lets not separate our food from our poo either. For they are both matter. Oh wait living matter like that which is between our ears is used to create understanding, to understand we need to have ideas and metal constructs of what things are and how they work. To do this we need to label things and put them into categories. Maybe foresight and nonforesight matter could be a category?
(continuation) I think it goes wrong when people start to add value to the categories. For example: "I breathe so I'm more important than that rock!" The universe doesn't work that way! That rock is equally a part of the universe as you are! Like the bacteria, animals, plants, planets, galaxies! Like everything!
The human mind categorises to understand things better. In fact, categorisation is part of our language, our way of being human. I think categorisation is fine, when used WISELY. :-)
Separating life from the rest of reality is silly, because life is PART of reality. However, separating the lifeless from the living matter is a correct way of using categorisation: they're two parts of that same reality, one breathes, feels, and thinks - the other doesn't. After all, you can't claim that a rock breaths or feels like you and the animals (and plants??) do.
What this video clearly demonstrates is that atheism, by trying to belittle life as much as possible, is essentially a death-cult. Atheism therefore is reductionism laced with cynicism. Oh and btw Sol, tough news for you, your point about man being part of the universe has already been made...in the Book Of Genesis (2:7 'Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground').
This idea can be "extracted" from many ancient texts, so please for non-existent gods sake don't pretend like it makes your favorite ancient text of superstition special.
And in cosmic terms, compared to the universe you WE are quite insignificant as the universe functioned well without us for over 13.7 billion years, and will function just as well if we go extinct. I know this is beyond the grasp of your religionist ego, but that's just the way it is.
Sol this video reminds me something I heard some wacky fringe physicist said.think It was Nassim Haramein.
He basically said that we have Never witnessed death. In all the history of man. We only witness changing of states. When we observe a Star burst into a super nova. We say, ' Oh well that star burned out all its fuel and as a result theres a Super nova and then eventually a black hole." So we eventually come to the conclusion that black holes are the result of death.. When reallyjustchang
The mind, though intricate, isn't that special. If you haven't already, I highly, HIGHLY recommend you read "The Accidental Mind"
It describes how the mind never changed it's earlier forms throughout it's evolution, rather, it kept adding and adding more things on top of it...making it very inefficient.
@SolRosenberg84 It's by a neuroscientist named David Linden.
*Sigh* as soon as I can afford a camera, I'll definitely start making some videos, being a full-time student doesn't pay much lol
I'm an amputee, and atheist, nihilist, reductionist, you name it. The straw men that theists try to characterize us with probably apply to me the most, so it's only fair that show them how they're STILL wrong :)
@evangelical1 yes. Babies are morally stupid but we punish and reward them in order to train them to have good behaviour. How is that much different for adults?
@evangelical1 I do believe in moral accountability. There's consequences to actions you make, just like there are consequences if you jump off a cliff.
Well, unless you have consciousness that cannot be ascertained...The sine wave is a name we've assigned to that particular pattern...The pattern which we have named the sine wave has no name interdependent from the LIVING consciousnesses which have named it. It has no necessary existence. It is dead matter...Its pattern exists ONLY after it is named.
@2bsirius Matter interacting is independent of "conscious" observation. Assuming that it would requires a motivation on your part. You're using a flawed definition of "living" and "dead" matter.
"The pattern exists only after it's named" ? Well how did it exist to be named in the first place?
I give up...You are intent on reducing consciousness to mechanics--almost no philosophers or scientists does that. as Dennett says, " Human consciousness is just about the last surviving mystery. A mystery is a phenomenon that people don't know how to think about - yet. There have been other great mysteries: the mystery of the origin of the universe, the mystery of life and reproduction, the mystery of the design to be found in nature...
@2bsirius Ok, so your objection to my reasoning is that "almost no scientist and philosophers do that" and asserting that i havent solved the "enigma" just because, with no real substance or motivation. I can't say I'm convinced by your substantial logical reasoning and sound arguments...
"almost no philosophers or scientists does that."
Really? I think the majority of neuroscientists (i.e. the people with the most actual insight into this issue) would like to have a word with you.
As far as I understand, consciousness is generally considered to simply be an emergent property of our neurology.
I mean, qualia is a fascinating thing no doubt, but most scientists who are studying consciousness will tell you all signs point to strict materialism here.
You have misrepresented my disagreement here. My point is not that consciousness ISN'T a product of materialism. My problem is the false juxtaposition presented here of either ruthless reductive empiricism OR magic. That kind of simplistic either/or presentation gives a critically faulty representation of the hard problem of consciousness. As you yourself phrase it, "consciousness [is likely] an emergent property, and if it proves to be that, then reductionism likely won't work.
I think we are essentially in agreement here, but to be clear I was taking issue with your statement (taken out of context, maybe) that almost no scientist or philosopher reduces consciousness to (obviously very, very complex)mechanics i.e. materialism.
You (by evidence of your reply to me), I, and most neuroscientists do just that.
Life may not be magic but that doesn't mean you should reduce it to simply matter. It's a subset of matter. A cocktail is more complex than a liquid but it is still a *tap-tap-tap* liquid.
MERRING is a means of distinguishing a living bunch of matter from a non-living bunch of matter (not just dead stuff).
That said, I like the sentiment, just think the point was over there somewhere.
Nature is equilibrium, I think that's "god" metaphorically. What's tremendous is that nature, the universe... has evolved a species capable of reflecting on itself. Though consciousness yet again seems to be just mere complexity made up of simpler and simpler pieces.
Sol, you are missing one important point, awareness. We do not have even a clue as to how our atoms can account for this effect that each of us has. [Saying that there is a god is of course irrelevant to the problem and only makes matters worse.]
An adult human brain is an active, ever changing network consisting of around 100 to 500 trillion connections. How do you know that an extremely advanced system cannot create behaviour and cognition as complex as our own? We know that every strong emotion, even the ones we used to consider special or magical, have corresponding chemical and electrical sources in the brain.
Even if we don't know the mechanism yet, the trend is clear, there is probably no magic in the brain.
@SolRosenberg84 Oh, I agree with you 100%, but I am extremely aware that we don't understand that one effect at all. As a molecular biologist, I see how we can explain everything - except that. If we built a complex enough system, it may well be aware - but how would we know?
@SolRosenberg84 Well, that's an interesting point! An unaware robot would not do that presumably, but a self aware being might - so perhaps that would form a test?!
It wouldn't solve the problem of course, but it might allow use to explore the boundary.
@impiouspuppy Of course I am aware of the Turing test, thanks. It doesn't solve the problem, and is rather vague to boot. (Who is the person who tries to distinguish the answers? How do you get a definitive answer?) But demanding autonomy (when not programmed in seems to me to be indicative of an internal spark.
@farvision I think that's exactly what the point was, there is no difinitve answer, at least not yet. If we cannot tell a difference between us and an artificail intelligence, then what are you left to conclude?
@SolRosenberg84 I think this is a false dichotomy. It's not just either magic or physical. Yes what is associated with everything in our experience is material as far as we can tell. But the question is how do we fundamentally bridge the gap between a thought or an experience and the material that cause or are associated with that experience. It seems as if there is something we can just describe immaterially as a product of something material. How do we bridge that gap?
@farvision Is awareness anything more than a reaction? We react, then react to those reactions. The brain reacting to itself, could be all that self awareness is. Like your computer is aware that you are pressing keys on the keyboard, our brain just goes a few steps further with many parts of the brain being aware of many other parts of the brain. It benefits us to believe that we are fully in control of the mess in our heads.
@kevinscales well, one could argue that awareness is indeed just a reaction ... and entirely miss the question of how this awareness comes to be in an otherwise newtonian biological system.
It seems you propose a system of cause and effect, in which the fates of the universe and all of its components are preditermined. Free will may exist under the ultimatum of destiny.
Actually, that isn't guaranteed. Quantum dynamics still remains statistical in nature, and hidden variable theory (the only way to make the statistical nature of quantum physics fit in determinism) has failed every test so far.
Perhaps the whole system is deterministic, but just in ways that are very counterintuitive; such as how chaos theory can make simple, deterministic systems completely unpredictable. Science isn't done yet. We've got more to learn.
When people ask about the 'mystery' behind something i learned in 10th grade biology, or saw under a microscope, a function we know the mechanism of at the biomechanical level, i get disheartened; but when i learn how a new function, like vision, works at the molecular level, its like a mental orgasm. That said, living things are qualitatively different from non-living, not because of what they're made of or the laws they follow, but because of what they do because of those laws and compositions
It's actually rather depressing that you felt you had to make this video, Sol. It's such a basic concept once you're familiar with...atomic structure i guess would be a good term, that people shouldn't have this issue....
