Five Reasons to Reject Belief in Gods

[PolyHedral]

Of course there's objective reality; the objective reality is you've got one waveform that happens to be spread out over a very large volume of space. The fact that it looks like two photons is just an oddity.

 

[atanu]

So, then, the answer is "no". People's minds don't stop working when we erect some sort of "shield" around their brains.

Do you have any actual evidence that our minds are external to our brains?

Who said that? Kindly, don't take metaphor beyond their purpose. One can observe an object. But one cannot observe the observer, which has to be the innermost subject, unobservable to any other object.

We observe brain and its processes. We cannot but prove that the brain and its processes are observing 'me'. No brain is known to observe anything, when put outside of the living system, which is consciousness.

OTOH, as explained above:

Since, experiment after experiment Bell's Inequality is not violated, but instantaneous communication, or "spooky at a distance", seems to occur. OTOH, if you rule out instantaneous communication, Bell's Inequality is violated. Thus, you either accept that spooky action of information passage faster than light takes place. Or, you accept the above that phenomenal observation exists becuase of observation but has no objective reality.

Either accept that information exchange takes place at photon level, faster than speed of light -- indicating one single underlying unknown reality whose very nature is knowing. Or accept that the observed objects have no objective existence apart from the seeing process/Seer.

Both suits me equally. Which suits materialism?

 

[atanu]

Of course there's objective reality; the objective reality is you've got one waveform that happens to be spread out over a very large volume of space. The fact that it looks like two photons is just an oddity.

Excellent. We are nearly agreeing. There is a continous waveform and objects still remain oddities of observations. I however note that the one waveform is another observation because of mathematical/experimental observation.

The objective waveform may never be known, since it is not possible to see the Seer and know the Knower. We may simply agree to disagree here.

 

[Quagmire]

Or Amazonian tribal people aren't congenitally stupid and they ask questions and figure it out. :slap:

With the Help of GPS, Amazonian Tribes Reclaim the Rain Forest

Seriously, why do people always try to make native people out to be incomprehensibly stupid and unable to understand modern technology? They don't have some sort of mental disability that makes them "primitive" anymore than being "advanced" makes you intelligent. :sarcastic

wa:do

*sigh* OK: If we were to build a time machine and go back a few thousand years before your average Amazonian tribesman had a tech degree .....

 

[PolyHedral]

Excellent. We are nearly agreeing. There is a continous waveform. Objects are oddities of obsrvations. I however note that the one waveform is another observation because of mathematical/experimental observation.

The objective waveform may never be known, since it is not possible to see the Seer and know the Knower. We may simply agree to disagree here.

The wavefunction is objectively known. That's pretty much the whole point of QM.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by mathematical observation. How does producing the mathematics that describe a system "observe" the system?

 

[atanu]

The wavefunction is objectively known. That's pretty much the whole point of QM.

Maybe. But we have to agree to disagree here -- at least for the time being.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by mathematical observation. How does producing the mathematics that describe a system "observe" the system?

Of course by logic -- through function of mind to understand effect of mind. To me this is impossible -- from my philosophical background.

I can say it in another fashion. Bell's Theorem has the following three assumptions:

Logic is valid.
There is a reality separate from its observation.
No information can travel faster than light.
​

Any one of the above must be invalid since QM is upheld. So, which one will you drop? Dropping any one of the three does not violate Monism and that satisfies me.

 

[Quagmire]

But that's not enough to tell you that the music comes from something external. The same would be true of a tape player: take the batteries out, no music. Put them in, music starts.But how do we know this? Apart from the fact that we know they were designed this way, of course - how would someone just given a radio deduce that the source of the music was an external signal?

That's exactly what I'm saying; they wouldn't. It would probably be one of the last things they would consider. One of the first (if not the first) explanation they would come up with would almost certainly be that the radio itself is the source of the music.

That's the point of the analogy: here we are, in our age, looking at some of the now observable electro-chemical processes going on in the brain during thought and our first conclusion is that these processes must actually produce thought, ie., that the brain is the source of consciousness.

What I'm suggesting is that for all we know, when we're looking at all these electro-chemical processes going on in the brain perhaps what we're looking at is something akin to the electro-magnetic processes going on in a radio while it's picking up and translating a radio signal.

