductionistic sort of way.

This is a bad argument. Here is why using another example: computers are not operating systems because logic gates can't produce operating systems. To prove this I put a bunch of logic gates together and it didn't produce an operating system. So clearly operating systems cannot be produced by logic gates in any reductionistic sort of way.

If I have understood DI correctly (which seems unlikely) DI would say the argument really goes the other way, starting with the notion of non-reductive consciousness and ending with the conclusion computers can't be conscious.

Which is fallacious because its a way of assuming your conclusion. And once you think you have a conclusion you start looking for evidence to support it instead of following the evidence where it leads. This is the same problem that many religionists get themselves into. For example, mormons start with the belief that ancient Isrealites crossed the ocean and settled in America and bred with native Americans, even creating a civilization of millions. Recent advances in genetics allows us to test native American DNA for middle eastern ancestry and it all comes back negative (not to mention a lack of language markers, isrealite culture, etc) . So what do mormons do when faced with evidence that contradicts their conclusion? They modify their story to try to fit the evidence. For example, the millions of people civilization is just "undiscovered" or lost. And the Isrealites were a small tribe that has since disappeared, etc. No rational person would draw these conclusions when examining the evidence. Its only because mormons have a certain conclusion that they must perform all sorts of silly and strange gymnastics to try and make the evidence fit their conclusion.

I won't do the usual thing and dissect di's argument line by line, because it isn't fallacious, it's just not rigorous.

How exactly isn't it rigorous? I don't understand.

[scourge99]

The mind IS a manifestation of a working brain.

I reckon I need a metaphor here. Ok, so if you break the engine on a car it won't go.

You need an engine for a car to go. But you also need a gearbox, transmission shaft and wheels.

Analogies are useless unless you explain what each item is analogous to. That's exactly where people who don't accept that the mind is a product of the brain fail. They can't explain the analogy. Its just superficial but falls apart under scrutiny.

I think the analogy is valid here. Goat suggested that since altering or damaging A correspondingly and equally alters or damages B, it should then follow that A and B are the same thing. Simple analogy with a radio and a song that it plays, for example, shows that that does not follow from those premises alone at all. I agree with KP, Goat's argument alone is clearly a non-sequitur and also highly insufficient for drawing any conclusions regarding reductionism.

If you think thr the analogy is valid then please explain what everything in the analogy is analogous to. Otherwise you are just giving a superficial argument that fails under scrutiny, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID IN MY PREVIOUS POST THAT YOU EVEN QUOTED BUT SOMEHOW YOU MISSED IT. MAYBE IF ITS IN ALL CAPS THEN YOU WON'T MISS IT THIS TIME.

[Divine Insight]

@DI. I will assume the gist of your post is:

Computers are not conscious so logic gates can't produce consciousness. Neurons are like logic gates so brains can't produce consciousness, at least not via their neurons in any reductionistic sort of way.

No, that's not what I said at all. I never claimed that logic gates can't produce consciousness. I merely pointed out that your conclusion that since we see neural activity we should JUMP to the totally unwarranted conclusion that neurons must be producing conscious awareness.

Why should we JUMP to that unwarranted conclusion?

If I have understood DI correctly (which seems unlikely) DI would say the argument really goes the other way, starting with the notion of non-reductive consciousness and ending with the conclusion computers can't be conscious.

I feel totally confident that our current digital computers that are based on a CPU which is really nothing more than an automated ALU could never achieve conscious awareness even if the secular view is true.

If the secular view is true conscious awareness would most likely spring from an analog feedback loop which would require an anolog computer and not a digital computer.

Of course, our brains are indeed analog computers and not digital computers, so that's a big plus for the secular hypothesis to be sure. But it still doesn't come close to solving the problem of awareness and experience.

The question of precisely what is it that is "aware" is still quite mysterious.

(it might be that DI is arguing only that consciousness can't be explaied reductively rather than a computer cannot be programmed to be conscious, but that doesn't seem to alter anything substantially).

Well, it does bring into high relief the question of exactly what complex (i.e. non-reducible) configuration is required to "have an experience" and the question of precisely what it is that is actually having this experience.

You say:

The problem of consciousness is half solved solved already. We have the where, now we just need the how.

But do we really even have the "where"? If we can't say with certainty what it is that is having an experience, how can we claim to know where this thing is?

Your assumption that experience actually takes place within the physical brain may be a totally wrong guess. There are scientists who are suggesting that our entire reality may be a computer simulation. If that is true, the actual beings who are experiencing this simulation may be totally removed from the actual simulation itself.

Then the guess that experience is actually taking place within the brain turns out to be a totally mistaken guess. A guess that was made based on the assumption that the basis of reality is "material" rather than on the assumption that the basis of reality is a "simulation".

We can't say where experience is actually occurring if we can't even say how it is accomplished.

Anti-scientific types are content to form a superficially plausible argument then sit down do nothing constructive ever again. Failure by their scientific opponents can and will be sneered at. Right up to the point where they finally succeed when the anti-scientist changes position as if they knew it was possible all along. And probably claim credit for predicting it, I shouldn't wonder!

I'm far from anti-scientific. In fact, I totally support science and I have great respect for many scientists. I still consider myself to be a scientist even though I'm retired.

But I do have little respect for over-zealous secularists who have been convinced that science supports a purely secular existence. That is just as unscientific as any religious claim.

