Can Atheism Account For Rationality

[seer]

I have to admit I have always found your signature somewhat amusing. A bit extreme, but amusing. It is, of course, rooted in the basic philosophy that asserts that only absolute and eternal things are "real" or "meaningful" or have "purpose."

I think we've already noted how no one actually lives that philosophy. It just gets pulled out at convenient times of argumentation. This is a trend I notice with you. You substitute words like "real" and "true" when you mean "absolute" and "eternal" and "universal."

Well I see no hope for the individual, or humanity in general, with atheism - it is all dust in the end...

[carpedm9587]

You are begging the question. Why does this universe have the precise values and properties that is does? And not only is it life permitting, life shows up, and not only life but conscious life (and as we discussed in the past no one knows why how we became conscious). So again we have two choices for what created this universe - the rational or the non-rational.

Seer, you are asking a question that contains the seeds of the answer you want.

"Why" implies "purpose" or "reason." In other words, you are asking, "for what purpose does this universe have the precise values and properties that is does?" or "for what reason does this universe have the precise values and properties that is does?" Purpose and reason imply a purposer or a reasoner (i.e., a mind.) If there is no mind, the question is meaningless. So you are essentially assuming your conclusion in asking the question.

Either that - or you are misapplying probability and statistics.

[carpedm9587]

Nonsense, only a handful of animals test positive for self-awareness:http://www.animalcognition.org/2015/...e-mirror-test/

You can't be a little self-aware, you either are or you are not. You can't be a little pregnant.

Ahh.. there's that good-old binary thinking again. Indeed, consciousness and reasoning does appear to be a continuum rather than a binary function, whereas pregnancy is not. You are comparing apples to oranges.

[carpedm9587]

Seer is stone walling with a religious agenda, and does not realize the vast amount of research in consciousness and self-awareness in animals, and yes in simple form in the simpler animals, actually demonstrating evolution.

Accepting self-awareness and intelligence in other species than humans would be a significant challenge for some religious belief systems to incorporate into their doctrines and theologies. The natural response of many is to hide behind qualia and deny intelligence or self-awareness in anything other than humans. Of course, that argument also means we cannot "prove" that other humans are self-aware and intelligent either.

I have a theory. I think "self-awareness" brings along with it "self-centeredness." The entire universe is seen from the perspective of the person seeing, with themselves necessarily at the center of that point of observation. This was reflected initially in our astronomy, until we discovered through science that this planet is not the center of the universe. But it persists today in our theology (god is amazingly preoccupied with the lowly humans on this one planet in a backwater of the universe, and is amazingly human-like), and even in our sentience (surely no other lowly animal could possess such human-like characteristics?!).

Of course this is explained by noting that god created us "in his image and likeness." Convenient that. It couldn't possibly be that we created our gods, and have from the down of humanity, in the image and likeness of various parts of nature - first the forces of nature, then animal spirits, and eventually they took human form. There is a natural progression form one to the other.

When I look at it today, I find myself amazed that I was ever theist. It seems like another person in another life.

[seer]

Ahh.. there's that good-old binary thinking again. Indeed, consciousness and reasoning does appear to be a continuum rather than a binary function, whereas pregnancy is not. You are comparing apples to oranges.

We are speaking of self awareness Carp, so how is one just a little self aware? One minute I recognize myself the next I don't? Even if I'm just a little self aware I'm still self-aware.

[seer]

Accepting self-awareness and intelligence in other species than humans would be a significant challenge for some religious belief systems to incorporate into their doctrines and theologies.

Why would you even say that? I never had a problem accepting that other creatures are self aware.

[carpedm9587]

Have you never heard of Pansychism?

I hadn't, so thanks for broadening my world a little bit more!

I will readily admit that I have only quickly skimmed some material. What jumps out at me is, over and over, "cannot be empirically tested." At first blush, it appears to be of a kind with "intelligent design." It seems to be more religion than science.

But I have to admit I have only skimmed the material and that is only a first impression. That being said, it aligns with my impression of your arguments.

[carpedm9587]

Well I see no hope for the individual, or humanity in general, with atheism - it is all dust in the end...

Yes, Seer - we all end up dust in the end. That is, I believe, why humanity created religions. The concept of this marvelous "I" we experience winking out of existence is more than many (most) minds can take. The self seeks to survive. What better way to survive than to conceive an eternal life we won't ever REALLY know exists until we pass away. Meanwhile, believing in it in this life brings comfort and "hope."

