ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING! , consciousness

Reply
Old 28th December 2017, 03:13 PM   #41
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,654
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Despite it being off topic? Go ahead. Let's see how that works out.
Well, now you're just playing forum cop. I thought you had "pretty good knowledge of consciousness".
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2017, 03:51 PM   #42
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 16,765
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Everything is unproven, before it is proven. Little organisms we can't see making us sick? Laughable.
This is an incredibly ironic answer Fud. Before man knew about those tiny invisible organisms, he explained it as curses or the act of the devil or demons. Before we understood thunder and lightning or earthquakes or volcanos, man said they were caused by gods. Those answers NEVER EVER EVER got man closer to understanding anything.

Yes, it is true that everything that is proven was at one time unproven. Please tell me the use of answering one unproven question with an unproven entity? You're simply appealing to bigger mystery, not actually answering the question.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I am admitting we don't know. I think we should look in areas that might seem ridiculous. Ridiculous things sometimes turn out to be true. Other people (not just cranks) are starting to go this route: https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science...ous-ncna772956
Ridiculous ideas by definition are deserving of ridicule. I'd also correct you that people are just starting to go this route. I'd say people have been taking this route since there has been people.

And crazy ideas that end up working have reasons why they work.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2017, 04:32 PM   #43
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,654
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
This is an incredibly ironic answer Fud. Before man knew about those tiny invisible organisms, he explained it as curses or the act of the devil or demons.
There were also "Scientific" explanations given. Bad air was one of them. It was surprising how entrenched these beliefs were. Well, not that surprising if you spend any time trolling people on sites like Breitbart.

Quote:
Before we understood thunder and lightning or earthquakes or volcanos, man said they were caused by gods. Those answers NEVER EVER EVER got man closer to understanding anything.
True, and I'm not saying "god did it" when it comes to consciousness. But I am curious about some ideas that have dualistic implications, and I've always been a sucker for idealism, which pretty much requires some overarching intelligence (call it god for lack of a better word) to keep the whole dream from falling apart

Quote:
Yes, it is true that everything that is proven was at one time unproven. Please tell me the use of answering one unproven question with an unproven entity?
It happens all the time: What's the leading candidate for Dark Matter? WIMP's. Have WIMP's been proven yet? No.

Quote:
You're simply appealing to bigger mystery, not actually answering the question.
Solving a bigger mystery, might answer the question.

Quote:
Ridiculous ideas by definition are deserving of ridicule.
Until they work. How much more ridiculous can you get then Schroedinger's Cat? Even Einstein was appalled by QM. But it worked.


Quote:
I'd also correct you that people are just starting to go this route. I'd say people have been taking this route since there has been people.

I'd say it's a lot more mainstream now. Max Tegmark is very well respected. Check out his Mathematical Universe theory.

Quote:
And crazy ideas that end up working have reasons why they work.
And reasons why they were considered crazy.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2017, 07:00 PM   #44
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 16,765
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
There were also "Scientific" explanations given. Bad air was one of them. It was surprising how entrenched these beliefs were. Well, not that surprising if you spend any time trolling people on sites like Breitbart.
Bad air is much closer to the truth. Then the next question is what is bad about the air that causes those illness. At least by suggesting that the air is the reason, you have offered a line of inquiry to follow. When you say it is a miracle, you're done.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
True, and I'm not saying "god did it" when it comes to consciousness. But I am curious about some ideas that have dualistic implications, and I've always been a sucker for idealism, which pretty much requires some overarching intelligence (call it god for lack of a better word) to keep the whole dream from falling apart.
I don't have a clue what this means.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
It happens all the time: What's the leading candidate for Dark Matter? WIMP's. Have WIMP's been proven yet? No.
I grant you this but with a caveat. Scientists are only postulating a possible line of inquiry. And then they get to work proving it and if they can't they move on to another theory. When one refers to something miraculous or supernatural, one has immediately ended the inquiry since man is only able to investigate the natural or material world.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Solving a bigger mystery, might answer the question.
Fine. Tell us how we can prove the supernatural or divine. Do we pray for an answer?

