A Failure To Convince Me That Any Gods Exist

@failures art,

Quote:

What we are made of, even if it is not material in the way we conceptualize things, is still ultimately natural.

If the meaning of 'natural' can be altered to accommodate any interpretation, any kind of basic reality, then it doesn't mean anything. It becomes a meaningless concept.

As for 'reality being perceived by a being', the nature of the reality is also unavoidably a function of the manner of perception of the being. The idea of there being a 'mind-independent reality' is no longer supported by science. The idea of objectivism or naive realism has been superseded by science itself.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs wrote:

Quote:

What we are made of, even if it is not material in the way we conceptualize things, is still ultimately natural.

If the meaning of 'natural' can be altered to accommodate any interpretation, any kind of basic reality, then it doesn't mean anything. It becomes a meaningless concept.

The meaning of natural cannot be altered to accommodate any interpretation. Nature tailors its own rules, not beings. In other words, long before E=mc^2, energy was already equal to mass times the squared velocity of light. "Natural" is not some shoot from the hip term, it most certainly is not meaningless.

jeeprs wrote:

As for 'reality being perceived by a being', the nature of the reality is also unavoidably a function of the manner of perception of the being. The idea of there being a 'mind-independent reality' is no longer supported by science. The idea of objectivism or naive realism has been superseded by science itself.

Soda not pop. This is sophistry at it's most crunchy of granola, and I know my granola. Basically I said that reality is only relevant to a being's perception, and then you said, no, reality is function of the manner of the perception of a being. Do tell, what is the "function of the manner?"

If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is there, guess what? It makes a sound. Do you know why? Because sound itself is a physical thing. Sound is a pattern in a fluid varying density. It is vibration. In no equation is there a zeroing coefficient for how many beings perceive it. Certainly a computer can record what sound exists where no being is capable of perceiving it.

As for what "science supports," I'm from Missouri, so "show me." Please provide (1) a citation from a peer reviewed paper supporting your claim, and (2) a citation to support that there is any sort of real consensus in the scientific community supporting your claim. Otherwise, thank you for your opinion.

A
R
Trees falling always make sound.

1 Reply

@failures art,

Thankyou. Excellent answer.

Quote:

If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is there, guess what? It makes a sound. Do you know why? Because sound itself is a physical thing

But the type of sound it makes depends very much on the perceptive range of the creature hearing it, and the distance the creature is from the tree when it falls. There is no 'absolute sound', that is, a sound that is the same for all creatures and all viewpoints. There is always only the sound perceived from some viewpoint.

This is not sophistry, and it is also not science. It is an observation about the indispensability of the observer. As Kant demonstrated, we have no knowledge of the universe as it exists 'in itself'. Even Wikipedia's definition of 'objectivity' notes that

Quote:

most recent philosophers, since the Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant, have concluded that scientific knowledge is systematic knowledge of the nature of existing things as we perceive them, rather than as they are in themselves.

All this is saying is that objectivity is absolute, and the reality of the perceived universe is conditional.

As for the undermining of the notion of objectivity by QM, and peer-reviewed articles on it, have a look at The Quantum Theory and Reality by Bernard D'espagnet, Scientific American, November 1979, which opens with the statement that 'the doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with the facts established by experiment.'

Now this does not mean that the universe 'exists in my mind'. The conception of 'my mind' is also something that exists in consciousness. Consciousness in this formulation is not one article of perception among others, but fundamental to the nature of reality.

A handy way of conceptualising it is reality is not what you see when you look out the window. Reality is you looking out the window; because this perspective includes the observer.

2 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs wrote:

But the type of sound it makes depends very much on the perceptive range of the creature hearing it

False.

What a being perceives is perhaps different than another being. However, the physical waves themselves are the same independent of what (read: who) is present or not present. The only tree that makes no sound, is the one that falls in a vacuum, and it can have lots and lots of people around.

I'll be sure to read Mr. D'espagnet. However first I'll state that I hope he accounts for the universe prior to life, otherwise, bollocks.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

Correction to above: objectivity is not absolute.

I am disputing the idea of the mind-independent reality, also known as metaphysical naturalism. I am saying that science itself no longer supports this idea. The scientists who realise this usually don't think about it: they just get on with their work. It is really up to philosophers to make sense out of it. D'Espagnet is a physicist and philosopher, and one who has written a great deal on it. But there are others.

None of this is new any more. Have a look at Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists, ed Ken Wilber. Among other things, Heisenberg sides with Plato over Democritus, and Sir James Jeans says the universe is much more like a mind than a machine.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs wrote:

Correction to above: objectivity is not absolute.

So 1=!1 or 1==1?

jeeprs wrote:

I am disputing the idea of the mind-independent reality, also known as metaphysical naturalism. I am saying that science itself no longer supports this idea.

I'm saying that William of Occom has pinned the tale of the unnecessary clause on the notion that nature requires beings.

jeeprs wrote:

The scientists who realise this usually don't think about it: they just get on with their work. It is really up to philosophers to make sense out of it.

