Naturalism and human faculties...

RichieO

Free will, freedom of choice, and the whole of your reality is an illusion created by the mind to allow you to survive in a way you are comfortable with, it is not fixed, it is in a state of transition always, it has to be, to ensure you are right and everyone else is screwed up, except for those who happen to agree with you (if you can find anyone) which is one of the reasons you are on boards.ie....

seamus

kelly1 wrote: »

- How can matter produce consciousness? Is the quark self-aware?

It's an emergent property of an arrangement. In the same way that when you arrange some steel, plastic, glass and magnetic poles in a specific way and then run some power through it, you get a touchscreen phone that displays imagery and allows interaction. Can you play Angry Birds on a quark? No, because a quark alone does not have this property.

When you arrange chemicals and elements in a certain way and run some energy through them, they produce what we know as consciousness.

Take the energy away or disassemble the components and the consciousness is gone. Simple as.

Where does the faculty of reason come from and how do we know we can trust it if it has a physical origin? So how do we know that chemical/electrical interactions produce coherent, logical, rational thoughts? Is our rationality an illusion?

Logic and reason are just extrapolated forms of 1 + 2 = 3. If X and Y then Z. Applying known data to create a model of the world around you.

The exception is that unlike maths, there are no absolutes in logic or rationality. Hence why for any given scenario two people may "logically" come to different conclusions.

Do we have free-will or is it just a convincing illusion?

Does it matter? Our experience is going to be the same regardless.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

How do you guys deal with these questions?

Usually by saying that:

a) we don't have firm answers to any of them (save the quark question) yet, but we're working on them.

b) we're fine acknowledging that we don't know the answers yet.

c) we're not going to take the inexplicability of consciousness and push off our plates and onto the plate of some other entity, and then - with a grand handwave - say that it's a divine mystery, or somesuch. That's not an answer, that's avoiding the question.

Finally, as others have pointed out, not believing in god is not a "god substitute", it's - well - not accepting that all the different religious stories we hear are true.

kelly1

*Could be* a crock of ****, but I suspect it's not. Whatever differences there are between objective reality (which I'd say is unknowable), and our perception of it, they're small enough that they don't seem to matter much.

If our thoughts (reasoning, logic, theories etc) are produced by physical forces (chemical reactions, flow of electrons, heat transfer etc) then we have no reason to assume that our thoughts are truly meaningful or rational.

This is a reductionist approach which says that we're nothing more than complex machines. And as we know, machines (e.g computers) do only what they're made/programmed to do, they behave deterministically. Inputs are received, processed and outputs are produced in a complex but determined manner. How is this any basis for the human faculties of reason, intellect, will etc?

Intellectually, I accept it. Not only does free will not exist, the concept is meaningless in my worldview. It couldn't exist. I remember when it first occurred to me, when I was sitting on a bus on the way to work. It didn't bother me at all. How could it, because it pales into insignificance if you consider the implications of there being no afterlife.

Then the illusion is an incredibly convincing one. We all make decisions every day. Take a moral decision for example. I see money left lying on a table and I can choose to take it or not take it. I know I want to take it but my conscience tells me it's wrong. I also know it will harm the person from whom I would steal. Do I *really* have no control over the decision to take the money? Is the person who takes the money really not guilty of any crime? Is the rapist innocent because he has no control over his actions?

Just to add, I don't think that all of the above leads to a bleak view of reality. Just because we can be 'explained' to an extent in terms of component parts and biological & electro-chemical processes doesn't mean that we're lessened.

This is where I completely disagree. As a Christian (to put my cards on the table), I believe that God has created in us a soul with the faculties of intellect and will. We are created "in the image and likeness of God" (Genesis 1). But atheism strips all of this away leaving only a mechanistic and degrading view of the human person. It reduces us to "wet machines". I find this view very sad, tbh.

LionelNashe

magicbastarder wrote: »

the explanations of 'finite and unbounded' i usually remember is the usual example of someone living on the surface of a sphere; their 'universe' is finite but unbounded. i.e. it's a finite area, but if they start walking on it, they'll never hit a boundary. and there's a theory that the universe is like this, but with extra dimensions. it's finite, but loops back on itself.

That's how I think of it - like in Pacman, when you go off the left hand side of the screen and reappear at the right. Pacman doesn't realise that he's living in a cylinder.

kelly1

King Mob wrote: »

Matter does produce consciousness somehow as that's what evidently is the case.