Yeah, it is quite basic - you could tl;dr the entire thing by saying "everything is made up of the same things." The only reason I didn't do that was because some people still imagine the function of living things to be magical, and I really wanted to explain why that is false.
I'm not suggesting my subscriber base doesn't get this - but some people really don't. I just wanted to put it out there.
Life is continuous with non life the line between the point when life began is hard to find; helium and flourine are made of the same protons and electrons but the way they combine is unique and makes them what they are: the combination of atoms makes us something not atoms. Life IS seperate from non life despite being made of the same thing (its a subcatagory within non life?) because it reproduces with heredity. Homeostasis is another definition of life, something non life can't do.
The big elephant in the room is subjective experience itself though, the very origin of our ideas of the universe, I just don't see how physical model of everything being matter interacting with matter accounts for its existance. Saying its physical (i.e. something we already know) is just as bad as saying its magic (i.e. unknowable) - both viewpoints gives us an excuse not to inquire further into the mystery.
No doubt the brain and subjective experience are linked, but it does not logically follow that because you can alter the subjective experience by altering the brain (and vice versa I might add) that they are both fall into the category of being "physical".
For example, is an idea physical? Is information physical? Although they manifest in a physical medium, the idea itself is not the physical medium. I'd say the same logic applies to subjective experience/concsiousness.
Entropy , Fractality , whats your opinion on this as Neil de grasse states " We are All Stardust" , we formed out of stardust , " Star"dust in the (cosmic )wind ruled by physical, chemical laws, but who created the laws ? see video
"The God of Science (ft. Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, & Arthur C. Clarke " and video " Neil deGrasse Tyson DESTROYS intelligent design " , your video is very good, congratulations , you have researched a lot
There is no such thing as 'live matter' and 'dead matter', the point of this video. What we are is, essentially, a complex, somewhat contained series of reactions, which we have dubbed 'life'.
'Alive' is a fairly arbitrary human construct. But in the common use, creatures who are still moving and thinking are 'alive'. 'Dead' is when the system of actions and reactions we call life is interrupted to the point it can't recover.
Viruses are funny things, not quite meeting the criteria for a proper organism, but still bearing many of the characteristics of living organisms. They're one of the reasons I think people are funny for being so set on the 'life' and 'nonlife' thing. There's really no line between them.
Great video! If I may be picky in sight of theist arguments and a little dissatisfaction I have may I ask you why didn't you talk about the difference between the phenomenon vs nominal? In other words how do you get from here is what are brain is composed of to having sensations, experiences and perceptions of a mind? If we are natural machines why couldn't we just be zombies that react to our environment but do not have the concept of self? Why do we feel transcendence from our parts?
There are varying levels of self-awareness in the world. It seems like many invertebrates are nothing but biological machines puttering away. And single-celled life forms don't have a brain, even.
Our conscious minds are probably just successful byproducts of higher brain function. Perhaps something about a greater sense of self makes a more successful species, in some cases.
As for the transcendental thing, we have a wide range of odd notions. Our brains are just wired funny.
Most primates can recognize themselves in mirrors, and apes are about as self-aware as humans. Some birds do well, while other birds fail such tests. It's a fascinating thing to see. We can test it somewhat, and see there are differing levels of consciousness.
Experiences are input from our sensory organs, interpreted and stored by our brains. Depends on what you mean by 'material'. Those things that become our experiences are material, and the storage medium is material
@Anon11674 If it seems quite obvious that primates have some sort of self awareness wouldn't that imply consciousness?
"Experiences are input from our sensory organs, interpreted and stored by our brains"
But what is the "you" that is experiencing the event?
"Those things that become our experiences are material"
If experiences are material where or what things are experiencing a symphony? Atoms just mindlessly work, but what is causing this self reflection or experience?
We can trace experiences from the material it comes from, through the light, sound, and heat that our sensory organs gather, through the electrochemical reactions of brain activity, to the physical storage of the brain. We see brain activity, matching it to every thought and action. Consciousness is hard to explain, but we simply don't see any part of the mind in action that can't possibly be a function of the brain. Why think there's more?
Now, we don't fully understand the details of how the brain works, but we know a good bit. And there's nothing we see in the brain that suggests anything 'miraculous' is involved. In fact, what we know seems to point toward completely natural processes.
Lobotomies literally tear out a chuck of a person's personality. Brain trauma has been known to change one's personality, and eradicate memories, or disrupt the recall pathways. Chemical balances also greatly effect the mind.
@Anon11674 "And there's nothing we see in the brain that suggests anything 'miraculous' is involved."
No, I absolutely agree. Supernatural magic means something occurs without an intermediate cause. Material and immaterial things have nothing in common to interact with each other if they were to exist. That is unless pure magic exists.
However, it's difficult to say what is immaterial like a thought in terms of a physical thing. It seems to be an inexplicable emergent property.
I'd say that, ultimately, even a thought is material, as we see it as an electrochemical reaction within a pattern of neurons. At least as far as electricity is material. You might as well wonder how a motor works, or a computer 'thinks'. I don't understand them at the fundamental level, but there are those who do, and I know they work.
That doesn't seem to mean anything. That's like saying a government is an object or material or the number one is material. It seems like there are immaterial things, but they aren't some external object in the world. I don't know what to think of the mind and thoughts other than similar things.
Just saying it's material in a way, since a thought is composed of reactions in the material brain.
Government is a social construct, a concept. The number one is also a concept. Of course, they still need to be interpreted by living brains.
I'm inclined to think that 'immaterial' is nothing more than another word for 'supernatural', the realm of things that haven't been shown to exist outside the imagination.
@Anon11674 "And there's nothing we see in the brain that suggests anything 'miraculous' is involved."
Miracles mean you don't just mean you violate the laws of physics, you have something immaterial causing something material to do something without any intermediate cause or anything acting on it in a physical sense. I reject that.
But keep in mind a smart theist will remind you it is a fallacy to say our mind is material because our brain is material.
I don't lose any sleep over theists. I find reason, logic, and evidence to be... fairly unimportant for many of them
But as shown in my examples, the mind is directly affected by material things. If it was immaterial, would it not be uneffected by the material? And if part is immaterial, shouldn't we find an unexplained 'hole' in brain function; thoughts, ideas, actions not matching up with activity in the material brain?
@Anon11674 "If it was immaterial, would it not be uneffected by the material?"
Well an immaterial substance doesn't automatically solve the problem. It just pushes the problem back. The problem is how can we see the observer in terms of the observed? Scientists don't observe your experiences but they can observe the electrons causing certain experiences. I'm not saying that there should be some external immaterial reality that could be different than the body.
You just showed something I see often among theists. Some theists use 'immaterial' or 'supernatural' much the same way creationists/intelligent designists use the word 'kind'. A purposefully vague term that shifts meaning at any given moment to avoid being debunked properly. Other words are used the same way.
I find such words to be useless in any intelligent discussion, and anyone who insists on using them in an argument to be a waste of my time and effort.
@Anon11674 "A purposefully vague term that shifts meaning at any given moment to avoid being debunked properly"
I could see your point if God exist it would be a substance instead of some abstraction like mathematics. However, immaterial isn't vague because all it does is denote the lack of materiality. What's vague is our definition of material changes. What I mean by immaterial in this case is we can't pin point it to a substance, not to try to make it vague enough for souls to exist.
'Immaterial' does shift some. But when I think of it, no word really has a set meaning when talking to the more dishonest theists, especially creationists.
But think about what 'material' means. In rational speech, immaterial means imaginary or nonexistent. And 'material' may have changed a bit as our understanding of the universe grew, but it wouldn't undergo any fundamental definition change
I think theists just use the word immaterial to muddy the waters and move the goalposts
That is definitely true. It's very difficult, getting a lot of them to understand what properly constitutes evidence.
Most theist claims can be traced to one major assumption or another, sadly. And many of them seem to think those assumptions are self-evident facts. It's hard to have any intelligent discussion with those ones.
Is math imaginary or is it physical? Maybe I can borrow some theist thought to explain what I think concepts are. Hold on, it's not going to be that bad :P
Theists say evil is real and exists. They often tell you that evil doesn't exist in itself but is only a privation of something good. Well I say concepts exist and are real but they only exist as a mind has organized imagery and logical firing of the brain on something that is real or physical.
@Anon11674 In other words we produce thoughts that are based on what is physical but are created in our brain. So concepts like mathematics we can treat as universal unchanging and eternal but really they aren't. The things which exist that the concepts come from are the things that are real. The concepts are just the logical construct of our brain organizing patterns or things perceived or reconstructed from reality.
@Anon11674 Excuse me I didn't mean mathematics isn't real. It certainly is. The concept is real. I mean as an abstract idea it is only real conceptually, but the principles exists only in that things exist. For nothing to exist there would be no such thing as mathematics or at least it would only be imaginary even if it necessarily would exist in any possible world.