I think history shows us quite the opposite. It's a story about philosophers trying to count how many angels on the tip of a pin while the world burns, and the scientists come along and dispel the myths created by philosophers.

jeeprs wrote:

D'Espagnet is a physicist and philosopher, and one who has written a great deal on it. But there are others.

And yet others that will disagree with Mr. D'Espagnet as well.

jeeprs wrote:

None of this is new any more. Have a look at Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists, ed Ken Wilber. Among other things, Heisenberg sides with Plato over Democritus, and Sir James Jeans says the universe is much more like a mind than a machine.

An interesting contradiction in terms. The mind is after all a machine at its most fundamental level.

You do realize that right?

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

hmm.

First, numbers are not objective. They are real, but not objective. The fact that 1=1 or any other mathematical truth, is true a priori by virtue of the meaning of mathematics. But I don't believe that the meaning is derived from our experience of the world. It is also prior to experience. In other words, I don't accept empiricist accounts of mathematics, whether by Mill or anyone else.

Second, neither the brain, nor any other organic being, is like a machine, because it can do one thing that no machine can or ever will do. It can grow, and it can heal. Break a machine, and it will remain entirely useless. Break your arm, and, with a bit of help, it will heal. The brain itself is now known to have uncanny capacity to recover from injury by re-routing neural pathways around the obstacle. Everything in nature exhibits entelechy; whereas any such attribute of the mechanical world is due solely the purposes which those who created the machine are able to embed in it. The idea of the universe as a machine belongs to the 19th century. It is a manifestly inadequate analogy for the science of the 21 century. In fact the whole mechanist/scientistic worldview is outmoded. The only remaining thing to be determined is when you realize this fundamental fact. But don't worry about it - the alternative is infinitely more enriching and far more alive.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs wrote:

First, numbers are not objective. They are real, but not objective. The fact that 1=1 or any other mathematical truth, is true a priori by virtue of the meaning of mathematics. But I don't believe that the meaning is derived from our experience of the world. It is also prior to experience. In other words, I don't accept empiricist accounts of mathematics, whether by Mill or anyone else.

This sounds a lot like 1=1. Always. Living things or not.

jeeprs wrote:

Second, neither the brain, nor any other organic being, is like a machine, because it can do one thing that no machine can or ever will do. It can grow, and it can heal. Break a machine, and it will remain entirely useless.

False.

Break a machine, and it's original design is invalidated. It is not useless. The history of mechanics is laughing in full chorus at your claim. Certainly you don't need to be told of how many machines have come about from broken machines do you? You've gripped on to some limited view of what is "useful," and mistaken it for utilitarianism.

jeeprs wrote:

Break your arm, and, with a bit of help, it will heal. The brain itself is now known to have uncanny capacity to recover from injury by re-routing neural pathways around the obstacle.

And yet random bit flip errors on a piece of RAM will allow a computer to LEARN addition where it has not been programmed. Are you familiar with the "Ghost in the Shell?" It's about computer systems and intelligence. Evolution is not confined to biology. It is inevitable in all systems.

jeeprs wrote:

Everything in nature exhibits entelechy; whereas any such attribute of the mechanical world is due solely the purposes which those who created the machine are able to embed in it.

The evolution of the eye, and the modern camera lens do not agree with this claim. Both operate on the same optical physics, and yet how can you argue that the lens has but one "purpose" and the eye does not?

jeeprs wrote:

The idea of the universe as a machine belongs to the 19th century. It is a manifestly inadequate analogy for the science of the 21 century. In fact the whole mechanist/scientistic worldview is outmoded. The only remaining thing to be determined is when you realize this fundamental fact. But don't worry about it - the alternative is infinitely more enriching and far more alive.

You're moving the goalpost. I spoke of the brain. Regardless, you're opinion is noted. If the universe is to be considered anything but a machine, I'm not sure what could be the "alternative" other than some narrow view of nature as some sandbox for the entitled life of beings like us (editor's note: results may vary).

How any of this is convincing in the least that any god exists is beyond me.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

thanks again, very interesting response. The discussion does have considerable bearing on the topic of the OP but I agree that this might not be obvious. However I will stand by the claim that what is organic and what is mechanical are categorically different. Organisms are alive, machines are not, and this is a difference that makes a difference. It is not a trivial distinction.

And as I mentioned before, James Jeans offers the view that the Universe is much more like a great mind than a great machine. Perhaps there you can see some bearing on the OP. I will dig up the passage later, if there is any interest.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

I'm the OP. This discussion came about because I the topic came up in another thread, and I did not wish to derail what I thought was an interesting thread.

jeeprs wrote:

Organisms are alive, machines are not, and this is a difference that makes a difference. It is not a trivial distinction.

And yet if a machine was self conscious, the distinction would certainly demand to be challenged.

Humans have a very long history of making "distinctions," and that's all I'll say about that.

A
R
This and that

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

And yet if a machine was self conscious

Ah yes. And if I could make gold out of lead, then I wouldn't have to go to work any more. But this is just another scientistic fantasy, of course. Why do you think AI, which started off with such enormous fanfare in the 60's, has been a complete failure? You would think that the processes of thought might be able to be abstracted to a bunch of algorithms, but Roger Penrose and Hubert Dreyfus will differ. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus%27_critique_of_artificial_intelligence

2 Replies

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

In explaining my reasons for atheism, I think it's first and foremost important to point out that Atheism isn't a proposal; it is skepticism.

