Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Underlying Presuppositions

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    I do not recall hearing "the Four Horsemen" or "New Atheism" before. If we discussed it back then, I have no memory of it. Dawkins' work I know to some degree, but from years ago. I have not read him recently. The other three I do not know at all, even by name.
    Ok, well Hitchens and Dawkins are the John and Paul of the group. Harris is George, and Dennett is Ringo. You probably don't need to know much more than that.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
      I didn't read much from him. I won't blame carpedm9587 of not having read much either. That whole 4 Horsemen thing got really old really fast. Of those guys it was really on P.Z Myers I was a fan of, and mostly only during the whole Dover trial. He's been intensely critical of atheists (or atheism as a movement) in general afterwards. Still being one of course. He has an intellectual integrity that I've always respected.
      He has?

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        If you don't know this yet about me, I don't really think much of quote mining. An argument from authority is meaningless if the authority is wrong and/or biased. So his statement, "the only thing like consciousness is consciousness itself" is true, but it makes the same logical mistake you made earlier: it says nothing about the possibility of consciousness from nonconscious elements. There are things made up of X elements that are not conscious, and things made up of exactly those same elements that are. The difference between the two sets of things is a) their organization in a form that is living, and b) the degree of their complexity. It is a groundless assumption that consciousness cannot arise from these basic elements when there are distinct diffences in the arrangement of these elements. You would first need to rule out that this arrangement is not somehow tied to consciousness - but when you try to do that, you find immediately that if you compromise the arrangement of these elements you likewise compromise consciousness and reasoning. The reasonable conclusion is that the two are related. We do not know how, but we DO know that they are. So all that remains is a force to create the arrangement. Clearly, evolution can create complex systems, and is responsible for all of our other attributes, so there is no justification for isolating this one and treating it diffferently.
        Carp, first Harris is a well known atheist and a neuroscientist and not one who is generally on my side of this debate. And either you don't understand his points or you are hand-waving. There are two links, both short - Harris is in the field and I'm sure he understand all the objections you bring up. To quote him again: To say that consciousness emerged at some point in the evolution of life doesn’t give us an inkling of how it could emerge from unconscious processes, even in principle.

        And we haven't even touched on the hard problem of consciousness.... Carp, I really don't think you appreciate what is being said here.

        That is why I keep mentioning that you are simply assuming that consciousness did rise from the natural order even though we don't have a clue how, even in principle... And the question is not about how consciousness is related to the physical brain, but why it exists at all.

        Many members of the animal AND plant kingdoms survive quite well without consciousness or even an ability to reason, surviving only on instinct and accurate perception (of some sort). I have no idea what you think you are proving by continually re-asserting this. I have previously shown the logical flaw, if you are saying what I think you are saying.
        There is no logical flaw, consciousness is not necessary for survival. Creatures that have no self-awareness survive just as well as us, often even better. True, they don't fly to the moon, but that is not necessary for survival...
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
          Maybe the "New Atheist" (not even sure what that means) authors are different...?
          The term generally tends to refer to 21st century atheists writing popular books talking about religion. They're usually characterized by being a bit more honestly brutal in their critiques of religious views. Atheists of the past were generally aware that their societies were very religious, and that most of their readers would be religious themselves, and tended to play up themes like "well I respect the church and its teachings, but I would like to look at this minor issue". In today's Western world there's no longer a widespread feeling that people need to show respect for the church and its institutions, and it's considered valid to make more wholesale arguments such as "my thesis is that overall religion has done more harm than good" that would have gone down like a lead balloon in previous generations where saying anything bad about the church as a whole was a no no.

          The "four horsemen" metaphor is interesting...
          Some gratuitous self-aggrandizement going on there among them I think.

