Question for Atheists...

[Aupmanyav]

Either atoms think separately or they think collectively. What do you think?

They don't think, they react separately, but similar actions bring out similar reactions.

 

[Heyo]

You shouldn't assume I know all the arguments against dualism. I'm not a philosopher, nor do I pretend to know more than I do.

I've taken exactly one semester of philosophy and it was a survey course at that. I'm probably better read in theology than a lot of Catholics but not nearly as much as some I know. I know enough about psychology to be dangerous.

The mind is so mysterious. Despite all that neuroscience has learned, it has barely scratched the surface. Or the dura mater, you could say. Neurosurgeon (and nonbeliever) Henry Marsh said it like this: "We're all sitting on an equally great mystery within ourselves, each of us, in this microcosm of our own consciousness..."

Well, then, to keep with the title of this thread, let me rephrase your post into a "question for atheists":

Why don't you believe in body-soul dualism?

Interesting question. The answer is basically, there is no evidence.
If there is a soul and it connects to the brain in any way, we should see that connection or its effects somewhere in the brain. There are no connections to be found at the subatomic, the physical, the chemical, the biological or neurological level. Due to its complexity we can't rule out a connection on the psychological level but the lack of any effect on the lower levels and the fact that psychology can be explained as an emergent property, Occam's Razor allows me to conclude that there most probably is no such thing as a soul that influences my brain.
More over we know how to influence the brain with chemicals, irradiation with electromagnetic waves (trans-cranial stimulation) and surgery. We can explain (and often predict) behavior (even pathological) without referring to an external agent.

Ymmv, do you have any contradicting experiences you'd be able to publish in a psychology journal?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

OK. Yes, a picture of a pipe is not a pipe. A finger pointing at the moon is not the moon. A description of a thing is not the thing.

So?

I have no idea how to parse this sentence.

Funny that this 'subjective knowledge' is shared by everyone. Doesn't that make it objective?

Again, this is 'knowledge' about conventions. So it is not a scientific question. I have no problem with that.

And, while the picture is not a pipe, it is still a picture *of* a pipe. And we can ask how good of a depiction of a pipe it is.

Just like we can ask how good a description is of the moon. In other words, how well does the description depict the reality?

Okay, I will concentrate subjective, shared subjectivity and objective and since that is about science, include cause and effect.
For the universe I will use the following definition:
"The universe is everything. It includes all of space, and all the matter and energy that space contains. It even includes time itself and, of course, it includes you. Earth and the Moon are part of the universe, as are the other planets and their many dozens of moons. NASA "
Further I will assume that the universe is real, orderly and knowable. And for the mind I will use that the mind is a process in a brain, i.e. reductive assumption that the mental is a process in a brain.

So for the bold sentence in your post, is the referent of it subjective or objective. If subjective then how can I understand what you understand subjectively?
It is simple once you aviod metaphysics/ontology to the effect of only the objective is real. So here is the explanation and remember you can falsify it by show that you are not in the universe as a part of it and that you don't cause anything.

The relevant defintions of objective, subjective and inter-subjective as per Merriam-Webster
Objective:
1 - expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
2 - of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
3 - having reality independent of the mind.
Subjective::
1 - relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states.
Intersubjective:
1 - involving or occurring between separate conscious minds.

Now I will explain how these defintions match the universe for how humans work as relevant for what knowledge is. That is the fight between you as in effect an objectvist and me as holding a combination of objective, subjective and inter-subjective. In other words you have learned how objective work, but you haven't learned how subjective work using science. For that you hold a common folk belief.

If you search how brain scans can be used for different understandings among several humans and combine that with a general model of a brain, you get the following result. For 2 or more humans if they have a different understanding, the effect is that it happens differently in their individual brains. If they have the same understanding it happens as they use the same centers of the brain.
Now how are words learned. Well, through cognitive mimicing in short as per the psychology of how children learn a language.
And now we are going to test your model of objective meaning and understanding of words.

For your model to work the meaning of a word must be in the sign as the word. I.e. you observe objective the meaning of a word and thus you can look at any word and understand its meaning. The test is that if it is the case, you can read any language and understand it. You can't. Further brain damange can influence your ability to read and understand language.

So now we combine it for severeal humans:
A given human as from a baby to an adult can if the indiviudal has the development potentional learn through mimicing and internalziation how a given language works. For cause and effect if a given word cause as observed the same processes in different brains we have inter-sibjective understanding.

So I know something about words, which is not just objective and yet I can explain it, thought it is not just objective.
Your belief system of knowledge is because you are a member of a sub-culture where you have internalized the subjective belief that all knowledge is objective.
I jst have a different belief system, when it comes to subjective and I can explain how come langauge is inter-subjective. But you can't explain how language is objective, because test that, shows it is not objective.

Regards

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, then, to keep with the title of this thread, let me rephrase your post into a "question for atheists":

Why don't you believe in body-soul dualism?

