Are atheists more content with their souls?

Scofflaw

joe_chicken wrote:

I suppose it depends on how you define "intellectual".

If you mean:
The ability to learn and reason; the capacity for knowledge and understanding.

I don't think Mordeth is arguing the fact that we are intellectual.

I think he means more that our intellect is an illusion caused by a long causal chain, therefore, the mechanisms that come up with something new, like computer programming, are merely logical steps in that chain.

[edit]I hope this is what Mordeth is on about

I'm not 100% sure myself. There seem to be several different options here:

1. that we live in a perfectly deterministic universe - every time you put in A, you would get out B. No other result is possible. We therefore live entirely pre-determined lives.

2. the universe is not perfectly deterministic, but we are - every time A happens to you, you do B. No other result is possible. We therefore live lives that, while they are not entirely pre-determined, are not determined by us in any way. We believe we make choices, but this is a rationalisation after the fact.

3. neither the universe nor us are perfectly deterministic, but there are very strong constraints, and we are incapable of consciously making decisions. Any time A happens to you, it is 90% likely that you will do B. Not only that, but the decision is actually made outside the conscious mind. We believe we make choices, but this is a rationalisation after the fact.

4. we are capable of making conscious decisions, but subject to very strong unconscious constraints. If A happens to you, it is 90% likely that you will do B, and only 10% likely that you will choose to do C. In the majority of cases, you'll go with your programming, but you don't have to. We actually make choices - they are not rationalisations after the fact.

5. our decisions are conscious, rational, and unconstrained. If A happens to you, you have a completely free choice as to what you do.

Now, (1) is not possible in the face of quantum indeterminism and chaos, even at a macroscopic level. We'll leave that one out.

Most people are actually arguing against (5). Fine - this option can relatively easily be shown to be false. The will is constrained. We'll leave that out.

That leaves us with options 2-4. As far as I can tell, Mordeth is arguing for either 2 or 3. I'm arguing for 4.

Part of the argument for (4) is programming. Not the existence of programming - rather, the actions of an individual programmer solving a programming problem.

If we are non-conscious, then the ability to solve a programming problem, and work out that the next step is $a=$x/2 rather than anything else must come from some sort of wired-in process. That wired-in process is either a process that specifically handles programming problems, which is, let's face it, evolutionarily impossible - or else a general-purpose module that gets handed this problem.

If a general-purpose module gets handed the programming problem, how do the neural pathways produce an appropriate solution? How do we feed a programming problem into a system designed to handle, say, run-away-or-challenge situations? The likelihood of this module producing an appropriate solution, let alone an optimal or even near-optimal solution, is vanishingly small.

Now, if you posit instead that we have an intellectual apparatus that allows for the input and processing of general problems, and that does not produce hard-wired answers, then you have already accepted that option (2) is not viable.

This leaves us with options (3) and (4). In (3), an energetically expensive illusion of consciousness is maintained to no purpose whatsoever - like running the Windows Vista GUI while not being able to do anything with it. Evolutionary theory suggests that if our consciousness can't do anything, it should have died out, since competitors without it would have been able to survive on a more meagre diet. The brain uses 20% of the bodies energy, about 25 watts - brain activity is expensive.

All of this leads me to conclude that option 4 is the most likely.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

pinksoir wrote:

of course, once free will is debunked, all kinds of moral difficulties arise. how can someone be guilty of murder if it couldn't have happened any other way? it wasn't their choice.

i suppose the same can be said of the absence of a soul. if i committed a murder, i am not now the same person as the one who committed the crime. to put it rather crudely.

Mordeth wrote:

yep, that's a doozy. might just be though that we don't have a choice in the matter

i suppose laws are just man made constructions to help societies flow smoothly, they're not neccesary or natural in or of themselves. With an ideal like you've described, focus might shift more towards rehabilitation rather than punishment. or it could just as easily not I guess.

These are particularly silly arguments. If someone has no responsibility for a crime, because we are deterministic, we likewise have no responsibility to give them a sensible punishment, because we too are deterministic.

