The Appeal Of Atheism?

[Log]

Look. You just don't even know what you are talking about. Apparently you just learned these words from me.

Actually, not, Turki.

Emergent properties are not "fairy dust" since in each case we can say more about how the structures emerge in terms of the lower level (like statistical mechanics).

Supervenience in this context is simply the assertion that there is no change in "mind" without a corresponding change in (brain) matter; it is a logical consequence of the assertion that mental states can be reduced, without remainder, to material states. Emergent properties in this context is simply the assertion that "mind just happens given such-and-such a configuration of matter." Both are logical consequences of materialism; both are examples of begging the question. And hence, both are faith claims and have no more epistemic value than appealing to pixie dust to explain the mind.

I have repeated this and you ignore it, preferring to pretend that emergence is an appeal to some fuzzy concept for which we do not give and mechanisms. But we do!

As an analogy, Windows XP is not explained by the statement "Windows XP is an emergent property of my computer's physical matrix." In the context of the study of the mind, "emergent properties" is not fuzzy at all - it is simply a dodge, a promise that someday, over the rainbow, there will be found, along with leprechaun gold and pixie dust, a complete, causally specific, material explanation of the mind, and at that time, mind will not be described in terms of "emergent properties."

So, yes, I ignore each example you give which is irrelevant to the subject at hand - unless you wish to advance an argument of this form -"The mind is like temperature with qualities X, Y, and Z; since temperature is an emergent property of matter due specifically to these qualities, so also is mind;" however, to advance such an argument is to admit what I called you out on in the first place: you don't have a complete, causally specific materialistic description of the path from particles to mind. Mind may be what brains do, but you don't know it, and it is sheer arrogance which drives your claim.

[ruski_canuk]

Actually, not, Turki.

Supervenience in this context is simply the assertion that there is no change in "mind" without a corresponding change in (brain) matter; it is a logical consequence of the assertion that mental states can be reduced, without remainder, to material states. Emergent properties in this context is simply the assertion that "mind just happens given such-and-such a configuration of matter." Both are logical consequences of materialism; both are examples of begging the question. And hence, both are faith claims and have no more epistemic value than appealing to pixie dust to explain the mind.

As an analogy, Windows XP is not explained by the statement "Windows XP is an emergent property of my computer's physical matrix." In the context of the study of the mind, "emergent properties" is not fuzzy at all - it is simply a dodge, a promise that someday, over the rainbow, there will be found, along with leprechaun gold and pixie dust, a complete, causally specific, material explanation of the mind, and at that time, mind will not be described in terms of "emergent properties."

So, yes, I ignore each example you give which is irrelevant to the subject at hand - unless you wish to advance an argument of this form -"The mind is like temperature with qualities X, Y, and Z; since temperature is an emergent property of matter due specifically to these qualities, so also is mind;" however, to advance such an argument is to admit what I called you out on in the first place: you don't have a complete, causally specific materialistic description of the path from particles to mind. Mind may be what brains do, but you don't know it, and it is sheer arrogance which drives your claim.

Lets assume you are right and there is presently no reliable theory which connects a change in the 'mind' with changes in 'brain matter' (I suggest reading theories such as the computational theory of mind by Stephen Pinker to check your assumption). Ok. What then is the explanatory difference of saying that the remaining mystery is caused by a "spirit" vs. saying that we still don't fully understand what causes it ? It is the whimsical nature of defining phenomenon in such fuzzy terms which bothers me - 'the spirit' can mean anything to anyone and thus any rational discussion around it is moot.

I see no difference between saying 'I believe in God' and 'I believe in the great energy of zoober' unless you define what you mean by that. Until then we are just debating an ill-construed problem of your socialized concept of God vs. mine.

[Tarski]

Actually, not, Turki.

Back at the name calling huh? LOL

I feel for ya. I think you know I am right and it scares you deeply.

Inspect every piece of pseudoscience and you will find a security blanket, a thumb to suck, a skirt to hold. ~Isaac Asimov

It also must be embarrassing when your whole theory (or non-theory) can be put on the back of a postage stamp and features undefined made up non-explanatory notions such as "eternal pre-existent intelligence".

You can stand triumphantly on your postage stamp and I will take up my position along with the massive ongoing successful project of cognitive science and neurology science.

[Log]

That you cannot respond to my CFR for your claim that "mind is what brains do" says quite a bit about the success of that program, indeed.

[Tarski]

That you cannot respond to my CFR for your claim that "mind is what brains do" says quite a bit about the success of that program, indeed.

I did in spades already and you denied it like a man staring at the sun and claiming it is night.

