Greetings from the Great White North (Canada, that is!)

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 8:00 pm

Hi gang!
I've been a goldmember for a few months now and I finally decided to get active in a freethought community, so here I am.

I would have started posting sooner, but I got into discussion forums a couple of years ago when I joined two conservative political forums and an apologetics forum.

The conservative forums did help to convince me that libertarians shouldn't support the conservative agenda. You see, the talking heads on television are much more careful about expressing what they believe than the rank and file conservative christian footsoldiers of the movement, who let it all hang out in their rants about: liberals, gays, blacks, Mexicans, Muslims, etc. etc.. Instead of using the careful code words that Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilley and Republican politicians use, such as "illegal immigrants", they'll just come right out and say they don't want anymore damn Mexicans moving in -- it's good to know how people really feel about an issue.

On the personal side, I'm 50 years old, married 20 years and have one child, now a teenager. I have virtually no post-secondary education, but I've always been curious about all kinds of subjects, ranging from science to religion and philosophy. I have to admit that since I started losing faith in Christianity over 30 years ago, much of what I've read in science, philosophy and apologetics, has been to answer a string of arguments put forth to me to convince me to go back to church. I've explored nonchristian religious thought (mainly Buddhism and Taoism), but even though I find meditation to be a valuable mental exercise, I don't accept their claim that they have direct, higher knowledge gained from inner mental experiences.

I don't think a lifelong quest for truth ever leads to a final solution. Even though I've settled on a naturalistic philosophy, I am still undecided on a few points. A big one lately comes from my reading on neuroscience and philosophy of mind: is consciousness an emergent process generated by complex interaction of lifeless physical forces? Or are there properties of mind in the matter that makes up our world? I'll rule out explanations from substance dualism that our bodies are infused with a supernatural soul, but I can't rule out property dualism, which gives matter properties of mind, at least not yet!

Master of Logic Joined: Oct 04, 2003 Posts: 9384

Your lingering in exploring answers rooted in religion is your long time indoctrination that there has to be some sort of "something" out there.

I would suggest that when you "explore" these things ask yourself, "is this something that merely appeals to me, that I simply like?"

You mentioned buddhism and Taoism. But those too are ancient and myered in superstition. They may avoid alot of the abrahamic hocus pocus claims, but are merely a different packaging on what amounts to superstitious finger crossing.

You dont need to cling to any part of a religion to be comfortable with saying, "I dont know". Science is a method, not an answer and sceintists DO NOT claim to have all the answers. But insted of looking for a label of religion to fill in the gap, just say, "I dont know".

You can find ellements of morality in all religions, but that doesnt make the practices or rituals the result of a superstitious deity or "higher knowlege". You can find the same types of morality in Star Wars and Harry Potter and Dr. Sues.

I think you do lean that way to this thinking. But you do seem to be lingering as if you want something to be there. THERE are things we have yet to know, and may never know as a species. But what we do know so far is that consistantly when we find the answer to something, it does not have a super natural or superstitious answer, it turns out to be natural.

Welcome to the forums BTW

Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 8:48 am

Thanks for the welcome Brian! To be frank, I don't find much of value in exploring religion anymore. Since my wife just left for church, maybe it's a good time to mention that I live in a divided house. But my wife's ties to the Catholic Church have more to do with family, tradition and community reasons than theology - so we have never argued much about religion. The only time it became a contentious issue was when our son decided two years ago to refuse Confirmation and leave Catholic School to attend a public school.

In the last few years, issues of ethics and morality without religion and belief in God, have had my attention because even though I personally gave up on Christianity many years ago, I still had this unconscious belief that children need church. So, I was all for my wife taking our son and our nephew - who lived with us during his teenage years, off to church every Sunday and enrolling them in the Catholic school system. If I did it all over again, I would have insisted on public education and taught morality from a nontheistic perspective in the first place.

The last thing I mentioned about theories of consciousness is not from a desire to hold onto some supernatural belief. From what I've been reading in the last year about research on consciousness, I'm wondering if the materialist approach is really able to explain subjective mental experiences as a complex manipulation of lifeless, inert forces!

I haven't decided which way to go on this - ideas of property dualism sound like mysticism, but on the other hand, the traditional interpretation of matter is essentially the same one that Christian thought and ancient Greek philosophy gave us - that matter is dead, inert and lifeless. The only difference is the supernaturalists infuse dead matter with a divine lifeforce. Are both sides out of touch with new interpretations drawn from quantum mechanics? Or are these new interpretations of matter creating a kind of quantum mysticism?

Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 9:14 am

workinprogress wrote:

The last thing I mentioned about theories of consciousness is not from a desire to hold onto some supernatural belief. From what I've been reading in the last year about research on consciousness, I'm wondering if the materialist approach is really able to explain subjective mental experiences as a complex manipulation of lifeless, inert forces!

I haven't decided which way to go on this - ideas of property dualism sound like mysticism, but on the other hand, the traditional interpretation of matter is essentially the same one that Christian thought and ancient Greek philosophy gave us - that matter is dead, inert and lifeless. The only difference is the supernaturalists infuse dead matter with a divine lifeforce. Are both sides out of touch with new interpretations drawn from quantum mechanics? Or are these new interpretations of matter creating a kind of quantum mysticism?

Welcome to the forums! Now, without further ado-
I don't understand why you feel the need to invoke dualism, material or otherwise- it seems to me that the structure of our brains, as fantastically complex as it is, leaves plenty of room to make the assumption of conciousness arising from that structure quite safe. Is there any particular argument you would make why this stance is more likely than not? Also, please be careful of quantum hocus pocus- it's taking on a very magical meaning courtesy of the woowoo crowd.

I guess what I'm saying is that while it might be comforting to believe that in quantum mechanics, some as yet undiscovered property of matter will be some kind of "consciousness molecules", I would employ Occam's razor and wait until there was evidence for it. It strikes me as a lot more reaching than it's worth, IMHO.

Note that I don't claim to understand quantum theory- I have a very limited layperson's grasp at best.

Master of Logic Joined: Oct 04, 2003 Posts: 9384

workinprogress wrote:

Thanks for the welcome Brian! To be frank, I don't find much of value in exploring religion anymore. Since my wife just left for church, maybe it's a good time to mention that I live in a divided house. But my wife's ties to the Catholic Church have more to do with family, tradition and community reasons than theology - so we have never argued much about religion. The only time it became a contentious issue was when our son decided two years ago to refuse Confirmation and leave Catholic School to attend a public school.

In the last few years, issues of ethics and morality without religion and belief in God, have had my attention because even though I personally gave up on Christianity many years ago, I still had this unconscious belief that children need church. So, I was all for my wife taking our son and our nephew - who lived with us during his teenage years, off to church every Sunday and enrolling them in the Catholic school system. If I did it all over again, I would have insisted on public education and taught morality from a nontheistic perspective in the first place.

The last thing I mentioned about theories of consciousness is not from a desire to hold onto some supernatural belief. From what I've been reading in the last year about research on consciousness, I'm wondering if the materialist approach is really able to explain subjective mental experiences as a complex manipulation of lifeless, inert forces!

I haven't decided which way to go on this - ideas of property dualism sound like mysticism, but on the other hand, the traditional interpretation of matter is essentially the same one that Christian thought and ancient Greek philosophy gave us - that matter is dead, inert and lifeless. The only difference is the supernaturalists infuse dead matter with a divine lifeforce. Are both sides out of touch with new interpretations drawn from quantum mechanics? Or are these new interpretations of matter creating a kind of quantum mysticism?

Children need church like they need Santa. Sure, you can structure guidance on blind obdiance, and that may work, but what does it create? A robot.

In getting them to "do the right thing" the authoritarian view only goes so far. After a certain age, "do as I say" doesnt work. And when it does the product is a robot. You do the right thing because it is, not because you fear punishment or expect reward.

You dont want to produce a child that cannot handle conflict resolution. The reality is that when your child grows up they will face oposition. The "God" character is an absolute ruler. If you teach your kid to question, then it can and should question athority, including you. How you keep your child from becoming a devil worshiping anachrist who rebels just to be different, is a matter of teaching them critical thinking skills.

You cant force them to be a clone of you. But you can teach them to learn and question and think for themselves.

Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 1:01 am

Yeah, I can't rule out property dualism either, but I don't think your account of "properties of mind in the matter that makes up our world" is exactly right. The matter first has to be arranged in the right kind of way. Questions like "What is it like to be a rock?" or "What is it like to be a hydrogen atom?" don't make any sense. I personally find the epiphenomenalistic view rather intriguing. Frank Jackson's "Epiphenomenal Qualia" was one of the most interesting things I read in college.