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Until they work. How much more ridiculous can you get then Schroedinger's Cat? Even Einstein was appalled by QM. But it worked.
You're confusing Einstein's opposition to Quantum mechanics. Schrodinger's cat was as much a joke about how quantum mechanics might work for atomic particles, it doesn't work for large items.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
And reasons why they were considered crazy.
The problem isn't necessarily about crazy ideas as it is about using mysteries that have pretty much zero chance of being proven. Miracles are necessarily divine or supernatural and therefore beyond investigation. It ends inquiry as opposed to theories that are the beginning of inquiry.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2017, 06:40 AM   #45
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,919
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I think it would be a catastrophic failure if materialism continues to come up empty trying to explain something as fundamental as consciousness. I would eventually start looking at other theories, wouldn't you?
I haven't read up on the latest research in the last 20 years, but my impression at the end of the 90s was that progress is being made constantly, aided by advancing computer capabilities.
That is somewhat similar to the problem of controlled nuclear fusion: it's already understood in principle, progress is steady, and the amount of work still ahead, and the capacities needed before we get there are also understood at least in rough outline.
I am fairly convinced I'll see both prototype conscious machines and prototype fusion reactors before my lights go out. Another 20 years ought to be plenty of time.

Not quite 30 years, Douglas Hofstadter, in "Gödel Escher Bach" made prediction about how long it will take till chess programs beat the world champion. Turned out he was far too pessimistic, it happened way sooner than this AI expert thought.

I think the problem is with you, Fudbucker: you don't understand consciousness, and you project your own ignorance on others.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2017, 06:58 AM   #46
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 23,169
All 100% correct, Oystein, but I think we should be careful about allowing Fudbucker to straw-man the entire conversation with his trivial and illogical aside.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2017, 07:08 AM   #47
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,919
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
And so you will be telling me how the brain produces consciousness? Or at least a rough sketch of the causal mechanism? [b]Or at least what the word itself actually means?[b]

Until then, I will continue to point out this glaring flaw.
Waiiiit a second, you don't know what the word "consciousness" means, but you demand to have us explain how it works?

I could turn around on you and say that theism, nor metaphysics nor dualism, will ever explain how prelzinism works, and are therefore all to be rejected. Hell, there isn't even a known meaning to the word - I blame it on theism!

The failure to even know what you are talking about - what consciousness is, when you use the word, in your own mind - is your failure.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2017, 07:13 AM   #48
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 23,753
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I haven't read up on the latest research in the last 20 years, but my impression at the end of the 90s was that progress is being made constantly, aided by advancing computer capabilities.
That is somewhat similar to the problem of controlled nuclear fusion: it's already understood in principle, progress is steady, and the amount of work still ahead, and the capacities needed before we get there are also understood at least in rough outline.
I am fairly convinced I'll see both prototype conscious machines and prototype fusion reactors before my lights go out. Another 20 years ought to be plenty of time.

Not quite 30 years, Douglas Hofstadter, in "Gödel Escher Bach" made prediction about how long it will take till chess programs beat the world champion. Turned out he was far too pessimistic, it happened way sooner than this AI expert thought.

I think the problem is with you, Fudbucker: you don't understand consciousness, and you project your own ignorance on others.
Speculation followed by a non sequitur followed by a personal attack.

oy vey
__________________
"Created by the Legislature in 1927, the State Bar is an arm of the California Supreme Court, protecting the public by licensing and regulating attorneys."

-The State Bar of California Mission Statement
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2017, 08:13 AM   #49
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,490
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
If materialism leads to an absurd conclusion, like the existence of conscious pieces of meat, it's devastating for the theory.
Am I the only one that doesn't find "conscious pieces of meat" to be an absurd conclusion?

I mean, they're all around me. I am one. Why would I find it absurd? This seems like an argument from incredulity, like he's just trying to word it in a way that sounds strange even though it's an incredibly normal thing.