Someone steals a lollipop, we crucify them on a giant burning rabbit and say "well, that was just what circumstances dictated". Alternatively, we give them a lemon, and hit them lightly on the head with an aspidistra - same reason.

amused,
Scofflaw

311

Cheers Tim Robbins and 5uspect ,i'll be in borders tomorrow and should be able to get at least one of your recommendations.

Take it easy,

Brian.

joe_chicken

Scofflaw wrote:

If we are non-conscious, then the ability to solve a programming problem, and work out that the next step is $a=$x/2 rather than anything else must come from some sort of wired-in process.

I'm not sure what you mean by wired-in process?

Scofflaw wrote:

How do we feed a programming problem into a system designed to handle, say, run-away-or-challenge situations?

Dont_get_eaten(){
     if(run_away)
     {
           speed++;
           if(speed<big_scary_thing->speed)
              return false;
           else return true;
      }
     
     else if(challenge)
     {
           grab_stick();
           if(stick==sharp)
                return true
           else return false;
      }
}

Maybe the root of my misunderstanding comes from your definition of hard wirededness

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

Now, if you posit instead that we have an intellectual apparatus that allows for the input and processing of general problems, and that does not produce hard-wired answers, then you have already accepted that option (2) is not viable.

Can you clarify what you mean by ‘hard wired answers’. What’s on my mind is that presumably a general purpose unit would contain general problem-solving principles, relevant to any amount of situations, that generate the answers. Those general principles are presumably wiring of a sort, but just capable of recognising a problem in isolation from its physical context.

joe_chicken

O yeah, and I have 2 more (I suppose the first one is the same as 1)

6. that we live in a perfectly deterministic universe - but the ability to see this is way outside our understanding or even our scope of consciousness
7. God

They're pretty much the same

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote:

Can you clarify what you mean by ‘hard wired answers’. What’s on my mind is that presumably a general purpose unit would contain general problem-solving principles, relevant to any amount of situations, that generate the answers. Those general principles are presumably wiring of a sort, but just capable of recognising a problem in isolation from its physical context.

"Hard-wired" in the sense of input A produces result B - every time. In the case of the brain, the wiring is in the form of preferred neural pathways - neuron-to-neuron connections. The more determined the pathway, the more rapid the possible response.

The ultimate 'hard-wiring' in humans are the reflexes - like snatching your hand out of a fire. Those neural pathways go into the spine and out again directly - the brain is not involved.

The idea is that our general processing flexibility relies on our capacity to make new neural pathways. If you accept that we have a general capacity to process information and come to one out of several possible solutions, then you have to accept that such a capacity implies the ability to decide between those solutions - which means options (3) and above.

cordially,
Scofflaw

joe_chicken

Scofflaw wrote:

The idea is that our general processing flexibility relies on our capacity to make new neural pathways. If you accept that we have a general capacity to process information and come to one out of several possible solutions

So it's our ability to choose the best solution of many that you see as being the flexi-non-hard-wirededness? (I was never very good with words)

Is this not merely going to another layer of complexity?

The choice is still a product of experience with similar situations.

Schuhart

joe_chicken wrote:

Is this not merely going to another layer of complexity?

The choice is still a product of experience with similar situations.

I still have a question – and I think joe chicken’s post is in a very similar space.

If we’re looking at how humans can enter new situations and solve problems – you chuck in that job trading pork belly futures and throw yourself into organic farming – then are we not looking at the ability of humans to look at several different problems and come to a satisfactory solution, rather than an ability to generate several solutions and pick the best?

Say our pork belly trader’s organic toilet blocks up. He’s trying to think of the best way of unblocking it, and maybe sees a parallel in some abstract math he used to use to predict price movements. That still seems explicable in terms of wiring, and input A producing unique output B.

Zillah

A friend of mine made an interesting argument.

We were discussing free will. I was talking about how there could be no freewill if the universe was predetermined, but that quantum mechanics seemed to add an element of randomness into the equation, and therefore freewill was possible.