Interesting question. The answer is basically, there is no evidence.
If there is a soul and it connects to the brain in any way, we should see that connection or its effects somewhere in the brain. There are no connections to be found at the subatomic, the physical, the chemical, the biological or neurological level. Due to its complexity we can't rule out a connection on the psychological level but the lack of any effect on the lower levels and the fact that psychology can be explained as an emergent property, Occam's Razor allows me to conclude that there most probably is no such thing as a soul that influences my brain.
More over we know how to influence the brain with chemicals, irradiation with electromagnetic waves (trans-cranial stimulation) and surgery. We can explain (and often predict) behavior (even pathological) without referring to an external agent.

Ymmv, do you have any contradicting experiences you'd be able to publish in a psychology journal?

Well, I don't believe in any dualism and that includes the in effect dualism that only the objective is real really and the subjective is not a part of the universe.

 

[1213]

You're from Finland? That would be news that makes me question science. Scientists have told me that Finland has a good education system.

I think it is more like a very good indoctrination system, not a good education system anymore.

 

[Heyo]

I think it is more like a very good indoctrination system, not a good education system anymore.

Well, education just isn't for everyone.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, I am confirming there is knowledge beyond that box of Beliefs you have chosen for yourself.

I don't understand what you mean by that.

By not being open to all possibilities

Depends what you mean by being "open".
If you mean, pretending that "possibilities" are real just because I can imagine them and not prove them wrong, then no.

I will happily consider any possibility supported by evidence.

,you have walled yourself from the Real Truth.

Support your "Real Truth" (tm) with verifiable evidence and I'll happily consider it.

Why and what is it about that box of beliefs you are living in that you like so well that you choose to be blind to anything else?

That's quite ironic.

I go where the evidence takes me.
Regardless of where that is.

What I like about that, is that it is rational.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

It doesn't sound very clear.

 

[viole]

In other words, the question betrays rational thinking.

I never said that believing in the supernatural is irrational. As a matter of fact, I do not possess any rational means that easily defeat a general definition of supernatural. Assuming such a definition is possible at all. So, it depends on what we mean with supernatural. God. Gods. And all that stuff. All I know, is that the supernatural looks superfluous, not necessarily irrational.

It is, for instance, trivially easy to rationally kill the Christian God, under the premise that He created the world as literally described in Genesis, with 6000 years old universes, and vegan T-Rexes playing with kids, like in the Flintstones. While it becomes slightly more difficult if the Christian says Genesis is metaphorical.

so, it strongly depend on the philosophical position, and its logical strength.

ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

In fairness naturalism is a pretty broad term in philosophy. Not even excluding everyone who believes in the supernatural as some methodological naturalists like Gould. Since methodological naturalism is about processes like empiricism being the best way to gain information about the material, but not to the exclusion of the spiritual as per how dualists see it.

If you want an even narrower philosophy, you might say metaphysical naturalism. But even then they debate at where the boundaries of 'natural' is, and what is and isn't derivative of matter.

Course. I meant philosophical naturalism.

ciao

- viole

 

[Bird123]

Word salad without any meaning. Still no evidence.

Yeah, religion hurts people. See what is happening in China, Israel, India, Pakistan, France and elsewhere. Religion is the cause of most strife between people. It is a poison. People would have been better without any religion. Your God and my God. Your book and my book.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

Yes, word salad if understanding is lacking. On the other hand, few answers show up before the journey. I point to clarity and understanding.

I make no demands. Each chooses what they seek. Each decides what the best choices really are. For true learning, no one can do this for you.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Bird123]

You got it. That's why when you make claims you then offer substantial evidence and a coherent explanation. You only make the claims and ignore the rest.

Which one of the many thousands?

That's how religion works.

So you have no answers like you didn't the other time.

Does it? Well tell us all about it. Or do you not have these answers either?

Who told you that a God exists? Why did you believe them?


This isn't clear at all.

Clearly you have not been listening. Surely what I have been telling you hasn't gone over your head. I think you want so badly what I have saying to you to be wrong that you hear nothing.

So you think there are thousands of Gods. Better look again.

So you think I am a religion? Have I asked you to follow? Have I asked you to believe? Have I asked you to read holy books? Have I asked you to come to services? Have I asked for donations? Have I used threats and intimidation? Have I labeled you as evil or a sinner? Have I told you God will be angry or bad things will happen to you if you don't follow? OF COURSE NOT!!!!!!! I simply pointed you in a direction by which you can Discover God and the Real Truth for yourself.

Once again, you need to analyze yourself to discover what it is that you do seek and ,most importantly, WHY.

God is not what you seek. You should already know this. Why are you here???? To what end??

That's what I see. It's very clear!!!

 

[Bird123]

I don't understand what you mean by that.



Depends what you mean by being "open".
If you mean, pretending that "possibilities" are real just because I can imagine them and not prove them wrong, then no.

I will happily consider any possibility supported by evidence.





Support your "Real Truth" (tm) with verifiable evidence and I'll happily consider it.



That's quite ironic.

I go where the evidence takes me.
Regardless of where that is.

What I like about that, is that it is rational.



It doesn't sound very clear.

One must seek first. I point to where you can Discover the evidence for yourself. I can not do it for you. I will not feed your belief structure that you seem to depend upon. On the other hand, if I were trying to feed your belief structure I would have to work harder to convince you.

Little do you realize I'm not dealing with beliefs and I do not want others to as well. Discover what is will bring better results and greater wisdom. Your choices will always be your free choices. To want anything else will not bring the best results. Each decides for themselves what they truly seek. What is it that you seek?

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[anna.]

Well, then, to keep with the title of this thread, let me rephrase your post into a "question for atheists":

Why don't you believe in body-soul dualism?

Thank you but I'd rather do any rephrasing of my own posts. I made a comment that your cartoon had resonated with me, but I'm not in the habit of getting into debates with atheists, so that wasn't my intention at all. Not because I have a beef with atheists, it's just that arguing about belief isn't usually a conversation I'm looking for.

Interesting question. The answer is basically, there is no evidence.
If there is a soul and it connects to the brain in any way, we should see that connection or its effects somewhere in the brain. There are no connections to be found at the subatomic, the physical, the chemical, the biological or neurological level.

Are you expert in any of those fields? Genuinely curious, because I don't know you.

Due to its complexity we can't rule out a connection on the psychological level

Ah. Maybe a starting place.

but the lack of any effect on the lower levels and the fact that psychology can be explained as an emergent property, Occam's Razor allows me to conclude that there most probably is no such thing as a soul that influences my brain.

Ah, good ol' William of Ockam, believer in the soul.

More over we know how to influence the brain with chemicals, irradiation with electromagnetic waves (trans-cranial stimulation) and surgery. We can explain (and often predict) behavior (even pathological) without referring to an external agent.

Knowing how to do some things with the brain in no way should imply that we have learned all we need to know about the brain. But it's not simply brain we're talking about. We're talking about consciousness. Can you hold consciousness in your forceps?

Ymmv,

Most certainly.

do you have any contradicting experiences you'd be able to publish in a psychology journal?

Do you? I'd be interested if you do.

That's all I can do here for a bit, I'm going to be traveling and there will be little time to be online.

If you're interested in continuing, great, I'll be back in a few weeks and I'll take a look. Or we can leave it at this.

And if this sidebar is considered off-topic my apologies to the OP.

 

[ppp]

Ah, good ol' William of Ockam, believer in the soul.

Newton believed in the soul and alchemy. Just Saiyan

 

[Aupmanyav]

I make no demands. Each chooses what they seek. Each decides what the best choices really are. For true learning, no one can do this for you.
That's what I see. It's very clear!!

I too make no demands, but the absolute absence of evidence does not give me any reason to accept the existence of God or soul.
That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Heyo]

Thank you but I'd rather do any rephrasing of my own posts. I made a comment that your cartoon had resonated with me, but I'm not in the habit of getting into debates with atheists, so that wasn't my intention at all. Not because I have a beef with atheists, it's just that arguing about belief isn't usually a conversation I'm looking for.

Just wanting to help. If you feel cognitive dissonance trying to reconcile your belief with your science, you should talk that through to find a solution. I'm willing to act as the wall you can bounce your ideas off.

Are you expert in any of those fields? Genuinely curious, because I don't know you.

Nope, just an interested layman.

Knowing how to do some things with the brain in no way should imply that we have learned all we need to know about the brain. But it's not simply brain we're talking about. We're talking about consciousness. Can you hold consciousness in your forceps?

I have a big problem with "consciousness", it's a word without an agreed upon definition.

That's all I can do here for a bit, I'm going to be traveling and there will be little time to be online.

If you're interested in continuing, great, I'll be back in a few weeks and I'll take a look. Or we can leave it at this.

I'm interest if you are. I'm comfortable with my position of methodological naturalism and I think I can explain why it is the rational position. If you are not interested, also OK.

 

[Polymath257]

Look again. There is purpose in Everything. Put the pieces together and there you will find God. Actions of God can not be manipulated like all those beliefs and religious writings. Everything will add up.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

Humans are very good at finding purpose and/or agency when there is none.

 

[Polymath257]

Either atoms think separately or they think collectively. What do you think?

Certain collections of atoms can think. All examples we know of are brains.

 

[YoursTrue]

Certain collections of atoms can think. All examples we know of are brains.

Lol thanks. Certain collections. They have to be magnetically connected I guess. Tell me about it...lol.

 

[YoursTrue]

Humans are very good at finding purpose and/or agency when there is none.

Beyond words.