Can Atheism Account For Rationality

[JonathanL]

Then this is the crux of our disagreement. You are making a "can't" claim I do not think you can substantiate. Scientists are investigating and making headway on understanding. We don't know everything, of course, because we are dealing with systems so complex we lack the tools to even begin to model them with any degree of fidelity. But the tools keep getting better and more and more is learned with each new experiment and each new discovery.

There is no reason to believe that we will figure out how the material gives rise to the mental simply because our tools keep getting better, or because we learn more about the complexity of the neurological system. There's no compelling argument yet as to why complexity --> mind, and simply figuring out more about the complexities of the of the neurological system and how it's different parts work together won't make the "complexity --> mind" claim any more plausible.

And yet, this is normal for science. There are many things we investigate that we only have indirect evidence for. I'm not seeing an issue. We can design experiments that adjust for this, and have done so in many areas

I'm mostly being a pedant about you using the term "first-hand evidence" in a way I don't agree with, nothing more.

Sometimes. As best I can tell - this is not one of those times.

We can infer that other people have minds by their behavior and speech, just as we can infer that quarks and black holes exist by the effect they have on their surroundings. So far I'm in agreement with you, I think. Where I disagree is that there is anything about the behavior and speech of humans, in any stage of development, that allows us to make the inference that the mind arises from the brain.

Yes.

Good. So what kind of evidence would you accept then?

So what "unevidenced assumptions" do you think I (or scientists) are making?

Well, that materia preceded mind for instance. It's pretty much an unstated assumption among most neuroscientist that materia existed before mind, and every piece of evidence they find is filtered through that assumption.

Thought is to brain as mind is to brain, because my mind is essentially the sum of my thoughts.

Allow me to disagree.

Odd. I do not.

Not sure what I can do about that.

Actually - I have absolutely no clue how anyone could see them AS distinct. Your position flummoxes me. It does not align with my experience, and I can find no sense in it.

And I have the same reaction towards your view.

I am not saying it is "accompanied," Chrawnus. I am saying it IS thought. The two are inseparable. A decision is an act of will is a thought. Concentration is an act of will is a thought. Recalling memory is an act of will is a thought. I don't have will AND a thought...I have will that IS a thought.

You're right, you're not saying your will, focus and concentration is accompanied by thought, I am. My claim is that you're taking something we all experience in our daily lives (that thought always, or almost always, if the info Adrift provided is correct, accompanies will and focus/concentration) and from that making the unjustified assumption that therefore these facets of mind is identical to the thoughts which accompany them.

And the argument does not seem to have a basis except your "unevidenced assumptions" about the primacy of mind. The electrochemical activity of our sensory organs, nervous system, and brain are a direct physiological response to external stimuli. This is evidenced. The "experience" that produces is indeed a function of "mind." What we do not know, today, is how that physiological response translates to an experiential one. There is progress here, but more unanswered questions than answered ones. But the fact remains that we have ZERO evidence of ANY experiential response WITHOUT brain, and an enormous body of evidence for experiential response WITH brain - and for the ability to impact that experiential response by impacting brain.

The question as to how the physiological response translates to an experiental one is completely immaterial to the question whether sensory experiences are facets of the mind that are not thoughts.

How you can look at this evidence and not see where it points, and still cling to a position that is completely unevidenced is beyond me.

It points to there being some sort of relationship between the brain and the mind. It says nothing about which one is primary.

OK - then offer a definition of "thought" that we can work with.

A mental unit that is imbued with semantic content, perhaps?

Ahhh.. famous last words. Sadly enough...you already have been...

(while I am enjoying the repartee, I want to make sure we don't accidentally drift into bad blood. I know you think my views are in error, as I think yours are. I also think you are "good people." Let's make sure we don't lose sight of that)

(I agree. I also can't be bothered to come up with any more "witty" rejoinders, so I think the previous one will be my last one )

[Adrift]

There is no reason to believe that we will figure out how the material gives rise to the mental simply because our tools keep getting better, or because we learn more about the complexity of the neurological system. There's no compelling argument yet as to why complexity --> mind, and simply figuring out more about the complexities of the of the neurological system and how it's different parts work together won't make the "complexity --> mind" claim any more plausible.

