Atheism and Depression

Zombrex

PDN in the Christian forum mentioned that when he comes on to this forum he finds that most of us seem rather depressed, and seem to view life as meaningless and pointless.

While I didn't want to speak for everyone, I said that I didn't find that at all. Quite the opposite, most people here seem to have a lust for life and the wonder of nature that I don't find in religious people.

I thought I would get some opinions.

Are people here generally depressed (you can be honest) or do people see life as meaningless?

To get the ball rolling, while I find the idea of dying rather depressing. But other than that I don't find my atheism depressing.

(by the way this isn't mean to be a "Oh those silly Christians saying we are all miserable again" type thread. If someone genuinely feels that atheism leads them to be depressed I would be interested in discussing this)

Rob_l

I dont know about depression in athetists but i do know those we a deep religious belief do have longer life spans as well as a a seeming greater chance of recovery from serious illness

Zombrex

Rob_l wrote:

I dont know about depression in athetists but i do know those we a deep religious belief do have longer life spans as well as a a seeming greater chance of recovery from serious illness

While that is interesting, I suggest we try and keep this to atheism, since even if theism offers benefits, believing in a particular God isn't really an option for most atheists here, since we don't pick atheism, it picks us (ie I couldn't believe in God even if I wanted to). I'm more looking for the negatives of atheism, rather than the positives of any particular religion.

donaghs

Rob_l wrote:

I dont know about depression in athetists but i do know those we a deep religious belief do have longer life spans as well as a a seeming greater chance of recovery from serious illness

It may indeed be down to having a strong faith, and the power of positive thinking.

I feel more cheerful already knowing that Osama Bin Laden, Tomás de Torquemada, and other fanatics of past, present and future have the improved health benefits of their oh so strong faith;)

Hellm0

The negative side of atheism only becomes aparent when it is accepted without an understanding of the greater philosophy your aligning yourself with when you deny the existance of a god. People who beleive in religion have no existential concerns as dogma and scripture provide all the "proof" they need to go on with their lives and so they never need to ask the tougher questions(and thereby deal with the lack of supposed answers).

Basically an athiest has two options, to beleive that the existential questions before them are answerable(in which case a personal view of where one stands in the universe must be formulated, which is a tough thing to do) or they are not(these are the happier athiests )

Its the difference between being spoon fed(religion) and learning to use a knife and fork(athiesm with philosophy), atheism without philosophy of course being the equivilant of someone who eats with their hands.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Actually when I wander into your forum I genuinely wonder why (with a few exceptions) most of you seem to find the world so depressing and meaningless. Maybe the posters on these boards are unrepresentative (I would be worried if the posters in the Christianity forum genuinely represented the Church ), but a lot of people on the A&A forum do come across as rather depressed. The only smiling or humour seems to be when they find somebody else they can mock.

It's very much a tabloid assertion. It contains a smear, and one which is vague enough to withstand any amount of contradiction - a bit like saying "I have this feeling that PDN is a repressed paedophile".

Short of posters actually saying "I suffer from depression" I cannot see how it would be possible for PDN, or anyone, to tell that any poster here is depressed. It is certainly not possible to confirm or deny such a charge. If we all immediately respond that we're perfectly happy, it looks like we are protesting too much. If we bring up research showing that atheists in general are either happier, or as happy, as the general population, PDN is covered by "maybe the posters on these boards are unrepresentative".

However, for quite a lot of the Christians on these boards, I suspect that the A&A posters constitute close to 100% of the atheists they know - so this little smear has the effect of making it appear that atheists in general are more likely to be depressed.

That leaves us with the question of whether PDN is being honest or not. If he is, given that there is no way to tell whether a poster is actually more depressive than general, it can only be that he is seeing what he expects to see - something that rather gives the lie to his regular claims of open-mindedness.

cordially,
Scofflaw

5uspect

What gave PDN that impression? (Edit: thanks Scofflaw)

I wouldn't consider myself depressed at all. While I go through the highs and lows that come with life I'm generally quite happy and upbeat about life.

Looking at how my non belief in gods affects this I might see how PDN might consider us all to be depressed. I find the extent of religiosity and its affects on the majority of people frustrating but I wouldn't equate this frustration with depression.

