Atheism is the only rational position to take
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-08-2017, 04:10 AM (This post was last modified: 10-08-2017 04:43 AM by nosferatu323.)
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
(10-08-2017 03:38 AM)SYZ Wrote:  Why Panpsychism Is Probably Wrong

"How do the micro-experiences of billions of subatomic particles in my brain combine to form the twinge of pain I’m feeling in my knee?"

Blink

In fact that is not a problem in Quantum Mechanics. There is always a well defined wave function to describe the quantum state of a system. No matter how many elementary particles are there in the system. The more are the particles the more complex is the wave function. But there is always a well defined quantum state for the system regardless of the size. If we assume consciousness is associated with quantum states, as Dyson seems to be suggesting, all systems of particles are conscious.

Again I emphasis that I honestly do not defend this view, as I do not know what consciousness is. I'm simply suggesting consciousness is hugely indefinite. There are still no real evidences for consciousness, except our subjective experience.

ETA: I was inaccurate about the existence of a well-defined wave function. In fact, in real applications, the wave function is usually impossible to be described in terms of analytic functions, but we can always use numerical methods to solve the Schrödinger equation and describe the quantum state of the system.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2017, 05:29 AM (This post was last modified: 10-08-2017 05:34 AM by nosferatu323.)
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
(10-08-2017 12:04 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  All I can suppose is that it means, "our reality had an intelligent creator". This would include a computer programmer, and us being a simulation. But of course, most theists would say this doesn't count.

It doesn't count because God's creation is claimed to be from "nothing". I think the statement "our reality had an intelligent creator" is equally unclear. Because God's creation is from "nothing". It is ambiguous and unclear what "creation from nothing" means. There is the process of creation in nature as particles pop into existence from pure energy. But "creation from nothing" is not something meaningful and sensible for us. It is not something that can be talked about.

I think considering God as the creator (from nothing) does not make him more definite. It cannot serve as a partial definition. It's the same with all other attributes. God is merciful BUT not as we perceive merciful, God is conscious, seeing and hearing BUT not the way we perceive them, God is wise but not as we perceive wisdom, so all of his attributes are claimed to be outside the sphere of our understanding, therefore he has nothing for us to be talked about.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2017, 05:32 AM
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
(10-08-2017 03:35 AM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  
(10-08-2017 03:27 AM)Naielis Wrote:  The double slit experiment does no service to panpsychism. And panpsychists still have to explain the way in which multiple small minds can combine to create a greater unified mind. They also have to have an ontology that explains why consciousness is a basic property.

Indeed, that's why we do not have any definitions yet, just speculations. But the mere fact that such speculations exist within the scientific community can demonstrate the extent of indefiniteness of consciousness. That is the only point I want to make.

But ontology that fundamental needs to be worked out before experiments are conducted. The scientific enterprise depends upon one's ontology.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2017, 05:35 AM
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
(10-08-2017 12:04 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  I don't even know what theism is, since I don't know what a God is.

Theism is belief in a poorly-defined God concept.

Hobo
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
10-08-2017, 06:02 AM
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
(10-08-2017 05:32 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(10-08-2017 03:35 AM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  Indeed, that's why we do not have any definitions yet, just speculations. But the mere fact that such speculations exist within the scientific community can demonstrate the extent of indefiniteness of consciousness. That is the only point I want to make.

But ontology that fundamental needs to be worked out before experiments are conducted. The scientific enterprise depends upon one's ontology.

I agree, I think there are no "real" works on consciousness, all "experiments" are unfounded, as there is no proper ontology of consciousness. I think the unlikelihood of the existence of such an ontology is what made some believe consciousness will always remain a mystery.

But if you consider some works of neuroscientists as "experiments on human consciousness", as they describe their works, I think one can assume the double slit experiment is also an "experiment on particle consciousness".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2017, 06:37 AM
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
(10-08-2017 05:35 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(10-08-2017 12:04 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  I don't even know what theism is, since I don't know what a God is.

Theism is belief in a poorly-defined God concept.

Hobo

Lol, pretty much!

There's one God per theist I always say, and it lives in their imagination. As such, it can be (or not be) anything they want. It's usually an idealized projection of themselves, in my experience.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Robvalue's post
10-08-2017, 06:56 AM
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
(10-08-2017 06:37 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Lol, pretty much!

There's one God per theist I always say, and it lives in their imagination. As such, it can be (or not be) anything they want. It's usually an idealized projection of themselves, in my experience.

Do you have any reason to believe that or is this pure conjecture?

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2017, 10:17 AM
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
(10-08-2017 06:56 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(10-08-2017 06:37 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Lol, pretty much!

There's one God per theist I always say, and it lives in their imagination. As such, it can be (or not be) anything they want. It's usually an idealized projection of themselves, in my experience.

Do you have any reason to believe that or is this pure conjecture?

Yeah, "god" almost always agrees with each theist, while they disagree with each other. Each theist has a slightly different idea of what "god" is, even within the same sect of the same religion. And since none of them ever produce the slightest evidence that it's anything real, it's most likely that all these ideas are in fact imaginary.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
10-08-2017, 12:57 PM
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
(10-08-2017 05:32 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(10-08-2017 03:35 AM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  Indeed, that's why we do not have any definitions yet, just speculations. But the mere fact that such speculations exist within the scientific community can demonstrate the extent of indefiniteness of consciousness. That is the only point I want to make.

But ontology that fundamental needs to be worked out before experiments are conducted. The scientific enterprise depends upon one's ontology.

I'm pretty sure the Copenhagen Interpretation was not a part of the ontological framework of those that conducted the experiments which led to it.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
10-08-2017, 01:00 PM
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
(10-08-2017 01:03 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(09-08-2017 05:58 PM)mordant Wrote:  How so?

It is probably a bit of an overreach in that theism isn't an intellectually consistent position and often fraught with special pleading. I would say that the Abrahamic faiths, at least, would say that "wishing makes it so" for god, but not (or at least not necessarily) in everyday, routine life, where, typically, "god helps those who help themselves".

But ... it's hard to argue that these faiths don't teach that the universe was willed into existence and is in fact sustained by that same will, and that people's lives are directed to be in conformity to that same will.

So at the very least, we have the primacy of a particular consciousness.

It's dishonest in that many theistic doctrines don't come close to advocating for primacy of consciousness. Could anyone here give me a quote from the Bible that justifies or supports primacy of consciousness at all?
As I said, there's a lot of material in there that doesn't support the primacy of existence. You don't have any even nominally Christian belief systems go all-in on the primacy of consciousness apart from maybe e.g. Christian Science as defined by Mary Baker Eddy. But they are certainly not all-in on the primacy of existence. Not when you have the deity willing things into existence, or believers urged to petition this deity to influence events in their favor. It is selective mainly because it goes off into the weeds too much for most people's taste if the primacy of consciousness is not somewhat selective / compartmentalized.

I would say the more literalist / inerrantist / fundamentalist the sect, the more it leans toward primacy of consciousness. Not as an explicit philosophical teaching, but it's certainly implicit and inherent so long as you imagine that the universe is created and sustained by the power of even one supreme Mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes mordant's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: