What is Your Disbelief?

[TagliatelliMonster]

The emotion/phenomenon/abstract concept. These are not physical. They are metaphysical.

If you are saying that gods and spirits are real as abstract concepts, then sure.

Then they are as real as leprechauns and Darth Vader and The Force.

 

[Quintessence]

I believe it because of evidence. Sever the optic nerve, all experience the eyes see is lost, sever the spinal cord, all feeling, movement, experience below that cut is lost.

That's fair, thanks for answering! It sounds like you believe nothing is lost by explaining everything in these sorts of reductive physicalist terms as well, correct? It would be accurate to exclusively and solely characterize, say, the experience of sight by explaining it only in biological and/or physicalist terms?

That's precisely how ife is experienced.

If that is so, you should have no trouble telling us exactly what brain chemicals you experience when writing response to others posts as well as reading them. If you experience the words you are reading as brain chemicals, which brain chemicals are you experiencing right now? Can you tell us that without hooking yourself up to a monitoring machine telling you what brain chemicals you are experiencing?

No?

Then that's not how human life is actually experienced in the day-to-day, just like it isn't experienced on the atomic level or as a series of math equations. Which begs the question again - why reductionism? Even if it's true that all reality reduces to, say, a math equation or atoms or whatever, why does that matter when that isn't the way humans actually experience their daily lives? How does "brain chemicals" adequately describe the experience of a sunrise? How does "atomic structure" adequately describe the aesthetics of a sphere? How does "god" adequately describe the experience of oneness? And so on, and so on... pick the reductionism flavor, doesn't matter the type, really.

A better way to explore these things, honestly, is to make a good study of philosophy. It does a better justice to these sorts of questions and ideas than we can hope to do here.

 

[ChristineM]

It would be accurate to exclusively and solely characterize, say, the experience of sight by explaining it only in biological and/or physicalist terms?

How you experience sight is down to how the brain processes what you see.

If that is so, you should have no trouble telling us exactly what brain chemicals you experience when writing response to others posts as well as reading them

I am not a neurosurgeon so yes i do have trouble knowing which of serotonin, dopamine. acetylcholine, glutamate, norepinephrine and gamma-aminobutyric acid are used for whatever purpose.

No?

See above.

Then that's not how human life is actually experienced in the day-to-day,

It is, unless (as previously asked) you can provide an alternative, valid answer

why reductionism?

Again, it isn't reductionism,

How does "brain chemicals" adequately describe the experience of a sunrise?

The same way as it describes many other experiences, unless you can provide a valid alternative

How does "god"

Who? Which god?

A better way to explore these things, honestly, is to make a good study of philosophy.

No, no, no. Brain chemistry is not a philosophy, it is biology, neuroscience (more precisely neurochemistry)

 

[Quintessence]

How you experience sight is down to how the brain processes what you see.

That's not what I'm asking. I'm not asking about the reductive mechanism by which one can explain sight. I'm asking if we feel that the experience of seeing is adequately conveyed by solely describing it in those sorts of reductive, mechanistic, physicalist terms. Is your experience of seeing color adequately conveyed by describing the nanometer wavelength of light, the brain chemicals, and all that? Is there anything missing by limiting ourselves to describing reality - and how humans experience life and living in general - solely in reductive, mechanistic, physicalist terms?

To add, the fact that humans do not experience their lives solely in reductive, mechanistic, physicalist terms is the entire reason why they needed the sciences to uncover these mechanisms in the first place. That human bodies are composed of tiny molecules called atoms isn't obvious and not something humans observe or experience on the day-to-day. That human brains process information from their senses in terms of different neurotransmitters and electrochemical processes isn't obvious and not something humans observe or experience on the day-to-day. Humans needed the scientific method to uncover these things and tell them these things; these things contradict lived experience, sometimes to an extreme degree (as an aside, this is part of why science denialism exists in the first place too). The sciences are fantastic at accounting for what is going on "behind the curtain" so to speak but fails to reflect daily lived experiences. Does this help explain what I'm trying to say here?

I dunno, maybe you're that girl who thinks it is adequate to describe a painting in an art gallery in terms of its chemical pigments and the wavelengths of light entering your eye. I find that really, really weird.

 

[Nakosis]

I used to be a Development Chemical Engineer. My job was to come up with new ways to solve environmental problems, but at the EPA compliance levels, that were 10 years in the future. This meant I had often had to start with little in the way of what already existed in material reality; not yet seen There was often nothing off the shelf, since that tech would not be compliant in 10 years and may not extrapolate. Rather I had to reverse engineer old problems to new solutions, that could achieve future standards. This was to help the nuclear industries in terms of environmental compliance; future is now.