That's based on the assumption that only matter and energy exist. I don't accept that.

I'm not sure why you are suggesting quarks might be self aware...? Is this something people claim?

It was vague speculation on the materialistic explanation for consciousness, not any theory that I heard of.

There is no evidence or logic to show or suggest that consciousness is in anyway supernatural or spiritual (or magic).

I think it's a far more plausible explanation. If you posit that consciousness emerges from matter, then you have a big problem explaining the particular part of matter the produces consciousness. Is it the quarks, protons, electrons or all of them? Do the work together as a system? And how big is that system? Just the brain? All of the body? The entire universe?

Things like the scientific method are designed to reduce and exclude our brain's biases and foibles.

But according to the naturalistic view, there can be no actual/real method, only the illusion of one? Hence we can't really trust the scientific method.

If reason and rational thoughts are not real, then how do you personally explain scientific progress?

I should be asking you this question, I don't hold a naturalistic worldview!

I think genuine intellect and will can only be explained supernaturally. Consciousness has been described as the "hard problem" of neuroscience and for good reason!

This is an impossible question to answer without a solid definition of free wiil. So good luck with that.

My definition would be one's ability to freely make decisions i.e. without any coercion, force or pre-determined outcome.

Blowfish

Peregrinus wrote: »

I entirely take the point that causal chains may be so long and complex that it is beyond us to study them and see how things are determined, to the point where we can predict future events. But that's irrelevant to the moral issue raised by Mr P; if it was predestined that I would steal that chocolate bar, even though neither you nor I could predict it, I had no choice about stealing the chocolate bar, and therefore in what sense can I be morally accountable for the theft, and on what basis can it be right to punish me? You'd accept that if I were forced at gunpoint to steal the chocolate bar I couldn't be punished, wouldn't you? But, if you grant that, why would some forms of compulsion excuse my actions, but other forms not?

Have you never wondered why humans evolved a system of 'morals' and what they represent? They are essentially behaviours that in general (as it's a far from perfect system) directs human behaviours to maximise the benefit and/or minimise the loss of society as a whole.

We've evolved to see minor theft is seen as a minor loss to society, but the loss of a human life is seen as a much larger loss (though there are lots of exceptions). The percieved 'moral acceptability' of theft with a gun to your head recognises that in that situation, attempting to mimimise the loss to society by complying in an attempt to prevent the loss of a human life is seen as an acceptable action.

LionelNashe

kelly1 wrote: »

If our thoughts (reasoning, logic, theories etc) are produced by physical forces (chemical reactions, flow of electrons, heat transfer etc) then we have no reason to assume that our thoughts are truly meaningful or rational.

This is a reductionist approach which says that we're nothing more than complex machines. And as we know, machines (e.g computers) do only what they're made/programmed to do, they behave deterministically. Inputs are received, processed and outputs are produced in a complex but determined manner.

I agree with most of the above, except the 'not rational' bit, but we've already been back and forth on that. As for meaning, there is no such thing as 'true meaning'. There can only be the meaning that we give to things. That's the basis of all meaning, beauty and art that there is.

kelly1 wrote: »

How is this any basis for the human faculties of reason, intellect, will etc?

Reason & intellect, well, you have my take on it. And will, as I said, I don't believe in. Free will, to borrow one of your phrases, is a square circle. Strictly speaking, (as opposed to practically/pragmatically speaking), it just doesn't mean anything in a deterministic universe.

kelly1 wrote: »

Then the illusion is an incredibly convincing one. We all make decisions every day. Take a moral decision for example. I see money left lying on a table and I can choose to take it or not take it. I know I want to take it but my conscience tells me it's wrong. I also know it will harm the person from whom I would steal. Do I *really* have no control over the decision to take the money? Is the person who takes the money really not guilty of any crime? Is the rapist innocent because he has no control over his actions?

Crime, guilt, right, wrong, even 'transcendent meaning' as another poster called it in the Christianity forum a month or so back - all of that has to go out the window if the universe is deterministic. But, as I said in one of my posts above, if nothing matters then it doesn't matter that nothing matters, which is liberating. We can just forget about it and get on with life. If I was a character in the Big Lebowski, I'd be at the bowling alley, not running around threatening to cut of somebody's johnson.

kelly1 wrote: »

This is where I completely disagree. As a Christian (to put my cards on the table), I believe that God has created in us a soul with the faculties of intellect and will. We are created "in the image and likeness of God" (Genesis 1). But atheism strips all of this away leaving only a mechanistic and degrading view of the human person. It reduces us to "wet machines". I find this view very sad, tbh.