Here is more that deal directly with the physical/natural nature of cognition and meaning:

1) Darwin's Dangerous Idea (last few chapters)-Dan Dennett

2) The Intensional Stance-Dennett

3) Consciousness and the Computational Mind-Ray Jackendoff

4) Matter and Consciousness -Paul Churchland

5) Topological Semiosis and the Evolution of Meaning-Jay Lemke

See also anything by MIT's Steven Pinker.

[BarrelO'Mangoes]

This is precisely the point that I brought up yesterday in Sunday school!

No kidding?

I was recounting how myopic I had been about 15-years ago when I came to the point in my Church membership when I told God, "Look, if you want me to keep producing, I want all my questions answered first."

It took me some time to realize that if I had all my questions answered first, it wasn't really faith. It was knowledge.

I then told the class that, as far as I can tell from the scriptures, we are not saved by knowledge; we are saved by faith.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Well, I think the reason faith is seen as a virtue is because you are believing in something lacking the evidence or proof. I mean, how difficult is it to believe in something where you have the evidence right in front of you? I understand that religious faith is a virtue and don't find myself, usually, asking those of faith to support their beliefs with evidence. I just don't understand why the term is misapplied so often.

[BarrelO'Mangoes]

Because the causal closure of the physical domain is, in principle, undemonstrable, yet you believe it.

Okay, I have no earthly idea what you mean by "casual closure of the physical domain", so I'm not certain if I believe in it, or not.

Yes, there is. The Book of Mormon, for one. Each living witness of the Son of God, for another.

Well, that's unfortunate that you have evidence for your religious beliefs seeing that this lessens the virtue of faith.

It all depends on the definition of "mind." Certainly it is the case that when the brain is poked, prodded, or destroyed that this affects behavior.

How about intelligent quotient? How about thought processes? For instance one can become enraged and in a state of fury after a brain injury, yet, they may never actually have a behavior that reflects this -- rather it could be purely thoughts.

[wenglund]

Well no it doesn't help.

(1) above conflates hypothesis with theory and seems to suggest that something can be empirically proven once and for all. It also imports the unnecessary notion of faith.

(2) foists a loaded notion of "materialism" on us. We are merely talking about explaining intelligence, human behavior and so in terms of natural science.

(4) "Beliefs/faiths have unreasonably and pejoritively been reduced to being called "fairy dust""

No! The unmotivated introduction of ill defined entities such as pre-existent intelligence and spirit which do not figure in any theoretical structure are what we are talking about. These entities stay at the level of mere words and have no explanitory power. These entities are what we are calling fairy dust. Not the beliefs.

What entities does "materialism" posit that you think have no explanitory power, are ill defined or have no empirical support?

By the way, what propostitions are you referring to in (1)?

Your response to me above is a case study of the fallacy of over-precision and nit picking, and leaves little mystery as to why you continue to miss Log's simple point.

Enjoy the self-induced fog.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Log]

I did in spades already and you denied it like a man staring at the sun and claiming it is night.

I deny it rather like someone staring at a proof for squaring the circle and claiming it is fatally flawed.

[Tarski]

Your response to me above is a case study of the fallacy of over-precision and nit picking, and leaves little mystery as to why you continue to miss Log's simple point.

Enjoy the self-induced fog.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I understand you both to the extent that you are making sense. You are just both wrong and often confused. It is also very familiar. This whole subject is a well worn terrain in my life.

[BarrelO'Mangoes]

I disagree. To believe in something with no evidence at all is blind faith. That's not the type of faith that the Church views as a virtue.

I never argue semantics, mostly because there is no "right" or "wrong" meaning of any word. If necessary I explain my usage of a term. If you disagree with my usage it doesn't mean that I'm "wrong" and you're "right" - it merely means that you want to score points in the argument.

I take the view that if we both seem to be understanding each other than there's no problem with non-standard usage of words.

But you don't have sure knowledge that the sun will rise tomorrow. There are things that might prevent it. If the son went nova over night you would never know it - the Earth would effectively be destroyed before the sun rose again. If you died during the night then yes, the sun would rise, but you wouldn't be there to see it. Therefore believing that the sun will rise tomorrow and that you will be there is an act of faith. A small act, as it seems very likely the sun will rise, but an act of faith nevertheless.

The faith issue is going waaay off-topic. I don't have a problem with creative word usage, yet, we're not in agreement about application of this term. There's a reason, I assume, that faith is applied to scientific theories or science in general, and I dispute this, when it occurs.