          Of the 'four horsemen' I enjoy the works of Dawkins. Offhand I can't think of anything he's ever written that I disagreed with. Sam Harris I've found to be much more of a mixed bag - the guy is a Neo Con and a jerk - but if you read him as if he's a slightly-autistic opinionated jerk he does make some good points at times. Daniel Dennett I've never read anything by, but I understand he's got a mind-body theory that I would reject at face value (his idea is apparently that consciousness is an illusion, and if only we Really Understood what was going on we'd realize there's no consciousness and we're only atoms and molecules... I've got a video of his on that subject queue up to watch sometime). Christopher Hitchens I haven't read any of, and most people seem to find him the most objectionable of the 4, as he apparently had (dead now) quite an acerbic writing style that pulled no punches and he tended to go further in the direction of ad hominems than was perhaps helpful.
          "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
          "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
          "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
            Ok, well Hitchens and Dawkins are the John and Paul of the group. Harris is George, and Dennett is Ringo. You probably don't need to know much more than that.
            And here I thought the reference was to the four horsemen of the apocalypse...
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              Carp, first Harris is a well known atheist and a neuroscientist and not one who is generally on my side of this debate. And either you don't understand his points or you are hand-waving.
              Or I think he is wrong and explained why...

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              There are two links, both short - Harris is in the field and I'm sure he understand all the objections you bring up. To quote him again: To say that consciousness emerged at some point in the evolution of life doesn’t give us an inkling of how it could emerge from unconscious processes, even in principle.
              I did not claim it did. There is much of "how" that we don't understand. We don't understand how gravitation actually works. That does not lead us to deny that it does - we see the effects all around us. We don't really know how evolution can produce complex systems. That does not lead us to deny that it does - we see the effcts all around us. That I cannot explain "how" does not mean that I reject the entire principle.

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              And we haven't even touched on the hard problem of consciousness.... Carp, I really don't think you appreciate what is being said here.

              That is why I keep mentioning that you are simply assuming that consciousness did rise from the natural order even though we don't have a clue how, even in principle... And the question is not about how consciousness is related to the physical brain, but why it exists at all.
              No - I am not assuming it. I am saying that the evidence suggests to me that it does. I conclude it. You are the one assuming, Seer, that it must be from a god. Why? Because you have things you cannot answer and you seem to be predisposed to replacing "I don't know" with "god did it." I do not make that assumption.

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              There is no logical flaw, consciousness is not necessary for survival. Creatures that have no self-awareness survive just as well as us, often even better. True, they don't fly to the moon, but that is not necessary for survival...
              So I will repeat the breakdown of the logical flaw:
              • Claim: Upper body strength provides a survival advantage and makes it possible to lift heavy objects bought at WalMart into a van
              • Response: Animals do not need to lift heavy objects into a van, so upper body strength is clearly not key to survival.


              I have to believe you can see the logical problem with this response, right? Now applying it to this argument:
              • Claim: Accurate perception and accurate processing of those perceptions provides survival advantages, and also provides the basis for consciousness and correct processing of abstract thought
              • Reponse: Animals do not have consciousness nor do they process abstract thought and they survive quite well, so accurate perception/processing is not key to survival.


              We can see that accurate perception and the ability to process those perceptions accurately does indeed provide survival advantage. I presume you do not dispute this. We can also see that the reasoning ability of humanity exceeds that of any other species, and we dominate any niche which we seek to occupy. So clearly reasoning abstractly also provides survival advantage. It helps us build tools, and engineer our environment. If we can perceive correctly, and reason correctly, then it fololws that "correctness" will follow in other reasoning activities. Consciousness is part of that - and is evident not only in humanity, but to lesser degrees in other species, which have been shown to use language, and show an ability ot recognize "self."

              So I see no reason to accept your suggestion that consciousness and higher reasoning (intelligence) MUST come from consciousness and higher reasoning. There is nothing about the suggestion that suggests this MUST be so, and every reason to believe that it is likely an outgrowth of the evolutionary process.

