What is the meaning of life on Earth?

indough wrote:

Is it possible to be non-atheist and not believe in the view of God that is held by the main religions?

For all intents and purposes, no.

"God" isn't strictly defined, so it's probably impossible to be a total atheist. The term "atheist" essentially means one rejects the common belief in the type of "God" the major religions worship.

As far as I'm concerned, you can believe that an unexplainable "force" created the universe and still be an atheist. As long as you don't try to strictly define this "force", then you're still an atheist.

You seem like you're trying to get away from labelling yourself an atheist for some reason. Do you not like the label as you think it implies you're cold or cynical or something?

I guess natural selection could be viewed as unconscious design, but it doesn't require a God, when you look at just how much "design" it can achieve it really does put an end to the need for one, in my view anyway

well you only need to look at brain injuries and see the effect on the mind

indough wrote:

We aren't even remotely intelligent enough to understand even human consciousness

What gives you that idea? They thought we'd never understand life as well and now we understand it just perfectly, alot of respected philosophers and cognitive sciences belief they already have explained what consciousness is all that is needed now is more detail from cognitive neuroscience to convince the rest of us.

it's true we don't know how the brain works but we do know the mind is the workings of the brain, frontal lobotomy ftw

Ah cmon, a punch to the head is all the proof thats required

indough wrote:

It shows a correlation between motor functions, the CNS and such, but they're not the mind.

The onus is on you if you don't believe the brain and bodies actions give the mind, as if they don't you have to postulate some dualistic framework, and why should anyone care in trying to invalidate a framework that is clearly not backed up by any scientific evidence and goes against biology, evolution and physics. All the evidence brain injuries (yes of course they effect the mind..are you having a laugh???), neurological diseases like alzheimer's effect the brain in ways that we have a thorough knowledge of and of course they also effect the mind. The list of brain abnormalities and the effects they have on the mind is endless (not to mention drugs)..so your just talking rubbish there saying that they don't effect the mind, btw the CNS includes the motor system as it includes the whole brain and spinal cord:rolleyes: and if you are saying that insults to the brain don't effect the mind, well then your going down the dualism route if you are just say so, so I can argue against such an a outdated notion.

indough wrote:

It's still not enough proof though. Not just saying this for arguments sake, it's just a fact that we know **** all about the human brain and the mind

Its just fact is it...nonsense. There are countless journals on neuroscience which present results from the workings of neurotransmitters, synapses, the workings of individual neurons, the workings of networks of neurons and computational journals which present data on models of neural networks, and then there is all the single cell recordings studies, and then there is all the imaging work which look at whole brain function like PET, EEG, MEG and fMRI, and don't forget about all the experimental psychologists looking at various behavioural aspects on the brain and behavioural aspects of various neurodevelopmental disorders, oh and all the neurogenetics that are telling us all about the developmental of the nervous system including development of the cortex. How does this mass of knowledge from a wide range of disciplines amount to the fact that we no **** all about the brain and mind.

You probably think of course that the mind is so special and that consciousness is such a 'hard problem' that these details don't tell us anything about the link between the brain and mind, that they are all just details and that consciousness is going to require some kind of super explanation that will turn all these fields upside down, but again the onus is on you to explain why this should be the case and why consciousness requires some kind of special explanation.

indough wrote:

Sorry but thats just not true. Every argument brought forward by philosophers and cognitive researchers has been adequately debunked. Behaviourism, functionalism, etc

Behaviourism and functionalism haven’t been adequately debunked, maybe according to an undergrad philosophy of mind textbook they have, but in reality there are still going strong, functionalism for instance is the standard working hypothesis of cognitive science, various forms of behaviourism are still very much alive today, for example Gibsons theory of direct perception is ultimately a behaviourist creed and is still the working model for many perception scientists today. And there are various theories of consciousness today which would all claim to be functionalist (with hints of behaviourism thrown in). e.g. Global workspace model of consciousness, Dennett’s multiply drafts model, Nicolas Humphreys model of consciousness.

indough wrote:

What do you mean when you say we understand life perfectly by the way?.

We understand how the cell works from DNA replication to transcription and translation to signalling cascades in the cell, basically we know that there is nothing extra there going on, just a machine with proteins as the main workers. Before we did not though and life was seen as one of those grand question along with the human mind, but as we learned more and more about life we realised that is all it was a whole bunch of functions and the question "what is life" just kinda of dissappeared.. the same will happen with consciousness.

Edit: Sleep...in the middle of an argument...?

indough wrote:

Behaviourism and functionalism are only used in research because they are the best effort that we have, they are still severely lacking but are better to use rather than having nothing at all.

So they are not debunked then.

indough wrote:

But on the other hand if you understand consciousness so well then perhaps you'd care to explain it to us (and the rest of the world).

Working on it Did I say I understood consciousness so well..?? I think I understand it enough to know what a so called explanation of consciousness is not going to look like and thats all I argued against. But there is alot of work i think is on the right track, Dennett's mutliple drafts model for example, and an improved version of Dennett's model which focused on perceptual consciousness worked out by Kevin O'Regan (he is an experimental psychologist) and popularised by Alva Noe, and recent work by Andy Clark in response to this model (called the sensorimotor model, Regan and Noe model). But from a philosophical perspective these are ultimately behaviourist/functionalist creeds and I believe that consciousness can be adequately explained in such a framework (and I am far from alone in this), so i think now what is required is more details and adds ons, no new groundbreaking theory for example. From a philosophical perspective I actually think that Dennett's title for his book 'consciousness explained' is accurate as the model itself was only a sketch (just something he wanted scientists to investigate and flesh out) but the philosophical arguments hold up I believe.

indough wrote:

But I never claimed any explanation of consciousness, quite the opposite in fact. I don't understand how you could have been arguing against that i that case. What I did say is that we are not yet intelligent enough to understand consciousness.

Not yet intelligent enough to understand consciousness? who every person on the street, or people who study consciousness, as I said there are a number of theories of consciousness which being theories are attempted explanations. Also, by saying we are not intelligent enough to understand consciousness implies that you understand consciousness enough to conclude that we are not intelligent enough to understand it! So you do have some ideas about it.

Usually people who say we are not intelligent enough to understand consciousness usually mean not intelligent enough in a very profound way, as its not a simple case of learning more facts its just that consciousness is out of grasp entirely. Colin McGinn is one such person (mysterians as they are known), I similarly thought you meant it in this way and thus would have notions that consciousness is over and above functionalist and behaviourist explanations.

indough wrote:

And the fact that we can't yet explain it proves me right. If we were intelligent enough at the moment then we would have already explained it.

As I said there are explanations out there which are alive and well.

Intelligent enough? What does this mean, we don't know alot of things: for example in say neural development there are lots of developmental pathways that are poorly understood (the proteins involved, how they interact with each other and what other proteins or biochemicals are involved in say a particular stage of axonal guidance) but no one is going to claim that we are not intelligent enough to understand these things, we know of similar well worked examples and believe that as more empirical facts come we will work out these unknown developmental pathways in a similar way. If someone claimed we are not intelligent enough this would imply that he believes the explanation will be over and above biochemical details. By you claiming that we are not intelligent enough to understand consciousness suggests that it is somehow different than all the work we are doing at the moment on the brain and the mind, and will require somekind of conceptual breakthrough and this is simply where I think you are wrong, the conceptual breakthrough has gone and past and it was behaviourism (functionalism is just its older brother).