51. The Mystery of Consciousness

Comment #19053 by blaine on January 24, 2007 at 2:31 pm

Re: Veronique

I appreciate your interest and your insight.

I think that in all cases, consciousness is the very highest level (executive) means of arbitrating mental concentration. However, there could be non-human animals or machines who have an executive-concentration-arbitrator which does not "feel". And that is the crux of the "hard" problem: If all of my decisions follow deterministically from the inputs, why would "feeling it" as it is occurring have any survival (or other) benefit? I propose that the "feeling" that our ego is making the choices is absolutely illusion. According to evidence cited in the article above and elsewhere, we find that our mind is just tricking us to think that our conscious ego is involved in making the decisions. For example, we hear the command to move our arm, see our arm move, and assume that my ego decided to move the arm and initiated the deterministic cause-and-effect chain to move the arm... but in the experiment, it wasn't even our arm.

Thank you for making the valid point that there may also be unconscious concentration-arbitrators. In an effort to keep my discussion narrowed to consciousness here, I'll leave that be.


Re. "How do you reconcile your eg to bodies past reproductive capacity?"

I suspect that there is more meaning to your question than I can glean from what you wrote. I can only respond to the question as far as I can understand it. Evolution doesn't need to justify the continued existence of items which were formerly useful-- phsysics does that. A body is a low-entropy localization created and sustained by skimming off of energy conversions. Low entropy artifacts persist forward in time until overcome by the tendency toward chaos.

52. The Mystery of Consciousness

Comment #19048 by blaine on January 24, 2007 at 2:19 pm

Re: Phiwilli contd.

It seems that you have an unstated assumption that complete determinism necessarily implies "derives from goings-on in our neurophysiology of which we are unaware". I've given reasons why I think we should believe scientific findings about objective reality even though our mind tricks us about some things (most importantly, about ego). I am "aware" of brain mechanisms and even of unconscious thoughts because of scientific discoveries.

I think that if you make a concerted effort to study what philosophers have to say about free will, and what neurologists have to say about exactly how thoughts are made, you'll conclude as I do that all thought is deterministic down to the subatomic level, and the subatomic indeterminism can in no way be influenced by any mind/ego/soul/spirit/life... it is pure statistically weighted randomness. Not that the philosophers agree with me, but they agree that the only basis to disagree with me is either that they "want to" believe in their ego, or they are trying to justify the common belief in an ego (its downright ridiculous to see otherwise respectable philosophers like Searle flat out admit that they find no evidence, but conclude, "I suspect there's some unseen mechanism, since that is what I wish to believe.") I am not as well read in Neuroscience (but am reading it studiously now), but everything I have read indicates that there is no point in time or space where it would make sense to posit indeterminism. There is just no input which is not accounted for deterministically.

53. The Mystery of Consciousness

Comment #19041 by blaine on January 24, 2007 at 1:17 pm

Re: phiwilli

I hesitate to answer your objections with the detail which is really necessary, because I don't want to waste the time in case you do not return to this aging forum thread. I admit that you deserve a more complete answer.

I will reply here briefly (though admittedly insufficiently). It is neither easy nor rewarding to describe ultimate justifications, but I did intimate the justification of science even when brain subjectivity is tricking us:

"Correctly predicting a very improbably future event is an objective means to judge an objective truth."

I don't want to waste my time arguing with people who disagree with the premisses

1: Trust in logic is necessary to make any intelligent progress in a discussion. No, I can't PROVE this, but there is no point in discussion if we don't just "go with it".

2: You and I are justified in the general empirical assumption. There is just no point arguing if you counter my claim by saying, "Just because you have proven that X ALWAYS leads to Y, there is no reason to think that X has any tendency to lead to Y again."

3: It is counter-productive to entertain theories of trickery or illusion beyond what logic and empiricism show. The reason is, I can't disprove any trickery or illusion beyond my capability to detect it... As a result, I can argue the trickery/illusion which I know something about, or I can argue ad Ignorantiam and gain zero knowledge. I choose the former.


I will not take the time to complete the argument, but I think you can assemble it from my premisses.