I've been thinking lately that I need to dig out some reading on skepticism. Skepticism, and empiricism, is at the root of the way I see things, but it's so long since I thought about this aspect of it that I'm rusty. In regards to empiricism, I read the free preview of the book you linked to, on Amazon, and I was reminded that the bible is full of examples of miracles being performed so that people could believe. I remember as a kid wondering why all the miracles had to happen so long ago and why couldn't they happen nowadays. Now they are so far removed that I can't place any trust in them. Consciousness and life and meaning emerging (to use a phrase from somebody's post above) from matter is amazing. I don't see anything degrading about it, but it took me a long time to get to this point. Atheism struck me like a thunderbolt, and it was traumatic at the time.

kelly1

Here's an interesting article on this subject.

"The woman on the operating table who was talking to me while I removed her frontal lobe had both material and immaterial powers of mind. Our higher brain functions defy precise mapping onto brain tissue, because they are not generated by tissue, as our lower brain functions are."

smacl

kelly1 wrote: »

If you posit that consciousness emerges from matter, then you have a big problem explaining the particular part of matter the produces consciousness.

Hardly. That's a bit like asking which chemical property of the paint make the Mona Lisa such an evocative painting.

Is it the quarks, protons, electrons or all of them?

All of them

Do the work together as a system?

Clearly

And how big is that system?

Huge.

Just the brain? All of the body? The entire universe?

Mostly the brain, to a lesser extent the extended nervous system and the gut. A pantheist would consider the entire universe is also connected, but they'd be exceptional in that regard. The environment that a person is raised in provides part of the context and stimulus in which the mind grows, so it does play some part.

I think genuine intellect and will can only be explained supernaturally. Consciousness has been described as the "hard problem" of neuroscience and for good reason!

Where's you're evidence. Science is full of hard problems that remain unanswered. Religion amounts to substituting a fantasy of your preferred truth in such situations, which is neither rational nor helpful.

My definition would be one's ability to freely make decisions i.e. without any coercion, force or pre-determined outcome.

Yet we never make decisions in a vacuum, there is always context which always includes elements of coercion and influence. If this wasn't the case we wouldn't have such glorious things as advertising and focused marketing.

magicbastarder

kelly1 wrote: »

I think genuine intellect and will can only be explained supernaturally. Consciousness has been described as the "hard problem" of neuroscience and for good reason!

the 'i don't know, therefore god' approach to understanding natural phenomena has led us, well, nowhere, in understanding those phenomena.
history is not on your side with the conclusion that if it can't be explained, it must be unexplainable.

King Mob

kelly1 wrote: »

That's based on the assumption that only matter and energy exist. I don't accept that.

This is not an assumption, it is a conclusion based on observation and evidence.
There is nothing at all to suggest that there is something beyond materialistic things. This is why you will most likely begin using special pleading to explain this.

kelly1 wrote: »

I think it's a far more plausible explanation.

Well it's not really plausible nor an explanation.

kelly1 wrote: »

If you posit that consciousness emerges from matter, then you have a big problem explaining the particular part of matter the produces consciousness. Is it the quarks, protons, electrons or all of them? Do the work together as a system? And how big is that system? Just the brain? All of the body?

Seems about the jist of it.
Please explain what is impossible about this explanation?

kelly1 wrote: »

But according to the naturalistic view, there can be no actual/real method, only the illusion of one? Hence we can't really trust the scientific method.

The scientific method is only trusted and absolute is so far as it can produce accurate and replicatable results.

kelly1 wrote: »

I think genuine intellect and will can only be explained supernaturally. Consciousness has been described as the "hard problem" of neuroscience and for good reason!

Ok then. How does supernatural causes explain the conciousness?
Please detail what supernatural elements are essential to conciousness, how did they arise? How do they interact with the physical elements of conciousness? How did they become integrated? How does conciousness continue without the physical elements of itself?

Just saying that it's supernatural without offering anything to show how it's a better understanding of what we observe is not very enlightening or useful.
It's the equivalent of saying "ooooh it's magic."

Centuries ago people said that things like lightning and disease could only be explained by supernatural means...

kelly1 wrote: »

My definition would be one's ability to freely make decisions i.e. without any coercion, force or pre-determined outcome.