Seems to me that he's grasping here for a classic "Science of the gaps" argument. "We don't understand it now, but some day science will figure it all out for us."

[Tassman]

Seems to me that he's grasping here for a classic "Science of the gaps" argument. "We don't understand it now, but some day science will figure it all out for us."

Your so-called “science of the gaps” has a far better track record than the classic “god of the gaps”, which has a dismal track record.

[Tassman]

Perhaps I can clarify my point. If God created matter, energy and the laws by which the universe operates then it is no way "natural."

The key word here is the conditional "IF". There is no good reason to add a supernatural deity into the equation at all.

[carpedm9587]

There is no reason to believe that we will figure out how the material gives rise to the mental simply because our tools keep getting better, or because we learn more about the complexity of the neurological system. There's no compelling argument yet as to why complexity --> mind, and simply figuring out more about the complexities of the of the neurological system and how it's different parts work together won't make the "complexity --> mind" claim any more plausible.

I agree there is minimal progress with regards to complex systems, but I think it's a bit premature to say "never figure it out." We are barely six decades into the computer age. I think you're making too definitive a statement. I'll leave it at, "we're not there, yet."

I'm mostly being a pedant about you using the term "first-hand evidence" in a way I don't agree with, nothing more.

Does this mean you have officially hung yourself from a chain around someone's neck?

We can infer that other people have minds by their behavior and speech, just as we can infer that quarks and black holes exist by the effect they have on their surroundings. So far I'm in agreement with you, I think. Where I disagree is that there is anything about the behavior and speech of humans, in any stage of development, that allows us to make the inference that the mind arises from the brain.

I don't think I made that claim.

Good. So what kind of evidence would you accept then?

Depends on the subject matter. I accept my wife's word when she says she loves me (though that might be just a tad self-serving... ). I accept the evidence of my senses for most day-to-day things (is it raining, does that T-shirt need a good wash, etc.). As a student of philosophy (though that BA is almost 40 years old), I'll accept any valid argument.

Well, that materia preceded mind for instance. It's pretty much an unstated assumption among most neuroscientist that materia existed before mind, and every piece of evidence they find is filtered through that assumption.

Speaking for myself - I come to that as a "most likely conclusion" based on the evidence - not because I started there. Indeed, I started as an evangelical catholic with all the spiritual/soul bells and whistles.

Allow me to disagree.

Always. Being wrong is your absolute right...

Not sure what I can do about that.

At first glance - nothing. But I do find it odd, and wonder how much of that "experience" you report is due to your pre-existing mindset. Of course, I would imagine you have the same question of me.

And I have the same reaction towards your view.

Say it ain't so! (that's meant as a joke...)*

You're right, you're not saying your will, focus and concentration is accompanied by thought, I am. My claim is that you're taking something we all experience in our daily lives (that thought always, or almost always, if the info Adrift provided is correct, accompanies will and focus/concentration) and from that making the unjustified assumption that therefore these facets of mind is identical to the thoughts which accompany them.

Yes - I got that part...

The question as to how the physiological response translates to an experiental one is completely immaterial to the question whether sensory experiences are facets of the mind that are not thoughts.

Again, all of this is "thought." However, not all "thought" is conscious. Our brain processes (as best we can tell) sensory information on a subconscious level. The analogy would be to those physical acts that are autonomic versus willed. I have to make a conscious decision to raise my arm. I don't have to make a conscious decision to make my heart beat. Then there are the things that can go either way (e.g., breathing). Thoughts are analogous: some are conscious - and some subconscious. It doesn't make them less "thought."

It points to there being some sort of relationship between the brain and the mind. It says nothing about which one is primary.

On this we disagree. The evidence clearly shows (but does not yet definitively prove) that brain produces and affects mind.

A mental unit that is imbued with semantic content, perhaps?

Ahh... we may be getting to the heart of our disagreement. "Semantic" is a reference to language - so you appear to be limiting "thought" to activities of the brain that are essentially "silent/internal sentences." In other words, the things a telepath might "listen in on." That suggests that the notion of "subconscious thought" might be an oxymoron to you.