54. The Mystery of Consciousness

Comment #18700 by blaine on January 22, 2007 at 2:08 pm

phiwilli:

I agree that the findings indicate that we are much more subjective than we generally believe. You seem to think that this devaluates conclusions of the scientific method. But, if I subjectively believe X, and you Y, and she Z, the way to objectively see who is right is with a predictive, scientific test. Correctly predicting a very improbably future event is an objective means to judge an objective truth. Science becomes more powerful, not less, since it is a proven method for filtering out subjectivity.

Contrary to your conclusion, I think that the new data mean that beliefs based on feelings and intuitions should be trusted less, and beliefs based on science should be trusted more.

55. The Mystery of Consciousness

Comment #18664 by blaine on January 22, 2007 at 9:26 am

Martha:

A popular article doesn't provide room to define all of the definitions and test case criteria. Pinker does provide such clarifications in his books. For tests like this, they are only trying to understand "typical" brain behavior, so that is the only kind of brain they consider with this type test. There are good reasons for this, and Pinker does explain them. To point out exceptions due to abnormal brains or behavior is just a distraction from the important discoveries being made by these studies.

56. The Mystery of Consciousness

Comment #18656 by blaine on January 22, 2007 at 8:35 am

This is to bring up a theory which often goes unstated, but which has helped me over the years to understand many otherwise unrelated ramifications, and also to predict may discoveries now being made. Viz., exactly why the phenomenon of ego evolved.

I think that (at least most of) the concept of consciousness evolved as one strategy of real-time mental-focus arbitration (which in itself does not require an ego concept). I.e., a way to arbitrate between impulses, motivations which impulses/motivations can't be known ahead of time (and which therefore can't be handled by instincts or other genetic hard-coding). More importantly, I think that the concept of self/ego evolved as a strategy to promote the genes of the self's body above the genes of other competing bodies.

Example: It is a basic feature of soul/spirit/ego that I value myself above others. If my ego/self chooses actions to preserve and promote my physical body, I will live longer to reproduce more and thereby duplicate my genes more.

As hypothesized by Nietsche over a century ago, an illusion of separate individuals RESPONSIBLE for their own motives allows us to evolve feelings of hatred, indignation, guilt, etc. I say illusion because, when brain makeup and activity is all deterministic, ultimate responsibility is an illusion (besides the additional point that there really is no ultimate ego to be responsible). I brought this up to Dawkins at a book signing and he said that it sounded interesting, but (at least at that time) he was not familiar with philosophical theories in this area (specif. Nietsche).

57. Can Jews and Evangelicals Get Along?

Comment #18121 by blaine on January 18, 2007 at 12:26 pm

Re: Luthien: Exactly!

Re: IPV4

I submitted this article because most of us here like to keep ourselves educated about propaganda efforts of our opponents. Know your enemy.

Many of the articles posted on this site are there for similar purposes.

58. Pat Robertson: God told me of 'mass killing' in 2007

Comment #16055 by blaine on January 4, 2007 at 10:03 am

Re: Comment #15926 by Convertedchristian

> Well, everyone thinks he's crazy. EVERYONE. I know
> alot of concervative evangelical christian friends
> and family members and everyone of them say they
> think he's crazy. thank goodness at least we can
> all agree that he's crazy.

"Everyone" does not think he is crazy. If everybody thought he were crazy, his rantings wouldn't be dangerous. I think that your friends and family are a poor sampling, because his TV station is immensely popular among evangelical believers. I've seen reports on two or three recent polls which show that American evangelicals believe that God is actively preparing for armageddon now (I've heard of no recent poll to the contrary).

In the US, Robertson and his organization is many times more powerful than any anti-fundamentalist organization in terms of

members
political influence
dollars

59. Letter From America: Atheists throw down the gauntlet

Comment #15893 by blaine on January 3, 2007 at 2:37 pm

Brand new example of a threat of violence from an american Fundamentalist:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/02/robertson.predictions.ap/index.html

There's an obvious difference between saying "I will kill you sinners" and "God will kill you sinners", but both are genuine murderous threats.

60. Fallen Angels Assault: Heaven at Christmas

Comment #14680 by blaine on December 24, 2006 at 7:08 am

Back to the article...

"Instead of "Atheists and the unchurched undervalue the extent to which they are getting a free ride on the social strength that religious-based virtue provides."