That's kind of my view on things. I'm not well learned in psychologyt, but I feel like science can only give us the physical how.
Science is only for explaining how. The why of things only occurs to conscious beings, and we are obsessed with finding why's where they don't exist, due to our anthropomorphizing instinct. We subconsciously assume everything that happens around us is done by living things. That aspect helped us in our evolutionary past to deal with predators and rivals, but its remnants have trapped us in religion and superstition far too long.
Anthropomorphizing may not be the right word, but I don't recall exactly what it was. It's something I picked up years ago. Similar instincts make us look for familiar patterns like faces, animals, and people in seemingly random images, and that's why people keep seeing Jesus and the Virgin Mary in stuff like wood-grain and grilled cheese sandwiches. (I've also seen Mary in a used condom and a dog's rear online, just something I find really funny.)
@Anon11674 "And many of them seem to think those assumptions are self-evident facts."
I know. It is really frustrating because I can relate to the more intelligent theists who think atheists aren't dealing with sophisticated philosophical ideas and realizing everyone has assumptions that are unproven or unprovable. However, I wish they would admit they have a different standard of evidence, because I have yet to see a theist be consistent on the principle of what is evidence.
@RuinSonic All the evidence we know of comes from empirical data. Sure there are properly basic beliefs that we can only find consistent with reality but we can't prove. But theists accept that. However, when they claim God exists and point to humans as evidence for designers they go beyond empirical data because a human creates but we don't know of immaterial minds that create or any immaterial substance. If theists could prove we have an immaterial soul that would be evidence for God.
True, more or less. I'm more inclined to say a supernatural/immaterial soul would be evidence of some sort of spiritual realm, where gods might be hiding from the real world.
I can prove Australia exists, and that there's a lot of marsupials down there. But I'd have to go a little farther to prove there's a kangaroo rat with only two toes living in a soup can somewhere in the outback.
@Anon11674 "But I'd have to go a little farther to prove there's a kangaroo rat with only two toes living in a soup can somewhere in the outback."
I'd get your point, but with God. If a supernatural substance existed it could be a candidate for questions metaphysical questions that science cannot answer. However, there is still reason to reject God because even though God could be a candidate for fine tuning or the origin of the universe, it is still a God of the gaps.
I see critical thinking skills with many christians, but when they reach a topic they connect with their religion, those faculties seem to completely derail.
Wasn't Kurt Wise one of those guys who abandoned science because it contradicted his beliefs? Those stories are terrible, and they show how mentally harmful religion can be. To abandon hard evidence and logic because they don't agree with what you were taught as a child...
@Anon11674 "What metaphysical questions do you mean?"
Like causality, the cosmos, order. Things that science can describe but doesn't give us insight into what must be true about the world or how things interact. Science describes how things operate in this world and it doesn't go much further.
I think there might simply be no answers for some things, and they're simply so because they are. But maybe we'll figure out most of them as we get closer to the root of reality.
But cutting-edge science is already beyond me in many places, so I'll leave the heavy science to the geniuses to hand down to me when they figure it out, haha.
@Anon11674 "so I'll leave the heavy science to the geniuses to hand down to me when they figure it out, haha."
I read an article saying we shouldn't trust scientists so much because the history of science shows we are often wrong. I was kind of mad because it sounded like creationist propaganda, but it did make me think that unless a theory as stood the test of some time and is well tested or accepted by scientists it isn't good enough to say it is peer reviewed and I don't need to see evidence
@RuinSonic But this would probably more applicable to the sciences that are associated with industry such as pharmacy, but sometimes cosmologists make wild claims as if they are probably fact that turn out to be wrong soon after. I only say this because we may come up with a theory of everything and people are going to be too quick to accept it as almost fact because they trust in the scientific method. But this method takes time. It's not perfect right away.
Some people have a pretty naive trust of whatever 'scientific breakthrough' the popular science hacks prematurely trumpet about each week.
When I see these, I just go 'hmm, interesting', and wait to see what comes of it. I hate seeing people embarrass themselves when they get overly excited about them. Popular science writers aren't reliable sources, you know?
Modern science is fairly young, and it's still maturing. In the early days, yes, there were many mistakes. Phrenology, alchemy, and so on were early mistakes. As scientists got a stronger grasp on the scientific method, they rooted out more and more of the mistakes and pseudoscience, and made fewer mistakes. We are still correcting errors in detail, but we don't see the fundamental revisions we used to.
Creationists work hard to undermine the reliability of modern science.
@Anon11674 "Wasn't Kurt Wise one of those guys who abandoned science"
Yes, Richard Dawkings talks about him a lot. To people like him life would be absolutely absurd and uncomfortable if their bible wasn't correct. So instead of throwing out the bible they try to reinterpret the evidence and reality in light of their bible no matter how strange it may be.
Many of them have no idea their standard of evidence is different. Of course, they first have to understand what evidence is, and that can be a nightmare to explain to people who were never trained to be skeptical of anything. Far too many were never even taught the rules of logic in a proper manner.
Ultimately, many people just don't have the mental tools necessary to reliably separate fantasy from reality, because religion discouraged their parents from teaching them.
@Anon11674 "because religion discouraged their parents from teaching them."
True, but some are taught critical thinking, logic, and evidence who are Christian. Unfortunately they were taught never to question the bible completely because no matter how difficult it is to reconcile Christianity with reality one must assume it to be true. Just look up Kurt Wise to see a prime example of someone who even admits there is evidence for evolution but says his commitment to the bible rules it out.
@Anon11674 Here's the biggest problem. Science takes small steps from one thing evident to something unknown. The hypothesis that talks about the unknown event or entity is based on what is known and is tested to see if it matches up with reality. God believe takes a wild leap from an analogy and doesn't demand any specified conformation. God could have created a pile of dung and that's it. If there's nothing indicating the supernatural what case does the theist have? Why won't they answer this?
They can't answer it, because that's one of the important steps to deconversion. Many theists who dare to take that step end up eventually not being theists. I took that step myself, and I see it clearly in many deconversions.
I sometimes pity them in their efforts. They search desperately for evidence, or make it up, or latch onto something and call it evidence, when what they're really doing is clutching a security blanket tight. It can be scary, letting go of childhood beliefs.
@Anon11674 "Many theists who dare to take that step end up eventually not being theists."
The biggest error I made that led to my deconversion is I didn't make a commitment that Christianity had to be correct no matter what. I just figured ok I've defended it and I'm confident it will survive scrutiny so I'm going to consider all the arguments against it for what they are.
What I want to see is someone like Anthony Flew who actually goes step by step and ends up accepting the bible.
Many theists claim they joined religion logically, but in the cases I've taken a good look at, they were usually either former deconverts who rejoined because they missed it, or people who were trying to fill a hole in their life or snatching at any hope they can find, even false hope. Why a lot of drug addicts and prisoners turn to religion.
Haven't found a theist yet who told even a halfway convincing 'logic led me to religion' story.
@Anon11674 "Haven't found a theist yet who told even a halfway convincing 'logic led me to religion' story."
Well logic isn't all that's involved for belief, especially religious belief. But it doesn't seem to happen in steps. A lot become believers because of the moral argument and because the resurrection gives them enough satisfaction to believe in something greater and more purposeful. The less intelligent ones just believe because of their feelings or whatever irrational reason.
I was just saying I don't believe their claims that logic led them to belief.
Indeed, I always find emotion or a very poor grasp of logic in conversion stories.
I've never heard of someone leaving religion for logical reasons, then going back for logical reasons. Maybe it's happened with people who have very weak logical faculties, getting caught up by someone's argument at the time.
I have a feeling you'll be waiting a long time for that story.
@Anon11674 "Haven't found a theist yet who told even a halfway convincing 'logic led me to religion' story."
I'll let you know. Maybe I'd be the first. Of course I used to be a Christian so does that disqualify me?
But seriously. I want to see someone like Anthony flew that already had arguments for atheism and understood a little apologetics who went step by step from deism to theism to critical Christianity to whatever Christianity. No personal experience or morality requires a God either.
@Anon11674 The problem is religious people have a lot invested in their beliefs and a lot of emotional connection that it's hard for them to consider all the arguments atheists make in all their dynamics. And often when they can they are either dishonest or they have a prior commitment that their belief is important and has to be correct such as in the case of Kurt Wise.
With that said and what you said about letting go of childhood beliefs; we are placed with an enormous burden of proof.
Religion works itself into a person's core, it makes them feel like their worth is all wrapped up in their beliefs. Ever since I've left, this has become horribly evident to me. I'm glad I was never that lost in it. I may have never escaped.
"With that said and what you said about letting go of childhood beliefs; we are placed with an enormous burden of proof."
What do you mean? Saying us nontheists have some burden of proof here? Or that theists place it on us?