              EDITED to add: Something just clicked for me, and perhaps it is the basis for this disagreement. When an evolutionist talks about "survival advantage," it is not just about "helping them survive." It is, more specifically, about "helping them survive at a higher rate than those without X." That is what causes the advantage to perpetuate at a greater rate than other attributes. I do not need consciousness "to survive." But if consciousness makes it possible for me to survive at a higher rate than those without it, then that attribute will perpetuate itself in the species. I think you have limited yourself to "survive" and left out the "advantage" part.
              Last edited by carpedm9587; 02-12-2018, 06:28 PM.
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                But if consciousness makes it possible for me to survive at a higher rate than those without it, then that attribute will perpetuate itself in the species.
                It's an interesting challenge of course, to try to define consciousness. And then, once such a definition is provided (if it is - I've been watching a few lectures on youtube on the subject lately by experts, and they aren't that great at giving a definition) to explain why it has survival value - i.e. why did evolution favor conscious entities over robotic ones ('philosophical zombies')?

                A couple of possible explanatory options would seem to be:
                1) Wherever complex reasoning develops, you get consciousness along with it. Evolution developed complex reasoning for survival value. Consciousness itself doesn't have survival value, but it was a package deal.
                2) Consciousness exists 'out there' somewhere in a parallel universe or a hard-to-detect pervasive field in this universe or whatever, and evolution found that by structuring neurons in a certain way it was able to interact with that consciousness field at the quantum level in a similar way to how well-organized components in a satellite dish are able to interact with radio waves. Thus evolution was able to tap into pre-existing powerful mental abilities at relatively low price in terms of materials needed - all it needed was to structure the satellite dish correctly within the brain and it could then get some quite complex tasks accomplished. In a similar way your laptop can establish a remote-log-in session to a supercomputer, and can tap into much greater computational power just by remote messaging, without needing the cost of building all that computational power into the laptop. (This view reminds me of Gnosticism where the material universe is seen as evil because it 'traps' divine souls within matter, or perhaps it is similar to Buddhism)
                "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                  It's an interesting challenge of course, to try to define consciousness. And then, once such a definition is provided (if it is - I've been watching a few lectures on youtube on the subject lately by experts, and they aren't that great at giving a definition) to explain why it has survival value - i.e. why did evolution favor conscious entities over robotic ones ('philosophical zombies')?

                  A couple of possible explanatory options would seem to be:
                  1) Wherever complex reasoning develops, you get consciousness along with it. Evolution developed complex reasoning for survival value. Consciousness itself doesn't have survival value, but it was a package deal.
                  2) Consciousness exists 'out there' somewhere in a parallel universe or a hard-to-detect pervasive field in this universe or whatever, and evolution found that by structuring neurons in a certain way it was able to interact with that consciousness field at the quantum level in a similar way to how well-organized components in a satellite dish are able to interact with radio waves. Thus evolution was able to tap into pre-existing powerful mental abilities at relatively low price in terms of materials needed - all it needed was to structure the satellite dish correctly within the brain and it could then get some quite complex tasks accomplished. In a similar way your laptop can establish a remote-log-in session to a supercomputer, and can tap into much greater computational power just by remote messaging, without needing the cost of building all that computational power into the laptop. (This view reminds me of Gnosticism where the material universe is seen as evil because it 'traps' divine souls within matter, or perhaps it is similar to Buddhism)
                  1) seems more plausible to me.
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    1) seems more plausible to me.
                    ~shrug~ I prefer view #2.
                    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                      No you're not, you were objecting to him using that concept in order to point out the obvious: A quantum vacuum with all its strange pontentias is not nothing. It goes down to a simple axiom of metaphysical reasoning. From nothing, nothing comes. It is at the center of our understanding of causality. Some would argue, I being one of them, that it is the same as saying "Every effect has an explanation."

                      Saying that the universe came from a special false vacuum state, and bubbled out into this state (as in chaotic inflation theory), not the same as saying "The universe came from nothing."

                      You might as well say to a farmer who wished he had two horses instead of two cows "Well what if you just called them horses?"
                      Wow, I had no idea that I meant to convey all of that. Thanks!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        So, just to clarify, you can conceive of a universe in which a thing can be true and not true at the same time, in the same place, in the same way? Or that a thing can be other than itself? Or that 1 is unequal to 1?
                        Easily, the Quantum World of our universe.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                          I think Tassman believes that science is our only source of knowledge, and that philosophy only serves to clarify the statements of science. Therefore since 'nothingness' as its conceived by philosophers does not exists in physics, therefore its a meaningless concept..
                          You know me so well.