This blue sky research; no pressure, only works, if you have faith in what is not yet seen. I did not initially know what had to be done, but only that I felt I could do it, somehow. Like the artist, the process often begin as a hunch, and then maybe a few baby steps and a few falls, toward the goal until I am walking toward the light. Without faith in that which was yet to be seen, there would be no Pyramids, as well as no modern creature comforts and breakthroughs in science and technology.

It is not until these final objects appear, fully assembled in material reality, that some start to believe. However, they miss a lot of the front end excitement connected to discovery, exploring outside the visible box. Your box so too small for me. I would feel claustrophobic. My mind wishes to see what lies in the future, that is not yet visible to those in the box. I found my niche.

I see your future solution as the manipulation of data that exists in a physical state. AI can work on such solutions without the existence of any non-physical element necessary. I think perhaps the problem with this view is that you are putting physicality into a small box that it doesn't fit in.

However if you have a non-physical explanation for how you go about manipulating data to develop your solutions, I'm all ears. As a former engineer myself I certainly kept track of loads of data in order to develop solutions. Some of it written down, some of it stored on computers, some of it even in my head however as an ISO certified company they really frowned on that.

 

[ChristineM]

That's not what I'm asking. I'm not asking about the reductive mechanism by which one can explain sight. I'm asking if we feel that the experience of seeing is adequately conveyed by solely describing it in those sorts of reductive, mechanistic,

No what you see triggers various emotions, these to are products of the brain

Is your experience of seeing color adequately conveyed by describing the nanometer wavelength of light

Although i do know what frequency colours resonate at its not the frequency i think of when i see the colour.

Is there anything missing by limiting ourselves to describing reality -

I don't think so

That human bodies are composed of tiny molecules called atoms

No, molecules are made of atoms, usually several different types of atom, for example, a water molecule is composed of 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

That human brains process information from their senses in terms of different neurotransmitters and electrochemical processes isn't obvious and not something humans observe or experience on the day-to-day.

That doesn't matter. One doesn't see the workings of a power station when one turns on a light.

Humans needed the scientific method to uncover these things and tell them these things; these things contradict lived experience, sometimes to an extreme degree.

Education is a wonderful thing. Just think where we'd be without it.

The sciences are fantastic at accounting for what is going on "behind the curtain" so to speak but fails to reflect daily lived experiences. Does this help explain what I'm trying to say here?

Not really, science is there to explain the natural world .

I dunno, maybe you're that girl who thinks it is adequate to describe a painting in an art gallery in terms of its chemical pigments and the wavelengths of light entering your eye. I find that really, really weird.

Absolutely not. FYI i am an artist, that's how i earned my living.

 

[Nakosis]

The emotion/phenomenon/abstract concept. These are not physical. They are metaphysical.

Serotonin, Dopamine, Endorphins, Oxytocin are the the chemical compounds if supplied in sufficient quantities will cause you to feel happy. These are the known, tested and verified physical elements of the emotion. These hormones will make you feel happy as a person with a normal physical brain structure. I don't understand what element you think is missing from this.

You say "emotion", ok here are the physical elements. What do you think is missing from these physical elements that is necessary for you to feel happy?

The phenomenon/abstract intellectual concept of a thing is not the same as the experience. The hormones cause the experience. We may conceptualize it as a data set of attributes but it is not the same as the experience.

Emotion - physical
phenomenon - physical
Abstract concept - data physically stored in your brain.

I understand you may not agree with the explanation, but the physical explanation for all this exists. Your argument seems to consist of denying the physical explanation given so far but not really providing an alternative.

 

[Nakosis]

Supernatural is not the antonym for physical. Physical is what can be perceived with the sense organs...what can be seen, heard, touch, smelled, and tasted. Metaphysical is that which lies beyond the senses. The items I listed in the post you responded to are metaphysical, not physical.

You said you don't believe in anything non-physical. Does that include what is metaphysical?

Physical as I defined in the OP.
Anything that can be detected by the senses or that affects anything that can be detected by the senses. IOW we can't detect radio wave ourselves but radio waves affect other objects which we can detect their affect on. So anything non-physical would be undetectable by us by any means. So non-existent as far as humans are concerned.

You're going to have to spell out what you mean by metaphysical. One meaning is supernatural.
Another is beyond our ability to detect. Something beyond our ability to detect is virtually non-existent to us anyway.
For example ghosts would be metaphysical. So to answer your question, no I don't believe ghosts exist. Unless you have something else in mind when you say metaphysical.

 

[Nakosis]

IDK if this will help, but I'll assume everyone is familiar with their computer monitor. Information is stored as electrical charges on a medium in a computer system. While you could detect the electrical charges with equipment, you couldn't directly make sense of the information. What a video card does is take this information and with a monitor displays colors, letters, numbers, images that you can make sense of.

