Can Atheism Account For Rationality

[shunyadragon]

Except if there were no minds then conceptual logical truths would not exist. So our minds can not be the source or ground of logical truths.

That is so circular it bites you in the butt.

[Tassman]

Except if there were no minds then conceptual logical truths would not exist. So our minds can not be the source or ground of logical truths.

Neither would gods. There's no evidence of any of the gods having existed outside of the minds of our species.

[seer]

Yes, many computer programs do nothing more than act on their initial instructions. But now we have computers augmenting their own programming, and creating outputs essentially impossible to envision by the programmers. And we have systems that can learn and adjust to changing parameters. Are they self aware? I sincerely doubt it. The most complex computer today has a fraction of the neural capacity of the human brain. But that boundary is coming ever closer as more and more of the characteristics of sentience begin to be exhibited.

We see the same thing in the animal and even plant kingdoms. We have long though of sentience as some kind of binary condition: humans have it - other animals don't. Now we know that sentience is more a continuum than a "switch." The more complex the organism, the more characteristics of sentience manifest. It's why many scientists describe sentience as an "emergent property."

Again Carp, a computer does not choose the right answer BECAUSE it is right, but because it was programmed so, no matter how complex. It was determined to do so, and if programmed incorrectly it would have chosen incorrectly. The computer does not care or seek the right answer it does what it has been programmed to do. If it was programmed for wrong answers, that is what it will give.

[seer]

That is so circular it bites you in the butt.

Conceptual logical truths only exist in minds. Unless you have something else?

[little_monkey]

...the law of excluded middle for instance says that statements are either true or false, but it takes a mind to make that distinction...

"This sentence is false." True or false???

[carpedm9587]

Again Carp, a computer does not choose the right answer BECAUSE it is right, but because it was programmed so, no matter how complex. It was determined to do so, and if programmed incorrectly it would have chosen incorrectly.

I don't think I ever made a claim about "why" the computer makes a choice - simply that it is, in fact, choosing between a right answer and a wrong answer, on the basis of parameters that have been defined and input that provides the circumstance. So if the program says "if the temperature drops below X, turn on the heat." The computer then monitors the ambient temperature, and acts when the conditions have been met. Likewise, a child who has been told, "when the TV program is over, go to bed," follows their instructions. Of course, the difference is that the child IS self-aware and can bring other factors into play and "disobey" the command. The computer (so far) is not, AFAIK. Our most complex systems can produce unpredictable results, but (as I noted) have not achieved even rudimentary sentience.

The computer does not care or seek the right answer it does what it has been programmed to do. If it was programmed for wrong answers, that is what it will give.

Amazing how humanity follows a similar pattern. A child raised in a home that has had all of what we would call "bad" influences will most often grow up to make "bad choices." Interesting. It's almost as if they've been programmed wrong.

I am mostly being facetious. As I said, I don't think computers are anywhere near the level of being conscious, and right now they are essentially highly complex, (mostly) deterministic machines. But there are several new developments to watch. The first is quantum computing and the potential for such a system to provide for the complexity many think is required for consciousness. The second is work towards the development of a differential neural computer. And finally, the emergence of the field of Artificial Consciousness (AC), an almost predictable outgrowth of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Will we someday be able to engineer (create) a computer that has actual sentience? Personally, I think that is inevitable.

Then the question becomes, what lies on the other side of THAT singularity. There are some that fear it will be the end of the human race as we know it - the Judgement Day scenario. I have no opinion on it, and I probably won't be here to see it. But it is an interesting field.

[carpedm9587]

Conceptual logical truths only exist in minds. Unless you have something else?

In so far as "truth" is the alignment of a concept/statement with the reality it makes a claim about, then yes, "truth" only exists in the mind. If you cannot formulate a statement, you cannot have the concept of "truth." Everything simply IS. But we have discussed this already. The principle A=A can only be articulated and recognized by a mind. The reality A=A continues whether or not a mind formulates it. Likewise, it takes a mind to articulate or recognize " 'A' and 'not A' cannot be at the same time/place and in the same way," but the reality that " 'A' and 'not A' cannot be at the same time/place and in the same way," remains with or without the presence of mind.

You have not shown that mind creates the reality upon which the articulated formula is based, which is what you need to show for your argument to have any relevance. Otherwise, like mathematical concepts, the mind simply recognizes/grasps the reality in which it exists. Nothing more. You are putting a lot of eggs in this basket, Seer, and it has a lot of holes.

[carpedm9587]

"This sentence is false." True or false???

OK - I'm really curious to know where this is going...

[seer]

"This sentence is false." True or false???

It is nonsense.

[carpedm9587]

It is nonsense.

Interestingly, it's not. It's a contradiction.