And that got me chasing the dictionary (amazing how much this site has me doing that), and I think I am going to agree with you and reverse myself. The common definition of "thought" is more aligned with the semantic notion you propose...and less with my wider meaning. My wider use is probably the source of our disagreement on thought = mind. I'm not sure where it gets us, but I retract that statement, and accept your distinctions between thought, will, focus, and experience as different aspects of the mind.

(I agree. I also can't be bothered to come up with any more "witty" rejoinders, so I think the previous one will be my last one )

I understand completely. I was finding it a challenge to continually provide witty responses to an unarmed opponent...


(ok...I did NOT just say that...it was my evil twin.... )

[carpedm9587]

Seems to me that he's grasping here for a classic "Science of the gaps" argument. "We don't understand it now, but some day science will figure it all out for us."

That is a somewhat ironic remark - given the number of times I have noted that "of the gaps" is too commonly the religious approach: substituting "god did it" for "we don't know."

For the record, my position is that it is too soon to rule out science deriving answers in this area. Right now, "we don't know" is the best we can do with respect to how mind arises from matter. But there is significant science already, and it is encouraging. I cannot say "science will someday know" definitively. It is entirely possible we may never know. But, for now, I'm comfortable with "we don't know" and wait to see what unfolds. My best guess is that I will never know - because I don't think I have enough years left in me to let the science play out. I will probably die not knowing.

[carpedm9587]

No, practitioners of mushin don't consider it autopilot or being in the zone, rather they consider it "a focused mind which has been freed of all distractions, clutter, unproductive emotions, and self-imposed limitations.¹" I'm curious, where you read that mushin is described as "subconscious thought."

Also, can you provide a source for an academic definition of "subconscious thought" so that everyone is on the same page? Not "subconsciousness," but "subconscious thought." There seems to be quite a bit of debate on whether or not there's any real distinction between subconscious and conscious thought, and whether or not the phrase "subconscious thought" is itself contradictory. When I see it referenced it's often used as shorthand for the sort of thing you describe above. A sort of "in the zone" acting without thinking, or perhaps holding certain fundamental worldviews without bringing them into the consciousness. That sort of thing. But is that just shorthand, or can one really have "thoughts" in the now that they themselves are not presently aware of?

I think, given my last post to Chrawnus, that this has become unnecessary. I was using a too-wide definition of "thought," leading to confusion. Chrawnus correctly picked up on it, sent me back to my dictionary, and I've withdrawn the comments.

As for "mushin," I think we are saying basically the same thing - but in different words.

[JimL]

I think, given my last post to Chrawnus, that this has become unnecessary. I was using a too-wide definition of "thought," leading to confusion. Chrawnus correctly picked up on it, sent me back to my dictionary, and I've withdrawn the comments.

As for "mushin," I think we are saying basically the same thing - but in different words.

Carpe, you are making a distinction between "thoughts" and "memories", the former being somehow separate from the brain, the latter being stored in the brain. So, and I asked in a previous post which you may have missed, but I was wondering in what sense exactly are you making that distinction? Are you suggesting that thoughts are immaterial and that memories are material?

[seer]

If that were true, then the origins of the universe would have been supernatural, agreed.

Good we agree...

Seer, ALL definitions "beg the question." See that round, brown thing over there - the smallest denomination coin in use in the U.S.? We call it a "penny." Why? Because we all agree to call it a "penny" so we don't have to say, "round, brown, smallest-denomination coin used in the U.S." "Penny" is just so much easier. That is the nature of language. I don't know what you suggest in it's place. Human beings "make up words" to provide a symbol that represents an objective reality. So I really have no clue why you are quibbling over definitions. If you don't like "natural," then use some other word more to your liking, or just say, "not created by humans and can be investigated using the scientific method." Unless you are suggesting this universe cannot be investigated using the scientific method? That would seem to me to be an odd claim for someone who has said the universe operates according to repeatable/predictable/intelligible principles - which is the very basis for science. Or perhaps you're suggesting the "supernatural" CAN be investigated using the scientific method? If so, then I would like to know how you propose to falsify the proposition "we are all sinful in the eyes of god and worthy of his wrath" (the cheerful little message on a card someone handed me on the street in Halifax this morning).