About the sun rising. To believe something will occur where you have evidence to support this belief is not faith. For instance, when putting my keys in the ignition I don't rely on faith that it will turn over. Now, could something have gone wrong with my vehicle overnight? Could someone have siphoned off all my gas? All sorts of things could occur, yet, my belief that my car will start when I twist the key is not relying on faith.

Materialism postulates that all human behaviors have a cause grounded strictly in the physical. That claim cannot at this time be demonstrated to be factually correct, so to believe it is correct is a faith claim.

This is rather exhausting. When I have gaps in my knowledge I don't fill them in with the default of God. I do not know some answers and I likely will not ever know. So, if I subscribe to the theory of evolution, yet, don't know the answers to abiogenesis this does not mean I'm relying on faith -- it merely means that I subscribe to what is known.

Also, something doesn't have to be proven factually correct or rely on faith. Please look up the definition. It is simple. It's lack of evidence that is the determining factor -- not proof.

[Tarski]

I deny it rather like someone staring at a proof for squaring the circle and claiming it is fatally flawed.

Did you read the references?

No.

[wenglund]

I understand you both to the extent that you are making sense.

I disagree. But, you lack the sense to be informed otherwise. So, there is no point in continuing to try--think whatever you will.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[BarrelO'Mangoes]

I am not sure why some of our atheist friends are having such a difficult time grasping Log's simple point.

I don't think I'm missing his point. I just disagree with it.

1) Until a proposition is empirically confirmed, it remains theoretical, and thus a belief/faith.

Faith is a specific type of belief.

Let's pretend there is a big circle.

Biggest circle is labeled BELIEF.

Within that circle is a smaller circle labeled FAITH.

Faith is a type of belief. What kind you ask? A belief that lacks evidence to support it.

So, given the Golden Rule (including any secular version thereof), if one does not wish to have one's belief/faith in materialism reduced to being called "fairy dust" or "magic", then don't reduce other beliefs/faith in the same way.

I hope this helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, when I used the terms (can't recall which ones I may have used -- moon dust??) I was talking about the special magical "stuff" that is being asserted as responsible for the mind. Not saying that the belief, per se is moon dust.

[Jason]

About the sun rising. To believe something will occur where you have evidence to support this belief is not faith.

It is in my book.

A missionary had evidence that people's lives can be changed by the message he brings because he has watched it happen to previous people he helped convert. Is he exercising faith when he does a new door approach? Yes he is. He has evidence that he's on the right path but he must exercise faith that he can do it again.

For instance, when putting my keys in the ignition I don't rely on faith that it will turn over.

Yes you do. You have faith that your car will start precisely because it has started many times before when you did the same thing, but it is faith. You wouldn't get into your car and attempt to start it if you didn't have faith that it will probably start and get you where you want to go.

This is rather exhausting. When I have gaps in my knowledge I don't fill them in with the default of God. I do not know some answers and I likely will not ever know. So, if I subscribe to the theory of evolution, yet, don't know the answers to abiogenesis this does not mean I'm relying on faith -- it merely means that I subscribe to what is known.

Absolutely it means you are relying on faith. You are relying on faith that there are scientific answers to the holes that have not yet been filled and that these answers may some day be found by diligent scientists. There is no way to show that this is actually the case, so it's a faith claim.

[Tarski]

If one is even going to talk about whether the physical world is causally closed one had better have something that lies outside of that causal circle to talk about. Where is it? What are it's properties?

Natural science does not define the physical and then declare it is all there is. It is more the case that anything that can be made precise and shown to explain what we see is welcome. It has to make the cut. It has to be subjected to criticsim and clarity is demanded. Mechanisms of action and principles of testability must be put forth.

But it just doesn't get off the ground. There is a reason for this. It's a failure.

In fact, anything that can be shown to be causally or lawfully connected with the physical is already within the broader ken of the natural sciences. So if there were something called spirit causally connected to human bodies, it would be something that affects the physical and it would therefore be within the circle of science--even measurable. What can effect a neuron can effect our instruments even more since be eliminating the kind of thermal noise in the brain we can expect to measure far more subtle effects.

Anyone is free to demonstrate it's existence and, importantly, exhibit its properties and show how it explains something not explainable otherwise.

People try to do just that but they fail. Medieval metaphysics has given way to more precise and less magical ideas. We now have physics, chemistry, biology, neurology and so on. These are interconnected in ways we can understand.

Libraries are filled with insight based on these sciences but where has any of this Mormon metaphysics of pre-existent intelligence led? To real understanding, real science? I think not.

But why even hope for entities that naturalistic approach can't touch? Whatever you think spirit is, matter is already all that and more.

[Jason]

If one is even going to talk about whether the physical world is causally closed one had better have something that lies outside of that causal circle to talk about.

