Five Reasons to Reject Belief in Gods

[atanu]

Carl Sagan did not have a brain?

But it was Sagan who spoke.

 

[atanu]

The distinction is illusionary. The physical version is looking into a mirror and thinking the object behind it is distinct from you.
It does; Conciousness appears to be a specific set of computations, and the theory of everything describes computers quite easily.

Since when consciousness became a seeable object behind oneself in the mirror? The above proposition itself is illusion based on the erroneous assumption that consciousness that sees and knows can be seen and known.

 

[Willamena]

The distinction is illusionary. The physical version is looking into a mirror and thinking the object behind it is distinct from you.

The "illusion" is just that: that the object behind "me" (a body) is distinct from the "me" who is the observer.

That's why Carl Sagan said it, not his brain.

 

[PolyHedral]

I hate it when you take up points on behalf of Copernicus and twist the matter. The subject of external programmer was started from the discussion that structures (higher level applications) cannot alter the basis of the structures itself. Intelligence, if evolved fronm structures cannot have any control over the base on which the structures are built.

I think you're trying to interpret this holistically, and are running into problems because of that. From a reductionist view, high-level, abstract structures are a useful fantasy; they do not really exist. They are collections of low-level phenomenon, but the "boundary" of that collection is there as a thinking aid, nothing more. High-level structures can easily modify themselves, because what I'm actually saying is that low-level objects can interact, and that's quite clearly true.

Consider an anthill. What Copernicus and I are saying is that the anthill can modify its own internal workings, i.e. influence the ants. What we actually mean is that the ants that compose the anthill can assist, interfere with, or influence other ants, and so bring about changes in the anthill. Surely that is true?

You cannot use the Newtonian framework for QM.

It's not specific to Newtonian mechanics. It applies through all of science, even QM. All of the various "interpretations" of QM are based on the same experimental results and the same mathematical theory.

Take some time on previous posts. You are not reading my posts.

I am reading, but I do not understand. I don't suppose you have a diagram?

You are the seer of your body, including the brain. You are the seer of modifications of your mind. These are objects. The self that is you is the subject and is not the object of any other subject.

Ah... I think. I disagree: I am my mind, not a separate observer from it.

Ha. You mean the person has changed? Surely not. The person is still there. Else, he would not come back saying "i slept blissfully".

The person is still there, but they have quite clearly changed. Else, how would they have the (inferred) memory of having slept?

Self is there in deep sleep in all fullness and without any division. Since, there are yet no created objects, it does not see anything and no separate "I". Again. There is no brain in deep sleep. It is a construct of mind-senses of waking time. Try searching for the brain in deep sleep.

In that case, I think we're disagreeing over what "awareness" is. It is impossible to be aware, as in deep sleep, when there are no things to be aware of. Although "I" is an object, (i.e. a thing) it is not present in deep sleep.

However, I do not think that there can be any revelation to you as of now. Some other reader may intuitively pick up the point.

If we just gave up, we would hardly learn anything, would we?

I will cite Skwim from another post to speak in another way -- if that helps to clarify what I am saying.

I think I understand what Skwim is saying, but you seem to be adding in something extra. You seem to be suggesting that nothing can exist without an observer of some sort. Is that what you're actually suggesting, or am I totally off-base?

But it was Sagan who spoke.

I do not understand the distinction between Sagan and his brain. What component of Sagan does not, in some way, arise from his brain?
(It might well be true that "consciousness" does not arise from the brain, but unless that is Sagan's consciousness specifically, it doesn't answer my question.)

Since when consciousness became a seeable object behind oneself in the mirror? The above prposition itself is illusion based on the erroneous assumption that consciousness that sees and knows can be seen and known.

That wasn't the metaphor, and I apologize for being unclear. Consciousness is the mirror. The reflection is "I", and I think our major disagreement is that you are arguing that the mirror is, in some way, external to me; it is not a construction of my mind. Or am I misunderstanding?

The "illusion" is just that: that the object behind "me" (a body) is distinct from the "me" who is the observer.

That's why Carl Sagan said it, not his brain.

I don't follow. We don't say that a computer is distinct from its OS, so why would we say that a brain and the mind it belongs to are distinct?

 

[Willamena]

I don't follow. We don't say that a computer is distinct from its OS, so why would we say that a brain and the mind it belongs to are distinct?

We also say that a computer runs a program when we mean that an OS runs a program.

A brain is inert matter. A mind is the composition of images that we call consciousness. They are different things. We can say they are distinct, and we can say they are not distinct, but ultimately the person that is "me" is the consciousness.