On a personal level the knowledge that I'm very, very lucky to be be here living a life that is very likely an improbable event makes me appreciate life for as fleeting a moment as it is.

Silly Christians

Rob_l

Wicknight wrote:

While that is interesting, I suggest we try and keep this to atheism, since even if theism offers benefits, believing in a particular God isn't really an option for most atheists here, since we don't pick atheism, it picks us (ie I couldn't believe in God even if I wanted to). I'm more looking for the negatives of atheism, rather than the positives of any particular religion.

but surely if having a belief has positive effects then the non-believer should surely suffer negative affects.

I.e mental heatlth issues can in many cases stem from actual real illnesses and also mental issues can in many cases bring on actual physical sickness.

as in the old saying healthy body healthy mind

Scofflaw

Rob_l wrote:

but surely if having a belief has positive effects then the non-believer should surely suffer negative affects.

I.e mental heatlth issues can in many cases stem from actual real illnesses and also mental issues can in many cases bring on actual physical sickness.

as in the old saying healthy body healthy mind

Not at all. It is quite possible, for a start, that any strong belief has those effects, whether it is a theistic belief, a political belief, or self-belief - or indeed that the kind of people who have strong belief also have that characteristics.

Also, I think you are referring to this kind of survey:

MSNBC wrote:

Want to make it to 100? You've got to have faith
Survey: Very old say spirituality, hard work, good diet source of long life

Updated: 3:00 p.m. ET Aug 10, 2006
BOSTON - Faith and spirituality were cited most often by people over the age of 100 as the source of their longevity, according to a survey sponsored by a unit of UnitedHealth Group.

In a survey of 100 people between the ages of 100 and 104, 23 percent said faith rather than genes and good medical care were responsible for their long life.

Other factors given included hard work, a healthy diet and living a good, clean life.

Sixty-one percent of those surveyed said there was nothing they would have done more of in their lives and 78 percent said there is nothing they would have done less.

About 13 percent said they wished they had traveled more, 9 percent said they wished they had worked less and 6 percent said they wished they had spent more time with their families.

Can you tell me why this doesn't support your conclusions?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hivemind187

Depressed? Because I have no need to believe in superstitions? Do me a lemon!

Personally, I am happy in my hedonism thank you. I need no spiritual cross-guard to keep me in line or to soothe my bruises.

While I can see a correlation between higher intellect and a greater propensity towards "blue periods" I can see no such correlation between religion (or belief in God) and feeling better about the world or my personal circumstances.

Besides, shedding the blinkers of faith allows you to see the true beauties and miracles of the universe (miracles used in a poetic intonation). From the massive cosmic bodies to the intricate arrangements of molecules in DNA these things give me a sense of wonder and joy.

At the end of the day, I find the idea of death depressing only in that I will cease to know, learn, discover, experience and enjoy. the event itself is largely irrelevant

Scofflaw

Hivemind187 wrote:

Depressed? Because I have no need to believe in superstitions? Do me a lemon!

Personally, I am happy in my hedonism thank you. I need no spiritual cross-guard to keep me in line or to soothe my bruises.

Yes, it's kind of curious the way that Christians like to claim that atheists reject God in order to live hedonistic lifestyles (well, until we get married, anyway), and are also unhappier than Christians.

It's a bit like wartime propaganda, where the enemy is simultaneously vast, powerful, menacing, and ridiculous, stupid and bound for defeat.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Rob_l

Scofflaw wrote:

Can you tell me why this doesn't support your conclusions?

cordially,
Scofflaw

i dont see hwo this doesn't support me

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

PDN in the Christian forum mentioned that when he comes on to this forum he finds that most of us seem rather depressed, and seem to view life as meaningless and pointless.

lol?
I find the christians miserable. Not pdn, but some of the others definitely.
And some seem to think there's no point to living and it all starts when you die. And that they're worthless horrible sinners.
No thanks.

Hivemind187

Scofflaw wrote:

Yes, it's kind of curious the way that Christians like to claim that atheists reject God in order to live hedonistic lifestyles (well, until we get married, anyway), and are also unhappier than Christians.