Unless, of course, you just accept that this is how things are. Hope is limited to what we have within the confines of our life. Hope for something beyond is simply false hope. It is not clear to me that false hope is better than simply embracing what is.

In short, Seer, your signature says a great deal about you, but not really much of anything about atheism.

[carpedm9587]

We are speaking of self awareness Carp, so how is one just a little self aware? One minute I recognize myself the next I don't? Even if I'm just a little self aware I'm still self-aware.

Sure...and if you place a cube of sugar in the ocean, you have "sugar water."

[carpedm9587]

Why would you even say that? I never had a problem accepting that other creatures are self aware.

Seer, on this topic you are all over the map.

First, there is no actual evidence that other animals are self-aware, nor do you actually know if they are actually experiencing REM sleep, or if REM sleep necessarily links to self-awareness. It is ALL speculation which not actual evidence.

Source

Out of curiosity...what was second?

[Zara]

More mammals show self-awareness than you 'think.' Also consciousness is pretty much universal with mammals and possibly other animals.

Are you enjoying your cherries? He said the vast majority of creatures, and, given that most creatures are not self-conscious, since they are mainly beetles, I think you need to concede this point. He readily admits that some higher animals show some degree of self-consciousness. So, even your cherries are accounted for.

[Zara]

First, your use of language is pretty spot on for someone who is not versed in computer science. Second, I don't disagree with anything you've said, largely because the computer is not (yet) a sentient machine. However, what you are describing is not dissimilar from how the brain functions. The computer is digital, specifically binary (until we have quantum computers) so it does indeed represent everything a 0's and 1's. The human brain is better described as an analog computer, so it can store information in a virtually infinite number of states. It also has the marvelous ability to form new connections between cells (synapses) and it appears to be the patterns of these connections and the ways in which they are activated that give rise to memory and thought. A computer has a fixed architecture that doesn't change unless someone changes the CPU, and then they are simply substituting one fixed architecture for another. A computer compared to the brain of pretty much ANY animal is a very crude tool. If sentience is a function of complexity, as many believe it is, the modern computer is simply nowhere near complex enough.

So, right now, the information a computer is so marvelously good at processing is intended for the most self-reflective mind we know to exist - the human brain. That does not, however, lead to the belief that the computer cannot become sentient if it could ever be designed to be sufficiently complex.

Well, I appear unable to drag myself away just yet.

I tried to argue this point with Shunya, however, I gave up in the end as you probably noticed. The point is that we do not know what it is about the human brain that allows it to give rise to a mind. John Searle's Chinese room argument goes some way towards showing that current forms of computers are not sufficient to result in a sentient mind - this is in principle, even a super complex form would be insufficient. While future computers could, possibly do so, the issue is that without an understanding of the causal power that results in our mindedness, we do not have grounds to believe that even a "complex" computer that appears to act like it is sentient is sentient. While you say it is complexity, it might simply be a quantum mechanical effect dependent on our type of synapses and the neurotransmitter soup in which they are supported.

We could be completely wrong also, a sceptical argument could just run a matrix type theory and say that to be minded we need to be in the real world - where the 'brain' we see in our perception, and all our science, are mere programmed illusions with no bearing on the actual causal power (whatever it is about the real world) that results in a minded experience. I'm not arguing that this is the case, however, the absolute certainty displayed by a few people here needs some softening.

[seer]

Sure...and if you place a cube of sugar in the ocean, you have "sugar water."

How is that saying anything?

[seer]

Seer, on this topic you are all over the map.

First, there is no actual evidence that other animals are self-aware, nor do you actually know if they are actually experiencing REM sleep, or if REM sleep necessarily links to self-awareness. It is ALL speculation which not actual evidence.

Source

Out of curiosity...what was second?

You are missing my point Carp, I posted a link about animals being self aware (before Shuny see post 538). We know of a handful. Shuny wanted to expand that to other creatures where we really have no good evidence. That was what my above quote was about. As far as we know the vast majority of creature are not self aware. Shuny took exception to that.

[Tassman]

You are begging the question. Why does this universe have the precise values and properties that is does? And not only is it life permitting, life shows up, and not only life but conscious life (and as we discussed in the past no one knows why how we became conscious).

There is no “why”. Our universe has evolved to contain conscious life. That's all that can be said.

So again we have two choices for what created this universe - the rational or the non-rational.

Not realistic choices.

There are many verifiable reasons indicating that we have been shaped by natural selection over millions of years of evolution. This obviously includes consciousness and the rational behavior found in several species. OTOH: There is NO reason to think a ‘god did it’ other than the primitive imaginings by men of an earlier era.