Can Atheism Account For Rationality

[carpedm9587]

Why are we conscious in the first place, and how does materialism account for subjective experience.

Why is this a "problem?" We are conscious - and we do not yet understand the mechanism by which we are, though there are some theories out there.

Why do you think there is a problem with materialism "accounting for" subjective experience? We don't understand how gravity works either. We don't know a lot about a lot of things, and are still constantly learning. Eventually, hopefully, we'll know.

The immaterial (mind or spirit) having causal influence on the mental decision making processes.

I don't see a distinction between "mind" and "spirit." As best I can tell, "spirit" is a religious term for that ineffable sense of "I" that seems to be at the heart of consciousness. It is the object of every statement about ourselves, "I have a leg," or "I have a mind," or "I have an idea."

I suppose one could say that the "I" is the ghost in the machine," except we have no solid idea how the "ghost" arises and how it feeds back into the "machine."

Personally, I'm not big on the whole "human dualism" thing.

Ask Jim L and Sam Harris.

The word "illusion" means "a thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses." I think Jim and Sam are taking it to the extreme, recognizing that the human senses and brain do not ever "rightly perceive." First, we only perceive within a narrow band of phenomena. Our eyes cannot see below a certain level of light and are washed out by too much light. We can only see a narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum. We can only see down to a specific size with our eyes. Our nose can only detect down to a certain density of gaseous content (i.e., we could never detect one part per billion). Our ears can only hear within a narrow band of the acoustic spectrum. Similar limits are true for taste and touch. So we only experience a fraction of "reality" and require tools to help us detect the rest. Even what we do detect ultimately takes the form of electrochemical impulses traveling from our "detectors" to the processing centers of our brain, where they are represented as highly complex synaptic firings, not a visual or auditory or tactile representation of the reality. The magic of how all of that becomes visual information or smell or discernible sound within our brain is unknown.

But to label all of that "illusion" is to misrepresent the concept of "illusion" as it is commonly understood. Yes, our senses are limited and imperfect. That is not, IMO, synonymous with "illusion." It is simply a reality we confront as finite beings.

[shunyadragon]

Why is this a "problem?" We are conscious - and we do not yet understand the mechanism by which we are, though there are some theories out there.

All science deals with looking for answers to problems, and that;s nothing new. It is a given that we do not 'fully' understand the relationship between the mind and consciousness, and the relationship to the brain, and metaphysical explanations are possible, but there is more to the science of neurology than just theories as far.

I hope to address this in this thread, but of course, it has been indicated by some that they are not interested in the 'scientific evidence' of the relationship.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...559#post647559

[carpedm9587]

All science deals with looking for answers to problems, and that;s nothing new. It is a given that we do not 'fully' understand the relationship between the mind and consciousness, and the relationship to the brain, and metaphysical explanations are possible, but there is more to the science of neurology than just theories as far.

I hope to address this in this thread, but of course, it has been indicated by some that they are not interested in the 'scientific evidence' of the relationship.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...559#post647559

There is little doubt in my mind that scientists are making steady progress on the mind/brain relationship, though it is a tough nut to crack. I'm fascinated by it, myself. But then again, I'm fascinated by a lot of things. My wife and I are on a vacation trip through northeast Canada and we spent the day at Hopewell Rocks on the Bay of Fundy. This is home to some of the largest tides in the world. They an range as much as 50 feet low-to-high, depending on the time of year and cycle of the moon/sun*. That extreme range is caused by a number of factors coming together. If you have ever watched a small child get the water in the bathtub sloshing by sliding forward and backward at a particular rhythm, you know the effect. If their movements are just slightly behind the movement of the water, each slosh magnifies the action of the tub water, building a higher and higher rocking motion. But that requires the child to move at the exact speed the water is moving from one end of the bathtub to the other to create the harmonic effect.

This is what is happening in the Bay of Fundy. The bay is the bathtub, and all that is needed is an "engine" to get the water rocking. It turns out that this engine is the natural tide cycle of the ocean. The bay has the right shape, depth, and length so that the rhythm of the water in the bay can "rock" like the water in the tub at exactly the same period as the tidal cycle. So each high tide on the open ocean gives the water in the bay a "little" nudge, setting it rocking in the inward direction. If the bay were shorter, wider, shallower, had a differently-shaped bottom, or the moon had a wider orbit, the tides in the bay would likely be normal.