It's a bit like wartime propaganda, where the enemy is simultaneously vast, powerful, menacing, and ridiculous, stupid and bound for defeat.

cordially,
Scofflaw

What gets me is many of the creationists, ID proponents and theists out there have actually read 1984 and yet dont bat an eyelid when the phrazes "Doublethink" and "Blackwhite" and "cognitive dissonance" are used to explain their arguments.

Another thing that bothers me about it is the assumption that "hedonism" is some how a bad or sinful thing. Surely an appetite for life, ALL OF LIFE, should be the ultimate in compliaments to a creator ... that one would use all of his "gift" to its greatest extent.

But I digress ...

Dades

I can see how for someone with real faith, having no belief might appear to be a bleak lifestyle choice.

So maybe it's simply that this notion has been subliminally 'projected' onto unbelievers, as it would be abhorrent to them not to believe.

Other than that I believe happiness is dictated by how your life unfolds and how you accept what's thrown at you, not what you believe.

Scofflaw

Rob_l wrote:

i dont see hwo this doesn't support me

"In a survey of 100 people between the ages of 100 and 104, 23 percent said faith rather than genes and good medical care were responsible for their long life."

First, it is meaningless to cite why people feel they have lived a long life as evidence of why they really lived a long life. They may be wrong.

If you asked a sample of Christians without, say, cystic fibrosis, why they felt they didn't have cystic fibrosis, many of them will ascribe it to their faith, or to God - but if both parents have the necessary defective gene, the person will have cystic fibrosis, and if not, not.

Second, even if the centenarians were correct in their assertion that their personal faith has been a contributory factor in their personal longevity, it is impossible to tell whether that is applicable as a general rule, since it is not possible to interview people who have already died. The "survey" suffers from what is called "survivorship bias".

Primitive peoples often have 'battle fetishes' which protect them in battle. You cannot shake their faith in their fetishes even after a battle in which many of them have died - because those who survive will point out that their fetishes worked, and that, self-evidently, the fetishes of those who died didn't work.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Red Hand

I find life pretty meaningless alot of the time, and yeah, I'm an atheist, and have been since childhood. But that would be down to me not doing enough to find meaning in my life.

Hivemind187

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

I find life pretty meaningless alot of the time, and yeah, I'm an atheist, and have been since childhood. But that would be down to me not doing enough to find meaning in my life.

Of course stating that implies that their should be a meaning to find in life! Where this imperative for life to have more meaning than existance itself comes from is a question that, I feel, should be asked more readily.

On the other hand, if it makes you feel good to do it then more power to you.

Red Hand

I didn't mean finding a meaning to life, I meant finding meaning in life. There is a huge difference. Meaning to life implies that there is or should be a solution.

What I meant was meaning in someone's life. For instance someone getting joy from having a family, or following a passion such as music or theatre. What I meant was passion/meaning in life, not a meaning to life.

Victor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning should be read. Part of it is about him spending time in a concentration camp as a young man during WW2 and how, as a Jewish Doctor, he saw some people having such a will to live (people who managed to find meaning in life) and others, be they atheist or somewhat religious, not displaying as much vitality. He himself saw the goal of publishing a text he had written as being some of the meaning in his life that gave him hope.

5uspect

Hivemind187 wrote:

What gets me is many of the creationists, ID proponents and theists out there have actually read 1984 and yet dont bat an eyelid when the phrazes "Doublethink" and "Blackwhite" and "cognitive dissonance" are used to explain their arguments.

Thats because Ocenania is an Atheist superstate silly!

Rob_l

Scofflaw wrote:

"In a survey of 100 people between the ages of 100 and 104, 23 percent said faith rather than genes and good medical care were responsible for their long life."

First, it is meaningless to cite why people feel they have lived a long life as evidence of why they really lived a long life. They may be wrong.

If you asked a sample of Christians without, say, cystic fibrosis, why they felt they didn't have cystic fibrosis, many of them will ascribe it to their faith, or to God - but if both parents have the necessary defective gene, the person will have cystic fibrosis, and if not, not.

Second, even if the centenarians were correct in their assertion that their personal faith has been a contributory factor in their personal longevity, it is impossible to tell whether that is applicable as a general rule, since it is not possible to interview people who have already died. The "survey" suffers from what is called "survivorship bias".

