Atheism is reasonable, and Christianity is not

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think it works even in principle. You need to get from objectively existing chemical reactions to subjectivity before you can try to handwave consciousness away as an illusion, so you're lost before you've even begun. (Lost your mind, most likely, but I shouldn't speak, being a fan of the sort of Vedic philosophy that takes the opposite approach and wishes away the material world instead. But at least there, we're not denying the only thing we have access to at all.)

I'm not surprised that I'm lost on this. I'm only now beginning to ponder this Mind-Body problem that you seem to refer to quite often. When it comes to this field, I have to admit you're definitely much more adept at it. I've only touched on this topic briefty here and there, mostly in my Modern Philosophy class where we read Descartes, Spinoza, Berkeley, Leibniz, Hume, and Kant. And I'm just projecting what I think 'skeptics' will retort with … and these are apparently arguments which are trivial for you and which you seem to be able to just bat away out into left-field (or maybe even over the wall...in which case, congratulations...homerun!!) So, since we're on this topic and since it should tie-in somewhere with the epistemological problems related to Gestalts and so forth, what one or two sources would you recommend for someone like me who might want to know more from a metaphysical angle?

I don't really think reductionists deserve to be called skeptics, though. John Searle is a skeptic. Thomas Nagel is a skeptic. Reductionists are dogmatists of the worst kind, since their reasoning seems to amount to, "It has to work that way to fit in with our metaphysical commitments." Heaven forbid our geocentric model of the universe isn't correct.

I suppose reductionists are separate from skeptics, when properly considered. Perhaps I was misunderstanding what Jeeves & Berry (1998) say in one of my books which briefly covers some of this. In particular, I found the following from their book where they refer to comments made by John Polkinghorne and J.B.S. Haldane:

John Polkinghorne refers to 'the perpetual puzzle of the connection of mind and brain' (1986: 92). He points out that if you are a thoroughgoing reductionist, the answer is easy: 'mind is the epiphenomenon of brain, a mere symptom of it physical activity...but the reductionist programme in the end subverts itself. Ultimately it is suicidal' (1986: 92). It destroys rationality, and thought is identified with electro-chemical neural events. Such events cannot confront one another in rational discourse; they are neither right nor wrong; they just happen. Polkinghorne writes: 'If our mental life is nothing but the humming activity of an immensely complexly connected computer-like brain, who is to say whether the programme running on the intricate machine is correct or not?...The very assertions of the reductionist himself are nothing but blips in the neural network of his brain. The world of rational thought discourse dissolves into the absurd chatter of firing synapses. Quite frankly, that cannot be right and none of us believes it to be so.' (1986: 93). He echoes J.B.S. Haldane, who, many years earlier, wrote: 'If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of the atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true...and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms' (1927: 209).​

Does this sound like something you've been researching, Silmarien? Even if not, I'm confident that you'll lead the way on this subject; I'm just now scratching the surface of it. This is probably because I've never considered the Mind-Body problem a 'real problem,' or maybe I've been too much under the impression that studying the psychological side of epistemology knocks out the necessity of any metaphysics involved since I already have a more Pauline metaphysics instilled. But, my thoughts are always in process (well, duh, Philo!!) and I may need to delve into the metaphysical side of this to some extent to shore up my epistemology. Sometimes I realize I might be shortsighted on some things ...

Reference

Jeeves, Malcolm A. & Berry, R. J. (1998). Science, life, and Christian belief. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

 

[Silmarien]

What would you conclude if a human did the same thing?

I give humans and other organic beings the benefit of the doubt, as my friend the octopus knows. If I were a conscious android, I would know that androids are capable of consciousness and might instead question whether humans really were too.

Except for the pesky fact that living things don't appear to be designed by an intelligence.

Fine tuning is a design argument. A relatively good one too, by modern design argument standards, since alternatives are, if anything, even more speculative.

If it looks like a fix, it must be a fix!

Looks like you're defining "genuinely curious" as something which machines can't do and then pretending that the "fact" that machines can't be genuinely curious means anything.

No, I'm trusting the actual experts in computer science when they say that we haven't yet developed strong or general AI. Genuine curiosity is impossible without consciousness. I'm pretty neutral on whether or not it's possible even in theory--not sure how you missed that, since I've definitely said as much at least once.