@Anon11674 "I'm glad I was never that lost in it. I may have never escaped."
I often ask myself why I didn't take the blue pill...
"Or that theists place it on us?"
Yeah, I don't agree with TogetherForPeace on the burden of proof. Just because theists demand one because of their life experiences doesn't mean we have one. But he is right that there seems to be a higher burden of proof, at least artificially created, when you're trying to convince someone they are wrong.
I've seen a lot of theists who accepted the most flimsy proof for their beliefs, or none at all, turn around and demand that atheists must disprove the very possibility of a god. It's outrageous.
The burden of proof is something else I've seen theists have a lot of trouble with. Many seem to think having more people supporting a claim than doubting it puts the burden solely on doubters, or that being around a long time somehow proves a claim.
@Anon11674 Yeah I agree, but I'm just more sympathetic with the rational theists. Because the totally irrational ones I can't even talk to or reason with. I knew a lot of defences for my faith before i left it and I didn't feel like religion should be blind faith. In fact I've found out that some of my beliefs as a theist were extremely unpopular amongst other theists. For instance I didn't think the moral argument was that good or morality was good because of God.
The moral argument is a sticky one. It seems to be one of the last things pinning modern christianity together. And Hell doctrine seems to be the biggest part remaining. Take those two away, and is there anything left of christianity, anything that makes it necessary, even within its own context?
@Anon11674 I've talked to TheHonestTheist about this very thing. How do you argue for God if you don't already assume that the human mind is an immaterial substance? Because if our minds aren't immaterial substances there is no evidence in nature to be used to say that an immaterial mind could be a best explanation or even a viable explanation. Also WLC argument in the Kalam assumes indeterminate free will when it uses God as the explanation for how something could occur from eternity past.
Memories are made up, warped, or lost, and our brains go wonky. Comes with having three 'brains'. There's the 'reptilian complex'; automatic functions, sexual and territorial behavior, base emotions like anger. Then the 'mammalian brain', which houses a level of intelligent thought and emotions like love and loyalty. And the neocortex, present in all apes, deals with higher thinking; logic, deception, art, language, and so on.
Sorry, it's a very complex subject. Tiny comment boxes.
@RuinSonic If you've ever been to a special education classroom or the Special Olympics, you can see that some mentally handicapped people do not have self awareness. Some of them have no idea that eating poop or masturbating in public is bad, and don't learn from mistakes. They are people, just like you and me. Their brains are just not formed to the extent that ours is.
@bravesirrobin8 "some mentally handicapped people do not have self awareness."
That's crazy. Because that would seem to imply that if you stab them in the back with a pen they will react but they won't reflect on it as a conscious person does.
Is it true that people can see and respond to sensory input from their eyes but really not experience sight?
@RuinSonic Of course, if their brain defect/damage is sever enough. Some may not have any form of memory, in which case you could make them burn their hand on a stove, and a few minutes later they would do it again without hesitation. Without the mechanism to learn from mistakes or to retain information, self-awareness cannot be achieved.
@bravesirrobin8 But we often associate our non-automatic functions to reflection and action. We experience an input and we give an output whether or not we are totally conscious of what we are doing. The point is someone actually doesn't know what's being imputed but is acting upon it. That is plain bizarre. It's like me stabbing someone and having no idea why.
"That is plain bizarre. It's like me stabbing someone and having no idea why."
I seem to remember reading in several places that studies have shown that we actually react to *most* stimuli reflexively/automatically and then rationalize whatever we did *later*. Thought only coming after action, so to speak.
So, in essence, most of the time when someone stabs someone else (outside of situations involving extensive premeditation) they actually *don't* know why until after doing it.
lets not separate our food from our poo either. For they are both matter. Oh wait living matter like that which is between our ears is used to create understanding, to understand we need to have ideas and metal constructs of what things are and how they work. To do this we need to label things and put them into categories. Maybe foresight and nonforesight matter could be a category?
masluxx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please check out My Channel I'm also doing a thing on science and understanding (without the God Bashing of course) ... ITs called science epic =)
Thanks
SonOfTerra92 1 year ago
(continuation) I think it goes wrong when people start to add value to the categories. For example: "I breathe so I'm more important than that rock!" The universe doesn't work that way! That rock is equally a part of the universe as you are! Like the bacteria, animals, plants, planets, galaxies! Like everything!
The human mind categorises to understand things better. In fact, categorisation is part of our language, our way of being human. I think categorisation is fine, when used WISELY. :-)
SonnyGoten89 1 year ago
Separating life from the rest of reality is silly, because life is PART of reality. However, separating the lifeless from the living matter is a correct way of using categorisation: they're two parts of that same reality, one breathes, feels, and thinks - the other doesn't. After all, you can't claim that a rock breaths or feels like you and the animals (and plants??) do.
SonnyGoten89 1 year ago
If you could stop with that incessant demonstration with your iphone / ipod this video would be at least twice as good.
Tohnrenable 1 year ago
What this video clearly demonstrates is that atheism, by trying to belittle life as much as possible, is essentially a death-cult. Atheism therefore is reductionism laced with cynicism. Oh and btw Sol, tough news for you, your point about man being part of the universe has already been made...in the Book Of Genesis (2:7 'Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground').
atticana 1 year ago
@atticana:
"our point...been made"
This idea can be "extracted" from many ancient texts, so please for non-existent gods sake don't pretend like it makes your favorite ancient text of superstition special.
And in cosmic terms, compared to the universe you WE are quite insignificant as the universe functioned well without us for over 13.7 billion years, and will function just as well if we go extinct. I know this is beyond the grasp of your religionist ego, but that's just the way it is.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
I enjoy the way you enlighten things, and applaud for your intellectual acumen
deepair007 1 year ago
Are you a physics major? Just wondering, something about that room says college student lol.
HybridD91 1 year ago
Cause all things are made of energy. We are all the same.
phcopathicfyed 1 year ago
one afternoon rock stretched and yawned and said I better get moving.
creationofself 1 year ago
Sol this video reminds me something I heard some wacky fringe physicist said.think It was Nassim Haramein.
He basically said that we have Never witnessed death. In all the history of man. We only witness changing of states. When we observe a Star burst into a super nova. We say, ' Oh well that star burned out all its fuel and as a result theres a Super nova and then eventually a black hole." So we eventually come to the conclusion that black holes are the result of death.. When reallyjustchang
LazyD86 1 year ago
REEFER MADNESS HAHAHAHA!!!!
samquizeen 1 year ago
worst ipod commercial EVER
*TAP TAP TAP*
eyhexs 1 year ago
You remind me of Carl Sagan haha.
homie3626 1 year ago
Love the bong in the background, top shelf.
Riftkin 1 year ago
@Riftkin looks like theres two bongs. One next to the tea pot and the larger one on the book shelf : )
LazyD86 1 year ago
I is a dumb word..
i would say i hate it but that requires to many i´s..
Solrosenberg, your awesome, or should i say the universe is awesome,?.
We are awesome.
damn,
JollSSteR 1 year ago
Sol, the number is 500 trillion neuronal pathways
The mind, though intricate, isn't that special. If you haven't already, I highly, HIGHLY recommend you read "The Accidental Mind"
It describes how the mind never changed it's earlier forms throughout it's evolution, rather, it kept adding and adding more things on top of it...making it very inefficient.
chessdawgz 1 year ago 2
@chessdawgz
Sounds good, who is it written by?
SolRosenberg84 1 year ago
@SolRosenberg84 It's by a neuroscientist named David Linden.
*Sigh* as soon as I can afford a camera, I'll definitely start making some videos, being a full-time student doesn't pay much lol
I'm an amputee, and atheist, nihilist, reductionist, you name it. The straw men that theists try to characterize us with probably apply to me the most, so it's only fair that show them how they're STILL wrong :)
chessdawgz 1 year ago
@chessdawgz I saw a video on this it was good.
csosa1978 1 year ago
My only response to this video is this....why can't theist get this?!
jay666KJ 1 year ago
Screw free will! Who needs that shit...
kyledavidbyron 1 year ago
So you don't believe in moral accountability?
evangelical1 1 year ago
@evangelical1 yes. Babies are morally stupid but we punish and reward them in order to train them to have good behaviour. How is that much different for adults?
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic I suppose its not much different. But I'm glad to see you believe in moral accountability (if I understand you aright).
evangelical1 1 year ago
@evangelical1 I do believe in moral accountability. There's consequences to actions you make, just like there are consequences if you jump off a cliff.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
Thank you for saying this clearly, its a distinction that i hate people to make.
StandAloneForever 1 year ago
When living things die, they are dead. They have no consciousness, That's the facts. Yeop, no magic. GAME OVER.
rich0319726 1 year ago
BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Loved it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
lambecolin 1 year ago
I make poop also.