Here's what they do:

Has science explained how matter and energy could have come from absolutely nothing? No it hasn't. Yet they act like science has an explanation for this. It doesn't, despite what Lawrence Krauss preaches. That's basically atheistic woo woo being preached in the name of science.

You need at least some preexisting laws of physics or quantum mechanics. And that ain't nutt'in.

In fact, scientists are even proposing eternal inflation and infinitely many universes etc. Again, they are getting at least as weird as any spiritual philosophies. And they need to get that weird to keep their paradigm alive. Otherwise they have a need to explain why the universe is so finely tuned to life to exist.

And that's just get to the point where they have a universe they can begin to discuss.

Then they have life arising from a soup of chemicals. Again, with no explanation of how this actually gets started. Just the claim that "Science will someday explain this".

Then they claim that the the ability to have an experience can be an emergent property of energy/matter brought about by there sheer complexity of highly evolved brains. Again with no explanation of how this actually works. Just the claim that "Science will some day explain this".

Science appears to be in huge debt for explanations.

They claim that someday they will be able explain how something can to be in the first place.

They claim that someday they will explain why the laws of nature are so extremely fine-tuned.

They claim that someday they will explain how life got started by pure random chance in a primordial soup.

They claim that someday they will explain how a brain can have an experience.

My question is, "How long should I hold my breath waiting for that someday to come?"

Also, what's so wrong with entertaining other possible scenarios and hypothesis in the mean time?

You say:

Anti-scientific types are content to form a superficially plausible argument then sit down do nothing constructive ever again.

Sit around doing nothing constructive?

And what do you expect people to do. Sit around waiting for the hopes and dreams of secular atheists to come true?

What if the secular atheists are wrong?

I'd rather consider other possible answers since the secular atheists don't seem to be coming up with any concrete answers in a timely fashion.

[Divine Insight]

@DI. I will assume the gist of your post is:

Computers are not conscious so logic gates can't produce consciousness. Neurons are like logic gates so brains can't produce consciousness, at least not via their neurons in any reductionistic sort of way.

This is a bad argument. Here is why using another example: computers are not operating systems because logic gates can't produce operating systems. To prove this I put a bunch of logic gates together and it didn't produce an operating system. So clearly operating systems cannot be produced by logic gates in any reductionistic sort of way.

Yes that would be a bad argument. But I never made that argument. The argument keithprosser posted is a strawman argument.

I was arguing precisely the opposite. Keithprosser was basically trying to argue that because we see neural activity in a brain then it makes sense to conclude that this is the cause of experience. And that also is a very poor argument.

That would be like arguing that because we see logic gate activity in a computer we should JUMP to the conclusion that the computer is also then having an experience.

That was my POINT.

And then you guys turn that into a totally different straw-man argument that I never made.

[JohnA]

So? Where did I ever say that ALL thought experiments must be true?

I rest my case.

Am glad you confirmed that it is just that: rubbish = thought experiments.
(btw, trying to show your historicity knowledge after exposing your ignorance is just affirming your historicity ignorance)

NEXT.

[Your ignorance of science shined. We have not solved it all, I admit, but to offer antiquity, thought experiments based on Aristotelian crap, to solve the remaining unanswered questions is an insult to current science. Current scientists are standing on the heads of giants in science, not religion/ignorance/philosophy/politics].

If that was your case, then you aren't even paying attention at all.

Also why do you keep accusing me of being ignorant of science? Where and when did I ever state that I can show scientifically any particular conclusion?

I haven't. So I don't claim to have any scientific conclusions. If I did I would be rushing off to collect my Nobel prize. I am totally aware of what is required to validate a scientific conclusion.

So you are creating totally unrelated strawman arguments because of your own inability to even carry on a meaningful conversation.

Moreover, can you prove your assertions scientifically?

No you cannot. Because if you could, you too would be rushing off to grab your Nobel prize which you clearly aren't doing.

So you're the one who is full of hot air.

You have nothing but speculation just like me. Precisely like me. So go look at yourself in the mirror right now and say to yourself, "I'm precisely the ignorant person that I have been accusing that very nice gentleman on the internet of being."

And then get over it.

This user has been here before and got banned quite quickly. His accusations don't usually stand to much reason. He seems to be here mainly to provoke, and he has got bunch of warnings already, don't bother yourself.

Interesting.

That is quite a claim you made right there. What accusations? Are you referring to the ones that I evidenced?

I think you are angry at your own beliefs that you can not believe that you are being shown wrong when you offer wishful thinking as substitution for rational thought.

It seems to me it is indeed your beliefs that you should be questioned, pretending to know mine.

I agree with many things DI says, the one big disagreement is on the consciousness claim where he says it is just magic. Do you think it is magic too? If so, then you relieve your right to comment on it or on me.

I do not appreciate your preaching and personal insult.

[Divine Insight]

I agree with many things DI says, the one big disagreement is on the consciousness claim where he says it is just magic.

So what is the secular picture?

That stuff just happened to come into existence (and that's not magic?)

That stuff just happens to be finely tuned to be able to evolve into very complex and well-organized systems? (and that's not magic?)

And these well-organized systems just happen to be able to evolve to the point where they can have an experience? (and that's not magic?)

I don't care what you say. A purely secular existence is just as "magical" as any other existence.

Why would you think that a purely secular reality is not magical?