Primitive peoples often have 'battle fetishes' which protect them in battle. You cannot shake their faith in their fetishes even after a battle in which many of them have died - because those who survive will point out that their fetishes worked, and that, self-evidently, the fetishes of those who died didn't work.

cordially,
Scofflaw

and 23 percent is a high enough portion to be taken into account and given some further thought
Also I remember reading people who have strong religious beliefs also have increased chances of surviving operations and recovering. But this is off topic I was merely suggesting and as these are theories and you have no more answers than me to prove or disprove they shall remain so here.


Awaiting your cordial response

Rob

Hivemind187

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

I didn't mean finding a meaning to life, I meant finding meaning in life. There is a huge difference. Meaning to life implies that there is or should be a solution.

What I meant was meaning in someone's life. For instance someone getting joy from having a family, or following a passion such as music or theatre. What I meant was passion/meaning in life, not a meaning to life.

Victor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning should be read. Part of it is about him spending time in a concentration camp as a young man during WW2 and how, as a Jewish Doctor, he saw some people having such a will to live (people who managed to find meaning in life) and others, be they atheist or somewhat religious, not displaying as much vitality. He himself saw the goal of publishing a text he had written as being some of the meaning in his life that gave him hope.

Fair enough.

Scofflaw

Rob_l wrote:

and 23 percent is a high enough portion to be taken into account and given some further thought

Alas, no - instead, it's completely meaningless. In fact, it's kind of doubly meaningless, first because it only examines what people "feel" to be important (on the day they answered the survey, and when answering surveys), second because the sample size is statistically worthless, third because of the survivorship bias.

In order to find out whether having faith really makes you more likely to live longer, we would actually need to survey a significant sample of people with faith, and without, and compare their ages at death. If only 1% of people with strong faith make it past age 75, and 25% of people without it do, then it doesn't matter whether some portion of the 1% of people with strong faith go on to live past 100 - we can say with confidence that having strong is 99% likely to mean you'll die by 75.

If none of this makes sense to you, consider this instead: if you asked a random sample of Americans (since these centenarians are American) how important faith is in their daily lives, and what part it plays in their 'daily blessings', you will find that the proportion is much higher than 23% - in other words, the percentage attribution of good fortune by centenarians to faith is actually much lower than in the general population. The survey, if it proved anything, would prove the opposite of what the article claims it does.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

There are some people who think you should be happy all the time and if you are not there is something wrong with you.
There are other people who think you should be happy some of the time, neutral some of the time and sad some of the time. I would be in this category.
I think there is something wrong with you if when you find about things like Darfur, Burma etc. you do not feel sad. I also think, if you live in a little bubble and you don't know about these things, that is just another manifestation of selfish isolation and an absence of common humanity.
So it's normal to feel sad, depressed regularly.

I find some Christians and Atheist depressing, generally those who refuse to look at things from more than one perspective.

pH

I think that PDN comes here looking for depressed atheists and finds them, I personally think this forum contains a lot of upbeat humour and (on its day) some reasonably intelligent debate.

However according to this both strong atheists and devoutly religious seem to be less depressed than those two-minded fence-sitters - THE AGNOSTICS!

So agnostics - be happier - live long - get off the fence!

Dades

pH wrote:

I personally think this forum contains a lot of upbeat humour and (on its day) some reasonably intelligent debate.

And if the humour appears to be cynical or at the expense of some belief or other (e.g. agnostics ^^), it's only because it's usually in the context of the forum it's in...

I tend to leave behind theological humour once I log out.

lostexpectation

Wicknight wrote:

PDN in the Christian forum mentioned that when he comes on to this forum he finds that most of us seem rather depressed, and seem to view life as meaningless and pointless.

well he's more then a bit of condscending prick so what can we do?

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

PDN in the Christian forum mentioned that when he comes on to this forum he finds that most of us seem rather depressed, and seem to view life as meaningless and pointless.

While I didn't want to speak for everyone, I said that I didn't find that at all. Quite the opposite, most people here seem to have a lust for life and the wonder of nature that I don't find in religious people.

OK, let's put a bit of context into this little charade.