It would mean a lot if machines could be genuinely curious, though. If you think otherwise, you need to watch more apocalyptic robot movies.

Sure you can. We call them brains.

Well, the brain is most certainly crucial, but I simply lack belief in materialism. All the arguments are terrible and full of category errors. People are just trying to support conclusions they came to by other means.

 

[KCfromNC]

I give humans and other organic beings the benefit of the doubt, as my friend the octopus knows. If I were a conscious android, I would know that androids are capable of consciousness and might instead question whether humans really were too.

Seems like my assement in post 217 was accurate.

Fine tuning is a design argument.

One which is a textbook example of an argument from ignorance.

No, I'm trusting the actual experts in computer science when they say that we haven't yet developed strong or general AI.

Neither of which are synonyms for "genuine curiosity". Or maybe they are - given that the term is undefined I guess anything could be true about it. Who knows?

Genuine curiosity is impossible without consciousness.

Since I have no idea how anyone would distinguish "genuine" curiosity from the alternative, this doesn't even rise to the level of wrong.

Well, the brain is most certainly crucial, but I simply lack belief in materialism. All the arguments are terrible and full of category errors.

Kind of like any other philosophy of mind. And yet for some reason neuroscience works pretty well all the while ignoring supernaturalism. Perhaps the problem is with philosophy.

 

[Silmarien]

I'm not surprised that I'm lost on this. I'm only now beginning to ponder this Mind-Body problem that you seem to refer to quite often. When it comes to this field, I have to admit you're definitely much more adept at it. I've only touched on this topic briefty here and there, mostly in my Modern Philosophy class where we read Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Hume, and Kant. And I'm just projecting what I think 'skeptics' will retort with … and apparently arguments which are trivial for you and which you seems to just bat away out into left-field (or maybe even over the wall...in which case, congratulations...homerun!!)

You were actually parroting what reductionists really do say, so I assumed you really knew their arguments! I find the whole project extremely unscientific and unphilosophical, unbearably arrogant, and devoid of any real interest. Trying to explain all of reality in terms of a simplest common denominator when we have a very limited understanding of how the universe works is a fool's errand.

But yeah, I spend an inordinate amount of time on philosophy of mind these days, since I think this is where naturalism really collapses into incoherence. It's very easy to be a non-practicing theist, but when I switched over to practicing, agnosticism crept back in and competing worldviews had to be eliminated.

So, since we're on this topic and since it should tie-in somewhere with the epistemological problems related to Gestalts and soforth, what one or two sources would you recommend for someone like me who might want to know more from a metaphysical angle?

From a metaphysical angle... I'm not sure. Much of philosophy of mind seems to be more post-metaphysics. And my knowledge of the intricacies involved is mostly gleaned from philosophers' blogs rather than full-length books. I've only glanced through what's available in the book preview, but William Hasker's The Emergent Self might be a good option for you. It seems to be a good rundown on all the options in play and his own conclusions are a theologically informed emergentism.

...now I want this book but I've already bought four in the last week or so.

Does this sound like something you've been researching, Silmarien?

Yep, precisely this! Polkinghorne actually reintroduced me to the field, despite being a physicist himself. I like his dual-aspect monism, though I seem to be moving more in the direction of emergent dualism myself.

 

[Silmarien]

Seems like my assement in post 217 was accurate.

Seems like you didn't even read what I wrote. Again.

One which is a textbook example of an argument from ignorance.

And yet the android must be conscious because we don't know that it's not?

Kind of like any other philosophy of mind. And yet for some reason neuroscience works pretty well all the while ignoring supernaturalism. Perhaps the problem is with philosophy.

You're very confused. Comparing materialism and supernaturalism is like comparing apples and oranges. There are plenty of naturalists out there who are not materialists.

 

[Dirk1540]

Well, the brain is most certainly crucial, but I simply lack belief in materialism. All the arguments are terrible and full of category errors. People are just trying to support conclusions they came to by other means.

Depends on how you plan to define and measure consciousness. But in any case, we typically don't do it by extracting and weighing the brain of people who claim to be self aware so I'm not sure your line of investigation is a practical one.

Wait a minute, now all the sudden you sound like Silmarien, did you just make an argument that materialism is not practical? Wonderful, I agree with both of you then.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You were actually parroting what reductionists really do say, so I assumed you really knew their arguments! I find the whole project extremely unscientific and unphilosophical, unbearably arrogant, and devoid of any real interest. Trying to explain all of reality in terms of a simplest common denominator when we have a very limited understanding of how the universe works is a fool's errand.