I can lose a toe, or a foot, or a leg and still be "me", but if I lose significant memories, I've lost a large part of "me."

 

[PolyHedral]

We also say that a computer runs a program when we mean that an OS runs a program.

You seem to be agreeing with me. :areyoucra

A brain is inert matter.

Hardly; It dumps about 10W of waste heat into the environment. It's a machine, and a very fast one at that. A brain is composed of inert matter, eventually, but it'd be inaccurate to say that it itself is inert.

I can lose a toe, or a foot, or a leg and still be "me", but if I lose significant memories, I've lost a large part of "me."

If you lose significant brain structure, you won't remain "you", either.

 

[atanu]

I think you're trying to interpret this holistically, and are running into problems because of that. From a reductionist view, high-level, abstract structures are a useful fantasy; they do not really exist. They are collections of low-level phenomenon, but the "boundary" of that collection is there as a thinking aid, nothing more. High-level structures can easily modify themselves, because what I'm actually saying is that low-level objects can interact, and that's quite clearly true.

Consider an anthill. What Copernicus and I are saying is that the anthill can modify its own internal workings, i.e. influence the ants. What we actually mean is that the ants that compose the anthill can assist, interfere with, or influence other ants, and so bring about changes in the anthill. Surely that is true?

Example actually proves you wrong. Think. The consciousness is not in the anthill, in this example. Anthill is just a happening because of working of the agents.

Further, you reversed the entire analogy. The point is that if consciousness is a product of structures, then it cannot alter its own base cause - the base structures, though it can bring in higher structures. Further, it is not me who introduced duality but the assumption that consciousness arises from brain structures is the duality. The point that the created thing cannot alter the its cause came up from that in the view of evidence that meditation etc. increase brain gray matter. If intelligence/will were products of a physical brain then how will the product change the origin?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090512134655.htm

It's not specific to Newtonian mechanics. It applies through all of science, even QM. All of the various "interpretations" of QM are based on the same experimental results and the same mathematical theory.

So, to understand the sleeping state as such, one must not superimpose the structures of waking state on it.

... I think. I disagree: I am my mind, not a separate observer from it.

No. You are the structures of the brain and not the person that integrates. That is what you and Copernicus wish to prove.

The person is still there, but they have quite clearly changed. Else, how would they have the (inferred) memory of having slept?

No. The person remains as such but the state changes, similar to state changes of H2O.

In that case, I think we're disagreeing over what "awareness" is. It is impossible to be aware, as in deep sleep, when there are no things to be aware of. Although "I" is an object, (i.e. a thing) it is not present in deep sleep.

You are present as something that you are not aware because of your assumption that the waking state 'you' as a body is not a state but is the real you.

Whether H2O changes its state, H2O remains H2O. But ice, if endowed with consciousness, would not know H2O and also would take steam as an aberration of its ice state. Similarly, steam will reciprocate.

If ice is stuck with the perception: "I am solid. I am cold", it cannot undestand steam and it cannot understand H2O.

If we just gave up, we would hardly learn anything, would we?

I welcome that. But ice like thinking is difficult to overcome.

I think I understand what Skwim is saying, but you seem to be adding in something extra. You seem to be suggesting that nothing can exist without an observer of some sort. Is that what you're actually suggesting, or am I totally off-base?

That will first require that ice knows H2O.

I do not understand the distinction between Sagan and his brain. What component of Sagan does not, in some way, arise from his brain?
(It might well be true that "consciousness" does not arise from the brain, but unless that is Sagan's consciousness specifically, it doesn't answer my question.)

Changeable structures cannot be the source of of a fixed "I" -- an "I" that remains through three states whole a lifetime at least.

That wasn't the metaphor, and I apologize for being unclear. Consciousness is the mirror. The reflection is "I", and I think our major disagreement is that you are arguing that the mirror is, in some way, external to me; it is not a construction of my mind. Or am I misunderstanding?

If there is genuine interest we may come back to this point. At the moment I can only ask "Whether ice and H2O are external to each other or not? To give another clue: Whether the space in which objects reside, is external to the objects?

Note: Analogies are only aids -- pointers. No one can tell another of the taste of water. One must oneself experience the Self.

 

[atanu]

You seem to be agreeing with me. :areyoucra

Hardly; It dumps about 10W of waste heat into the environment. It's a machine, .

That is it. It is a machine.

 

[atanu]

PolyHedral

You may wish to read the following thread to appreciate what I mean by the word seer.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/114936-who-am-i.html

 

[Copernicus]

Example actually proves you wrong. Think. The consciousness is not in the anthill, in this example. Anthill is just a happening because of working of the agents.