The reality is that we don't know, and that the idea that these processes are actually the source of consciousness is just an assumption. The most predictable assumption in fact.

For one thing, you can create a barrier to the signal and see what happens. If you take a perfectly working radio and place it inside an aluminum foil coccoon, it'll only give static.

I'm not suggesting that consciousness actually is a radio signal, just that for all we know the relationship between the brain and thought may be something akin to the relationship between a radio and whatever's coming out of it at any given moment, ie., that perhaps, like the radio, our brain is merely a relay device, not the source of the signal (consciousness) itself.

For another, you tune two different radios to the same signal and they'll play the exact same music in perfect sync.

Because radios are manufactured according to a basic schematic, all designed to do exactly the same thing (discounting a few superficial variations).

Our brains aren't manufactured, they're organic, they grow and develop over time and in accordance with a multitude of factors that form a unique schematic in each individual case.

Therefore, if our brains are picking up a signal, each brain is going to translate the signal differently. Then again each brain may be picking up a different station all together.

Do either of these tests work with a brain?

Sort of: if you take a human mind and surround it with preconceptions and biases or any of the other barriers we're all so fond of, then all that brain is going to transmit is pre-recorded information (or misinformation).

We don't even have to turn to the metaphysical to observe this, a mind in that condition isn't even going to be able to pick up a lot of the mundane, sensory signals.

For instance, if you put a human being in some sort of shielded room, does his mind stop working?

Absolutely. :yes: (how could you be in RF this long and even ask that question ).

 

[PolyHedral]

That's exactly what I'm saying; they wouldn't. It would probably be one of the last things they would consider. One of the first (if not the first) explanation they would come up with would almost certainly be that the radio itself is the source of the music.

That's the point of the analogy: here we are, in our age, looking at some of the now observable electro-chemical processes going on in the brain during thought and our first conclusion is that these processes must actually produce thought, ie., that the brain is the source of consciousness.

What I'm suggesting is that for all we know, when we're looking at all these electro-chemical processes going on in the brain perhaps what we're looking at is something akin to the electro-magnetic processes going on in a radio while it's picking up and translating a radio signal.

The reality is that we don't know, and that the idea that these processes are actually the source of consciousness is just an assumption. The most predictable assumption in fact.

You're missing the prime evidence, though. We actually have a device that produces something very like thought but on a much simpler level, and we know that it doesn't come from anywhere other than the machine itself. Computers are capable of feats of intelligence that surpass a lot of humans, as demonstrated earlier this year. We have very good reason to think that consciousness originates in the brain and nowhere else.

You're not giving the radio to a group of Amazon tribesmen. You're giving it to a group of electromagnetism students.

 

[Quagmire]

You're missing the prime evidence, though. We actually have a device that produces something very like thought but on a much simpler level, and we know that it doesn't come from anywhere other than the machine itself. Computers are capable of feats of intelligence that surpass a lot of humans, as demonstrated earlier this year. We have very good reason to think that consciousness originates in the brain and nowhere else.

But is the ability to store, process, and access information actually consciousness? What I mean is is Watson "aware"?

You're not giving the radio to a group of Amazon tribesmen. You're giving it to a group of electromagnetism students.

I disagree.

IMO, we don't really even know what consciousness is yet. In fact, considering what we're talking about, ironically, we may be a few steps behind your average Amazonian tribal shaman when it comes to understanding the actual nature of consiousness.

We've uncovered some of the basic mechanics behind some of the physical aspects of the thought process, but the actual nature of consciousness is still a mystery to us.

 

[atanu]

Do either of these tests work with a brain? For instance, if you put a human being in some sort of shielded room, does his mind stop working?

Absolutely. :yes: (how could you be in RF this long and even ask that question ).

hey rAma
:bow:

 

[Copernicus]

The fact that two photons appear to communicate at faster than speed of light suggests one underlying unseen thing that connects.

But the point of this discussion is to relate that phenomenon to consciousness, which you have not done.

True, science cannot observe it since it is unobservable -- that is the point. But its effect is at least now recognised. And despite what you say, theoretical physisicts do not deny the possibilty.

