48
   

Would the World be Better off Without Religion?

 
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Jun, 2015 11:14 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
The name Jehovah has various meanings regardless of your assertion.
I'll settle for 'Creator'
InfraBlue wrote:
So, in your circular question begging you believe in God because you believe he has free will or you believe in God's free will therefore you believe in God?
You certainly have a way of expressing your thoughts . . . The existence of free will is not sufficient proof of anything relating to my beliefs. It is necessary, however.
InfraBlue wrote:
Why is your belief in God necessary?
Because I "shun any hypothesis that makes man a puppet and God a tyrant crueler than any in history."
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Jun, 2015 03:36 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Tx for the vid, pretty good.

Listen, I'm not saying i've proven free will by my little trick, just that this experiment is easily refuted. After all, we are able to take decisions in a split second when we need to. Ever played ping pong? So it just cannot be true that our choices are set 10 second before we become conscious of them.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Jun, 2015 04:19 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:
The name Jehovah has various meanings regardless of your assertion.
I'll settle for 'Creator'

Whether God exists or not would not change that meaning of the name "Jehovah."

neologist wrote:
Because I "shun any hypothesis that makes man a puppet and God a tyrant crueler than any in history."

That doesn't demonstrate necessity. The disbelief in God would be as valid.
Frank Apisa
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 9 Jun, 2015 04:23 pm
@InfraBlue,
A blind guess that there is at least one god...and a blind guess that there are no gods...

...are both blind guesses.

Either could be right.

And if the people making the blind guesses want to call them "beliefs" and "disbeliefs"...fine. Very few people really like calling their guesses guesses when dealing with this issue.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Jun, 2015 04:36 pm
@Frank Apisa,
There's more conviction involved with belief, though.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Jun, 2015 04:44 pm
@InfraBlue,
Actually, I just wanted a chance to promote Erasmus.

In the grand scheme of things, my belief in God is irrelevant.
I would be disappointed. I kind of like living on earth. I wouldn't change much. Not my associations, not my habits. I enjoy a good life.

My view of the future would stay the same, also. If the Bible isn't correct about the coming SHTF, the prevailing winds are. Let the world go out in a blaze of glory; I want to be with friends.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Jun, 2015 06:02 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

I've seen before, and I don't buy it. Anyone could beat that experiment. All you have to do is switch your choice at the last second.


Sorry, but I've only had one cup of coffee so far. This is a joke, right?

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/wake.gif
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2015 12:55 am
@FBM,
No. The experiment protocol is IMO flawed and beatable.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2015 01:40 am
@Olivier5,
Details on the flaws you see would be welcomed. But your argument would seem to slip into infinite regress anyway. The experiment doesn't say what the decision made was before it became a conscious one. It could very well be the decision to change your mind at the last second.

Anyway, that experiment has been modified, repeated and supported by subsequent ones. I'll see if I can find the journal entries.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2015 01:47 am
http://www.mpg.de/567905/pressRelease20080414

Quote:
Unconscious decisions in the brain
A team of scientists has unravelled how the brain unconsciously prepares our decisions

April 14, 2008

Already several seconds before we consciously make a decision its outcome can be predicted from unconscious activity in the brain. This is shown in a study by scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Leipzig, in collaboration with the Charité University Hospital and the Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience in Berlin. The researchers from the group of Professor John-Dylan Haynes used a brain scanner to investigate what happens in the human brain just before a decision is made. "Many processes in the brain occur automatically and without involvement of our consciousness. This prevents our mind from being overloaded by simple routine tasks. But when it comes to decisions we tend to assume they are made by our conscious mind. This is questioned by our current findings." (Nature Neuroscience, April 13th 2008)
Brain regions (shown in green) from which the outcome of a participant’s decision can be predicted before it is made. The top shows an enlarged 3D view of a pattern of brain activity in one informative brain region. Computer-based pattern classifiers can be trained to recognize which of these micropatterns typically occur just before either left or right decisions. These classifiers can then be used to predict the outcome of a decision up to 7 seconds before a person thinks he is consciously making the decision.
Zoom Image
Brain regions (shown in green) from which the outcome of a participant’s decision can be predicted before it is ... [more]
© John-Dylan Haynes
In the study, participants could freely decide if they wanted to press a button with their left or right hand. They were free to make this decision whenever they wanted, but had to remember at which time they felt they had made up their mind. The aim of the experiment was to find out what happens in the brain in the period just before the person felt the decision was made. The researchers found that it was possible to predict from brain signals which option participants would take already seven seconds before they consciously made their decision. Normally researchers look at what happens when the decision is made, but not atwhat happens several seconds before. The fact that decisions can be predicted so long before they are made is a astonishing finding.

This unprecedented prediction of a free decision was made possible by sophisticated computer programs that were trained to recognize typical brain activity patterns preceding each of the two choices. Micropatterns of activity in the frontopolar cortex were predictive of the choices even before participants knew which option they were going to choose. The decision could not be predicted perfectly, but prediction was clearly above chance. This suggests that the decision is unconsciously prepared ahead of time but the final decision might still be reversible.