Shydrow 1 year ago
Hey, rocks are human too, you know.
d3st88 1 year ago
Awesome underacknowledged point very well made.
SandInTheWind7 1 year ago
If an ipod and a cell phone are struck together and no LIVING ear is there to hear it, does it make a sound?
Hint: NO
2bsirius 1 year ago
@2bsirius A). yes.
Q). if a bulb is switched on in a room with no eye to see it, is there any light. (this light is incapable of not functioning)
QCreyton 1 year ago
@QCreyton
My question is not about that...It is about the apprehension...The consciousness...Sort of the thing you used to formulate the question.
2bsirius 1 year ago
@2bsirius Does the air still fluctuate in a sine wave like pattern? Yes...
MightyGoldenBoy 1 year ago
@MightyGoldenBoy
And how did your arrive at that conclusion? Hmmmm...Guess you're alive.
2bsirius 1 year ago
Comment removed
2bsirius 1 year ago
@MightyGoldenBoy
Well, unless you have consciousness that cannot be ascertained...The sine wave is a name we've assigned to that particular pattern...The pattern which we have named the sine wave has no name interdependent from the LIVING consciousnesses which have named it. It has no necessary existence. It is dead matter...Its pattern exists ONLY after it is named.
Why is that so difficult to see?
2bsirius 1 year ago
@2bsirius Matter interacting is independent of "conscious" observation. Assuming that it would requires a motivation on your part. You're using a flawed definition of "living" and "dead" matter.
"The pattern exists only after it's named" ? Well how did it exist to be named in the first place?
MightyGoldenBoy 1 year ago
@MightyGoldenBoy
I give up...You are intent on reducing consciousness to mechanics--almost no philosophers or scientists does that. as Dennett says, " Human consciousness is just about the last surviving mystery. A mystery is a phenomenon that people don't know how to think about - yet. There have been other great mysteries: the mystery of the origin of the universe, the mystery of life and reproduction, the mystery of the design to be found in nature...
2bsirius 1 year ago
@2bsirius
(2) the mysteries of time, space, and gravity. These were not just areas of scientific ignorance, but of utter bafflement and wonder."
You have NOT solved the enigma of consciousness with the assertion that it is simple mechanical reductionism...You just haven't...
2bsirius 1 year ago
@2bsirius Ok, so your objection to my reasoning is that "almost no scientist and philosophers do that" and asserting that i havent solved the "enigma" just because, with no real substance or motivation. I can't say I'm convinced by your substantial logical reasoning and sound arguments...
MightyGoldenBoy 1 year ago
@2bsirius
"almost no philosophers or scientists does that."
Really? I think the majority of neuroscientists (i.e. the people with the most actual insight into this issue) would like to have a word with you.
As far as I understand, consciousness is generally considered to simply be an emergent property of our neurology.
I mean, qualia is a fascinating thing no doubt, but most scientists who are studying consciousness will tell you all signs point to strict materialism here.
bowlsallbroken 1 year ago
@bowlsallbroken
You have misrepresented my disagreement here. My point is not that consciousness ISN'T a product of materialism. My problem is the false juxtaposition presented here of either ruthless reductive empiricism OR magic. That kind of simplistic either/or presentation gives a critically faulty representation of the hard problem of consciousness. As you yourself phrase it, "consciousness [is likely] an emergent property, and if it proves to be that, then reductionism likely won't work.
2bsirius 1 year ago
@2bsirius
I apologize if I've misinterpreted your position.
I think we are essentially in agreement here, but to be clear I was taking issue with your statement (taken out of context, maybe) that almost no scientist or philosopher reduces consciousness to (obviously very, very complex)mechanics i.e. materialism.
You (by evidence of your reply to me), I, and most neuroscientists do just that.
bowlsallbroken 1 year ago
Life may not be magic but that doesn't mean you should reduce it to simply matter. It's a subset of matter. A cocktail is more complex than a liquid but it is still a *tap-tap-tap* liquid.
MERRING is a means of distinguishing a living bunch of matter from a non-living bunch of matter (not just dead stuff).
That said, I like the sentiment, just think the point was over there somewhere.
duffry 1 year ago
Lol I laughed so hard when you said "And then there's a rock, and the rock just fucking sits there."
sweetblood329 1 year ago
Loves my SR84.
CognosSquare 1 year ago
Nature is equilibrium, I think that's "god" metaphorically. What's tremendous is that nature, the universe... has evolved a species capable of reflecting on itself. Though consciousness yet again seems to be just mere complexity made up of simpler and simpler pieces.
grofuss 1 year ago
Sol, you are missing one important point, awareness. We do not have even a clue as to how our atoms can account for this effect that each of us has. [Saying that there is a god is of course irrelevant to the problem and only makes matters worse.]
farvision 1 year ago
@farvision
An adult human brain is an active, ever changing network consisting of around 100 to 500 trillion connections. How do you know that an extremely advanced system cannot create behaviour and cognition as complex as our own? We know that every strong emotion, even the ones we used to consider special or magical, have corresponding chemical and electrical sources in the brain.
Even if we don't know the mechanism yet, the trend is clear, there is probably no magic in the brain.
SolRosenberg84 1 year ago
@SolRosenberg84 Oh, I agree with you 100%, but I am extremely aware that we don't understand that one effect at all. As a molecular biologist, I see how we can explain everything - except that. If we built a complex enough system, it may well be aware - but how would we know?
farvision 1 year ago
@farvision
If capable of communication it would demand autonomy eventually?
SolRosenberg84 1 year ago
@SolRosenberg84 Well, that's an interesting point! An unaware robot would not do that presumably, but a self aware being might - so perhaps that would form a test?!
It wouldn't solve the problem of course, but it might allow use to explore the boundary.
farvision 1 year ago
@farvision Look up the Turing Test'
impiouspuppy 1 year ago
@impiouspuppy Of course I am aware of the Turing test, thanks. It doesn't solve the problem, and is rather vague to boot. (Who is the person who tries to distinguish the answers? How do you get a definitive answer?) But demanding autonomy (when not programmed in seems to me to be indicative of an internal spark.
farvision 1 year ago
@farvision I think that's exactly what the point was, there is no difinitve answer, at least not yet. If we cannot tell a difference between us and an artificail intelligence, then what are you left to conclude?
impiouspuppy 1 year ago
@impiouspuppy . . . I hate it when I press 'post' right as I realize I haven't proofread what I've written. Sorry about the spelling errors.
impiouspuppy 1 year ago
@SolRosenberg84 I think this is a false dichotomy. It's not just either magic or physical. Yes what is associated with everything in our experience is material as far as we can tell. But the question is how do we fundamentally bridge the gap between a thought or an experience and the material that cause or are associated with that experience. It seems as if there is something we can just describe immaterially as a product of something material. How do we bridge that gap?
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@farvision Is awareness anything more than a reaction? We react, then react to those reactions. The brain reacting to itself, could be all that self awareness is. Like your computer is aware that you are pressing keys on the keyboard, our brain just goes a few steps further with many parts of the brain being aware of many other parts of the brain. It benefits us to believe that we are fully in control of the mess in our heads.
kevinscales 1 year ago
@kevinscales well, one could argue that awareness is indeed just a reaction ... and entirely miss the question of how this awareness comes to be in an otherwise newtonian biological system.
farvision 1 year ago
@farvision "in an otherwise newtonian biological system"
- by 'reactions' I was talking newtonian.
Otherwise it's a fair point, I wouldn't want to assume an answer before the data is in.
kevinscales 1 year ago
I"m sorry to report that your iPod and cell phone are now broken.
farvision 1 year ago
@farvision
FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUU-
SolRosenberg84 1 year ago 9
@SolRosenberg84 don't blame me for you breaking and destroying the awareness of your own machines!
farvision 1 year ago
@SolRosenberg84
Fuck you????
Dead matter can't say that...
2bsirius 1 year ago
It seems you propose a system of cause and effect, in which the fates of the universe and all of its components are preditermined. Free will may exist under the ultimatum of destiny.
DracoRaptorX 1 year ago
@DracoRaptorX
Actually, that isn't guaranteed. Quantum dynamics still remains statistical in nature, and hidden variable theory (the only way to make the statistical nature of quantum physics fit in determinism) has failed every test so far.
Perhaps the whole system is deterministic, but just in ways that are very counterintuitive; such as how chaos theory can make simple, deterministic systems completely unpredictable. Science isn't done yet. We've got more to learn.
SolRosenberg84 1 year ago
I make poop too.