Calling them "pieces of meat" makes them sound like dead slabs of steak or something, and I agree that would be absurd. But we're talking about living brains, right? That's not absurd at all. I see critters with tiny little simple "brains", like bugs, that show very simple and limited behavior. Then I see the more complex ones show more complex behavior. Once you get to fancy enough brains, you've got really fancy complicated stuff including consciousness. This seems like a logical and observable progression.

Do I know all the mechanics of it? Nope. But that doesn't make it absurd. Will we ever understand it? I think we will, but that's not really important. If humans had been wiped out by a plague before we ever understood photosynthesis would that mean that it was impossible? After all, if materialism leads to an absurd conclusion, like the existence of vegetables that eat sunlight, it's devastating for the theory.

Some stuff we have already figured out. Some stuff we will probably figure out later. Some stuff we won't. That has no bearing on whether or not science is a useful tool or what is true. I can make almost anything sound absurd.

And to bring this all back to the topic at hand, this is one of the things that probably prevented me from remaining religious. This sort of incredulous "are you saying that fish somehow turned into monkeys?" thing worked on me for a little while but as soon as I started swatting down those arguments in areas where I disagreed with them I also started to recognize them coming from my own side. This very quickly whittled away at the foundations of religious belief.

Last edited by SOdhner; 29th December 2017 at 08:14 AM.
SOdhner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2017, 08:42 AM   #50
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 16,765
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
That is somewhat similar to the problem of controlled nuclear fusion: it's already understood in principle, progress is steady, and the amount of work still ahead, and the capacities needed before we get there are also understood at least in rough outline.
I am fairly convinced I'll see both prototype conscious machines and prototype fusion reactors before my lights go out. Another 20 years ought to be plenty of time.
Off topic... but my guess is no, you won't see a commercial nuclear fusion reactor in the next 30 years. Still, way too many hurdles since the longest controlled fusion reaction has been under 2 minutes. I'd bet on Thorium Fluoride Molten Salt Reactors though within the next 15 years.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2017, 08:43 AM   #51
StackOverflow
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 179
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Speculation followed by a non sequitur followed by a personal attack.

oy vey
'k

StackOverflow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2017, 08:53 AM   #52
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 23,753
Originally Posted by StackOverflow View Post
'k

Originally Posted by StackOverflow View Post
'k

Originally Posted by StackOverflow View Post
'k

__________________
"Created by the Legislature in 1927, the State Bar is an arm of the California Supreme Court, protecting the public by licensing and regulating attorneys."

-The State Bar of California Mission Statement
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2017, 09:05 AM   #53
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,654
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I haven't read up on the latest research in the last 20 years, but my impression at the end of the 90s was that progress is being made constantly, aided by advancing computer capabilities.
That is somewhat similar to the problem of controlled nuclear fusion: it's already understood in principle, progress is steady, and the amount of work still ahead, and the capacities needed before we get there are also understood at least in rough outline.
I am fairly convinced I'll see both prototype conscious machines and prototype fusion reactors before my lights go out. Another 20 years ought to be plenty of time.

Not quite 30 years, Douglas Hofstadter, in "Gödel Escher Bach" made prediction about how long it will take till chess programs beat the world champion. Turned out he was far too pessimistic, it happened way sooner than this AI expert thought.

I think the problem is with you, Fudbucker: you don't understand consciousness, and you project your own ignorance on others.
I look forward to hearing your explanation as to how brains produce consciousness, given all this research you talk about.

And let me ask an obvious question: how will you know if a machine is conscious or not?

And let me ask another obvious question: what is consciousness?
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2017, 09:08 AM   #54
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 16,765
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
Am I the only one that doesn't find "conscious pieces of meat" to be an absurd conclusion?

I mean, they're all around me. I am one. Why would I find it absurd? This seems like an argument from incredulity, like he's just trying to word it in a way that sounds strange even though it's an incredibly normal thing.

Calling them "pieces of meat" makes them sound like dead slabs of steak or something, and I agree that would be absurd. But we're talking about living brains, right? That's not absurd at all. I see critters with tiny little simple "brains", like bugs, that show very simple and limited behavior. Then I see the more complex ones show more complex behavior. Once you get to fancy enough brains, you've got really fancy complicated stuff including consciousness. This seems like a logical and observable progression.

Do I know all the mechanics of it? Nope. But that doesn't make it absurd. Will we ever understand it? I think we will, but that's not really important. If humans had been wiped out by a plague before we ever understood photosynthesis would that mean that it was impossible? After all, if materialism leads to an absurd conclusion, like the existence of vegetables that eat sunlight, it's devastating for the theory.

Some stuff we have already figured out. Some stuff we will probably figure out later. Some stuff we won't. That has no bearing on whether or not science is a useful tool or what is true. I can make almost anything sound absurd.

And to bring this all back to the topic at hand, this is one of the things that probably prevented me from remaining religious. This sort of incredulous "are you saying that fish somehow turned into monkeys?" thing worked on me for a little while but as soon as I started swatting down those arguments in areas where I disagreed with them I also started to recognize them coming from my own side. This very quickly whittled away at the foundations of religious belief.
I agree entirely. There will always questions and followup questions. We're like little kids asking the question why. We're peeling back the onion.

I despise the 'divine' answer because it is not only not an answer and has no explanatory power, it limits our ability to inquire more.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2017, 09:09 AM   #55
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 23,169
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I look forward to hearing your explanation as to how brains produce consciousness, given all this research you talk about.

And let me ask an obvious question: how will you know if a machine is conscious or not?

And let me ask another obvious question: what is consciousness?
Let me ask YOU an obvious question: what is your explanation of the link between this, your little pet hobby-horse (much discussed in other threads), and the thread title. Make it good......
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2017, 09:23 AM   #56
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,654
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Let me ask YOU an obvious question: what is your explanation of the link between this, your little pet hobby-horse (much discussed in other threads), and the thread title. Make it good......
I already explained: the hard-problem of consciousness is what turned me from a strong-atheist to agnostic (weak atheist).

Or were only strong-atheists allowed to comment in this thread?
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2017, 09:37 AM   #57
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 16,765
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I look forward to hearing your explanation as to how brains produce consciousness, given all this research you talk about.

And let me ask an obvious question: how will you know if a machine is conscious or not?

And let me ask another obvious question: what is consciousness?
You really are hijacking this thread.
There are machines all over the world that are conscious. They're aware of their surroundings and react to them.

All that seems necessary are sensors and some kind of processor and you have created a low level form of consciousness.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2017, 10:40 AM   #58
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,654
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
You really are hijacking this thread.
There are machines all over the world that are conscious. They're aware of their surroundings and react to them.

All that seems necessary are sensors and some kind of processor and you have created a low level form of consciousness.
Oh, I see. Talking about my atheism and how science has affected it is hijacking a thread called "Is your atheism predominately a science success or a theism fail?"

And conscious machines? Link?
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2017, 10:49 AM   #59
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,655
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I already explained: the hard-problem of consciousness is what turned me from a strong-atheist to agnostic (weak atheist).

Or were only strong-atheists allowed to comment in this thread?
And what then turned you from an agnostic (weak atheist) to a theist?

Perhaps you should've chosen to use the "hard problem " of "love" instead of "consciousness"? After all, as all good theists know, science can't explain love either.

I'm happy for members of any ilk to comment in this thread.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2017, 10:52 AM   #60
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,571
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I already explained: the hard-problem of consciousness is what turned me from a strong-atheist to agnostic (weak atheist).

Or were only strong-atheists allowed to comment in this thread?
Man, there are so many other threads for you to genuinely comment in and you have commented in than this one regarding your pet-theory. Now you come up with some tenuous at best reason for derailing this one back to your pet-theory.