My comments were in response to a wonderful little cameo that Wicknight had painted of Christians and Muslims visiting this forum and wandering around in stunned amazement at how happy you all are. :rolleyes:

Therefore I shared my impression, that many (but not all) on this forum do come across as rather depressed. However, since this appears to be causing so much offence I will withdraw those remarks.

Instead, may I say how much I enjoy the cheerfulness and zest for life that pervades all your postings. I come here almost every day knowing that I will encounter a ray of sunshine that brightens up my otherwise sad and cheerless life. Your good humour and spirit of generosity to those with whom you disagree is a constant inspiration to me. While it would seem unfair to make special reference to anyone, I must single out Zillah who always comes across as being a bundle of unmitigated joy. His cheerful optimism in the face of life's adversities reminds me of Timmy Cratchit. I can hear his little voice ringing out, "God bless us, every one."

There. Will that make you happy? (Or rather, Will that cause your already ecstatic existences to just burst with excitement?).

Zillah

PDN wrote:

I must single out Zillah who always comes across as being a bundle of unmitigated joy.

Don't mistake a distaste for you and your circular brain as a distaste for life.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

OK, let's put a bit of context into this little charade.

My comments were in response to a wonderful little cameo that Wicknight had painted of Christians and Muslims visiting this forum and wandering around in stunned amazement at how happy you all are. :rolleyes:

Therefore I shared my impression, that many (but not all) on this forum do come across as rather depressed. However, since this appears to be causing so much offence I will withdraw those remarks.

Instead, may I say how much I enjoy the cheerfulness and zest for life that pervades all your postings. I come here almost every day knowing that I will encounter a ray of sunshine that brightens up my otherwise sad and cheerless life. Your good humour and spirit of generosity to those with whom you disagree is a constant inspiration to me. While it would seem unfair to make special reference to anyone, I must single out Zillah who always comes across as being a bundle of unmitigated joy. His cheerful optimism in the face of life's adversities reminds me of Timmy Cratchit. I can hear his little voice ringing out, "God bless us, every one."

There. Will that make you happy? (Or rather, Will that cause your already ecstatic existences to just burst with excitement?).

Of course! So kind of you to come and reiterate your message in a more appropriate context with a heavy layer of sarcasm. Certainly gives a different meaning to "turn the other cheek".

Still, you know what they say - the one constant factor in all your dysfunctional relationships is you.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

Still, you know what they say - the one constant factor in all your dysfunctional relationships is you.

Ah yes, on that at least we can agree.

I am actually quite touched that so many atheists care enough about what I think to post in this thread. I wish my congregation were as concerned.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Ah yes, on that at least we can agree.

I am actually quite touched that so many atheists care enough about what I think to post in this thread. I wish my congregation were as concerned.

Well, personally, I generally think quite highly of you. If I were your spiritual advisor, though, I would caution you against pride and anger.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dave!

Just had a read of a thread and got the impression that wolfbane (I think thats his name) is depressed. He's certainly no bundle of joy anyway!

In general I find most people in this forum to be pretty upbeat. Wicknight must wake up with a smile on his face! Zillah and Sangre are moany-holes, but what can ya do? Personality isn't everything y'know

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Ah yes, on that at least we can agree.

I am actually quite touched that so many atheists care enough about what I think to post in this thread. I wish my congregation were as concerned.

Well I didn't actually mean for this thread to turn into a rant directed towards you, it was more inspired by you to see how people felt atheism attributed towards depression or lack of focus in life. A few people seem to say that becoming an atheist did lead to lack or loss of direction in life. Though this discussion seems to have been lost a little as the thread turned into a rant directed towards you.

Scofflaw

DaveMcG wrote:

Just had a read of a thread and got the impression that wolfbane (I think thats his name) is depressed. He's certainly no bundle of joy anyway!

In general I find most people in this forum to be pretty upbeat. Wicknight must wake up with a smile on his face! Zillah and Sangre are moany-holes, but what can ya do? Personality isn't everything y'know

It's not Zillah's actual fault, though, because he lives in an entirely deterministic universe. The movements of particles have decreed that he do as he does.

Mind you, it consistently amazes me the way the random movements of particles produce what appear to be consistent personalities. Life's a mystery, eh?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

Mind you, it consistently amazes me the way the random movements of particles produce what appear to be consistent personalities. Life's a mystery, eh?