The video card interprets all that information and puts in in a format you can easily make sense of. I can assure you there is nothing non-physical about this process. It is 100% known how you get from bits of information you couldn't possibly understand, unless you're Neo from the matrix, to a beautiful picture on the screen that you experience seeing.

This is what the process of consciousness does. If I smash my thumb with a hammer, my hand send physical signals to my brain which interprets the information that I can consciously understand and presents it as pain.

We can't do touch, taste smell yet but we got sight and sound covered. It is a physical process. It's there, it's known, it's done, it is understood. There is nothing non-physical about the entire process.

 

[Quintessence]

@ChristineM - thanks for replying; I'm going to have to bow out. It's clear we're talking past each other... which tends to happen with these sorts of things and there's no way around that. I'm just gonna leave with this for anyone who wants to try and get out of the mind-cage they are thinking in with denying that the non-physical or metaphysical is very much a thing:

Qualia (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[ChristineM]

@ChristineM - thanks for replying; I'm going to have to bow out. It's clear we're talking past each other... which tends to happen with these sorts of things and there's no way around that. I'm just gonna leave with this for anyone who wants to try and get out of the mind-cage they are thinking in with denying that the non-physical or metaphysical is very much a thing:

Qualia (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The same but for physical.
Cheers

 

[Yerda]

We can't do touch, taste smell yet but we got sight and sound covered. It is a physical process. It's there, it's known, it's done, it is understood. There is nothing non-physical about the entire process.

There is a part that we don't understand about sight; how we can have a subjective experience we call "seeing" in the first place. I don't know that saying there's anything non-physical going on - given the way you phrased the OP even if it remains a mystery for all time it would still be physical since it affects physical stuff.

Anyway, this has been an interesting thread. Good work.

 

[paarsurrey]

What is Your Disbelief?

My disbelief is in Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism and all of their other denominations, whatever their label/name may be, please, right?
Why I believe in them, right, please??!

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

What is Your Disbelief?

My disbelief is in Western Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism and all of their other denominations, and Pauline-Christianity is the flip side of Western Atheism and the vice versa, whatever their label/name may be, please, right?
Why to believe in them, right, please??!

Regards

 

[Muffled]

What I don't believe exists is anything non-physical. Simply because I have no reason to believe in anything non-physical.
How I define physical is anything which can be detected by our senses or can affect something which we can detect by our senses.

Therefore anything claimed as supernatural or divine is imaginary to me. I understand other people believe in a reality which includes spiritual/non-physical elements. However in an argument or discussion these non-physical concepts have no significant meaning or explanatory value.

I don't mean this offensively, one has to choose for themselves what they are willing to accept. However this is how my mind works in discussions.

I don't believe in transmigration into animals. I believe only humans have a spiritual receptor.

 

[Kathryn]

I don't believe in reincarnation. I don't mind it if other people do, I just don't personally. I don't see the point, tbh.

 

[Muffled]

It is a coincidence that you should post this question. Something that I read earlier here got me thinking about why I parted from Christianity.
Some years ago I looked back on that and reviewed it. Christianity as I recall has aspects which would make a good contemplative and communal faith. But then the magic show arrived, with walking on water, virgin births and resurrections and so on. So that is my "disbelief".

What a shame. They ruined something that really had potential.

I believe you never understood Christianity to start with. I believe you are basing your belief on a null hypothesis because you lack experience.

 

[Muffled]

I don't believe in reincarnation.

I can't imagine why not unless you don't believe there is a soul. Again that is the null hypothesis because there is no evidence that the soul does not exist and there is at least literature saying that it does exist.

 

[Kathryn]

I can't imagine why not unless you don't believe there is a soul. Again that is the null hypothesis because there is no evidence that the soul does not exist and there is at least literature saying that it does exist.

I believe there are plenty of souls to go around, and we don't need to recycle any. Like I said, I don't mind if others believe in reincarnation but I don't personally. And I do believe there is a soul.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What I don't believe exists is anything non-physical. Simply because I have no reason to believe in anything non-physical.
How I define physical is anything which can be detected by our senses or can affect something which we can detect by our senses.

Therefore anything claimed as supernatural or divine is imaginary to me. I understand other people believe in a reality which includes spiritual/non-physical elements. However in an argument or discussion these non-physical concepts have no significant meaning or explanatory value.

I don't mean this offensively, one has to choose for themselves what they are willing to accept. However this is how my mind works in discussions.

So what about omnipresent 'dark energy', it can't be detected directly by our senses or even scientific instruments?