Intellectual laziness. Instead of doing some research into the statistical consequences which must follow from such a hypothesis (non-religious populations must be more criminal, etc.), he starts with the assumption of the goodness of Christianity and doesn't consider questioning it, even when the goal of his article is to consider the people who do question.

Satirical paraphprase: These skeptics are wrong by virtue of not assuming, like I do, that Christianity is the preserver of humanity. Since the earth is controlled primarily by religiosity, it is impossible to tell if secularism would be better, so why risk it? On the one hand, the positive effects of Christianity are so powerful that they preserve humanity from self destruction every day. On the other hand, these effects are so subtle that neither I nor anybody else can conceive of a way to objectively compare the effects of Christian and secular cultures.

61. An imaginary deity is denounced and debunked

Comment #14628 by blaine on December 23, 2006 at 7:16 pm

Seems like all parties here are agreed on all points engaged.

FYI, pp. 42 to 43 to TGI. Dawkins does argue this (closet atheism), but does not fully commit to it. I think that West, in the review above, really exaggerates Dawkin's commitment when he claims that

"... founding fathers of the United States were atheists who wanted their country to follow suit. Yes, absolutely true."

I very much doubt if Dawkins would say, "Yes, absolutely true," on this. Who knows, he could poke in here and settle the matter definitively. :)

62. An imaginary deity is denounced and debunked

Comment #14625 by blaine on December 23, 2006 at 6:58 pm

contd...

I apologize for my last sentence, which is pretty imprecise. I should have said:

I have run into many atheists who have concluded (understandably), based on atheistic authors such as Dawkins, that the Founding Fathers stood *wholeheartedly and consistenly" against organized religion.

Dawkins thinks that many FF were closet atheists. He gives several quotes (cited by West) where they stand against religion, and gives no hint that the same people also spoke for (pro) religion.

63. An imaginary deity is denounced and debunked

Comment #14620 by blaine on December 23, 2006 at 6:36 pm

As noted specifically by West, Dawkins DOES argue that Jefferson was an "atheist". That is exactly what I am referring to in the first two sentences of the third paragraph of Comment #2 above.

I have run into many atheists who have concluded (understandably), based on atheistic authors such as Dawkins, that the Founding Fathers stood stoutly against organized religion.

64. CBC Segment on Evangelist Christians

Comment #14598 by blaine on December 23, 2006 at 3:46 pm

I definitely did make my point, because you are joining me in asking people to investigate these points of legitimate authority. I'm not going to argue the economic points here because, as you seem unable to conceive, the topic of this thread is not economics.

I hope people will go to a forum where they can discuss the topic with experts in the field.

65. An imaginary deity is denounced and debunked

Comment #14595 by blaine on December 23, 2006 at 3:33 pm

To any who haven't seen my name, I'm a whole-hearted New Atheist. But... I'd like to point out that the argument for the non-religious founding of America is not as cut and dried as Dawkins or West make it out to be. I'm sure that Dawkins knows that he has oversimplified the situation (just as he knowingly simplified genetics for Selfish Gene). I have no idea about West.

The problem is, every Founding Father that I know about wrote both pro-religious and anti-religious things. Even Jefferson! Remember that these people were not only subject to typicalhuman vicissitudes, but were politicians. Any historian will tell you that there was serious mud-slinging in the first few elections for American president. As a preliminary opint-- the Declf Ind. mentions God.

I think Dawkins would admit that his evidence for Jefferson's alleged atheism is not conclusive. It is definitely not the consensus of professional historians. Franklin is one of the most ambiguous writers I've ever seen about religion. I've read his autobiography and two biographies, and I still have no idea which side he leaned to when he passed away.

My theory is that the great majority of the Founding Fathers were genuine (non-salvation) Deists, but they had to play to Christianity to the public since the great majority of the American public were traditional Christians.

So, before bringing up some Founding Father quote before a Christian audience, do some thorough research on that specific founder so that you don't get broadsided with a conflicting quote which is just as genuine as yours... or at least expect it and honestly admit that while your qoute proves that the person was your ally at some times, some times he (they were men) was not.