[seer]

I don't think I ever made a claim about "why" the computer makes a choice - simply that it is, in fact, choosing between a right answer and a wrong answer, on the basis of parameters that have been defined and input that provides the circumstance. So if the program says "if the temperature drops below X, turn on the heat." The computer then monitors the ambient temperature, and acts when the conditions have been met. Likewise, a child who has been told, "when the TV program is over, go to bed," follows their instructions. Of course, the difference is that the child IS self-aware and can bring other factors into play and "disobey" the command. The computer (so far) is not, AFAIK. Our most complex systems can produce unpredictable results, but (as I noted) have not achieved even rudimentary sentience.



Amazing how humanity follows a similar pattern. A child raised in a home that has had all of what we would call "bad" influences will most often grow up to make "bad choices." Interesting. It's almost as if they've been programmed wrong.

I am mostly being facetious. As I said, I don't think computers are anywhere near the level of being conscious, and right now they are essentially highly complex, (mostly) deterministic machines. But there are several new developments to watch. The first is quantum computing and the potential for such a system to provide for the complexity many think is required for consciousness. The second is work towards the development of a differential neural computer. And finally, the emergence of the field of Artificial Consciousness (AC), an almost predictable outgrowth of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Will we someday be able to engineer (create) a computer that has actual sentience? Personally, I think that is inevitable.

Then the question becomes, what lies on the other side of THAT singularity. There are some that fear it will be the end of the human race as we know it - the Judgement Day scenario. I have no opinion on it, and I probably won't be here to see it. But it is an interesting field.

Again Carp, the point is if materialism is true you are determined to make the choices you do because of antecedent conditions, not because of the rationality involved. There is nothing to break the chain of cause and effect.

[seer]

Interestingly, it's not. It's a contradiction.

Some how I don't think it is that simple...

[carpedm9587]

Again Carp, the point is if materialism is true you are determined to make the choices you do because of antecedent conditions, not because of the rationality involved. There is nothing to break the chain of cause and effect.

And there is much about modern science that calls this into question. You are working from the physical laws that appear govern the macroscopic universe. Things get rather wonky at the quantum level. Who knows, perhaps it is from this level that strict determinism breaks down. And since every macroscopic thing has a quantum heart...

Bottom line is - we don't know. I experience free will and self-determination. For now, I'll go with that. If it turns out its all an illusion and my consciousness is simply "along for the ride" and "programmed to experience the illusion of free will," while every choice/step is actually predetermined, then I guess that's the reality and I'll have to live with it. I've never been much for creating illusions to mask realities I don't like. Meanwhile, until that is shown to be true, I'll go downstairs, freely pick out a specific brew, and enjoy my morning Jo.

[carpedm9587]

Some how I don't think it is that simple...

Well - I'm guessing here, but I think he is challenging "A and not A at the same time/place and in the same way."

Unfortunately, a contradiction doesn't do that. It's not both true and false at the same time. It simply can have no truth value assigned at all because it is a linguistic contradiction. Assigning it the value "true" makes it false. Assigning it the value "false" makes it true.

A variation on "Everything I say is a lie."

[Darfius]

That's basically the point. No free will involved - yet it can distinguish between "correct" and "incorrect." That doesn't seem to fit your definition.

You're equivocating on "distinguish", as you and seer have already arrived to in the meanwhile. It's not choosing, it's carrying out commands.

Well, at least the impression/illusion of free will exists. Personally, I think I have a free ability to choose form the possible. But I have no clue how it arises anymore than I can explain how consciousness arises. These are mysteries we have not yet penetrated. Hopefully we will someday.

Funny how you atheists turn into mystics when the evidence points towards God. "Oh, not only do we not know, but we can never know" as you gaze at the horizon and feign complexity. Sentience can only arise from sentience. It's not a mystery or complex. It's just something you lot don't like to face.

As I said, I'm not very interested in Apologetics anymore. Most of these things have been hashed and rehashed to death.

In this very thread you've been accused of "hashing and rehashing" certain subjects with seer "to death." Be honest. I scare you. You're not the first and you won't be the last. I'm too real and too smart for most liars and fakes to handle. The proper response is not to run, though, but to repent.

That was a fast assessment...

I don't like to waste time.

OK, Darf. Nice chatting with you.

I hope you decide not to run, carp. You seem reasonably intelligent and with vague inclinations towards honesty. You might be able to become a real boy if we keep talking. And most of my disrespect is meant in jest. Verbal riposte, you know. I do believe atheists are menaces, as I believe all rebels to God are, whatever they call themselves, but I do not believe they need to remain that way. In fact, one day all knees will bow to our Maker. I just want to help them bow sooner, to avoid the pain and misery of bowing later.