Seriously. What's the problem that you cannot bump another of the other half-dozen more-related threads?
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2017, 10:52 AM   #61
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,654
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
And what then turned you from an agnostic (weak atheist) to a theist?

Perhaps you should've chosen to use the "hard problem " of "love" instead of "consciousness"? After all, as all good theists know, science can't explain love either.

I'm happy for members of any ilk to comment in this thread.
I'm not a theist.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2017, 10:56 AM   #62
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,654
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Man, there are so many other threads for you to genuinely comment in and you have commented in than this one regarding your pet-theory. Now you come up with some tenuous at best reason for derailing this one back to your pet-theory.

Seriously. What's the problem that you cannot bump another of the other half-dozen more-related threads?
I don't see how it's tenuous. I was a hardcore atheist for a long time. Then I started to really examine the hard problem of consciousness. Now I've concluded science (or specifically, science based on a materialist foundation) won't solve it, and that failure of science has bled over into my other science-based beliefs, like atheism.

You are free to ignore my posts, if they disturb you, which they seem to do. God knows why.

ETA: and you're really going to complain about me when BobTheCoward is currently gumming up the works in about a dozen threads? That's kind of amusing. No offense, Bob.

Last edited by Fudbucker; 29th December 2017 at 10:59 AM.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2017, 11:02 AM   #63
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 23,169
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
.......You are free to ignore my posts, if they disturb you, which they seem to do. God knows why.
Why would using every single post for 5 pages or more to climb back on your same-old-same-old hobby horse, utterly off topic, disturb anyone? I mean, we're all so grateful you've chosen here of all places to propound repetitively and endlessly your personal predelictions, when you could have, for instance, done it in a thread on consciousness. Heaven forefend.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2017, 11:09 AM   #64
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 16,765
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Oh, I see. Talking about my atheism and how science has affected it is hijacking a thread called "Is your atheism predominately a science success or a theism fail?"

And conscious machines? Link?
Self driving cars

The real question is how do you define consciousness? Are there different levels of consciousness?

Here is a link to a Japanese machine that is self aware.

http://www.businessinsider.com/this-...til-now-2015-7
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Last edited by acbytesla; 29th December 2017 at 11:13 AM.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2017, 11:59 AM   #65
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,655
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I'm not a theist.
Well you certainly don’t have the smell of an atheist. Perhaps in truth you see yourself as an agnostic that’s neither theist nor atheist? (Please let’s not have that debate in this thread).

In the beginning you were a hard-atheist but then you realised science couldn’t answer the hard question of conciseness so you became a weak-atheist. Why? Science doesn’t know, therefore perhaps some goddidit? Your disappointment in science makes a god of magic and miracles more likely? Why?

Science is a knowledge system, theism is a belief system, why does your perceived failure of a knowledge system drive you toward a belief system? Are you really that desperate for an immediate answer that you're prepared to abandon the credibility of credibility (I guess so). Theism awaits you if it doesn't already have you.

ETA - I have you down as a weak atheist due to weak science success. You happy with that?
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 29th December 2017 at 12:34 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2017, 12:14 PM   #66
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,058
It's a side effect from reading a lot.
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2017, 12:16 PM   #67
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,655
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
It's a side effect from reading a lot.
And over-thinking it.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2017, 12:35 PM   #68
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 16,765
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Well you certainly don’t have the smell of an atheist. Perhaps in truth you see yourself as an agnostic that’s neither theist nor atheist? (Please let’s not have that debate in this thread).

In the beginning you were a hard-atheist but then you realised science couldn’t answer the hard question of conciseness so you became a weak-atheist. Why? Science doesn’t know, therefore perhaps some goddidit? Your disappointment in science makes a god of of magic and miracles more likely?