I don't "reduce" the supernatural to anything. The world of facts falls into two large camps: that which can be investigated using the scientific method and that which cannot. We call the former "natural" because they are part of this universe and we encounter the "nature" of this universe every waking day. We call the latter "supernatural." Gods and claims about gods (AFAIK) are considered supernatural. If you think otherwise, then propose a hypothesis about a theological claim and outline the experiment you would use to scientifically investigate and confirm or falsify the hypothesis. If you can pull that off, I think you will be the first to do so.

Again Carp, I'm questioning your categories of natural or supernatural. And my claim is that we don't and can't made the distinction. Look, we define a tree one way, and a rock another. It is a bit arbitrary, but there are physical characteristics that we can compare and judge by. This is not the case with the definitions of natural and supernatural since we have no objective physical characteristics to compare. A supernatural universe can not be scientifically understood? Really why not? How would you know? We are not comparing a tree with a rock, we are comparing things that we are completely clueless about. This is why definitions in this case have no objective justification, they are completely made up and without objective rational basis, unlike the distinction between a tree and a rock.

[JimL]

Good we agree...




Again Carp, I'm questioning your categories of natural or supernatural. And my claim is that we don't and can't made the distinction. Look, we define a tree one way, and a rock another. It is a bit arbitrary, but there are physical characteristics that we can compare and judge by. This is not the case with the definitions of natural and supernatural since we have no objective physical characteristics to compare. A supernatural universe can not be scientifically understood? Really why not? How would you know? We are not comparing a tree with a rock, we are comparing things that we are completely clueless about. This is why definitions in this case have no objective justification, they are completely made up and without objective rational basis, unlike the distinction between a tree and a rock.

Supernatural seer, just means other than the world we know of. This is the natural world because it is the world we are aware of. If there is another world, another existence, separate, apart, and different in kind from this world, then it would, on that account, be rightly called supernatural.

[carpedm9587]

Carpe, you are making a distinction between "thoughts" and "memories", the former being somehow separate from the brain, the latter being stored in the brain.

Not exactly. Thoughts appear to be "real time" activities of the brain...and can actually form memories. Memories are images/sounds/experiences that must be stored in some part of the brain in order for them to be recalled. "Mind" is simply the word we give to the sum total of all of the conscious and subconscious activities of the brain: thought, memory recall, will, focus, etc.

So, and I asked in a previous post which you may have missed, but I was wondering in what sense exactly are you making that distinction?

Memory = stored previous experiences.
Thought = real-time mental activities with semantic content (as discussed with Chrawnus).

Are you suggesting that thoughts are immaterial and that memories are material?

I personally think both (thoughts and memories) have aspects of both (material and immaterial).

[carpedm9587]

Good we agree...

Again Carp, I'm questioning your categories of natural or supernatural.

Then your issue is with the dictionary - not with me. I am simply using the conventional definitions of the words.

And my claim is that we don't and can't made the distinction.

I'm not having a problem

Look, we define a tree one way, and a rock another. It is a bit arbitrary, but there are physical characteristics that we can compare and judge by. This is not the case with the definitions of natural and supernatural since we have no objective physical characteristics to compare.

Yes - we do: "natural" relates to the aspects of the universe that are amenable to experimentation, exploration, and understanding by the scientific method. "Supernatural" is everything else. The term is often used in reference to religiously-associated concepts, but is also associated with things like magic, ghosts, poltergeists, and so forth.

A supernatural universe can not be scientifically understood?

The supernatural, in general, cannot be scientifically explored or commented on.

Really why not?

Because that is how we define the terms.

How would you know?

By looking at the definition of the terms we are using. If it can be scientifically explored - then it is not considered "supernatural."

We are not comparing a tree with a rock, we are comparing things that we are completely clueless about.

About the supernatural - I agree. We are pretty clueless. I believe that is because we are speculating about something that does not exist - so it's hard to be "clueful" about a non-existent thing.