I'm only familiar with a few things I've picked up while briefly passing through some of the materials I have. Admittedly, I'm nowhere close to what you've engaged (or achieved) with your study with these issues on duality and whatnot. Since you've been on CF, you've steadily chimed-in from time to time about the necessity of understanding philosophies of mind, so I thought I might as well take a closer look, especially if some of it ties into the epistemic issues that I more or less focus on. I'll follow your lead in this case since I don't really want to be on a "fool's errand." That's not my idea of a good time.

But yeah, I spend an inordinate amount of time on philosophy of mind these days, since I think this is where naturalism really collapses into incoherence. It's very easy to be a non-practicing theist, but when I switched over to practicing, agnosticism crept back in and competing worldviews had to be eliminated.

From a metaphysical angle... I'm not sure. Much of philosophy of mind seems to be more post-metaphysics. And my knowledge of the intricacies involved is mostly gleaned from philosophers' blogs rather than full-length books. I've only glanced through what's available in the book preview, but William Hasker's The Emergent Self might be a good option for you. It seems to be a good rundown on all the options in play and his own conclusions are a theologically informed emergentism.

You know what? That book by Hasker sounds really promising. For one, I am familiar with William Hasker since he provides two essays in a couple of books I've got. When you mentioned him, I grabbed one of the books [**ahem**..the one I haven't read yet], opened it up, and viola! There is a 13 page essay by him where he introduces the basic ideas (very basic, really) from the book you cited for me. That's awesome! Now, I have an essay to read, and if I like Hasker's direction, I might very well buy that book you found, too. So...thank you for that lead! I didn't know Hasker covered that kind of material.

...now I want this book but I've already bought four in the last week or so.

Yeah, and you still have that Nagel book to get through, too. Good luck on all of that!

Thanks again!

 

[Silmarien]

Since you've been on CF, you've steadily chimed-in from time to time about the necessity of understanding philosophies of mind

That's a really nice way to say, "Ranted incoherently and then tried to convert everyone to Aristotelianism."

Yeah, and you still have that Nagel book to get through, too. Good luck on all of that!

And the Bible too, technically. I told my priest last night that I was finally reading the Old Testament... starting with Ecclesiastes and Job.

Got some surprised looks for that.

 

[Dirk1540]

That's a really nice way to say, "Ranted incoherently and then tried to convert everyone to Aristotelianism."

That's better than me, I rant incoherently and try to convert everyone to God knows what lol. I wonder how many Christian Ignore lists I'm make if I start hanging in other sections.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's a really nice way to say, "Ranted incoherently and then tried to convert everyone to Aristotelianism."

...oh, I would NEVER say that you're incoherent, Silmarien.

And the Bible too, technically. I told my priest last night that I was finally reading the Old Testament... starting with Ecclesiastes and Job.

Got some surprised looks for that.

Finally? I thought you had already read it all. Why was I think'n that?

Ecclesiastes and Job are good to start out with, but keep in mind that Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Job together kind of make up the essence of the Old 'Wisdom' literature. But, Ecclesiastes is one of my favorite books, too. (Go figure, right? It couldn't possible be because I'm into philosophy or anything. Na, that couldn't be it at all! )

Ecclesiastes is also the favorite book of my wife, and she has an interesting story in how it is this very book that (existentially speaking) played a part in her first becoming a Christian and even in her meeting me.

Also, have you seen the Bible Projects 6 minute animated video on Ecclesiastes? If not, it's awesome! I'll just post it here anyway, since it's one of my favorite little pieces of artsy biblical entertainment (and education, of sorts.)

Peace!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's better than me, I rant incoherently and try to convert everyone to God knows what lol. I wonder how many Christian Ignore lists I'm make if I start hanging in other sections.

I guess I have to add an admission to my own ranting occassionally here and there. Of course, for some reason my family tells me it isn't just "occassionally." I never could figure that one out ... ... seems like a vicious rumor.

 

[Dirk1540]

I guess I have to add an admission to my own ranting occassionally here and there. Of course, for some reason my family tells me it isn't just "occassionally." I never could figure that one out ... ... seems like a vicious rumor.