Then with material explanations, free will is probably probably not a thing.
With your version of god: Definitely absolutely not.

seamus

kelly1 wrote: »

I think genuine intellect and will can only be explained supernaturally. Consciousness has been described as the "hard problem" of neuroscience and for good reason!

I wonder have you really looked at the fact that you wrote these two sentences beside eachother?

"I acknowledge this is a difficult problem, so I choose to believe in an easy answer"

Blowfish

kelly1 wrote: »

"The woman on the operating table who was talking to me while I removed her frontal lobe had both material and immaterial powers of mind. Our higher brain functions defy precise mapping onto brain tissue, because they are not generated by tissue, as our lower brain functions are."

There's a lot of incredibly poor arguments in that article. They even manage to completely invert what the results of the split brain experiments mean. Here's a really quick overview of what actually happened:

kelly1

smacl wrote: »

... All of them ... Clearly ... Huge.

That's just pure speculation on your part, isn't it?

Where's you're evidence. Science is full of hard problems that remain unanswered. Religion amounts to substituting a fantasy of your preferred truth in such situations, which is neither rational nor helpful.

I don't have scientific evidence, of course. I'm talking about "general divine revelation". My experience in this world tells me that my mind is something other than my physical brain. I have a very strong concept of "self". I am aware of my surrounding, I am aware of myself and my own thoughts and I am aware of my awareness and self-awareness.

My intuition tells me that matter cannot produce consciousness. I think everyone accepts that non-living matter has no consciousness but somehow a complex arrangement of molecules becomes aware and self-aware? It makes no sense whatever.

Yet we never make decisions in a vacuum, there is always context which always includes elements of coercion and influence. If this wasn't the case we wouldn't have such glorious things as advertising and focused marketing.

I still have the choice to buy or not buy. I might feel pressured but I can still say no.

RichieO

I get a feeling kelly is really looking for gods hiding place... I don't think it's in the quantum area as he never popped out of the LHC at any stage so far, however he is probably correct in looking in the mind of humans as that is the birthplace and only hiding place of ALL gods....

seamus

I think everyone accepts that non-living matter has no consciousness but somehow a complex arrangement of molecules becomes aware and self-aware? It makes no sense whatever.

I think everyone accepts that a pile of metal can't play angry birds. But somehow a complex arrangement of molecules becomes a smartphone? It makes no sense whatsoever.

kelly1 wrote: »

My experience in this world tells me that my mind is something other than my physical brain.

My experience in this world tells me that my mind is nothing except my physical brain. My mind goes everywhere my brain goes. When I take chemicals which affect my brain, it affects my mind. When my brain goes into an altered state, I go unconscious.

I have so far experienced no situation which would lead me to conclude that my mind and my physical brain are or can be in any way separated.

We can't both be right.

Blowfish

seamus wrote: »

My experience in this world tells me that my mind is nothing except my physical brain. My mind goes everywhere my brain goes. When I take chemicals which affect my brain, it affects my mind. When my brain goes into an altered state, I go unconscious.

Indeed. If consciousness is external to your physical state, then why does it, along with the sense of 'self', surroundings, thoughts etc. only work approximately 2/3 of the time? Why does it just so happen to disappear at exactly the time when the physical body is taking time to recover? Surely if the sense of 'self' is not a physical manifestation, then it wouldn't need to recover when the body does?

kelly1

RichieO wrote: »

I get a feeling kelly is really looking for gods hiding place...

What I'm trying to do RichieO, is to point out the absurd, self-defeating nature of an atheistic/materialistic/naturalistic worldview. It's reductionistic and degrading.

I cannot accept that I am nothing more than a complex arrangement of particles. I refuse to reduce myself to a machine. I completely deny that free-will is an illusion. I *know* I have free will.

Atheists are noted for bragging about their intelligence and rationality etc but then go on to shoot themselves in the foot by saying that we're all just deterministic machines. The implication is that reason, logic and free will are illusions and are therefore, not real.

If you are a machine, you have no reason to believe that your thoughts are rational or logical or true. How can we know anything is true if it's the product of material processes. What we believe to be true could just as easily be false.

You can't have it both ways guys!

smacl

kelly1 wrote: »

That's just pure speculation on your part, isn't it?

Nope. All matter will include 'quarks, electrons and protons' as you put it. The brain that houses the mind is made up of a hugely complex systematically organised arrangement of matter.

My intuition tells me that matter cannot produce consciousness.