He pointed out that in that case, it was just random, and therefore not freewill. Freewill isn't a thing.

I tried to play devil's advocate and said that if there is a soul, then freewill comes from that. He pointed out that without defining the nature of a soul, thats a complete copout, and amounts to arguing "Freewill exists because of X", where X is undefined.

Zombrex

I'm never quite sure what people mean when they say "free will" Sometimes it seems to be nothing more than a construct of philosophy

Take for example the paradox of if I can every do what I was not going to do. So, if I pick a hot chocolate in Starbucks, was it ever possible that I didn't pick a hot chocolate in starbucks? How would I know, since the only reality I'm aware of I did pick the hot chocolate. Even if we make decisions we can only ever do one of those things, we only have one time line.

Its like a 2D creature trying to figure out if they actually do or do not live in a 3D world. Either way they won't know.

As such I personally I don't really care, as I'm happy enough by what ever system we have going for ourselves. The people who have the most trouble with free will seem to be people who either believe in religion and fate and destiny (which I don't), or people who some how think that lack of free will will some how stop them from doing something they want to do, unaware of the fact that you would never actually notice if we don't have free will.

Scofflaw

joe_chicken wrote:

So it's our ability to choose the best solution of many that you see as being the flexi-non-hard-wirededness? (I was never very good with words)

Is this not merely going to another layer of complexity?

The choice is still a product of experience with similar situations.

I think so. I would see the ability to come to the best solution to an intellectual puzzle as what indicates free will.

The "meat puppet" idea has to assume that we are just evolutionary machines acting on pre-determined pathways.

There is simply no reason for us to have any evolved system in place to deal with many of the intellectual puzzles that face us in the modern world - not on a simple input-output meat puppet basis.

If we are adapting another evolved system, there is no reason it should produce appropriate answers, let alone optimal or near-optimal ones. That suggests that the process of "thinking it through" actually means something.

In a more general sense, our ability to handle, say, logic, indicates that we can take on board a set of rules that constrain our freedom, and operate within them. If our apparent intellectual capabilities are dictated by rules already, conflict between these rules and the rules of a system like logic would almost certainly occur, meaning that it would be impossible for us to actually do maths, or logic, or programming, except by trial and error.

It is possible to say that there will be no conflict between the rules of logic (or mathematics) and the rules we already have in our brains because there is another rule that reconciles the two - but at that stage we are needlessly multiplying entities...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

In a more general sense, our ability to handle, say, logic, indicates that we can take on board a set of rules that constrain our freedom, and operate within them. If our apparent intellectual capabilities are dictated by rules already, conflict between these rules and the rules of a system like logic would almost certainly occur, meaning that it would be impossible for us to actually do maths, or logic, or programming, except by trial and error.

I'd argue that the predetermined pathways created by evolution are not simple input-output systems, but are in fact more complex than we can really appreciate. Rather than it being a simple process such as the one above by joe_chicken, its an adaptive system that can replace and modify existing processes or even take entire systems wholesale. Our ability to work logic is an example of a system we can learn, rather than it robotically clashing with existing programming, the whole thing meshes and adapts.

joe_chicken

Scofflaw wrote:

It is possible to say that there will be no conflict between the rules of logic (or mathematics) and the rules we already have in our brains because there is another rule that reconciles the two - but at that stage we are needlessly multiplying entities...

I think that "multiplying of entities" is exactly my point!

There is a rule that will reconcile the two and decide which is better...

Just like there is a rule (or multiple rules) to reconcile that one and so on...

Until you get a tangled web of dependencies and rules that are beyond our ability to untangle... thus the illusion of intellect.

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

There is simply no reason for us to have any evolved system in place to deal with many of the intellectual puzzles that face us in the modern world - not on a simple input-output meat puppet basis.

If we are adapting another evolved system, there is no reason it should produce appropriate answers, let alone optimal or near-optimal ones. That suggests that the process of "thinking it through" actually means something.