I look on this and see just an amazing example of nature in action. I don't see "the hand of god." I distinguish between "awe" and "worship." I am in awe of the bay. I do not worship the forces that make it so. The same is true of mind/brain. The primary difference is, I don't know what those forces are for the latter.

*actually, I think the 50-foot levels occur at Burntrocks, across the bay from Hopewell.

[Tassman]

Why are we conscious in the first place, and how does materialism account for subjective experience.

Many creatures are “conscious” as a consequence of natural selection. Natural selection is the process whereby organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce. In doing so, they pass on these traits to the next generation. Consciousness is one such trait for some species, including the human species.

The immaterial (mind or spirit) having causal influence on the mental decision making processes

Our immaterial mind is an essential part of our material brain, it cannot exist without it.

Ask Jim L and Sam Harris.

They are “illusions” only in the sense that we subjectively ‘feel’ as though our conscious selves are separate from our physical brain, when in fact they are not.

[seer]

Many creatures are “conscious” as a consequence of natural selection. Natural selection is the process whereby organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce. In doing so, they pass on these traits to the next generation. Consciousness is one such trait for some species, including the human species.

What do you consider many? Only about ten species that we know of pass the mirror test for self awareness. And you don't know if their subjective experience (qualia) is anything like ours.

Our immaterial mind is an essential part of our material brain, it cannot exist without it.

Even is the immaterial mind is dependent on the physical brain, it is still immaterial and beyond science.

They are “illusions” only in the sense that we subjectively ‘feel’ as though our conscious selves are separate from our physical brain, when in fact they are not.

But the immaterial mind is really different from the physical: One is material one is not. So it is not an illusion.

[carpedm9587]

Even is the immaterial mind is dependent on the physical brain, it is still immaterial and beyond science.

Why do you think "immaterial things" are beyond science? Psychology is a science, and is about the mind. All of the studies about emergent properties are about essentially immaterial things, and are sciences. If the immaterial impacts the material in any way, or is given rise by the material (as we suspect), then science should be able to investigate - at least to some degree. Science is not limited to what we can directly observe even in the material realm - so why would it be so limited in the immaterial realm?

But the immaterial mind is really different from the physical: One is material one is not. So it is not an illusion.

I'm going to leave this illusion discussion to you guys. It's a bizarre discussion, IMO.

[JonathanL]

For the reasons noted here: https://www.iep.utm.edu/hard-con/

Argument by weblink is generally frowned upon on these forums. You can link to sources supporting your argument, but you shouldn't make that the main part of your post.

Just a heads up.

[carpedm9587]

For the reasons noted here: https://www.iep.utm.edu/hard-con/

I'd suggest that "hard problem" and "beyond the reach of science" are not the same claim.

[seer]

Why do you think "immaterial things" are beyond science? Psychology is a science, and is about the mind. All of the studies about emergent properties are about essentially immaterial things, and are sciences. If the immaterial impacts the material in any way, or is given rise by the material (as we suspect), then science should be able to investigate - at least to some degree. Science is not limited to what we can directly observe even in the material realm - so why would it be so limited in the immaterial realm?

I'm not sure how science could investigate the workings of the immaterial, what would that even look like? Chalmers suggests that we would need a new kind of physics, one that we do not yet know. And what immaterial things are you talking about?

[carpedm9587]

I'm not sure how science could investigate the workings of the immaterial, what would that even look like?

Science can say nothing about the immaterial realm when it is related to the "supernatural" and other human mythologies. When the immaterial is associated with the material and operates (as does the rest of the universe) by repeatable principles - why can science not investigate? Psychology investigates the mind. Sociology investigates human societies. Mathematics is an entire science about numeric symbols. Even logic is a basic science about immaterial things.

Chalmers suggests that we would need a new kind of physics, one that we do not yet know. And what immaterial things are you talking about?

Immaterial things, last I checked, were things that were not material.

And why are you limiting science to "physics?" Science is about anything that a) operates according to repeatable/predictable/intelligible principles, and b) is subject to investigation by way of the scientific method. It says nothing about "material" or "immaterial."

Of course, as noted, science can say nothing about the "supernatural," but not all immaterial things are "supernatural."