In other words, consciousness as "an emergent process generated by complex interaction of lifeless physical forces" wouldn't seem to me to be necessarily incompatible with property dualism. I'm also puzzled as to your word choice there though, namely "lifeless" and "forces". I would have perhaps gone with "an emergent phenomenon generated by complex physical interactions." The things interacting may well be alive, as our neurons are, and the interactions may not be solely due to "forces", but due to matter as well (chemical in other words), as again, our neuronal activity is.

Apologies for being a pedantic fuck.

And welcome. Very Happy

Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 8:28 pm

Raligan wrote:

workinprogress wrote:

The last thing I mentioned about theories of consciousness is not from a desire to hold onto some supernatural belief. From what I've been reading in the last year about research on consciousness, I'm wondering if the materialist approach is really able to explain subjective mental experiences as a complex manipulation of lifeless, inert forces!

I haven't decided which way to go on this - ideas of property dualism sound like mysticism, but on the other hand, the traditional interpretation of matter is essentially the same one that Christian thought and ancient Greek philosophy gave us - that matter is dead, inert and lifeless. The only difference is the supernaturalists infuse dead matter with a divine lifeforce. Are both sides out of touch with new interpretations drawn from quantum mechanics? Or are these new interpretations of matter creating a kind of quantum mysticism?

Welcome to the forums! Now, without further ado-
I don't understand why you feel the need to invoke dualism, material or otherwise- it seems to me that the structure of our brains, as fantastically complex as it is, leaves plenty of room to make the assumption of conciousness arising from that structure quite safe. Is there any particular argument you would make why this stance is more likely than not? Also, please be careful of quantum hocus pocus- it's taking on a very magical meaning courtesy of the woowoo crowd.

I guess what I'm saying is that while it might be comforting to believe that in quantum mechanics, some as yet undiscovered property of matter will be some kind of "consciousness molecules", I would employ Occam's razor and wait until there was evidence for it. It strikes me as a lot more reaching than it's worth, IMHO.

Note that I don't claim to understand quantum theory- I have a very limited layperson's grasp at best.

I don't see property dualism as anything similar to the traditional dualism of Western religions. If particles do have conscious properties, it will not save the memories stored in our neurons or save the web of neuronal interconnections that create our sense of self and unique consciousness, so it doesn't mean immortality in any meaningful sense of the word.

If I could distill all of the philosophizing mumbo jumbo about qualia and the 'hard problem' to one question, it would be how does physicalism explain why I feel alive?

I don't think asking if particles are sentient automatically puts you in the same camp as Deepak Chopra and quantum quackery, it's just asking if there are aspects to the properties of matter that aren't completely understood.

Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 8:59 pm

Eyedunno wrote:

Yeah, I can't rule out property dualism either, but I don't think your account of "properties of mind in the matter that makes up our world" is exactly right. The matter first has to be arranged in the right kind of way. Questions like "What is it like to be a rock?" or "What is it like to be a hydrogen atom?" don't make any sense. I personally find the epiphenomenalistic view rather intriguing. Frank Jackson's "Epiphenomenal Qualia" was one of the most interesting things I read in college.

I don't think those are questions worth asking anyway. According to Thomas Nagel's Bat Argument, we can't even understand what it would feel like to be a bat, let alone a rock or a hydrogen atom! I guess it would be a very simple level of consciousness. Would a light switch be able to contemplate the difference between on or off? Probably not! If particles are sentient, our level of consciousness would still be dependent on the complex interraction of 50 billion neurons that have up to 10,000 dendritic connections each.

Eyedunno wrote:

In other words, consciousness as "an emergent process generated by complex interaction of lifeless physical forces" wouldn't seem to me to be necessarily incompatible with property dualism. I'm also puzzled as to your word choice there though, namely "lifeless" and "forces". I would have perhaps gone with "an emergent phenomenon generated by complex physical interactions." The things interacting may well be alive, as our neurons are, and the interactions may not be solely due to "forces", but due to matter as well (chemical in other words), as again, our neuronal activity is.

Apologies for being a pedantic fuck.