"Most researchers investigate what happens when people have to decide immediately, typically as a rapid response to an event in our environment. Here we were focusing on the more interesting decisions that are made in a more natural, self-paced manner", Haynes explains.

More than 20 years ago the American brain scientist Benjamin Libet found a brain signal, the so-called "readiness-potential" that occurred a fraction of a second before a conscious decision. Libet’s experiments were highly controversial and sparked a huge debate. Many scientists argued that if our decisions are prepared unconsciously by the brain, then our feeling of "free will" must be an illusion. In this view, it is the brain that makes the decision, not a person’s conscious mind. Libet’s experiments were particularly controversial because he found only a brief time delay between brain activity and the conscious decision.

In contrast, Haynes and colleagues now show that brain activity predicts even up to 7 seconds ahead of time how a person is going to decide. But they also warn that the study does not finally rule out free will: "Our study shows that decisions are unconsciously prepared much longer ahead than previously thought. But we do not know yet where the final decision is made. We need to investigate whether a decision prepared by these brain areas can still be reversed."


I recall a discussion among the relevant experts about a speculative "free won't" that subs in for free will by serving as an executive veto function. I don't know if any experiments have been done yet on that, though. I'll keep looking.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2015 02:22 am
@FBM,
No time to elaborate now but the devil is in the detail. Will come back to it. We already discussed it on the Free Will thread though.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2015 03:05 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:

There's more conviction involved with belief, though.


There is more insistence and bull-headedness that the belief is something more than a blind guess, Blue. That's all.

If a person is making a blind guess about the unknown and calling it a "belief" (especially a "deeply held belief")...what they are doing is making a blind guess; kidding themselves that it is more than a blind guess; and then trying to sell others on the idea that it is more than a blind guess.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2015 04:56 am
For those of you interested in the subject here it is a very simple video resuming the problem of Determinism and Free Will. In sum Determinism 101. It also provides the compatiblist view which of course from my pov boils down to politics and straw men arguments to keep everything as is now. A convenience.

Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2015 05:23 am
Going back to the topic I just want to make a small remark. We ought to distinguish fanaticism which is a human urge that can be seen in very different psychological and social contexts as in many different fields of human action and behaviour from having a set of beliefs that you cannot prove but still influence your life like for instance Religion does along with many other things that do just the same. The need for Religion has nothing to do in particular with the need for fanaticism, which is the real enemy, although they often can relate. Making the distinction is both useful and enlightening.

We know that the United States is making a big effort to prevent the country being subdued by ignorance pre concept and sheer stupidity so it can keep up with other civilized nations. We are well aware this has not been easy for enlightened Americans as the opposing forces are staggering and a real challenge. Literacy and reason are at stake and there is a lot to be lost if nothing is done. The issue is that precisely because the United States are dealing with this problem internally they are not in any shape or form able to evaluate the root of it from an emotionally detached pov.

They are fighting Religion not fanaticism and that's their mistake. For starters they give Religion prime time it doesn't deserve. Seen from afar its all very unfortunate and saddening. America gave a lot to the world and deserves a better future.
0 Replies
 
hanumanchalisayantra
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2015 05:49 am
Complicated one to answer . at least i am not wise enough to answer this
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2015 05:53 am
America ought to look more to Northern Europe social and political organization schemes and learn to soften brute Darwinism if they want a cushion that minimizes fanaticism spreading further...its the social chaos lack of bounds and a civilized environment that is causing the problem...religion is just one of its instruments. Of course acknowledging this is hurtful and pride people rather get an easier mark to put at fault.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2015 06:04 am
...yeah I know it hurts...such is life.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2015 04:12 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Determinism is not supported by modern science. It's like the idea of God: a pure belief.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2015 04:46 pm
@FBM,
For one thing, the article overstates the actual results quite a lot. From the graphic provided in the link, it appears that the prediction is never better than 58% or so, which means that it failed 42% of the times. This is only slightly better than the null hypothesis which would be a success rate of 50%. That big ERM+computer apparatus only succeeds slightly more often than flipping a coin.

One would have to read the published article to verify that the difference was statistically significant and at what level of alpha risk. However, I assume there is some decent level of stat significance, or the article would not have been publishable.

Another issue is that the choice in question is a very simple, binary one: left or right, and that it has no particular consequences. No moral quandary of any sort, no risk involved. Most life choices are far more complex than that and would thus involve a maze of brain signals that would be impossible to read through an ERM, at least with current technology.

A third issue is that the person in the ERM is encouraged to think about his choice well in advance and then commit to it. Now, we all know that when making a choice, we LEAN towards an option for a certain time, before COMMITTING to the choice, usually right before we act. The ERM could simply be reading that leaning process.

I therefore submit that it is possible to trick the machine by complexifying the choice process. Ie by thinking / imagining "left left left left" for a few seconds before switching to right (or not, say once you choose what you lean for, the second time you choose the opposite, and etc. alternatively). Doing so would (I guess) lead to a success rate that would be less than 50%.



FBM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2015 05:03 pm
@Olivier5,
I'm not finding the graph you refer to in any of the links I provided. Which one are you talking about?
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.16 seconds on 12/24/2024 at 07:17:38