Its called an emergent system, look it up.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

Its called an emergent system, look it up.

Hand-waving. You are simply saying that because emergent systems are not fully explicable by the properties of their underlying media, and personality is not fully explicable by the deterministic properties of matter, personality is therefore an emergent system.

Unfortunately, that means nothing, because you are simply assuming that the personality emerges solely from the deterministic operations of matter in order to describe it as an emergent system - so that "it's an emergent system" is really just short-hand for "I can't prove that one, but I've got a fancy term I can use instead". What next? Irreducible complexity?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

How elegantly vapid. Are you proposing there is another basis for the existence of personality beyond the interaction of matter and energy?

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

How elegantly vapid. Are you proposing there is another basis for the existence of personality beyond the interaction of matter and energy?

No - I am saying that in the absence of being able to explain how a complex phenomenon like consciousness arises from simple deterministic interactions of matter and energy you have chosen to paper over the gap by using a term that essentially means neither more nor less than "complex phenomenon arising from simple deterministic interactions - in ways that are too complex for us to currently explain".

But perhaps you can actually explain how consciousness arises from these simpler interactions, rather than just explaining it away in order to preserve your belief in an entirely deterministic universe?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Beruthiel

Wicknight wrote:

PDN in the Christian forum mentioned that when he comes on to this forum he finds that most of us seem rather depressed, and seem to view life as meaningless and pointless.

I cannot see for the life of me where he gets that from. I suspect it's as the Atheist says, he is 'projecting'.
I may not post in here much, but I'm forever reading the comments and I see nothing but a lust for life, a deep knowledge and a real understanding of the world and universe around us. I see friendly banter and sometimes really funny comments.

I for one am certainly not depressed, I love my life, my family and the people around me.
I feel PDN must like to think his comments to be true, after all we are a godless lot with nothing to look forward to once we die. Sure wouldn't that just depress anyone and make your life meaningless...

Dades

Lostexpectation - you are currently riding your luck.
A ban would have been demanded by most, and justified. Watch yer gob.

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

But perhaps you can actually explain how consciousness arises from these simpler interactions, rather than just explaining it away in order to preserve your belief in an entirely deterministic universe?

There's a difference between explaining personality and explaining conciousness. Personality is simply the style and habits of how an organism behaves, subjective conciousness is that old chesnut we don't have an explanation for, given its subjective nature.

I don't need to explain how interactions of matter and energy create personality, merely present the evidence that they do. And as I have explained to PDN at great length, innumerable small factors (drugs, disease, metal spikes in the brain, too hot, too cold, ichy, comfy) demonstrate their ability to influence personality. And given the total abscence of evidence for anything other than matter and energy, it is a safe conclusion that personality is a result of the actions of countless smaller ingredients.

Two sub-points:
- Why the hang up on a deterministic universe? Surely the nature of subjective conciousness is ineffable in any variety of universe? If not deterministic then how do you believe the world functions?
- "Emergent systems" is not a phrase used to bridge the gap between small elements and large systems, its a summary. A handy title that wraps the whole package together. I'm sure a team of neurologists, physicians, evolutionary biologists, anthropologists, psychologists etc etc could tell you in incredible detail the steps by which millions of smaller factors create the human being. The fact that both you and I are ignorant of the finer details does not mean those details do not exist.

Fanny Cradock

Double post

Fanny Cradock

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, personally, I generally think quite highly of you. If I were your spiritual advisor, though, I would caution you against pride and anger.

cordially,
Scofflaw

In fairness, this thread has been used by some as a convenient vehicle for character assassination.

Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock wrote:

In fairness, this thread has been used by some as a convenient vehicle for character assassination.

I must admit I wouldn't consider it "character assassination", if only because I think of that as something subtle. Most of the remarks made have been anything but.

Funnily enough, I would consider an unsubstantiated, undismissable smear to be rather more on the lines of character assassination than simple calling of names.

Mind you, I'm not sure what was happening yesterday - across this site and others people seemed particularly bad-tempered, rude, and prone to taking offence (possibly it was just me, of course).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

There's a difference between explaining personality and explaining conciousness. Personality is simply the style and habits of how an organism behaves, subjective conciousness is that old chesnut we don't have an explanation for, given its subjective nature.