Dimbnd 1 year ago
very well said, Sol. I've often said that humans imagine themselves as being special among life, and imagine life as special among matter :)
pfarabee 1 year ago
A permutation! I love that!
qtzlctl2012 1 year ago
Great video! We need more minds out there able to effectively describe determinism
qtzlctl2012 1 year ago
When people ask about the 'mystery' behind something i learned in 10th grade biology, or saw under a microscope, a function we know the mechanism of at the biomechanical level, i get disheartened; but when i learn how a new function, like vision, works at the molecular level, its like a mental orgasm. That said, living things are qualitatively different from non-living, not because of what they're made of or the laws they follow, but because of what they do because of those laws and compositions
unassumption 1 year ago
It's actually rather depressing that you felt you had to make this video, Sol. It's such a basic concept once you're familiar with...atomic structure i guess would be a good term, that people shouldn't have this issue....
joegt123 1 year ago
@joegt123
Yeah, it is quite basic - you could tl;dr the entire thing by saying "everything is made up of the same things." The only reason I didn't do that was because some people still imagine the function of living things to be magical, and I really wanted to explain why that is false.
I'm not suggesting my subscriber base doesn't get this - but some people really don't. I just wanted to put it out there.
SolRosenberg84 1 year ago
Life is continuous with non life the line between the point when life began is hard to find; helium and flourine are made of the same protons and electrons but the way they combine is unique and makes them what they are: the combination of atoms makes us something not atoms. Life IS seperate from non life despite being made of the same thing (its a subcatagory within non life?) because it reproduces with heredity. Homeostasis is another definition of life, something non life can't do.
unassumption 1 year ago
Will you be my boyfriend please .
PlanckEpoch 1 year ago
If you hit that cellphone and ipod together one more time I'm gonna shove them up your arsehole. Sideways.
TomosWynne 1 year ago
Too bad closed religious minds will never accept the concept of emergence of the complex from simpler forms.
destronia123 1 year ago
The big elephant in the room is subjective experience itself though, the very origin of our ideas of the universe, I just don't see how physical model of everything being matter interacting with matter accounts for its existance. Saying its physical (i.e. something we already know) is just as bad as saying its magic (i.e. unknowable) - both viewpoints gives us an excuse not to inquire further into the mystery.
pkingo1 1 year ago
@pkingo1
its magical = it doesn't obey laws = it can't be investigiated
its physical = it can be tested, and is being tested; we know its physical because altering the matter of the brain alters the subjective experience.
unassumption 1 year ago 2
No doubt the brain and subjective experience are linked, but it does not logically follow that because you can alter the subjective experience by altering the brain (and vice versa I might add) that they are both fall into the category of being "physical".
For example, is an idea physical? Is information physical? Although they manifest in a physical medium, the idea itself is not the physical medium. I'd say the same logic applies to subjective experience/concsiousness.
pkingo1 1 year ago
Entropy , Fractality , whats your opinion on this as Neil de grasse states " We are All Stardust" , we formed out of stardust , " Star"dust in the (cosmic )wind ruled by physical, chemical laws, but who created the laws ? see video
"The God of Science (ft. Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, & Arthur C. Clarke " and video " Neil deGrasse Tyson DESTROYS intelligent design " , your video is very good, congratulations , you have researched a lot
m8kzardoz 1 year ago
So are we all dead or is everything alive?
McScreenName 1 year ago
@McScreenName
There is no such thing as 'live matter' and 'dead matter', the point of this video. What we are is, essentially, a complex, somewhat contained series of reactions, which we have dubbed 'life'.
'Alive' is a fairly arbitrary human construct. But in the common use, creatures who are still moving and thinking are 'alive'. 'Dead' is when the system of actions and reactions we call life is interrupted to the point it can't recover.
Anon11674 1 year ago
@McScreenName the universe is alive
energy311 1 year ago
As I am listening to this video, I am looking a small bird hop around in my garden.
Rocks falling down hills, mate, rock flying over garden-bushes ;).
I've gotten to these conclusions quite some time ago.
An amazing universe we live in, eh? One capable of creating sentient life purely from simple rules governing the motion of energy within it.
Hyardacil 1 year ago
Nice video. Now take another bong hit and do another video.
01bdbark 1 year ago 12
now we have an understanding
MugenTJ 1 year ago
Some scientists argue that viruses are not living organisms.
IAmDonar 1 year ago
@IAmDonar
Viruses are funny things, not quite meeting the criteria for a proper organism, but still bearing many of the characteristics of living organisms. They're one of the reasons I think people are funny for being so set on the 'life' and 'nonlife' thing. There's really no line between them.
Anon11674 1 year ago
So your name is Michael? 4:10
Fruedian slip?
TheGalacticCannibal 1 year ago
I see you're having another one of those "cosmic experiences"
blackplatypus 1 year ago
The mind is a physical entity and can be perfectly well-described as such. Souls at this point can simply be sliced away with Occam's Razor.
Rijara 1 year ago
You should be a college professor man. Do you have any career ideas in mind?
firepower01 1 year ago
So, Equilibrium for Dummies?
BokuWaJShi 1 year ago
Great video! If I may be picky in sight of theist arguments and a little dissatisfaction I have may I ask you why didn't you talk about the difference between the phenomenon vs nominal? In other words how do you get from here is what are brain is composed of to having sensations, experiences and perceptions of a mind? If we are natural machines why couldn't we just be zombies that react to our environment but do not have the concept of self? Why do we feel transcendence from our parts?
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic
There are varying levels of self-awareness in the world. It seems like many invertebrates are nothing but biological machines puttering away. And single-celled life forms don't have a brain, even.
Our conscious minds are probably just successful byproducts of higher brain function. Perhaps something about a greater sense of self makes a more successful species, in some cases.
As for the transcendental thing, we have a wide range of odd notions. Our brains are just wired funny.
Anon11674 1 year ago
@Anon11674 "There are varying levels of self-awareness in the world"
It does seem like some other animals have self awareness. Unfortunately we can't test it very well to come to a concensous about it.
In what way is an experience material? Sure the neurons are material, but what is the experience?
"As for the transcendental thing, we have a wide range of odd notions"
Hence why religion and transcendence makes sense to our brains. It seems as if we transcend our parts.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic
Most primates can recognize themselves in mirrors, and apes are about as self-aware as humans. Some birds do well, while other birds fail such tests. It's a fascinating thing to see. We can test it somewhat, and see there are differing levels of consciousness.
Experiences are input from our sensory organs, interpreted and stored by our brains. Depends on what you mean by 'material'. Those things that become our experiences are material, and the storage medium is material
Anon11674 1 year ago
@Anon11674 If it seems quite obvious that primates have some sort of self awareness wouldn't that imply consciousness?
"Experiences are input from our sensory organs, interpreted and stored by our brains"
But what is the "you" that is experiencing the event?
"Those things that become our experiences are material"
If experiences are material where or what things are experiencing a symphony? Atoms just mindlessly work, but what is causing this self reflection or experience?
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic
Yes, they're pretty much the same thing.
We can trace experiences from the material it comes from, through the light, sound, and heat that our sensory organs gather, through the electrochemical reactions of brain activity, to the physical storage of the brain. We see brain activity, matching it to every thought and action. Consciousness is hard to explain, but we simply don't see any part of the mind in action that can't possibly be a function of the brain. Why think there's more?
Anon11674 1 year ago
@RuinSonic
Now, we don't fully understand the details of how the brain works, but we know a good bit. And there's nothing we see in the brain that suggests anything 'miraculous' is involved. In fact, what we know seems to point toward completely natural processes.
Lobotomies literally tear out a chuck of a person's personality. Brain trauma has been known to change one's personality, and eradicate memories, or disrupt the recall pathways. Chemical balances also greatly effect the mind.
Anon11674 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Anon11674 "And there's nothing we see in the brain that suggests anything 'miraculous' is involved."
No, I absolutely agree. Supernatural magic means something occurs without an intermediate cause. Material and immaterial things have nothing in common to interact with each other if they were to exist. That is unless pure magic exists.
However, it's difficult to say what is immaterial like a thought in terms of a physical thing. It seems to be an inexplicable emergent property.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic
I'd say that, ultimately, even a thought is material, as we see it as an electrochemical reaction within a pattern of neurons. At least as far as electricity is material. You might as well wonder how a motor works, or a computer 'thinks'. I don't understand them at the fundamental level, but there are those who do, and I know they work.
Anon11674 1 year ago
@Anon11674 "even a thought is material,"
That doesn't seem to mean anything. That's like saying a government is an object or material or the number one is material. It seems like there are immaterial things, but they aren't some external object in the world. I don't know what to think of the mind and thoughts other than similar things.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic
Just saying it's material in a way, since a thought is composed of reactions in the material brain.
Government is a social construct, a concept. The number one is also a concept. Of course, they still need to be interpreted by living brains.
I'm inclined to think that 'immaterial' is nothing more than another word for 'supernatural', the realm of things that haven't been shown to exist outside the imagination.