Scientists follow the principle of Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation that accounts for observations is the best one. There is nothing about mental function that suggests the existence of an unseen agency of any kind. Consciousness waxes and wanes according to brain activity, so there appears to be a well-established causal connection. You can force someone to become unconscious by introducing a powerful sedative to that person's brain. Nobody can resist losing consciousness under those physical conditions by an act of will alone. Therefore, the brain is what causes consciousness.

It is a child's view that an electical bulb lights up only becuase of its filament.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Filaments are necessary under certain conditions to cause light. They are part of the causal chain.

 

[Copernicus]

But is the ability to store, process, and access information actually consciousness? What I mean is is Watson "aware"?

Watson is basically a machine designed to process and emit text in response to inputs. If you want to talk about self-aware machines, then you need to talk about robots. They are systems that move around and respond to conditions in their environment. Roboticists are very much interested in consciousness (self-awareness and awareness of surroundings), because robots that do not think like humans are less useful to us. Creating intelligent machines is the Holy Grail of the field of Artificial Intelligence.

There is a serious physical barrier to creating machines that can think like humans. We have billions of neurons that form unimaginably complex chains of associations. We can isolate and define subsystems in the brain at a macro-level, and we can understand systems and subsystems at the micro-level. What we cannot yet do is join the two levels up through intermediate stages. If we do not understand how brains work, then we cannot really build machines that think like us. On the other hand, we are making progress in understanding the brain with our attempts to model it in machine behavior.

IMO, we don't really even know what consciousness is yet. In fact, considering what we're talking about, ironically, we may be a few steps behind your average Amazonian tribal shaman when it comes to understanding the actual nature of consiousness.

But you are not someone who actually understands what our level of knowledge is about consciousness--what the prevailing theories are and the discarded ones. There are people who know a lot of things about consciousness that you are not conscious of. So I would caution against sweeping generalizations like that. We know a lot about minds and brains, just not enough to replicate either in our machines. Not yet, anyway.

We've uncovered some of the basic mechanics behind some of the physical aspects of the thought process, but the actual nature of consciousness is still a mystery to us.

It is, but all indications are that the physical aspects--the "mechanics"--are fully responsible for the thought process. We have detected nothing that requires us to assume any agency external to that process.

 

[Quagmire]

Watson is basically a machine designed to process and emit text in response to inputs. If you want to talk about self-aware machines, then you need to talk about robots. They are systems that move around and respond to conditions in their environment. Roboticists are very much interested in consciousness (self-awareness and awareness of surroundings), because robots that do not think like humans are less useful to us. Creating intelligent machines is the Holy Grail of the field of Artificial Intelligence.

There is a serious physical barrier to creating machines that can think like humans. We have billions of neurons that form unimaginably complex chains of associations. We can isolate and define subsystems in the brain at a macro-level, and we can understand systems and subsystems at the micro-level. What we cannot yet do is join the two levels up through intermediate stages. If we do not understand how brains work, then we cannot really build machines that think like us. On the other hand, we are making progress in understanding the brain with our attempts to model it in machine behavior.

Sorry, still looking through this post to see if there's anything here that addresses any of the points I brought up.

But you are not someone who actually understands what our level of knowledge is about consciousness--what the prevailing theories are and the discarded ones. There are people who know a lot of things about consciousness that you are not conscious of. So I would caution against sweeping generalizations like that. We know a lot about minds and brains, just not enough to replicate either in our machines. Not yet, anyway.

Still looking.

It is, but all indications are that the physical aspects--the "mechanics"--are fully responsible for the thought process. We have detected nothing that requires us to assume any agency external to that process.

Ah, that one sort of does.

OK, so have you detected anything that requires you to rule out the possibility of some external agency? Because all I'm proposing here is the possibility, not trying to get anyone to assume it as fact.

 

[Copernicus]

OK, so have you detected anything that requires you to rule out the possibility of some external agency? Because all I'm proposing here is the possibility, not trying to get anyone to assume it as fact.

We are not required to rule out any possibilities, only to rank them in terms of plausibility. What makes an external agency less plausible than its absence is Occam's Razor. External agency contributes nothing to our understanding of what is necessary for a mind to exist.

 

[Quagmire]

We are not required to rule out any possibilities, only to rank them in terms of plausibility. What makes an external agency less plausible than its absence is Occam's Razor. External agency contributes nothing to our understanding of what is necessary for a mind to exist.