                          I do not say that science is the "only source of knowledge", but it is demonstrably the only verifiable source of knowledge. Hence, in this instance, the philosophical concept of ‘nothingness’ cannot be shown to be factually true, whereas the concept in science can at least in principle be empirically verifiable as factually true.
                          Last edited by Tassman; 02-12-2018, 10:50 PM.
                          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post

                            And we haven't even touched on the hard problem of consciousness.... Carp, I really don't think you appreciate what is being said here.

                            That is why I keep mentioning that you are simply assuming that consciousness did rise from the natural order even though we don't have a clue how, even in principle... And the question is not about how consciousness is related to the physical brain, but why it exists at all.
                            It is reasonable to posit that consciousness arose from the natural order; there is no reasonable alternative explanation. E.g. there is no good reason to suggest ‘consciousness’ has some sort of an interface with another realm of being, such as a deity. This is dualism, which is logically inconsistent.

                            Over the centuries, every other mysterious phenomenon, once attributed to "supernatural" causes has been found to have a natural explanation by the physical sciences...even life itself can be understood in terms of modern molecular biology. So there's no reason to think that the evolution of consciousness in many of the higher animals is any different.

                            There is no logical flaw, consciousness is not necessary for survival. Creatures that have no self-awareness survive just as well as us, often even better. True, they don't fly to the moon, but that is not necessary for survival...
                            As with all animals we have a purpose-driven life; one of survival and reproduction. The fact that some have 'consciousness' and some have 'fur' and some have 'eight tentacles' is irrelevant.
                            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                              E.g. there is no good reason to suggest ‘consciousness’ has some sort of an interface with another realm of being, such as a deity. This is dualism, which is logically inconsistent.
                              Why? I would usually call myself a "dualist" or an "idealist" on the mind-body problem. I think the idea that the brain acts a satellite dish to communicate through to another realm on the quantum level as I described in post 202 seems perfectly plausible, and certainly not logically inconsistent.
                              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                The counter to which is, if true beliefs/perception/reasoning have survival value, then those brains that have a greater tendency to hold true beliefs/perception/reasoning will tend to survive, meaning the brain is generally oriented to truth. It is not a guarantee that every belief/perception/reasoning will be true, but then the Christian worldview does not provide that guarantee either.
                                Since evolution is blind to the truth or falsehood of our beliefs, us having generally true beliefs would be entirely incidental. And where a false belief leads to actions that increase our survival, evolution would select for that.

                                (This is where you agree, and point to Christianity as an example. )



                                Originally posted by carpe
                                No worldview can guarantee perfection, Max. If that is what you and others here are seeking, you will not find it in our worldview or yours. We distinguish between true and untrue beliefs on the basis of our perceptions and reasoning, and we look for mechanisms to validate/test those beliefs to verify them as much as is possible. In general, beliefs that can reliably be used to make predictions tend to be more sure to be true. Beliefs that can be tested and validated in various ways by independent evaluators, tend to be more true.

                                But there is always the possibility of perceiving incorrectly, and reasoning incorrectly, and coming to a false belief. There is the possibility of inherited bias or extreme trauma coloring our judgments. We may sufffer from over-dependence on authority. Nothing guarantees that what we believe and/or think we know is error free. Indeed, I expect to go to my grave ignorant of more about the universe than I am knowledgeable about it, and carrying beleifs to my grave that I believe to be correct that are actually wrong. That's life.
                                Ever seen the movie "the Truman Show"? Or realized that someone you know is a persistent liar?

                                All of your reasoning above is also beliefs that fall into the same problem. We have no way of knowing which (if any) are true, so we can't use the true ones to help us find and eliminate the false ones. Our belief-forming apparatus is not directed to forming true beliefs, but rather ones that increase the chances of our survival. Since all of our beliefs are formed thus way, none are trustworthy, including such beliefs as 'Beliefs that we believe comport with reality are true'
                                ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                165 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                426 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,507 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X