But surely the general ability to solve problems is something that has evolved. Presumably even a meat puppet might at some stage have a mutation that allowed it to notice a general principle learned in another context, and presumably that mutation could be successful enough to spread.

Scofflaw

joe_chicken wrote:

I think that "multiplying of entities" is exactly my point!

There is a rule that will reconcile the two and decide which is better...

Just like there is a rule (or multiple rules) to reconcile that one and so on...

Until you get a tangled web of dependencies and rules that are beyond our ability to untangle... thus the illusion of intellect.

Hmm. Perhaps, then, you can explain why we have a rule (or rule set) that allows us to conform to arbitrary rule sets like logic/religion/law despite these regularly clashing with things as basic as survival of the organism, reproduction, eating?


cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote:

But surely the general ability to solve problems is something that has evolved. Presumably even a meat puppet might at some stage have a mutation that allowed it to notice a general principle learned in another context, and presumably that mutation could be successful enough to spread.

Ability to solve problems, sure. I'm interested in the ability to solve problems within sets of 'arbitrary' rules like programming or logic when there is no evolutionary reason for those rules.

It's easy enough to see how we do it if we are actually consciously thinking, with free will, but rather hard to explain in meat puppet terms.

cordially,
Scofflaw

joe_chicken

Scofflaw wrote:

Hmm. Perhaps, then, you can explain why we have a rule (or rule set) that allows us to conform to arbitrary rule sets like logic/religion/law despite these regularly clashing with things as basic as survival of the organism, reproduction, eating?


cordially,
Scofflaw

I never said the groups of rules were linear.

If anything your point backs up the idea of a programmable mind (i.e. people can be conditioned to let go of even the most basic of decision making processes)

Son Goku

I think Scofflaw's categories above delineate the discussion quite well. Could I ask what decision is taken to mean in your categories, Scofflaw?

Scofflaw

joe_chicken wrote:

I never said the groups of rules were linear.

If anything your point backs up the idea of a programmable mind (i.e. people can be conditioned to let go of even the most basic of decision making processes)

And the evolutionary advantage here is?

interested,
Scofflaw

joe_chicken

Scofflaw wrote:

And the evolutionary advantage here is?

interested,
Scofflaw

Some would argue that we are the most adaptable species on the planet, and that has ultimately been at the root of our success.

Doesn't mean that adaptability is always gonna pay off.

Scofflaw

joe_chicken wrote:

Some would argue that we are the most adaptable species on the planet, and that has ultimately been at the root of our success.

Doesn't mean that adaptability is always gonna pay off.

Almost certainly so. However, that doesn't really have any bearing on the question - you would need to show that the ability to conform to arbitrary rule sets is the kind of adaptability that is good - good enough to overcome the penalties. That's just for starters...


cordially,
Scofflaw

joe_chicken

Scofflaw wrote:

Almost certainly so. However, that doesn't really have any bearing on the question - you would need to show that the ability to conform to arbitrary rule sets is the kind of adaptability that is good

It's evolution, I don't need to prove anything is "good", just that it survived, and in my mind, it has.

Scofflaw wrote:

That's just for starters...

To properly prove my point I'd have to know everything about everyone ever...

I don't, therefore I can't.

aidan24326

I agree with what Wicknight said earlier. I think that free-will and the illusion of free-will are effectively the same thing. As far as we're concerned, we have the free-will to make our own decisions. Whether what we decide in a given situation is predetermined is irrelevant outside of a philosophical argument, as we are not and could not be aware of the predetermining influence anyway.


Is there any possible way that we could be wholly deterministic auomata? I don't think so. For that to have any meaning, it would be necessary that we should be able to predict future behaviour based on the current state of the system. By my understanding that's what determinism is. But does the uncertainty principle not rule out any definite knowledge of the system (brain) at a given instant in time? For something as complex as the brain these effects would be significant, the act of measurement not only disturbing the system but it's result unavoidably effecting the future. Therefore is an exact prediction of future behaviour impossible? If so, then we have to have free-will at least to some extent, and not even just in an illusory way.

