Originally posted by seer
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Can Atheism Account For Rationality
Collapse
X
-
Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-03-2019, 12:57 PM.
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostMore mammals show self-awareness than you 'think.' Also consciousness is pretty much universal with mammals and possibly other animals.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostNo, read the FULL article and my highlighted. There are many more animals with self awareness than the ten described in detail.Last edited by seer; 07-03-2019, 01:21 PM.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostNo Shuny, there are still only a handful. And where are all these others in your link - I read it twice now...
Your busted, and I will cite more. These animals were a select number of many related animals with similar brains and observed to have REM sleep. It is likely that pretty much all mammals likely dream.Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-03-2019, 02:30 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostBy the end of this article you'll see why there are likely to be many more animals who may qualify for self-recognition, and it's only a matter of time before we identify them.
Your busted, and I will cite more. These animals were a select number of many related animals with similar brains and observed to have REM sleep. It is likely that pretty much all mammals likely dream.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostFirst, 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThe only science you have is ignorance of the actual science cited. The ten animals are well researched and documented from different animal genera, including the conclusion of the research, and you have not provided anything in rebutal just an assertion, zip, nada negatory.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostMany mammals demonstrate consciousness and some a degree of self-awareness.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostI don't believe that there are two substances, or that we need postulate a substance other than matter in order to accommodate the existence of mind or what we call mental states. When I say that mind is a property of matter I don't mean to say that it is an emergent property, I mean to say that it, i.e. mind, is inherent in the nature of matter itself, that it is only emergent in the sense of it's hieghtened capacity in the more complex and evolved systems such as the human brain. But of course these are just my opinions, and I'm not certain of anything, but, that there is the existence of another substance, an immaterial substance to which mind belongs, which is what those on the other side of this issue propose, I see no evidence of and so no reason to accept.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostI just listened to a science podcast about the discovery of a memory function in slime molds. Nature is indeed wonderful and wonderous.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostI don't think the evidence suggests anything close to the idea that the mind emerges from the brain rather than it just being a basic assumption made by most of the scientists studying the issue (whatever their exact field of study might be). At most the evidence points to there being some level of dependence, but going so far as to say that it shows that one is the cause of the other is a claim that goes beyond what the evidence shows imo.
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostNot only do we not know how the brain gives rise to the mind, we don't even know THAT it gives rise to the mind. But disregarding that, we KNOW for a fact that thoughts exist in the mind, and the mind is the only place where we currently have access to them. There is seemingly a connection between thoughts and brain activity, but it SEEMS to be a secondary one, compared to the relation between thoughts and minds, because it atleast APPEARS as the thoughts themselves don't exist anywhere in the brain, or the associated brain activity, only that there is some kind of relation. IOW, all the knowledge we have points to thoughts (and all sorts of qualia) are primarily associated with the mind, and "only" secondarily with the brain. And we have no reason to believe any new discovery will overturn this.
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostI agree that differences in language can account for many disagreements, but I suspect that in the case of this discussion the fundamental disagreements won't disappear even when we have come to agreement as to the meaning of the terms used.
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostI'm inclined to agree that sentience and mind are probably the same thing. I'm less sure I agree with the idea that the mind is simply a collection of thoughts. At least my experience of my own self/mind doesn't give me the impression that I'm simply a collection of thoughts, and I'm not aware of any good reasons to discount this experience of my mind being more than just my thoughts.
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostI'm fine with that.
I'll try and articulate my thoughts on this matter, but I'm not sure if I'll be very successful, especially given that I'm far from an expert on computer hardware, and am only speaking from cursory knowledge, so I might not be using terminology correctly, and some of the specifics might not be exactly accurate. In any case, here goes:
As I see it all of the information in the computer doesn't really mean anything at all unless it's interpreted by a mind. All of the "data" in the storage units (whether it's a HDD or an SSD, or whatever else you might use as a storage device) or in the RAM is nothing other than a bunch of 0's and 1's (well, more like magnetized regions with different polarities on the HDD, or transistors and/capacitors being charged or not, we just conceptualize it as a bunch of 0's and 1's).
Bottom line however, is that the computer doesn't really do anything other than change the state of a bunch of transistors, capacitators and so on. All of the "data" that the computer displays on the screen or otherwise manipulates doesn't really mean anything until a mind interprets it. Through human ingenuity we have managed to make a machine that can change the states of billions of transistors and capacitators into different states of impressive complexity, but at the end of the day, that's all they are, outside of the human mind. Just a bunch of electronic components that are either charged, or not charged. We're the ones that decide that they actually represent the things that we think of them as representing.
Now if we go back to the mind, the situation is a bit different. If I think about the color red, the letter A, or the equation e=mc^2, unlike the computer, my thoughts are actually about these things that I'm thinking about. The on-off state in the transistors and capacitators inside of the computer aren't actually about anything, we've just found a way to make a bunch of these components display stuff on a screen that we have decided to encode with information (I'm not sure if "encode" is the right word, what I'm basically getting at is that we have decided that certain visual elements mean certain things, and that we have managed to get the computer to display these visual elements to a screen by manipulating the state of it's transistors/capacitators etc)
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.
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostThe direction I'm going is much more preferable though.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostYour opinion does not seem to be rooted in anything resembling science, Jim. You seem to be as dedicated to rejecting the immaterial and theists are to rejecting materialism. I don't know of a single scientist who would agree that "mind" is inherent in matter. There is no "matter" in my brain that is not also present in non-living organisms that have no trace of "mind." There is nothing about the molecules of a rock that I have ever seen be described has having "inherent mind." I understand you have this opinion, but I cannot, for the life of me, understand what it is based on or why you have it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by little_monkey View PostObviously you are clueless as to the meaning of "rational" - having reason or understanding (Merriam-Webster). The opposite is irrational. Stating that certain declarative statements cannot be attributed a True/False value is NOT an irrational statement.
Judging by your signature, "Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope", you must live a life of hate. You don't know what rational means, even less, you have no clue that you are living a meaningless life based on ignorance and hate. What a sorry individual you are.
It would be like trying to provide a mathematical proof to someone who doesn't believe that 2 = 2 (based on the principle of identity).
I think I understand what you are saying, but I think you take it too far, making "reason" and "logic" essentially impossible. I think that is what Seer is saying.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostI don't hate any one, and of course atheism is a cult of death. The death of hope. And it seems that Carp, another atheist, agrees with me on the irrational thing. If the laws of logic are not absolute then no claim or fact can be justified since it's opposite can be equally true. That is irrational. The sun can not both exist and not exist at the same moment. This is the law of non-contradiction and it is absolute.
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."The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
173 responses
649 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
06-07-2024, 07:30 AM
|
Comment