Who is "we" exactly?

 

[Copernicus]

Who is "we" exactly?

Reasonable people.

 

[Quagmire]

Reasonable people.

Ah. And who gets to decide who is and isn't a member of this illustrious club (and why are they letting you speak for them?)?

 

[Copernicus]

Ah. And who gets to decide who is and isn't a member of this illustrious club (and why are they letting you speak for them?)?

You have yet to address my point. Is Occam's Razor not a valid principle for determining the plausibility of an explanation? Does Occam's Razor apply in this case, as I have claimed? I would be interested in your responses to these questions.

It is irrelevant who gets to decide who is rational. Let's assume that we both can discuss the subject matter rationally. Otherwise, why bother to have a discussion?

 

[Quagmire]

You have yet to address my point.

Must have missed it.

Is Occam's Razor not a valid principle for determining the plausibility of an explanation? Does Occam's Razor apply in this case, as I have claimed? I would be interested in your responses to these questions.

Occam's Razor (wiki) is a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects.[2]

It's not a matter of whether or not it applies, it's a question of whether or not it's being applied.

We can see the changes going on in the brain during the thought process, but how exactly, based on all this, is the idea that consciousness is a product of the physical brain less of an assumption than the idea that there may be an outside source?

All we're seeing is some of the mechanics involved. We can tell what changes occur in the brain during thought. That's it. Everything else is an assumption (and on the larger scale, the idea that consciousness originates in the brain is actually a relatively new assumption).

It is irrelevant who gets to decide who is rational. Let's assume that we both can discuss the subject matter rationally.

YAY! That's all I've been trying to get you to do (up til now all your answers have looked like some version of "HAHAHA, I know more about this than you do so take my word for it, you're wrong (so I win)".

Didn't see much possibility for a rational debate in there.

Otherwise, why bother to have a discussion?

I'll get back to you on that.

 

[atanu]

I am willing to consider any legitimate evidence, and I am in perfect agreement with you that the mind alters itself, just as higher order processes interact at a macrolevel in any chaotic determinstic system.

Have you ever seen an application program altering the Operating System, if not pre-programmed to do so? Copernicus, I think, you are not applying your mind. I am sorry.

Yes. There are a number of mental functions, all of which correlate with physical structures in brains: memory, volition, sensation, mood, emotion, calculation, belief, etc.

Correlation is not cause. And no structure correlates with the experience.

The placebo effect is well-understood.

So. If I can consistently use yoga and mediation to alter state of mind to tranquility then does it mean that I control brain reactions or the brain controls me? Can an application program on its own alter the operating system.

No, that's not a good analogy. I recommend that you read the Wikipedia page on Emergence.

I am sure that you yourself do not understand it.

Corning's definition of emergence:

"Rules, or laws, have no causal efficacy; they do not in fact “generate” anything. They serve merely to describe regularities and consistent relationships in nature. These patterns may be very illuminating and important, but the underlying causal agencies must be separately specified (though often they are not). But that aside, the game of chess illustrates precisely why any laws or rules of emergence and evolution are insufficient. ------ It is not simply a self-ordered process; it involves an organized, “purposeful” activity."
​

Ask yourself "Who provides the purpose?

Just as a cell phone has an indicator to tell you when the battery needs recharging, your brain produces chemicals to tell you when your body needs to recharge. Instead of a flashing symbol, you experience fatigue because of the changes to the brain.

I am tired really. Who is this 'You', separate from the brain generated consciousness?

Why would they go anywhere? You do not need any veils or other props to make this point. Just use your eyelids. Close your eyes and ask where your brain and its chemicals have gone. Mine remains where they were.

Still you do not see until you remove the veil. An apparatus does what it is supposed to do but that does not mean that it generates consciousness.

Your awareness is very much a part of your "I". When it disappears, so does your "I". If you think that you are arguing otherwise, I do not see the logic of your argument.

And when "I" disappears, the brain, though existing stops all functions.

AFAICT, nothing that yogins do supports the idea that there is anything other than a physical brain producing their experiences when they go into trance-like states. We can detect changes in brain activity when that happens.

People fart when they have upset stomach. So, fart causes upset stomach.