And welcome. Very Happy

I use the terms inert and lifeless because hardline physicalists still speak the language of 19th century physics when they describe matter and the physical world. When Richard Dawkins was asked if the brain is affected by strange phenomena like quantum uncertainty, he just gave it a quick brushoff that the microtubules of the neuron are many orders of magnitude too large to need to incorporate quantum physics into an understanding of brain function. It does bother me a little that this view of the physical world seems to be identical to the one that came from Western religion. The only difference is that Christians and Greek philosophers added a supernatural realm to make the lifeless material world come alive.

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 1:33 pm

workinprogress wrote:

Raligan wrote:

workinprogress wrote:

The last thing I mentioned about theories of consciousness is not from a desire to hold onto some supernatural belief. From what I've been reading in the last year about research on consciousness, I'm wondering if the materialist approach is really able to explain subjective mental experiences as a complex manipulation of lifeless, inert forces!

I haven't decided which way to go on this - ideas of property dualism sound like mysticism, but on the other hand, the traditional interpretation of matter is essentially the same one that Christian thought and ancient Greek philosophy gave us - that matter is dead, inert and lifeless. The only difference is the supernaturalists infuse dead matter with a divine lifeforce. Are both sides out of touch with new interpretations drawn from quantum mechanics? Or are these new interpretations of matter creating a kind of quantum mysticism?

Welcome to the forums! Now, without further ado-
I don't understand why you feel the need to invoke dualism, material or otherwise- it seems to me that the structure of our brains, as fantastically complex as it is, leaves plenty of room to make the assumption of conciousness arising from that structure quite safe. Is there any particular argument you would make why this stance is more likely than not? Also, please be careful of quantum hocus pocus- it's taking on a very magical meaning courtesy of the woowoo crowd.

I guess what I'm saying is that while it might be comforting to believe that in quantum mechanics, some as yet undiscovered property of matter will be some kind of "consciousness molecules", I would employ Occam's razor and wait until there was evidence for it. It strikes me as a lot more reaching than it's worth, IMHO.

Note that I don't claim to understand quantum theory- I have a very limited layperson's grasp at best.

I don't see property dualism as anything similar to the traditional dualism of Western religions. If particles do have conscious properties, it will not save the memories stored in our neurons or save the web of neuronal interconnections that create our sense of self and unique consciousness, so it doesn't mean immortality in any meaningful sense of the word.

If I could distill all of the philosophizing mumbo jumbo about qualia and the 'hard problem' to one question, it would be how does physicalism explain why I feel alive?

I don't think asking if particles are sentient automatically puts you in the same camp as Deepak Chopra and quantum quackery, it's just asking if there are aspects to the properties of matter that aren't completely understood.

Well, for one thing, I'm not entirely convinced that the sense of self is something that is built into our particles or simply something useful that we evolved to. The usefulness of the concept of self should be obvious. Sam Harris mentions this briefly in the End of Faith- and it sparked me to begin my mystical journey, if you will. While I can't say that I have found the "End of Self", many others have, and it is the most commonly sought after goal of the mystic religions.

As for the question, "Why do I feel alive?" I would say the current answer of physicalism is I don't know- but we're working on it. Personally, I find myself inclined to surmise that it rests in those myriad neurons and connections in our brain- not on a special property of matter.

About the quantum comment- I wanted to be clear in what we're discussing. If it's legitimate quantum theory, it may be the blind leading the visually challenged, but we can at the least both acknowledge that.

Again, I'm trying to get a good sight picture of your argument, I'm not trying to attack you!

workinprogress wrote:

Eyedunno wrote:

Yeah, I can't rule out property dualism either, but I don't think your account of "properties of mind in the matter that makes up our world" is exactly right. The matter first has to be arranged in the right kind of way. Questions like "What is it like to be a rock?" or "What is it like to be a hydrogen atom?" don't make any sense. I personally find the epiphenomenalistic view rather intriguing. Frank Jackson's "Epiphenomenal Qualia" was one of the most interesting things I read in college.

I don't think those are questions worth asking anyway. According to Thomas Nagel's Bat Argument, we can't even understand what it would feel like to be a bat, let alone a rock or a hydrogen atom! I guess it would be a very simple level of consciousness. Would a light switch be able to contemplate the difference between on or off? Probably not! If particles are sentient, our level of consciousness would still be dependent on the complex interraction of 50 billion neurons that have up to 10,000 dendritic connections each.