Actually, this analogy was used in Hofstadter's book to explain the concept of emergence. The anthill represents the product of self-organizing behavior in an ant colony. The behavior of the ants occurs at an individual level, but it is the system of interactions that produces the anthill. So the system does have an effect on individual ant behavior. A working brain similarly produces high level activity that emerges from simpler low-level interactions between neurons.

Further, you reversed the entire analogy. The point is that if consciousness is a product of structures, then it cannot alter its own base cause - the base structures, though it can bring in higher structures. Further, it is not me who introduced duality but the assumption that consciousness arises from brain structures is the duality. The point that the created thing cannot alter the its cause came up from that in the view of evidence that meditation etc. increase brain gray matter. If intelligence/will were products of a physical brain then how will the product change the origin?
Meditation May Increase Gray Matter

What the Science Daily article shows is that repeated meditation causes physical changes in the brain, just as learning a foreign language has been shown to cause physical changes in brain structure. The behavior of the system causes modifications in its own infrastructure. The ant hill changes over time because of the systemic behavior of the ants.

I do not know where you get this idea that systems cannot restructure themselves in response to new stimuli. Human beings learn. Ant colonies can learn. The brain "reprograms" itself at a systemic level, and that causes alterations in its own physical structure.

 

[PolyHedral]

Whether H2O changes its state, H2O remains H2O. But ice, if endowed with consciousness, would not know H2O and also would take steam as an aberration of its ice state. Similarly, steam will reciprocate.

If ice is stuck with the perception: "I am solid. I am cold", it cannot undestand steam and it cannot understand H2O.

(I'm short of time, so I'll get back to everything else eventually)

In this metaphor, is consciousness H20?

 

[Willamena]

You seem to be agreeing with me. :areyoucra

I'm not disagreeing, if that helps. Just trying to get you to see a particular image (m'thinks he protests too much).

Hardly; It dumps about 10W of waste heat into the environment. It's a machine, and a very fast one at that. A brain is composed of inert matter, eventually, but it'd be inaccurate to say that it itself is inert.[/quote]
I just meant that it doesn't get up and dance the hoola, that's all.

If you lose significant brain structure, you won't remain "you", either.

Right, if you lose memories along with it.

 

[atanu]

What the Science Daily article shows is that repeated meditation causes physical changes in the brain, just as learning a foreign language has been shown to cause physical changes in brain structure. The behavior of the system causes modifications in its own infrastructure. The ant hill changes over time because of the systemic behavior of the ants.

I do not know where you get this idea that systems cannot restructure themselves in response to new stimuli. Human beings learn. Ant colonies can learn. The brain "reprograms" itself at a systemic level, and that causes alterations in its own physical structure.

Dear Copernicus

The problem is in the way you see a system. From your perspective, the brain structures and the consciousness emergent from it is system. From my perspective, that is just an atomic part.

Let me use an analogy again. You are looking at a wave or the combination of waves as the system. I say that waves are manifest because of the ocean. A single wave is just a form that can be named and the name-form is transitory. But what a wave essentially is the water of the ocean.

A wave merely can alter the surface shape of the ocean but the ocean remains the ocean. And actually, wave being an effect of some deeper cause is not even the cause of the changes in structure.

For you, the universe of names-forms is the only reality. For me, the seeing function that sees the form and the intelligence that gives the meaning and utters the name is the reality. There is no past and present in intelligence. The past and present and the forms emerge from this intelligence as thought forms.

 

[Copernicus]

Atanu, your metaphors are making me feel a little seasick. You are missing an important part of my argument. I think that you are missing it because you do not know what to make of it, and maybe I should start a new thread on the subject: why consciousness even exists.

Consciousness is clearly a property of animal minds. Humans are not the only conscious beings. Any living organism with a brain has some degree of consciousness. There is a real question of whether consciousness--self-awareness and thought--can exist independently of a brain. This is a point where you and I have a clear disagreement. I believe that consciousness exists in animals because it has a purpose. It makes sense that bodies have an awareness of self and of surroundings. You believe that consciousness extends beyond animal bodies and perhaps is immanent--exists everywhere. As I understand it, you think that individual minds are just nexuses of consciousness in a "sea" of universal consciousness.