You mean that personality is simply a collection of traits? Seems reasonable. However, a conscious organism seems able to change those traits - to pretend, for example, to have a different personality, which would tend to contaminate any argument for a strictly deterministic personality (I'm presuming deterministic, anyway).

Zillah wrote:

I don't need to explain how interactions of matter and energy create personality, merely present the evidence that they do. And as I have explained to PDN at great length, innumerable small factors (drugs, disease, metal spikes in the brain, too hot, too cold, ichy, comfy) demonstrate their ability to influence personality.

All of the mechanical effects that we know affect personality certainly prove that personality can be influenced fairly deterministically by the mechanics of the brain - but I'm certainly not arguing that personality (or by extension consciousness) is totally unrelated to the underlying mechanism.

Zillah wrote:

And given the total abscence of evidence for anything other than matter and energy, it is a safe conclusion that personality is a result of the actions of countless smaller ingredients.

Yes, I don't have a problem with that - I just don't see any reason to assume determinism, though, given that many of the interactions are sufficiently small-scale to be influenced by quantum effects.

Zillah wrote:

- Why the hang up on a deterministic universe? Surely the nature of subjective conciousness is ineffable in any variety of universe? If not deterministic then how do you believe the world functions?

Well, mostly I think it's funny, to be completely honest, despite it not being in any sense ludicrous as a theory. Certainly if one does not accept that there is anything outside what science has currently measured, then it is the only possible theory.

It's just that if one takes absolutely seriously the idea that every single action of a person is simply dictated deterministically by all of the preceding history of the cosmos, the whole idea of posting on this forum becomes frankly ludicrous, as does virtually every other human activity.

Personally, I am prepared to put my faith in the idea that we are a very long way from having all the answers - secure in the knowledge that if I am wrong it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. A variation on Pascal's Wager, if you like.

Zillah wrote:

- "Emergent systems" is not a phrase used to bridge the gap between small elements and large systems, its a summary. A handy title that wraps the whole package together. I'm sure a team of neurologists, physicians, evolutionary biologists, anthropologists, psychologists etc etc could tell you in incredible detail the steps by which millions of smaller factors create the human being. The fact that both you and I are ignorant of the finer details does not mean those details do not exist.

I'm pretty close to 100% sure that they currently can't, and as far as I know there is no realistic prospect of being able to lay out any such quarks-to-man picture at any point in the foreseeable future. That's essentially why I tend to view the term "emergent system" with suspicion - I think it is used by people without the necessary credentials to paper over huge gaps in our current knowledge.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

Mind you, I'm not sure what was happening yesterday - across this site and others people seemed particularly bad-tempered, rude, and prone to taking offence (possibly it was just me, of course).

We could always blame the Devil.

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

However, a conscious organism seems able to change those traits - to pretend, for example, to have a different personality

Pretending to have a different personality is a trait in and of itself. And the causes for that trait seem to be a mundane as any other. A genetic predisposition towards social climbing/deceit, cultural expectations, peer pressure etc.

The fact that one of my more subtle traits changes the appearance of my more obvious traits does not make those subtle traits any less deterministic.

All of the mechanical effects that we know affect personality certainly prove that personality can be influenced fairly deterministically by the mechanics of the brain

To the best of our knowledge they're the only effects that have any influence on the brain. Its down right foolish to assume there are any other as-of-yet undetected mechanisms influencing the formation/manifestation of personality, no? Its a bit like evolution and God; we've explained how mundane interactions of energy and matter can form the complexities of life, why argue there is some undetectable God guiding the process?

Yes, I don't have a problem with that - I just don't see any reason to assume determinism, though, given that many of the interactions are sufficiently small-scale to be influenced by quantum effects.

Well, if its deterministic then I'm totally right. If its ultimately randomly decided at the quantum level then its just that, random, in which case our decisions are decided by a subatomic coin flip. In either case we have a complex system resulting from the interactions of innumerable smaller processes.

Well, mostly I think it's funny, to be completely honest, despite it not being in any sense ludicrous as a theory. Certainly if one does not accept that there is anything outside what science has currently measured, then it is the only possible theory.

Do you regularily seriously consider forces as-of-yet undetected by science when forming your world view?

It's just that if one takes absolutely seriously the idea that every single action of a person is simply dictated deterministically by all of the preceding history of the cosmos, the whole idea of posting on this forum becomes frankly ludicrous, as does virtually every other human activity.

I don't understand why, honestly. As Dawkins explains, its an ever increasing scale of complexity, a lift rather than a jump. A molecule reacting with another molecule to cause an energetic reaction is ok, I take it? Billions of them following micro principles which together form a larger system following a new set of macro principles is a problem though? Such complexes have a self regulating quality, keep adding energy to a system and it will develop its own patterns. The second law of thermodynamics states that the opposite will happen without constantly adding energy, but luckily we have the sun adding just such an influence to life on Earth.

You of course accept evolution, so the behaviour of ants and cats is well explained, why is the notion that humans are simply a more complex example of the same process a problem? Posting on this forum is a more intricate version of wolves howling at night, or whales singing in the deep. Dawkins refers to a "lust for Gods", in the same fashion we have a "lust" to communicate, to argue and share ideas. The fact that you won't have my back when I go hunting, or the fact that I can't consider your sister as a mate doesn't matter, the drive to engage in such behaviour exists none the less.

Personally, I am prepared to put my faith in the idea that we are a very long way from having all the answers - secure in the knowledge that if I am wrong it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. A variation on Pascal's Wager, if you like.

Which is ultimately a useless and scientifically crippling principle. "The experiment shows that X, Y and Z are causing system A to behave in a certain fashion, however, we cannot discount the influence of unknown forces so we can conclude nothing about system A"...

I'm pretty close to 100% sure that they currently can't, and as far as I know there is no realistic prospect of being able to lay out any such quarks-to-man picture at any point in the foreseeable future. That's essentially why I tend to view the term "emergent system" with suspicion - I think it is used by people without the necessary credentials to paper over huge gaps in our current knowledge.

The fact that certain individuals misuse a term does not automatically make a term meaningless. Just look at any Creationist website and the word "evolution" to see my point. The concept of emergent systems is a very elegant explanation for how large amounts of small scale factors produce a much larger complex with its own rules. It can be easily replicated in principle with programming. As I said before, the panel of scientists could explain in staggering detail the millions of mechanisms that cause a human being to behave as they do. I just don't see where there is room for (or certainly a need for) the inclusion of such ambiguous undetected forces.

Zillah

PDN wrote:

We could always blame the Devil.

We could, but that would be meaningless and all to easy. Like God and the universe.

Scofflaw

I can summarise my disagreement with your determinism, I think, into two points.

The first is that personality can be consciously altered - so that it is clearly not simply a collection of automatic traits determined solely by the underlying substrate. The claim that the conscious altering of personality is in turn determined by some other set of automatic traits determined solely by the underlying substrate strikes me as a mere addition of epicycles.

The second is that I have never read or heard of any researcher into consciousness or behaviour since Skinner who would make the claim that you make that a sufficient number of assembled experts would currently be able to explain everything from quarks to quirks - indeed, currently we can't get from quarks to gravity. I am sure we can find some who will claim that it should be possible - but that is a statement of faith. As to ants and cats - I don't consider them automata either, and the everyday behaviour of even a cat has yet to be explained in the manner you suggest in anything but the roughest outlines.

So, yes, in the face of being unable to explain many features of consciousness and behaviour using the current extent of scientific knowledge, I do indeed find it relevant to consider things as yet unknown. Quantum physics would have seemed utterly ridiculous to a classically trained Newtonian physicist, but that does not make it any less correct, and the idea that we are already at the stage of knowing scientifically everything we will ever know is laughable.

I think your explanations work only in the very broad outline view - and at that level I agree with you. I have no problem with the idea that "posting on this forum is a more intricate version of wolves howling at night, or whales singing in the deep", but don't believe that is a sufficient explanation for the content of posts, the interests of individual posters, and so on.

In much the same way, Newtonian mechanics is an adequate description of the macroscopic behaviour of bodies, but is not actually true.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock

Scofflaw wrote:

I must admit I wouldn't consider it "character assassination", if only because I think of that as something subtle. Most of the remarks made have been anything but.

Yeah, in retrospect it is possibly an ill-fitting term.