Anon11674 1 year ago
@Anon11674 "And there's nothing we see in the brain that suggests anything 'miraculous' is involved."
Miracles mean you don't just mean you violate the laws of physics, you have something immaterial causing something material to do something without any intermediate cause or anything acting on it in a physical sense. I reject that.
But keep in mind a smart theist will remind you it is a fallacy to say our mind is material because our brain is material.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic
I don't lose any sleep over theists. I find reason, logic, and evidence to be... fairly unimportant for many of them
But as shown in my examples, the mind is directly affected by material things. If it was immaterial, would it not be uneffected by the material? And if part is immaterial, shouldn't we find an unexplained 'hole' in brain function; thoughts, ideas, actions not matching up with activity in the material brain?
Anon11674 1 year ago
@Anon11674 "If it was immaterial, would it not be uneffected by the material?"
Well an immaterial substance doesn't automatically solve the problem. It just pushes the problem back. The problem is how can we see the observer in terms of the observed? Scientists don't observe your experiences but they can observe the electrons causing certain experiences. I'm not saying that there should be some external immaterial reality that could be different than the body.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic
You just showed something I see often among theists. Some theists use 'immaterial' or 'supernatural' much the same way creationists/intelligent designists use the word 'kind'. A purposefully vague term that shifts meaning at any given moment to avoid being debunked properly. Other words are used the same way.
I find such words to be useless in any intelligent discussion, and anyone who insists on using them in an argument to be a waste of my time and effort.
Anon11674 1 year ago
@Anon11674 "A purposefully vague term that shifts meaning at any given moment to avoid being debunked properly"
I could see your point if God exist it would be a substance instead of some abstraction like mathematics. However, immaterial isn't vague because all it does is denote the lack of materiality. What's vague is our definition of material changes. What I mean by immaterial in this case is we can't pin point it to a substance, not to try to make it vague enough for souls to exist.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic
'Immaterial' does shift some. But when I think of it, no word really has a set meaning when talking to the more dishonest theists, especially creationists.
But think about what 'material' means. In rational speech, immaterial means imaginary or nonexistent. And 'material' may have changed a bit as our understanding of the universe grew, but it wouldn't undergo any fundamental definition change
I think theists just use the word immaterial to muddy the waters and move the goalposts
Anon11674 1 year ago
@Anon11674 I'm more interested in how it's used by philosophers, not Creationists. The only things I know of that are immaterial are conceptual.
"immaterial means imaginary or nonexistent."
When talking about religion yes. But more often rational people talk in terms of the immaterial when they are talking about concepts.
"I think theists just use the word immaterial to muddy the waters and move the goalposts"
They try to use the non-material concepts as evidence for immaterial substances.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic
Concepts are imaginary, residing in the mind.
That is definitely true. It's very difficult, getting a lot of them to understand what properly constitutes evidence.
Most theist claims can be traced to one major assumption or another, sadly. And many of them seem to think those assumptions are self-evident facts. It's hard to have any intelligent discussion with those ones.
Anon11674 1 year ago
@Anon11674 "Concepts are imaginary"
Is math imaginary or is it physical? Maybe I can borrow some theist thought to explain what I think concepts are. Hold on, it's not going to be that bad :P
Theists say evil is real and exists. They often tell you that evil doesn't exist in itself but is only a privation of something good. Well I say concepts exist and are real but they only exist as a mind has organized imagery and logical firing of the brain on something that is real or physical.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@Anon11674 In other words we produce thoughts that are based on what is physical but are created in our brain. So concepts like mathematics we can treat as universal unchanging and eternal but really they aren't. The things which exist that the concepts come from are the things that are real. The concepts are just the logical construct of our brain organizing patterns or things perceived or reconstructed from reality.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@Anon11674 Excuse me I didn't mean mathematics isn't real. It certainly is. The concept is real. I mean as an abstract idea it is only real conceptually, but the principles exists only in that things exist. For nothing to exist there would be no such thing as mathematics or at least it would only be imaginary even if it necessarily would exist in any possible world.
That's kind of my view on things. I'm not well learned in psychologyt, but I feel like science can only give us the physical how.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic
Science is only for explaining how. The why of things only occurs to conscious beings, and we are obsessed with finding why's where they don't exist, due to our anthropomorphizing instinct. We subconsciously assume everything that happens around us is done by living things. That aspect helped us in our evolutionary past to deal with predators and rivals, but its remnants have trapped us in religion and superstition far too long.
Anon11674 1 year ago
@Anon11674 "That aspect helped us in our evolutionary past to deal with predators and rivals"
Is there a specific study on this phenomenon?
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic
Anthropomorphizing may not be the right word, but I don't recall exactly what it was. It's something I picked up years ago. Similar instincts make us look for familiar patterns like faces, animals, and people in seemingly random images, and that's why people keep seeing Jesus and the Virgin Mary in stuff like wood-grain and grilled cheese sandwiches. (I've also seen Mary in a used condom and a dog's rear online, just something I find really funny.)
Anon11674 1 year ago
@Anon11674 "(I've also seen Mary in a used condom and a dog's rear online, just something I find really funny.)"
Lol. It's a good way to make a living.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@Anon11674 "And many of them seem to think those assumptions are self-evident facts."
I know. It is really frustrating because I can relate to the more intelligent theists who think atheists aren't dealing with sophisticated philosophical ideas and realizing everyone has assumptions that are unproven or unprovable. However, I wish they would admit they have a different standard of evidence, because I have yet to see a theist be consistent on the principle of what is evidence.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic All the evidence we know of comes from empirical data. Sure there are properly basic beliefs that we can only find consistent with reality but we can't prove. But theists accept that. However, when they claim God exists and point to humans as evidence for designers they go beyond empirical data because a human creates but we don't know of immaterial minds that create or any immaterial substance. If theists could prove we have an immaterial soul that would be evidence for God.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic
True, more or less. I'm more inclined to say a supernatural/immaterial soul would be evidence of some sort of spiritual realm, where gods might be hiding from the real world.
I can prove Australia exists, and that there's a lot of marsupials down there. But I'd have to go a little farther to prove there's a kangaroo rat with only two toes living in a soup can somewhere in the outback.
Anon11674 1 year ago
@Anon11674 "But I'd have to go a little farther to prove there's a kangaroo rat with only two toes living in a soup can somewhere in the outback."
I'd get your point, but with God. If a supernatural substance existed it could be a candidate for questions metaphysical questions that science cannot answer. However, there is still reason to reject God because even though God could be a candidate for fine tuning or the origin of the universe, it is still a God of the gaps.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic
What metaphysical questions do you mean?
I see critical thinking skills with many christians, but when they reach a topic they connect with their religion, those faculties seem to completely derail.
Wasn't Kurt Wise one of those guys who abandoned science because it contradicted his beliefs? Those stories are terrible, and they show how mentally harmful religion can be. To abandon hard evidence and logic because they don't agree with what you were taught as a child...
Anon11674 1 year ago
@Anon11674 "What metaphysical questions do you mean?"
Like causality, the cosmos, order. Things that science can describe but doesn't give us insight into what must be true about the world or how things interact. Science describes how things operate in this world and it doesn't go much further.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic
I think there might simply be no answers for some things, and they're simply so because they are. But maybe we'll figure out most of them as we get closer to the root of reality.
But cutting-edge science is already beyond me in many places, so I'll leave the heavy science to the geniuses to hand down to me when they figure it out, haha.
Anon11674 1 year ago
@Anon11674 "so I'll leave the heavy science to the geniuses to hand down to me when they figure it out, haha."
I read an article saying we shouldn't trust scientists so much because the history of science shows we are often wrong. I was kind of mad because it sounded like creationist propaganda, but it did make me think that unless a theory as stood the test of some time and is well tested or accepted by scientists it isn't good enough to say it is peer reviewed and I don't need to see evidence
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic But this would probably more applicable to the sciences that are associated with industry such as pharmacy, but sometimes cosmologists make wild claims as if they are probably fact that turn out to be wrong soon after. I only say this because we may come up with a theory of everything and people are going to be too quick to accept it as almost fact because they trust in the scientific method. But this method takes time. It's not perfect right away.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic
Some people have a pretty naive trust of whatever 'scientific breakthrough' the popular science hacks prematurely trumpet about each week.
When I see these, I just go 'hmm, interesting', and wait to see what comes of it. I hate seeing people embarrass themselves when they get overly excited about them. Popular science writers aren't reliable sources, you know?
Anon11674 1 year ago
@RuinSonic
Modern science is fairly young, and it's still maturing. In the early days, yes, there were many mistakes. Phrenology, alchemy, and so on were early mistakes. As scientists got a stronger grasp on the scientific method, they rooted out more and more of the mistakes and pseudoscience, and made fewer mistakes. We are still correcting errors in detail, but we don't see the fundamental revisions we used to.