I am not angry at any gods, so atheism is not some sort of rebellion.

Simply put, I believe in a natural universe. A natural universe is what we experience. It is verifiable. To quote Buckminster Fuller: "Nature requires no calculation to act with the greatest economy."

To claim that a god exists is a great claim, perhaps the greatest claim possible. It is literally the claim to know what the highest form of life/energy/intelligence is in the entire universe, and that they can and do violate the rules of nature at their whim. Such a great claim requires great evidence. Such a burden has never been met. Since it has never been met, there is no reason to believe in any gods.

A
R
T

For what you have just said I can see that after all you have a God...
(take Nature into Unity and you have found him)

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

fresco wrote:

My solution (expounded at length elsewhere)is that "existence" is about relationship between concepts (technically called "nominalism" as opposed to "realism") and relational concepts are all we can discuss. The concept "atheism" has a particular relationship with the concepts "god" and "evidence" which differs signifanctly from that of "theism". But these concepts are also related to concepts of "self" such that "selves" for theists do not so much have "faith" as are "faith". ( In term as of set theory, "theistic selves" are a subset of "faithful entities").

Now you well argue that the analysis above is unfounded speculation, but it is at least an attempt to analyse why otherwise "intelligent persons" are held by the idea of theism beyond a simplistic need for psychological security.

I think calling god existence or existence = god is nothing different than saying gods create thunderbolts and earthquakes. It does not answer anything by saying god is existence, or the fact that there is existence means that it is evidence for a god. That is like saying since I exist, so do gremlins.

How can you draw the line and say, well a god exists because there is existence but a gremlin doesn't exist? You are only picking and choosing here but refusing to acknowledge that you are picking and choosing.

By what criteria are you using? It can't be that since there is existence, there is a god. That is not a basis. Because if it is, then all things mythological also have that same basis. So Zeus exists, Ra exists, the flying pink elephants exists. So which is it?

I happen to disagree...
Existence alone is proof of God...against nothingness !
God is EVERYTHING bounded in Unity !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I happen to disagree...
Existence alone is proof of God...against nothingness !
God is EVERYTHING bounded in Unity !

How is it proof? That is like saying gremlins exist because things break. It is incredibly absurd reasoning.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:
I happen to disagree...
Existence alone is proof of God...against nothingness !
God is EVERYTHING bounded in Unity !

How is it proof? That is like saying gremlins exist because things break. It is incredibly absurd reasoning.

That is odd...what sort of proof you think you can get outside your own human established limits ??? ...even proof, what does it mean outside human limits ?
...A pretension I tell you !

Now if you take Everything there is together you certainly get to learn that zero is not truly possible but a metaphor...

Plus why should God be something like a Creator ? A classic God ? Is there a rule book for God Nature ?

The question you should ask is why something rather then nothing and the answer is pretty obviously around you

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs wrote:

Quote:
And yet if a machine was self conscious

Ah yes. And if I could make gold out of lead, then I wouldn't have to go to work any more. But this is just another scientistic fantasy, of course. Why do you think AI, which started off with such enormous fanfare in the 60's, has been a complete failure?

The reason is that we tried to design intelligence instead of letting it simply evolve. It is quite interesting to me the rate in which computer based intelligence makes break-throughs without human design.

Are you familiar with evolutionary algorithms?

What you should take away is that AI is never going to be a product of coding a computer to mimic a human's mind, but rather letting a computer learn in incremental steps.

AI is an inevitability by principles of evolution, not a scientific fantasy. All that is required is iteration and the propagation of successful traits.

jeeprs wrote:

You would think that the processes of thought might be able to be abstracted to a bunch of algorithms, but Roger Penrose and Hubert Dreyfus will differ. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus%27_critique_of_artificial_intelligence

Dreyfus' opinion was fairly accurate, but it was based on the 1960's view of reverse engineering the human mind to create AI. This approach has been long replaced by those making break-throughs in AI.

AI
R
T

1 Reply

To my view the question is not if there is a God but instead what is GOD ???
(given that something exists...)

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

For what you have just said I can see that after all you have a God...

You are projecting.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

(take Nature into Unity and you have found him)

In one post, you've proposed that there is one god and it is a male. Nature has no gender, your presentation of a god is unconvincing.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

For what you have just said I can see that after all you have a God...

You are projecting.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

(take Nature into Unity and you have found him)

In one post, you've proposed that there is one god and it is a male. Nature has no gender, your presentation of a god is unconvincing.

A
R
T

So I suppose in order to disbelieve God you have a definition of what a GOD is supposed to be and to be not...unless of course you believe nothing exists...no Reality !!! Rolling Eyes

Don´t mind the sex thing I am Portuguese... we don´t use the "it" around here...(we should...)

Obviously I agree with you when it comes to no difference between Machines and Minds...

1 Reply

There you have your God in all its grandeur and size :
(for the purpose of image alone forget the alien stuff...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3zLzepBNvc

1 Reply

A Failure To Convince Me That Any Gods Exist

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know