66. CBC Segment on Evangelist Christians

Comment #14586 by blaine on December 23, 2006 at 2:50 pm

I have accomplished my goal. Economics is completely off topic for this thread. I think people can now see that there is no New Atheist consensus about economic practicalities. I have seen several posts on this site from socialist atheists.

I stick to my point that the absolute-free-trade argument is naive, meaning that it makes most sense if one is ignorant about critical points not appropriately appreciated by the authors. An argument is not a person.

It is good and healthy logic to argue against "inappropriate authority". Throwing around the name Milton Friedman is an appeal to authority, since he is a renowned economist. However, it is not the Ad Hominem "fallacy" to argue the point that I think that respect for his authority should be tempered for the reasons that I gave. Whenever a position is supported by a premiss that person X supports it, it is not a fallacy of any sort to argue against that strut, significantly including arguments which would other wise be Ad Hominem, circumstantial or abusive.

The Schwarz. example is even more glaring. He bolsters the argument only because people respect his opinion by virtue of being a celebrity. I commit no fallacy by pointing out that his retrograde opinions have set back Atheistic progress in California by several years.

I belabor this point because I think that, unlike economic theories, good logic is apropos to every thread on this site.

67. CBC Segment on Evangelist Christians

Comment #14466 by blaine on December 22, 2006 at 2:58 pm

I recommend that people consider who funds all of the positive talk about absolute free trade (including Friedman)-- people and corporations who make millions of dollars now, and whose money will completely own our governments if free trade is not controlled.

Rich corporations and individuals are the only people with the power to decide who our government leaders are, and what our laws are. This is un-democratic. It is just getting worse as the accelleration of lobbying continues. In America, every powerful politician is rich, or is controlled by corporations. The food industry controls the laws that control the food industry. The largest companies are changing laws so that they can get around the laws made for the very purpose of restraining them. Current news says that the major airlines may collapse from about 8 to about 4 next year.

Follow the money. People like Schwarzenegger who make fortunes from under-controlled capitalism can not be trusted as unbiased observers.

I realize that this is entirely off-topic, and I submit this comment only to balance the naive pro-free-trade evangelism of the previous poster.

68. I love the commercialisation of Christmas

Comment #14174 by blaine on December 21, 2006 at 10:51 am

There are plenty of other forums where politics and economics can be discussed without introducing unnecessary division and indignation among the New Atheists here. Besides, a forum for political or economic discussion will have many more members who are particularly skilled or interested in those fields.

69. I love the commercialisation of Christmas

Comment #14126 by blaine on December 21, 2006 at 8:26 am

Re: #14092 by eggplantbren

Exactly! I agree with Hari's points, except that the history and defense of philosophical materialism can do nothing to advance a point about the hedonistic preoccupation with material things. One can be a Materialist, an Idealist, or anything in between, and still be be materialist in the hedonistic sense.

70. Richard Dawkins on The Sunday Edition

Comment #13615 by blaine on December 18, 2006 at 8:02 pm

Don't they have a person on the set who can tell people when their hair looks funny?

More importantly, I thought RD was very quick on his feet and made several insightful points. Can't blame him for not trying to answer the question that you could see the other three had, "How could an atheist have this moral compass, which you say people use to cherry pick the Bible?", because it's just counterproductive if there isn't enough time to explain the evolutionary rationale.

71. Let's Be Rational

Comment #12675 by blaine on December 13, 2006 at 8:09 am

If I get the point of the review, his only contention with Dawkins/TGI (as opposed to the issues which TGI does not cover at all) is

"He is an unreconstructed believer in technical progress, as if such progress is not sometimes equivocal and does not bring in its wake new and unanticipated problems. He seems to believe that the more technical progress we make the happier we shall be."

Can anybody point me to a page in TGI where Dawkin implies that technical progress will ALWAYS make us happer, and will be ALWAYS be unencumbered by new problems? I read TGI as showing that, until now, technical progress has had a great NET benefit to human happiness. But Dawkins gives examples where science has been used for immoral purposes due to non-religious absolutist ideas (nazis, fascists); and he explains how the moral Zeitgeist sometimes goes backwards. I guess that when a reviewer has a hard on to have the "dangers of science" publicized, he will not be satisfied with any book related to morality unless this is precisely its primary goal (i.e., that science is dangerous).