I have one brother who is up for discussions like this but not religious. My other brother, if I just said "Do you think humans can create consciousness like God?" his skin would crawl...I would be ranting, preaching, I would sound like a pushy priest to him lol.

 

[Silmarien]

Finally? I thought you had already read it all. Why was I think'n that?

I've read bits and pieces, but never the full thing. And I've recently been focused more on the New Testament, which is considerably easier to get a handle on. Or at least, I had been more focused on it. I've since slipped into natural theology instead.

The Old Testament is... intimidating. I know enough about Hebrew literature to not worry about falling into serious traps, but I really do not have a strong enough historical grasp to feel comfortable with it. The Greco-Roman world is one thing, but this is another. The Wisdom literature is fascinating enough to read anyway, though.

Also, have you seen the Bible Projects 6 minute animated video on Ecclesiastes? If not, it's awesome! I'll just post it here anyway, since it's one of my favorite little pieces of artsy biblical entertainment (and education, of sorts.)

I had not! Thank you.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've read bits and pieces, but never the full thing. And I've recently been focused more on the New Testament, which is considerably easier to get a handle on. Or at least, I had been more focused on it. I've since slipped into natural theology instead.

Yes, the New Testament is easier than the Old Testament, and in more ways than one. ...what's that you say? You've slipped? Slipped into...natural theology. Oh My!

The Old Testament is... intimidating. I know enough about Hebrew literature to not worry about falling into serious traps, but I really do not have a strong enough historical grasp to feel comfortable with it. The Greco-Roman world is one thing, but this is another. The Wisdom literature is fascinating enough to read anyway, though.

Reading the O.T. is actually quite an undertaking, really. But don't worry, I won't start tossing sources at you unless you ask for them or want to discuss something. I'm sure you can find your way around easily enough. Just watch out for those small, ethics bumps in the road there.

I had not! Thank you.

You're welcome.

 

[cloudyday2]

The Old Testament is... intimidating. I know enough about Hebrew literature to not worry about falling into serious traps, but I really do not have a strong enough historical grasp to feel comfortable with it. The Greco-Roman world is one thing, but this is another. The Wisdom literature is fascinating enough to read anyway, though.

The Old Testament is my favorite, because there are so many mysteries and loose ends. I read that the bones in the human ear are the remnants of a reptilian jaw. That's how the Old Testament seems to me. There are hints to the evolution of Judaism preserved in the text.

 

[Dirk1540]

The Old Testament is my favorite

Well, not really the parts that go into excruciating detail about the construction of the Tabernacle lol, can you say BORING??

 

[Silmarien]

The Old Testament is my favorite, because there are so many mysteries and loose ends. I read that the bones in the human ear are the remnants of a reptilian jaw. That's how the Old Testament seems to me. There are hints to the evolution of Judaism preserved in the text.

Yeah, that's part of why it's intimidating. I need to learn more about the history of Judaism to really be able to figure out what's going on there.

Have you finished the Bhagavad Gita, by the way? I really need to get around to it (and then the Upanishads), but reading two holy texts at the same time would probably be a bit overkill. I might try anyway, though.

 

[cloudyday2]

Well, not really the parts that go into excruciating detail about the construction of the Tabernacle lol, can you say BORING??

Believe it or not, I enjoyed those parts too. LOL It's a puzzle.

 

[cloudyday2]

Yeah, that's part of why it's intimidating. I need to learn more about the history of Judaism to really be able to figure out what's going on there.

Have you finished the Bhagavad Gita, by the way? I really need to get around to it (and then the Upanishads), but reading two holy texts at the same time would probably be a bit overkill. I might try anyway, though.

I've read one translation of the Bhagavad Gita, and I bought a different translation with more commentary that I haven't started. There are things that don't quite fit together in my mind regarding freewill. My reading of the Gita suggested that we are metaphysical observers watching our bodies and brains do their thing. So why have a religious text telling people what choices to make when there is no freewill? I think it actually does make sense, but it is hard for me to conceptualize. The Gita is like a force acting on the reader who has no freewill... or something like that LOL It is hard for me to think about.

 

[Dirk1540]

Believe it or not, I enjoyed those parts too. LOL It's a puzzle.

If THAT part has you on the edge of your seat than I have no doubt that you enjoy the Old Testament lol.