So you must have a counter-theory in order to point out the holes in an existing theory?

[Tarski]

So you must have a counter-theory in order to point out the holes in an existing theory?

You must have a real counter theory to have a counter theory so to speak. What we see is talk of spirits and intelligences. Not just talk of gaps in science. Thats a fake counter theory.

By the way, I am interested in what gaps fascinate you and what you think they connect to religion.

They are simple gaps in science, not a pointer to every joe's favorite religion.

[Jason]

You must have a real counter theory to have a counter theory so to speak. What we see is talk of spirits and intelligences. Not just talk of gaps in science. Thats a fake counter theory.

By the way, I am interested in what gaps fascinate you and what you think they connect to religion.

They are simple gaps in science, not a pointer to every joe's favorite religion.

Log hasn't been arguing that religion explains the gaps between particles and consciousness - he's merely been arguing that materialism hasn't filled them.

[Log]

I deny (that Tarski's sources contain a complete, detailed, causally specific path from brain to mind) rather like someone staring at a proof for squaring the circle and claiming it is fatally flawed.

Did you read the references?

No.

So, I went down to the bookstore, to check one of Tarski's *cough* sources which, he purports, contain a complete, detailed, causally specific path from brain to mind.

"Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Might as well start there. Let's see, Mind - is brain, page 370. <pages turning> Dennett: 'Of course mind is brain.'"

Of course it is. Of course.

You can just imagine my surprise.

I understand you both to the extent that you are making sense. You are just both wrong and often confused. It is also very familiar. This whole subject is a well worn terrain in my life.

<snort> I just bet it is.

[BarrelO'Mangoes]

It is in my book.

ooookay

Absolutely it means you are relying on faith. You are relying on faith that there are scientific answers to the holes that have not yet been filled and that these answers may some day be found by diligent scientists. There is no way to show that this is actually the case, so it's a faith claim.

Well, I actually don't know what scientists will figure out or even know if they will. I'm not counting on it.... I mean, it's not what I base my life on. Is it possible that new discoveries are made? Yep. Do I think there will be continued new discoveries? Yep. Why? Because I can check NOVA every so often and see that this is exactly what is occurring! As long as scientists do continue to fill in the gaps then it's not faith, at all.

Here's your problem, Jason. Your default position is to go back to God. My default position is to say, "I don't know". My position doesn't rely on diddlysquat -- yours relies on your need to fill in those gaps. If you do not have evidence to support your belief that God created the world, humans, or whatever else you believe then you are relying on faith. When I say, "Hmm.... these are cool theories, and I wish we knew more" this is merely relying on what is known and looking forward to new discoveries that may or may not happen. No faith.

[BarrelO'Mangoes]

"Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Might as well start there. Let's see, Mind - is brain, page 370. <pages turning> Dennett: 'Of course mind is brain.'"

What do you think the brain does? Do you think the mind is something not attributable to the brain? What is the mind, then?

[Tarski]

Log hasn't been arguing that religion explains the gaps between particles and consciousness - he's merely been arguing that materialism hasn't filled them.

Oh really? No pre-existent intelligence? No spirit? None of that plays into this?

Why don't you guys explain to me exactly what the gap is. Maybe that would help.

[Jason]

Well, I actually don't know what scientists will figure out or even know if they will.

Which is why it's a faith claim to believe that they will eventually find a materialistic answer to things we don't know today.

As long as scientists do continue to fill in the gaps then it's not faith, at all.

The faith comes in believing scientists will continue to fill in gaps.

Here's your problem, Jason. Your default position is to go back to God. My default position is to say, "I don't know". My position doesn't rely on diddlysquat -- yours relies on your need to fill in those gaps. If you do not have evidence to support your belief that God created the world, humans, or whatever else you believe then you are relying on faith. When I say, "Hmm.... these are cool theories, and I wish we knew more" this is merely relying on what is known and looking forward to new discoveries that may or may not happen. No faith.

I disagree. My "default" position is not to go back to God - I go back to God when the evidence of my experiences directs me there.

I don't believe God created humans and the Earth because I don't have any better explanation - I believe God created humans and the Earth because I have received a spiritual witness that He did so. Positive evidence, in other words, not a "fill in the gaps" or "revert to default" attitude.

[Tarski]

"Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Might as well start there. Let's see, Mind - is brain, page 370. <pages turning> Dennett: 'Of course mind is brain.'"

So you read up to page 370 and considered it with an open mind in conjunction with the his previous prepratory work "Consciousness Explained"?

You just jumped to 370 for a sound bite. Very revealing.