As regards the OP's question, I would have thought most atheists don't believe in the idea of a soul? Consciousness would need to be separate from the physical brain for that to be possible, and in all likelyhood it isn't. Certainly that would need to be the case for there to be any chance of an afterlife. If consciousness could be shown to be purely a manifestation of complex brain physiology then the possibilty of an afterlife goes out the window.

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

I'm interested in the ability to solve problems within sets of 'arbitrary' rules like programming or logic when there is no evolutionary reason for those rules. It's easy enough to see how we do it if we are actually consciously thinking, with free will, but rather hard to explain in meat puppet terms.

I’m probably still missing the point, but how is this different to just the emergence of abstract thinking? At the end of the day, any system of rules presumably fits into some kind of underlying order. Presumably a mind that can work with that underlying order can deal with different situations.

aidan24326 wrote:

But does the uncertainty principle not rule out any definite knowledge of the system (brain) at a given instant in time?

Does the uncertainty principle necessarily have an impact on the workings of the brain? Presumably the particles that make up a pint of milk are ultimately subject to the uncertainty principle. But I can still predict with reasonable accuracy when that milk will go sour if I leave it out of the fridge.

311

aidan24326 wrote:

As regards the OP's question, I would have thought most atheists don't believe in the idea of a soul? Consciousness would need to be separate from the physical brain for that to be possible, and in all likelyhood it isn't. Certainly that would need to be the case for there to be any chance of an afterlife. If consciousness could be shown to be purely a manifestation of complex brain physiology then the possibilty of an afterlife goes out the window.

I'm no scientist and can't pretend to have knowledge of any areas of science,but.
I had an image in my mind that every living thing takes up space ,the fact that we can communicate with each other ,must mean we are all different.
Could this kind of difference not be regarded as soul ,the element that can't be predetermined by man.
I don't see a soul as something that belongs to something else ,but something that exists because it does.

Don't take me too seriously ,I never talk about stuff like this.

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote:

I think Scofflaw's categories above delineate the discussion quite well. Could I ask what decision is taken to mean in your categories, Scofflaw?

'Decision' means coming to one of multiple options through a process of consciously comparing the merits of the options.

Say you want to buy a camera - you try to do it by weighing up the various options and mentally comparing them.

The deterministic universe would mean that there is no actual choice - you will be getting camera 3, and have been going to do so since the beginning of the universe (or yesterday, if you go for the quantum-randomness-plus-determinism model). Whether you actually think or not is irrelevant, since your thinking is also dictated.

The meat-puppet models mean that the process we think we're going through of weighing up the options is an illusion. The 'decision' is actually being taken outside the illusion of consciousness, and what you "see" as "thinking" is actually just a portrayal of what is happening in the real decision making process.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

joe_chicken wrote:

It's evolution, I don't need to prove anything is "good", just that it survived, and in my mind, it has.

That is to ignore the role of natural selection in eliminating the expensive and redundant.

The brain is awfully expensive to maintain. If it could be simpler (and clearly it could, if we can cut out the illusions of consciousness and free will), then it would be simpler.

cordially,
Scofflaw

joe_chicken

Scofflaw wrote:

That is to ignore the role of natural selection in eliminating the expensive and redundant.

I don't follow?!
I thought that was the point I made.
Everything that is surviving now is a success as far as evolution goes.

Scofflaw wrote:

...if we can cut out the illusions of consciousness and free will...

Since when did I say these things are redundant?

If you had to think of the root of every decision you made, every time you had to make a decision, that would be a lot more taxing on the brain.

Scofflaw

joe_chicken wrote:

I don't follow?!
I thought that was the point I made.
Everything that is surviving now is a success as far as evolution goes.

Exactly. Since things only survive if they are either some use, or cost nothing to have, conscious decision-making has to be of some use.

The obvious use for conscious decision-making is that it consciously makes decisions. Any other explanation involves explaining why it doesn't do what it appears to do, and appears to do what it doesn't.

cordially,
Scofflaw