Science is a knowledge system, theism is a belief system, why does your perceived failure of a knowledge system drive you toward a belief system? Are you really that desperate for an immediate answer that you're prepared to abandon the credibility of credibility (I guess so). Theism awaits you if it doesn't already have you.
I don't get him either. It comes off as phony or illogical or both. Fud says he's not a theist and perhaps in a pure sense of the word he's not. But nevertheless, his advocacy of looking beyond the material world reeks of the same kind of superstitious nonsense that accompanies theism. He suggests that because science has of yet been unable to answer questions that beings have thought about long before the advent of the scientific method is a reason to abandon it and look elsewhere. I don't fathom that.

I know of NOTHING that is not material and have never seen any proof of anything that is immateral does or could exist. And I'm sure that Fud doesnt have a clue how to test for this and if we could test for it it would cease to be immaterial. There in lies his conundrum.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2017, 12:50 PM   #69
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,654
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Well you certainly don’t have the smell of an atheist. Perhaps in truth you see yourself as an agnostic that’s neither theist nor atheist? (Please let’s not have that debate in this thread).
OK.

Quote:
In the beginning you were a hard-atheist but then you realised science couldn’t answer the hard question of conciseness so you became a weak-atheist. Why? Science doesn’t know, therefore perhaps some goddidit? Your disappointment in science makes a god of magic and miracles more likely? Why?
Science doesn't know, but the key is I believe science won't ever know. It's unequipped to solve that one. Specifically, because the foundation it's built upon (physicalism/materialism) is incapable of providing an explanation. When one model of reality takes a hit, other competing models become more credible. So I went from strong-atheist to not sure. Perhaps idealism is true and there's an overarching intelligence at work that you could maybe call a "god". I wouldn't be terribly surprised.

Quote:
Science is a knowledge system, theism is a belief system, why does your perceived failure of a knowledge system drive you toward a belief system?
There are basically three models of reality: materialism (mind-independent matter/energy), immaterialism (no mind-independent matter/energy), and dualism (a mix of the two). Materialism has no room for gods, obviously, so if materialism leads to an absurdity, as I believe it does, the other two models become more believable.

Quote:
Are you really that desperate for an immediate answer that you're prepared to abandon the credibility of credibility (I guess so). Theism awaits you if it doesn't already have you.
As I've said repeatedly, it's not the sort of thing science is going to solve, using the methods we have now. We're no closer to figuring out the cause of why things are conscious then we've ever been. That's why you see ideas like IIT and panpsychism gaining ground.

Quote:
ETA - I have you down as a weak atheist due to weak science success. You happy with that?
Sure.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2017, 12:54 PM   #70
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,655
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
my other science-based beliefs, like atheism.
I assume you mean “hard-atheism’ as in “I believe there are no gods”, as opposed to default-atheism (what you call “weak-atheism”) which is no god beliefs at all.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2017, 12:58 PM   #71
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,654
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
I assume you mean “hard-atheism’ as in “I believe there are no gods”, as opposed to default-atheism (what you call “weak-atheism”) which is no god beliefs at all.
Right.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2017, 12:59 PM   #72
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,571
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I don't see how it's tenuous. I was a hardcore atheist for a long time. Then I started to really examine the hard problem of consciousness. Now I've concluded science (or specifically, science based on a materialist foundation) won't solve it, and that failure of science has bled over into my other science-based beliefs, like atheism.
Okay, well, I have several follow up questions but I don't really wish to continue the derail here, so I'll leave you with this last word.



Quote:
You are free to ignore my posts, if they disturb you, which they seem to do. God knows why.
Disturb? Eh, maybe. But we're all here working within a specific set of rules which we're all supposed to follow and we're also told that much of what goes on here is member-driven, so I'm doing my part as I see it. I'm not sure why you're so driven to continue posting in this particular thread when you've already contributed and discussed the exact issue in other threads.


Quote:
ETA: and you're really going to complain about me when BobTheCoward is currently gumming up the works in about a dozen threads? That's kind of amusing. No offense, Bob.
I actually have pointed out in-thread and reported his off-topic nonsense as being such in the past and when I see it again I will most likely continue pointing it out and reporting it.


Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I'm not a theist.
When you don't care enough to be precise in your terminology (you have said many times you will use the word 'god' as an accurate description of your beliefs) why would you care enough to claim being an atheist over a theist?
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2017, 12:59 PM   #73
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,654
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I don't get him either. It comes off as phony or illogical or both. Fud says he's not a theist and perhaps in a pure sense of the word he's not. But nevertheless, his advocacy of looking beyond the material world reeks of the same kind of superstitious nonsense that accompanies theism. He suggests that because science has of yet been unable to answer questions that beings have thought about long before the advent of the scientific method is a reason to abandon it and look elsewhere. I don't fathom that.

I know of NOTHING that is not material and have never seen any proof of anything that is immateral does or could exist. And I'm sure that Fud doesnt have a clue how to test for this and if we could test for it it would cease to be immaterial. There in lies his conundrum.
That's pretty strong considering we only know what 5% of the universe is.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2017, 01:09 PM   #74
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 16,765
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Science doesn't know, but the key is I believe science won't ever know. It's unequipped to solve that one. Specifically, because the foundation it's built upon (physicalism/materialism) is incapable of providing an explanation. When one model of reality takes a hit, other competing models become more credible. So I went from strong-atheist to not sure. Perhaps idealism is true and there's an overarching intelligence at work that you could maybe call a "god". I wouldn't be terribly surprised.
Total Nonsense. You simply do not know this and the fact is science has been the singular most effective method of knowing anything conclusively.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
There are basically three models of reality: materialism (mind-independent matter/energy), immaterialism (no mind-independent matter/energy), and dualism (a mix of the two). Materialism has no room for gods, obviously, so if materialism leads to an absurdity, as I believe it does, the other two models become more believable.
While there may be three models, there is in fact only one model that isnt simply a hypothetical.
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
As I've said repeatedly, it's not the sort of thing science is going to solve, using the methods we have now. We're no closer to figuring out the cause of why things are conscious then we've ever been. That's why you see ideas like IIT and panpsychism gaining ground.
And no matter how many times you say it, it is nothing more than bad air. I'd argue that we generally know what is involved in consciousness and only a few details remain and there is very little reason..No, no reason to look outside the material for the answer.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Last edited by acbytesla; 29th December 2017 at 01:22 PM.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2017, 01:17 PM   #75
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 16,765
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
That's pretty strong considering we only know what 5% of the universe is.
So? And the ONLY reason we know what we do know is from science.

But since you think there is another way I CHALLENGE YOU to tell us how. Please expound on this other method to learn about the universe. Should we pray for an answer?
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2017, 04:42 PM   #76
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 42,389
First of all, any statement in the lines of "Science cannot explain X" should always end with the word "...yet"
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2017, 04:55 PM   #77
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,654
This must have taken some work. Thanks mods!
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2017, 04:56 PM   #78
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,654
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
First of all, any statement in the lines of "Science cannot explain X" should always end with the word "...yet"
Why? Why are you so sure there's an explanation to everything? Science is running up against some hard limits in cosmology and particle physics. When it comes to proving whether other universes exist, there probably won't be a "yet". they're likely causally disconnected fro us. It will just be inferred from inflationary theory.

Last edited by Fudbucker; 29th December 2017 at 05:10 PM.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2017, 05:00 PM   #79
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,654
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
So? And the ONLY reason we know what we do know is from science.

But since you think there is another way I CHALLENGE YOU to tell us how. Please expound on this other method to learn about the universe. Should we pray for an answer?
I never said anything about praying, but perhaps taking seriously Gregory Matloff’s proto-consciousness field would be a start. And other ideas that are off-the-wall.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2017, 05:11 PM   #80
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 16,765
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I never said anything about praying, but perhaps taking seriously Gregory Matloff’s proto-consciousness field would be a start. And other ideas that are off-the-wall.
Yea, I think it's another version of woo. Sounds like a tech version of astrology. Bovine excrement piled high for the 21st century.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:52 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.