[seer]

Science can say nothing about the immaterial realm when it is related to the "supernatural" and other human mythologies. When the immaterial is associated with the material and operates (as does the rest of the universe) by repeatable principles - why can science not investigate? Psychology investigates the mind. Sociology investigates human societies. Mathematics is an entire science about numeric symbols. Even logic is a basic science about immaterial things.

I doubt very much that science could discover how the immaterial mind (thoughts and experiences) can or does effect the physical, just that they do.

Immaterial things, last I checked, were things that were not material.

And why are you limiting science to "physics?" Science is about anything that a) operates according to repeatable/predictable/intelligible principles, and b) is subject to investigation by way of the scientific method. It says nothing about "material" or "immaterial."

Of course, as noted, science can say nothing about the "supernatural," but not all immaterial things are "supernatural."

And you know that the mind is not supernatural how? And why couldn't the supernatural be repeatable and predictable?

[carpedm9587]

I doubt very much that science could discover how the immaterial mind (thoughts and experiences) can or does effect the physical, just that they do.

You are welcome to your doubts, but they don't really have much of a basis, IMO, except to serve your pre-existing worldview. Right now, all we know is "there's a relationship" and "there is a feedback mechanism" and "mind appears to arise from brain." We don't know how. BUt then we don't know how a LOT of things happen, so

And you know that the mind is not supernatural how?

I don't "know" the mind is not supernatural any more than I "know" there is no god. As noted, the supernatural is not amenable to scientific investigation, so it lies beyond the reach of "knowledge" and is more a matter of religious faith. Since the available evidence suggests to me that the so-called "supernatural" lies in the realm of human mythology, I have no reason to consider the human mind anything other than natural. When/if there is compelling evidence for the supernatural being more than myth, then I'll probably give it more serious consideration.

And why couldn't the supernatural be repeatable and predictable?

Basically, Seer, the "supernatural" can be pretty much anything - which makes it a little hard to have any meaningful discussion about it. Even Harry Potter's world had rules and repeatable behavior. It takes a bit more than that to make something "real."

[shunyadragon]

Based on the scientific research cited on the consciousness, mind and thoughts they are not immaterial beyond the brain. They are emergent from the brain as the input and out put of computers and TVs are emergent from the source. This is demonstrated by the research cited that shows an instantaneous response from different areas of the brain in instantaneous changing of the mind.

[seer]

Based on the scientific research cited on the consciousness, mind and thoughts they are not immaterial beyond the brain. They are emergent from the brain as the input and out put of computers and TVs are emergent from the source. This is demonstrated by the research cited that shows an instantaneous response from different areas of the brain in instantaneous changing of the mind.

You have your own thread Shuny, stay out of mine.

[JimL]

The word "illusion" means "a thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses." I think Jim and Sam are taking it to the extreme, recognizing that the human senses and brain do not ever "rightly perceive." First, we only perceive within a narrow band of phenomena. Our eyes cannot see below a certain level of light and are washed out by too much light. We can only see a narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum. We can only see down to a specific size with our eyes. Our nose can only detect down to a certain density of gaseous content (i.e., we could never detect one part per billion). Our ears can only hear within a narrow band of the acoustic spectrum. Similar limits are true for taste and touch. So we only experience a fraction of "reality" and require tools to help us detect the rest. Even what we do detect ultimately takes the form of electrochemical impulses traveling from our "detectors" to the processing centers of our brain, where they are represented as highly complex synaptic firings, not a visual or auditory or tactile representation of the reality. The magic of how all of that becomes visual information or smell or discernible sound within our brain is unknown.

But to label all of that "illusion" is to misrepresent the concept of "illusion" as it is commonly understood. Yes, our senses are limited and imperfect. That is not, IMO, synonymous with "illusion." It is simply a reality we confront as finite beings.

What i meant by "illusion" is the qualia, the phenomenal representations of reality in the black as night cavity wherein resides the brain. The qualia are a production of the brain, or as you put it, the highly complex synaptic firings, which somehow represent in our brains the sense data processed therein. I agree we don't understand how that works, no one does. Indeed, that is the issue at hand. So, I think we are basically in agreement as to what we mean by "illusion," and I don't know about Sam Harris, but I think that he probably means the same thing.