Just because something is intuitive to you doesn't make it fact. You need supporting evidence. There's also a distinct possibility we'll invent general artificial intelligence in the near future, what do you suppose it will be made of?

smacl

kelly1 wrote: »

I cannot accept that I am nothing more than a complex arrangement of particles. I refuse to reduce myself to a machine. I completely deny that free-will is an illusion. I *know* I have free will.

kelly1

seamus wrote: »

My experience in this world tells me that my mind is nothing except my physical brain. My mind goes everywhere my brain goes. When I take chemicals which affect my brain, it affects my mind. When my brain goes into an altered state, I go unconscious.

Your mind goes everywhere your body goes, would be more accurate. You haven't managed to remove your brain, have you?
[Edit: sorry, last comment sounds a bit "smart"]

And as for altered states etc, the theory that I adhere to is that the mind is separate from the body and is the controller and originator of thoughts. Maybe it operates using quantum physics i.e. the mind is the observer that causes the quantum cloud to collapse into a determined state. The mind interfaces with the brain and the brain controls the body. So if the brain altered, it could block or interfere with the "messages" that come from the mind.

King Mob

kelly1 wrote: »

Maybe it operates using quantum physics i.e. the mind is the observer that causes the quantum cloud to collapse into a determined state. The mind interfaces with the brain and the brain controls the body. So if the brain altered, it could block or interfere with the "messages" that come from the mind.

This is completely empty waffle based on movie level quantum physics. It is not how actual quantum physics works, nor is it a viable explanation for how the brain might work.

Further, it contradicts your earlier anecdote, which implied that the brain is apparently not important to the function of the mind.

kelly1

Let me give a simple example, please.

Let's say I claim that a square circle is impossible or that no married batchelors exist or that 1+1 = 2.

How do I determine the *truth* of these claims? Could I be wrong in making these claims?

In a purely material world, I have no way of determining the truth of these claims. The are the product of material forces over which I have no control and I've no way of determining if these forces are capable of producing truth.

Do atheists believe in the existence of objective truths?

King Mob

kelly1 wrote: »

Let me give a simple example, please.

Could you please go back and answer the questions directed to you first?

Ok then. How does supernatural causes explain the conciousness?
Please detail what supernatural elements are essential to conciousness, how did they arise? How do they interact with the physical elements of conciousness? How did they become integrated? How does conciousness continue without the physical elements of itself?

kelly1

King Mob wrote: »

This is completely empty waffle based on movie level quantum physics. It is not how actual quantum physics works, nor is it a viable explanation for how the brain might work.

I'm referring to the uncertainty principle. i.e. a particles precise position and momentum are undetermined until observation occurs. Before the observation occurs, you're dealing with probabilities.

Further, it contradicts your earlier anecdote, which implied that the brain is apparently not important to the function of the mind.

No, I'm saying the mind is the "master", while the brain is the "slave".

kelly1

King Mob wrote: »

Could you please go back and answer the questions directed to you first?

From which post?

King Mob

kelly1 wrote: »

I'm referring to the uncertainty principle. i.e. a particles precise position and momentum are undetermined until observation occurs. Before the observation occurs, you're dealing with probabilities.

Yes, this is a layman's understanding of some aspects of quantum mechanics.
However it is not correct to apply them in the ways you are applying them.

kelly1 wrote: »

No, I'm saying the mind is the "master", while the brain is the "slave".

So which parts of the brain can been removed without effecting the mind? And how is that possible in the first place?

How does the physical brain communicate with the spiritual mind?

King Mob

kelly1 wrote: »

From which post?

I quoted them:

Ok then. How does supernatural causes explain the conciousness?
Please detail what supernatural elements are essential to conciousness, how did they arise? How do they interact with the physical elements of conciousness? How did they become integrated? How does conciousness continue without the physical elements of itself?

RichieO

kelly1 wrote: »

Your mind goes everywhere your body goes, would be more accurate. You haven't managed to remove your brain, have you?

And as for altered states etc, the theory that I adhere to is that the mind is separate from the body and is the controller and originator of thoughts. Maybe it operates using quantum physics i.e. the mind is the observer that causes the quantum cloud to collapse into a determined state. The mind interfaces with the brain and the brain controls the body. So if the brain altered, it could block or interfere with the "messages" that come from the mind.

The mind is NOT separate from the brain, no more than the brain is separate from the body, the mind and brain are connected to the body in ways that are still poorly understood by experts in the field, so how can anyone conclude they are separate or separable? Only by imagining it and having faith that it's true...???