This is why definitions in this case have no objective justification, they are completely made up and without objective rational basis, unlike the distinction between a tree and a rock.

That is how language works. If you have a better idea for how humans should communicate, by all means propose it.

[seer]

Yes - we do: "natural" relates to the aspects of the universe that are amenable to experimentation, exploration, and understanding by the scientific method. "Supernatural" is everything else. The term is often used in reference to religiously-associated concepts, but is also associated with things like magic, ghosts, poltergeists, and so forth.

Again, that is my point. This distinction has no rational merit. And again, the Christian would say that this universe is supernatural and scientifically understandable, just because a rational God created it and maintains it.

The supernatural, in general, cannot be scientifically explored or commented on.

That is only because how we arbitrarily decided to define terms without any objective reasoning or justification.

About the supernatural - I agree. We are pretty clueless. I believe that is because we are speculating about something that does not exist - so it's hard to be "clueful" about a non-existent thing.

That is how language works. If you have a better idea for how humans should communicate, by all means propose it.

No you are just as clueless in defining natural. You (we) have no idea. You are free to use the term, but unlike the objective difference between a tree and a rock, have no objective comparison between the natural and supernatural. You are shooting in the dark with no objective reference.

[carpedm9587]

Again, that is my point. This distinction has no rational merit.

The distinction is a fairly simple one, Seer. I'm not sure why you're struggling with it. If it can be investigated via the scientific method, we use the term "natural" (as in, in the nature of our universe). If it is not, we use the term "supernatural" - as in "not in the nature of our universe." This is not rocket science.

And again, the Christian would say that this universe is supernatural and scientifically understandable, just because a rational God created it and maintains it.

If the universe was "supernaturally" created, science can say nothing about that creation. If it was "naturally" created, then science (by definition) can explore and discover. You seem to be confusing the nature of the universe as it exists, with the creation of that universe.

That is only because how we arbitrarily decided to define terms without any objective reasoning or justification.

Which is, again, what we do with ALL terms. ALL terms are inter-subjectively defined for the purposes of communication. You have not proposed a viable alternative.

No you are just as clueless in defining natural.

How, exactly, am I "defending the natural?" You seem to think if I say "those are pennies" and "those are not pennies" that I am somehow "defending the penny." It makes no sense.

You (we) have no idea.

No idea about what?

You are free to use the term, but unlike the objective difference between a tree and a rock, have no objective comparison between the natural and supernatural. You are shooting in the dark with no objective reference.

No language is objectively defined - they are all inter-subjectively defined. As I said, if you don't like "natural" and "supernatural," then call them "flibittet" and "nonflibbittet" or any other term you wish to derive. If I know what word you want to use and how you want to define it, I will be able to communicate with you. If you make up words on the spot and I don't know their meaning, or you change the meaning of words as they are commonly defined, I probably won't be able to communicate with you very well.

[seer]

The distinction is a fairly simple one, Seer. I'm not sure why you're struggling with it. If it can be investigated via the scientific method, we use the term "natural" (as in, in the nature of our universe). If it is not, we use the term "supernatural" - as in "not in the nature of our universe." This is not rocket science.

Right and I'm not sure why you don't get, the distinction has no rational merit. Unlike the distinction between a rock and a tree there is no objective way to judge between the natural and supernatural, what can be included or excluded. Besides a bald face assertion. Nothing more.

If the universe was "supernaturally" created, science can say nothing about that creation. If it was "naturally" created, then science (by definition) can explore and discover. You seem to be confusing the nature of the universe as it exists, with the creation of that universe.

No, I'm claiming that this universe as it stands is supernatural, and that you can not claim otherwise apart from a logically unjustifiable assertion.

Which is, again, what we do with ALL terms. ALL terms are inter-subjectively defined for the purposes of communication. You have not proposed a viable alternative.

Sure, I'm saying we can define things by comparison. We define a tree, we define a rock. We define they by physical qualities. You are not doing this with the universe because you do not know that this universe is natural or non-supernatural. They very qualities of this may just as well be qualities of a supernatural universe. How could you know? Compare to what?