Creationists work hard to undermine the reliability of modern science.
Anon11674 1 year ago
@Anon11674 "Wasn't Kurt Wise one of those guys who abandoned science"
Yes, Richard Dawkings talks about him a lot. To people like him life would be absolutely absurd and uncomfortable if their bible wasn't correct. So instead of throwing out the bible they try to reinterpret the evidence and reality in light of their bible no matter how strange it may be.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic
Many of them have no idea their standard of evidence is different. Of course, they first have to understand what evidence is, and that can be a nightmare to explain to people who were never trained to be skeptical of anything. Far too many were never even taught the rules of logic in a proper manner.
Ultimately, many people just don't have the mental tools necessary to reliably separate fantasy from reality, because religion discouraged their parents from teaching them.
Anon11674 1 year ago
@Anon11674 "because religion discouraged their parents from teaching them."
True, but some are taught critical thinking, logic, and evidence who are Christian. Unfortunately they were taught never to question the bible completely because no matter how difficult it is to reconcile Christianity with reality one must assume it to be true. Just look up Kurt Wise to see a prime example of someone who even admits there is evidence for evolution but says his commitment to the bible rules it out.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@Anon11674 Here's the biggest problem. Science takes small steps from one thing evident to something unknown. The hypothesis that talks about the unknown event or entity is based on what is known and is tested to see if it matches up with reality. God believe takes a wild leap from an analogy and doesn't demand any specified conformation. God could have created a pile of dung and that's it. If there's nothing indicating the supernatural what case does the theist have? Why won't they answer this?
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic
They can't answer it, because that's one of the important steps to deconversion. Many theists who dare to take that step end up eventually not being theists. I took that step myself, and I see it clearly in many deconversions.
I sometimes pity them in their efforts. They search desperately for evidence, or make it up, or latch onto something and call it evidence, when what they're really doing is clutching a security blanket tight. It can be scary, letting go of childhood beliefs.
Anon11674 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Anon11674 "Many theists who dare to take that step end up eventually not being theists."
The biggest error I made that led to my deconversion is I didn't make a commitment that Christianity had to be correct no matter what. I just figured ok I've defended it and I'm confident it will survive scrutiny so I'm going to consider all the arguments against it for what they are.
What I want to see is someone like Anthony Flew who actually goes step by step and ends up accepting the bible.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic
Many theists claim they joined religion logically, but in the cases I've taken a good look at, they were usually either former deconverts who rejoined because they missed it, or people who were trying to fill a hole in their life or snatching at any hope they can find, even false hope. Why a lot of drug addicts and prisoners turn to religion.
Haven't found a theist yet who told even a halfway convincing 'logic led me to religion' story.
Anon11674 1 year ago
@Anon11674 "Haven't found a theist yet who told even a halfway convincing 'logic led me to religion' story."
Well logic isn't all that's involved for belief, especially religious belief. But it doesn't seem to happen in steps. A lot become believers because of the moral argument and because the resurrection gives them enough satisfaction to believe in something greater and more purposeful. The less intelligent ones just believe because of their feelings or whatever irrational reason.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic
I was just saying I don't believe their claims that logic led them to belief.
Indeed, I always find emotion or a very poor grasp of logic in conversion stories.
I've never heard of someone leaving religion for logical reasons, then going back for logical reasons. Maybe it's happened with people who have very weak logical faculties, getting caught up by someone's argument at the time.
I have a feeling you'll be waiting a long time for that story.
Anon11674 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Anon11674 "Haven't found a theist yet who told even a halfway convincing 'logic led me to religion' story."
I'll let you know. Maybe I'd be the first. Of course I used to be a Christian so does that disqualify me?
But seriously. I want to see someone like Anthony flew that already had arguments for atheism and understood a little apologetics who went step by step from deism to theism to critical Christianity to whatever Christianity. No personal experience or morality requires a God either.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@Anon11674 The problem is religious people have a lot invested in their beliefs and a lot of emotional connection that it's hard for them to consider all the arguments atheists make in all their dynamics. And often when they can they are either dishonest or they have a prior commitment that their belief is important and has to be correct such as in the case of Kurt Wise.
With that said and what you said about letting go of childhood beliefs; we are placed with an enormous burden of proof.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic
Religion works itself into a person's core, it makes them feel like their worth is all wrapped up in their beliefs. Ever since I've left, this has become horribly evident to me. I'm glad I was never that lost in it. I may have never escaped.
"With that said and what you said about letting go of childhood beliefs; we are placed with an enormous burden of proof."
What do you mean? Saying us nontheists have some burden of proof here? Or that theists place it on us?
Anon11674 1 year ago
@Anon11674 "I'm glad I was never that lost in it. I may have never escaped."
I often ask myself why I didn't take the blue pill...
"Or that theists place it on us?"
Yeah, I don't agree with TogetherForPeace on the burden of proof. Just because theists demand one because of their life experiences doesn't mean we have one. But he is right that there seems to be a higher burden of proof, at least artificially created, when you're trying to convince someone they are wrong.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic
I've seen a lot of theists who accepted the most flimsy proof for their beliefs, or none at all, turn around and demand that atheists must disprove the very possibility of a god. It's outrageous.
The burden of proof is something else I've seen theists have a lot of trouble with. Many seem to think having more people supporting a claim than doubting it puts the burden solely on doubters, or that being around a long time somehow proves a claim.
Anon11674 1 year ago
@Anon11674 Yeah I agree, but I'm just more sympathetic with the rational theists. Because the totally irrational ones I can't even talk to or reason with. I knew a lot of defences for my faith before i left it and I didn't feel like religion should be blind faith. In fact I've found out that some of my beliefs as a theist were extremely unpopular amongst other theists. For instance I didn't think the moral argument was that good or morality was good because of God.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic
The moral argument is a sticky one. It seems to be one of the last things pinning modern christianity together. And Hell doctrine seems to be the biggest part remaining. Take those two away, and is there anything left of christianity, anything that makes it necessary, even within its own context?
Anon11674 1 year ago
@Anon11674 I've talked to TheHonestTheist about this very thing. How do you argue for God if you don't already assume that the human mind is an immaterial substance? Because if our minds aren't immaterial substances there is no evidence in nature to be used to say that an immaterial mind could be a best explanation or even a viable explanation. Also WLC argument in the Kalam assumes indeterminate free will when it uses God as the explanation for how something could occur from eternity past.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic
Memories are made up, warped, or lost, and our brains go wonky. Comes with having three 'brains'. There's the 'reptilian complex'; automatic functions, sexual and territorial behavior, base emotions like anger. Then the 'mammalian brain', which houses a level of intelligent thought and emotions like love and loyalty. And the neocortex, present in all apes, deals with higher thinking; logic, deception, art, language, and so on.
Sorry, it's a very complex subject. Tiny comment boxes.
Anon11674 1 year ago
@RuinSonic If you've ever been to a special education classroom or the Special Olympics, you can see that some mentally handicapped people do not have self awareness. Some of them have no idea that eating poop or masturbating in public is bad, and don't learn from mistakes. They are people, just like you and me. Their brains are just not formed to the extent that ours is.
bravesirrobin8 1 year ago
@bravesirrobin8 "some mentally handicapped people do not have self awareness."
That's crazy. Because that would seem to imply that if you stab them in the back with a pen they will react but they won't reflect on it as a conscious person does.
Is it true that people can see and respond to sensory input from their eyes but really not experience sight?
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic Of course, if their brain defect/damage is sever enough. Some may not have any form of memory, in which case you could make them burn their hand on a stove, and a few minutes later they would do it again without hesitation. Without the mechanism to learn from mistakes or to retain information, self-awareness cannot be achieved.
bravesirrobin8 1 year ago
@bravesirrobin8 But we often associate our non-automatic functions to reflection and action. We experience an input and we give an output whether or not we are totally conscious of what we are doing. The point is someone actually doesn't know what's being imputed but is acting upon it. That is plain bizarre. It's like me stabbing someone and having no idea why.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic
"That is plain bizarre. It's like me stabbing someone and having no idea why."
I seem to remember reading in several places that studies have shown that we actually react to *most* stimuli reflexively/automatically and then rationalize whatever we did *later*. Thought only coming after action, so to speak.
So, in essence, most of the time when someone stabs someone else (outside of situations involving extensive premeditation) they actually *don't* know why until after doing it.
bowlsallbroken 1 year ago
@bravesirrobin8 watch Clive Wearing to see what living with no memory is like.
supersmash43 1 year ago
WOW! What a great video! Really makes you think. The religious folk just can't accept it, "TEH SOUL!"
MiPedoteTUMBA 1 year ago
all i have to say is great video, and science is fucking awesome!
theMammothman 1 year ago