I will try to give a succinct, simple description of what drives me to believe that consciousness (self-awareness) is ephemeral and individual rather than universal. Human cognition--and very likely all animal cognition--is embodied. That is, it develops in response to the sensory inputs--the sensations--of a body. Bodies move around, so their environments change quickly and radically. The brain is the hardware mechanism that drives and guides the body. It reacts to new conditions as they happen, and it anticipates future conditions. Self-awareness is necessary for a body, because, among other things, it is what gives the body an ability to detect malfunctions in itself, replenish energy, repair itself, etc. Awareness of the environment is necessary, because that allows the body to survive rapidly changing conditions. In other words, consciousness has a functional role to play that is directly related to the nature of a moving body. There is no functional role for self-awareness beyond the needs of a moving body. Therefore, it makes no sense that consciousness would exist outside of bodies or extend beyond the life of a body.

 

[PolyHedral]

This was posted earlier today. Isn't the internet wonderful?

I control therefore I am: chimps self-aware, says study

 

[atanu]

Atanu, your metaphors are making me feel a little seasick. You are missing an important part of my argument. I think that you are missing it because you do not know what to make of it, and maybe I should start a new thread on the subject: why consciousness even exists.

Consciousness is clearly a property of animal minds.

Ha. As if you knew your own mind. But I welcome your resolution -- suggestion is that plan for a fat book similar to "Consciousness explained away".

Consciousness is clearly a property of animal minds. Humans are not the only conscious beings. Any living organism with a brain has some degree of consciousness.

BTW, did I ever say that only humans are conscious? Any thing that can articulate language or even communicate with self is conscious. I believe that universe is such expansion of consciousness. You seem not to understand the position of your vivAdi.

 

[atanu]

There is a real question of whether consciousness--self-awareness and thought--can exist independently of a brain. This is a point where you and I have a clear disagreement.

Simply because you have ice like thinking "I am solid and cold. I have nothing common with steam".

1. You do not care to investigate the question "Does brain exist independent of a thought? Why in absence of thought, there is no universe in sleep? ------

2. You have not provided any proof for your assertion Minds depend on physical brains. But you have repeated the same assertion again and again.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2444022-post443.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2451417-post1.html

 

[atanu]

I will try to give a succinct, simple description of what drives me to believe that consciousness (self-awareness) is ephemeral and individual rather than universal. Human cognition--and very likely all animal cognition--is embodied.

Yes. Embodiment captures consciousness, which is infinite potential, captured in many particular ways by life process in many embodiments.

Therefore, it makes no sense that consciousness would exist outside of bodies or extend beyond the life of a body.

But life extends universally beyond one body. Again you demonstrate a confusion between a conscious individual, which is an effect, with consciousness, which enables awareness in an individual.

Conscious individual rises and falls (as waves do) and not the consciousness itself (as the ocean remains the substratum).

Life extends universally beyond one body. Therefore consciousness is an immanent category and is different from particular instantiation of a conscious mind. You, like many other, confuse 'consciousness' with 'being conscious'.


It is meaningless to suppose that consciousness - a general category, arises at a point of time. Because:

• Because this observation is in time. Observation that embeds the features of time is "I am conscious now but at times I am not. Before birth and after birth there is no conscious me". A timeless observation in the moment is "I am conscious". I hope, you see the role of presence or absence of thought/time in these two different scenarios. Some people do not have any abilty to intuit/contemplate the link between the states of time (dream and waking) with the singular state of timelessness (sleep) and thus superimpose ideas/observations of the states of time onto the state of timelessness. Most people have no abilty to remove the objects/structures of mind and inspect the mind devoid of the structures/objects that superimpose their nature on the pristine unaffected mind. Observations in a particualr mental state is observation for that state and not for the mind itself. Just as form of 'ice' or of 'steam' does not signify H2O.

• There is no time in singularity. All categories verifiable in time must exist in singularity of big bang, where there is no brain. Similarly, in sleep there is no time, no thought, no universe, and no physical brain . Therefore time is co-eval with thought. But in singularity of sleep, consciousness is the sole undivided category, else, "I am" awareness will not follow.

• A thing that arises must also vanish. But that is not the general experience with consciousness. Just as candle after candle carry the flame, embodiment after embodiment carry consciousness and express it.

• No one is arguing that a particular conscious individual does not arise in time.

 

[Manahel.Fatima]

I think prayers are effective when you believe in GOD. Because the more your faith is the more effective your pryers is because you truly deep down from heart trust ALLAH.

 

[Copernicus]

Atanu, thanks for the discussion. Your last post did not engage my point--that consciousness has a clear functional value in living bodies. If that is true, then there would be no reason for consciousness to be immanent. Its evolution in animals is perfectly understandable as a phenomenon limited to the bodies that host it. You are just going to repeat your belief that consciousness has nothing to do with embodiment. Fair enough. I won't push it further. Perhaps we can have more useful discussions on other subjects.