I can't even fathom how being like a rock or a hydrogen atom is even in the same class as a bat, or even a starfish. I would expect, as an "emergent physicalist", that the starfish, with it's rudimentary nervous system, would have an infinitely greater level of consciousness than a rock, or a carrot (I lump plants in with the non-sentient, do you?).

I'm really not trying to be a smart ass here, though I see that this post can easily be taken that way- but if our consciousness resided largely in our particles, why wouldn't it be safe to infer that larger life forms, say, redwoods, have "more" consciousness, that is to say (I assume), have the capability of living fuller lives, than we do? If this is the case, wouldn't it also be necessary to explain why our (and lower) brains were able to capitalize on this sentient property, while examples like the redwood (hopefully) can't?

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 7:41 pm

workinprogress wrote:

I don't think those are questions worth asking anyway. According to Thomas Nagel's Bat Argument, we can't even understand what it would feel like to be a bat, let alone a rock or a hydrogen atom!

Raligan sort of addressed this, but I'll give it a shot as well. We don't have access to qualia (even those of another human, much less the bats Nagel used). However, we at least have pretty good reasons to suspect that qualia exist for bats and so on. These reasons don't exist for things without either a brain or something much like a brain.

In any case, my point was merely that property dualism is not incompatible with the "emergent physicalist" view (to use Raligan's words).

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 8:17 am

Raligan wrote:

Well, for one thing, I'm not entirely convinced that the sense of self is something that is built into our particles or simply something useful that we evolved to. The usefulness of the concept of self should be obvious. Sam Harris mentions this briefly in the End of Faith- and it sparked me to begin my mystical journey, if you will. While I can't say that I have found the "End of Self", many others have, and it is the most commonly sought after goal of the mystic religions..

The sense of self is not the same thing as the subjective sense of qualia. From what I've been reading from neuroscience in the last year or so, most believe that our unity of consciousness is an illusion created by brain function, based on the examinations of split-brain patients, dissociative disorders and some schizophrenics it would seem that a sense of unity of self is an illusion created by brain function. It doesn't really factor into a debate over whether or not particles have conscious properties. And I also believe the evidence strongly favours bundle theories of mind over the concept of a continuous self.

Raligan wrote:

As for the question, "Why do I feel alive?" I would say the current answer of physicalism is I don't know- but we're working on it. Personally, I find myself inclined to surmise that it rests in those myriad neurons and connections in our brain- not on a special property of matter.

And that is how our consciousness would arise whether or not matter has sentient properties.

It does bother me somewhat that physicalists like Daniel Dennett or the Churchlands dismiss the concept that matter may have undiscovered properties offhand because their conception of matter is the same as the theists concept of matter, and the religionists view every weakness of materialism as automatic support for substance dualism. I went through this on the CARM forum when I engaged a "liberal theologian" who was using arguments of David Chalmers and Sandra Blakelee, without pointing out that their concepts of dualism are not the same as the dualism that Christians believe in.

Raligan wrote:

I can't even fathom how being like a rock or a hydrogen atom is even in the same class as a bat, or even a starfish. I would expect, as an "emergent physicalist", that the starfish, with it's rudimentary nervous system, would have an infinitely greater level of consciousness than a rock, or a carrot (I lump plants in with the non-sentient, do you?).

Are viruses alive? If your answer is yes, what about prions? The creationist arguments against abiogenesis make a big production about the difference between living and non-living matter. The biochemists who are trying to unlock the secrets to the origins of life, point out that this distinction is false - that whether you are a materialist or theist, you cannot make a sharp distinction to declare where life begins.

And from my time on a conservative forum arguing with creationists who's main objection to evolution is over origns of life, I think the panpsychist approach works better in approaching the problem of how life begins.

Raligan wrote:

I'm really not trying to be a smart ass here, though I see that this post can easily be taken that way- but if our consciousness resided largely in our particles, why wouldn't it be safe to infer that larger life forms, say, redwoods, have "more" consciousness, that is to say (I assume), have the capability of living fuller lives, than we do? If this is the case, wouldn't it also be necessary to explain why our (and lower) brains were able to capitalize on this sentient property, while examples like the redwood (hopefully) can't?

Because it's still a matter of organization! I'm not aware of the redwood having anything like a brain that would allow transfer of large amounts of information. How would a brain perform any basic functions if its dendrites were limited to communicating with the neurons next door?


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore