Five Reasons to Reject Belief in Gods

[Willamena]

Existence and consciousness. The "brain in a vat" is still a brain.

But how do those prove "a brain"? The "brain in a vat" exists in the Matrix.

 

[Willamena]

Or at least, the mind on the brain in the vat is still a mind, even if the brain is just a computer.

So, we can prove a mind exists, and speculate on what forms it. We are duly informed.

 

[Copernicus]

Atanu, It has been a few days since you wrote all of those posts. There was a lot of repetition, and I'm not sure if I can even understand what you were trying to say in some of them. However, I'll give it a shot.

All what you say does not give a single evidence that any brain is known in absence of consciousness. We know that a seed sprouts in a field only and three different kinds of bodies: in sleep, in dream, and in waking, sprout different produce. There is no evidence of any kind of inanimate matter exhibiting intelligence, including in a dead body. While an instrument is required to variegate homogeneous consciousness, the consciousness itself is self evident, which requires no third party validation. Brains come and go but existence is synonymous with consciousness.

You use a lot of metaphors, especially the seed metaphor. My general reaction to them is that metaphors are good for explaining new ideas, but they don't prove anything at all. While brains come and go, consciousness also comes and goes. And its ebb and flow correlates that of physical brain activity. So the evidence is that the physical brain activity actually causes consciousness.

On the other hand, there are scientific evidences, some of which have been cited above and which you are not willing to consider, that human will can alter the states of brain consciously.

I am willing to consider any legitimate evidence, and I am in perfect agreement with you that the mind alters itself, just as higher order processes interact at a macrolevel in any chaotic determinstic system.

But, I am realising that our definitions/understanding of consciousness versus manifest awareness (product) needs to be defined first.

Yes. There are a number of mental functions, all of which correlate with physical structures in brains: memory, volition, sensation, mood, emotion, calculation, belief, etc.

...You also typically brush away the evidences as placebo -- whatever that means. But you cannot explain why placebo effect happens at all.

The placebo effect is well-understood. It is a physical strengthening of the immune system. If you want to know more about the physical mechanics of how it works, there is a section called "Placebo effect and the brain" on the Wikipedia page. Why does it happen? The short answer is "natural selection".

You do. You say that awareness is due to brain. And then you say people use emergent awareness to control brain activities. Just like characters emergent on a cinema screen arguining intelligently of the story line.

No, that's not a good analogy. I recommend that you read the Wikipedia page on Emergence.

Chemicals get tired and sleep? Why chemical actions should continue unabated? What does 'we' mean at all. We are products of chemical reactions, as per some thoughts.
So, there is someone who gets tired? What is that?

Just as a cell phone has an indicator to tell you when the battery needs recharging, your brain produces chemicals to tell you when your body needs to recharge. Instead of a flashing symbol, you experience fatigue because of the changes to the brain.

Nice question. Where does consciousness go when we are under general anesthesia? Where does consciousness go when we are deep asleep?

I diminishes and disappears. In effect, when you lose consciousness, you experience what it is like to die.

Suppose you put black veil over your eyes and you do not see anything. Where have then the brain and its chemicals gone?

Why would they go anywhere? You do not need any veils or other props to make this point. Just use your eyelids. Close your eyes and ask where your brain and its chemicals have gone. Mine remains where they were.

Thus "I" and my awareness of the world are two distinct things. Whether you see the world or not, you exist as "I" and that is consciousness devoid of its other machines.

Your awareness is very much a part of your "I". When it disappears, so does your "I". If you think that you are arguing otherwise, I do not see the logic of your argument.

Yogis and meditators consciously switch on this mode of sleepful waking, with mind alive.

AFAICT, nothing that yogins do supports the idea that there is anything other than a physical brain producing their experiences when they go into trance-like states. We can detect changes in brain activity when that happens.

You cannot prove that 'an evidence that you know' and a 'third party witness for the same evidence' are both not in your mind.

Yes, everything is in the mind, but the mind is an effect of a working brain. Without a brain, there is no mind to weigh any evidence.

OTOH, your premise is that there is no common consciousness underlying all observations/all minds. So, your assumption leads to solipsism.

It does? How so? Solipsism contradicts the idea that there is more than one consciousness. All I'm saying is that minds are an effect of evolved brains. When brains die, minds cease to exist. We see a clear, unmistakable relationship between all forms of mental activity and brain activity.

 

[atanu]

--- Here are some of my favorite reasons for rejecting belief in gods:

1. Minds depend on physical brains. Religions depend on belief in souls--essentially minds that can exist independently of bodies. But experience tells us that minds depend on brain activity to function properly.

Hi Copernicus

Thanks for your response. I take this opportunity to state that I am, at present, not arguining about god.

Before we proceed, I just wanted to find out whether you are aware of EPR paradox and findings of tests done on the EPR proposition ? The findings may be interpreted in many ways but commonly physicists do not deny that EPR proposition and further studies have shown that information storage/retreival and actions thereof take place either at photon level (local) or at the indivisible single system leve (non-local). There is no brain there.

If you are interested then kindly go through the following posts before we proceed further. They are not my writings but original papers. In case, you indicate that you are disinterested, I will then take up answering your last post.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2432205-post23.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2432207-post24.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2432223-post25.html

Regards

 

[Copernicus]

Before we proceed, I just wanted to find out whether you are aware of EPR paradox and findings of tests done on the EPR proposition ? The findings may be interpreted in many ways but commonly physicists do not deny that EPR proposition and further studies have shown that information storage/retreival and actions thereof take place either at photon level (local) or at the indivisible single system leve (non-local). There is no brain there.

I am familiar with quantum mysticism--the use of quantum theory to try to explain consciousness as a kind of spiritual force, but I have never found a coherent chain of reasoning that could lead to that conclusion. Quite often quantum mechanics is used in arguments over determinism, since causality seems to break down below the so-called "classical limit". However, there are other possible philosophical interpretations of quantum indeterminacy that seem to preserve determinacy. (And quantum mysticism quite often ignores the causal nature of the decision-making process, which is non-random.) So I do not find such arguments very impressive.

 

[atanu]

I am familiar with quantum mysticism--the use of quantum theory to try to explain consciousness as a kind of spiritual force, but I have never found a coherent chain of reasoning that could lead to that conclusion. Quite often quantum mechanics is used in arguments over determinism, since causality seems to break down below the so-called "classical limit". However, there are other possible philosophical interpretations of quantum indeterminacy that seem to preserve determinacy. (And quantum mysticism quite often ignores the causal nature of the decision-making process, which is non-random.) So I do not find such arguments very impressive.

That is unfair. What does not suit your view is called placebo or mysticism. I am not talking of QM-Quantum Mysticism. The papers and articles cited do not either. But as expected of course you cite Wiki with a lot of unreferenced claims.

 

[atanu]

I am familiar with quantum mysticism--the use of quantum theory to try to explain consciousness as a kind of spiritual force, but I have never found a coherent chain of reasoning that could lead to that conclusion.

There are no mystical conclusions being made but I have only cited the standard literature, none of which talks anything about mysticism.

The point is that the reality is indivisible but appear divided to senses and in the sensual divided realm communication happens at photon level - without a brain. So, it is not wrong to say that awareness is the nature of reality at most fundamental level, which shows up at photon level of variegation.

Once the indivisible reality (as seen by Quantum Mechanics) is seen as a paired photon (separated by many kilometers as in various EPR experiments), the instantaneous communication between them must be acknowledged and explained -- whatever name you may like to give to that. The concept of Pilot waves have been used to mimic this. OTOH, when the system is one wave no such requirement will arise.

Quantum Mechanics as a whole is mysticism to lot many so-called rational people because the so-called solid matter on which many of their ideas are solidly based vanishes into ungraspable waves.

OTOH, the subject of science is not mysticism but only the testable. So, renowned scientists, unlike those who pre-maturely vouch that science knows nature fully, say as below:

I have pointed out these things because the more you see how strangely Nature behaves, the harder it is to make a model that explains how even the simplest phenomena actually work. So theoretical physics has given up on that. (Richard Feynman)

http://www.friesian.com/space-2.htm

 

[PolyHedral]

The point is that the reality is indivisible

You don't know this. Nobody does, and I know nobody does because there are experiments underway to try and determine it, as part of research on the holographic principle.

 

[atanu]

You don't know this. Nobody does, and I know nobody does because there are experiments underway to try and determine it, as part of research on the holographic principle.

Surprisingly we are 100% in agreement here.

 

[Copernicus]

That is unfair. What does not suit your view is called placebo or mysticism. I am not talking of QM-Quantum Mysticism. The papers and articles cited do not either. But as expected of course you cite Wiki with a lot of unreferenced claims.

I cite Wikipedia a lot, because it is a very convenient online reference, and it sometimes has some very good articles. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a very good article on Quantum Approaches to Consciousness, and they do not stigmatize it with the label "mysticism". Nevertheless, they do conclude that an examination of the literature leads to no clear testable claims. From my perspective, I see no connection at all between random events at the quantum level and patterns of physical activity in a brain, which are measured at a level of observation where causality is perfectly predictable. Indeed, human behavior is far from random or unpredictable. Behavior is driven by needs and desires that are beyond our control.

The point is that the reality is indivisible but appear divided to senses and in the sensual divided realm communication happens at photon level - without a brain. So, it is not wrong to say that awareness is the nature of reality at most fundamental level, which shows up at photon level of variegation.

I do not know what you mean when you say that reality is "indivisible". If it really were, then why would it appear divisible to our senses? When you talk about a "photon", you are talking about an individual thing.

Once the indivisible reality (as seen by Quantum Mechanics) is seen as a paired photon (separated by many kilometers as in various EPR experiments), the instantaneous communication between them must be acknowledged and explained -- whatever name you may like to give to that. The concept of Pilot waves have been used to mimic this. OTOH, when the system is one wave no such requirement will arise.

Quantum entanglement is in need of explanation, but it is still entanglement between different entities. Nobody disputes that the universe if full of strange and interesting interactions, but that does not really help us to understand the nature of consciousness, which correlates rather tightly with physical brain activity at a level of observation far above the "photon level". Indeed, the experiments you are talking about show entanglement as recorded by physical equipment independently of human observation. Humans only see the results of what their equipment records, so the "Observer" in these cases is not even a sentient being.

Quantum Mechanics as a whole is mysticism to lot many so-called rational people because the so-called solid matter on which many of their ideas are solidly based vanishes into ungraspable waves.

It is probably not a good idea to read too much into the metaphors that physicists use to describe their subject matter to laypersons. I would also caution you to distinguish between the facts--recorded evidence from experiments--and the fancy philosophical interpretations that scientists sometimes try to impose on their results. There are some who have taken to calling those interpretations "good science and bad philosophy". We need better testable theories to explain what is going on, not grandiose claims that have little or no real explanatory value.

 

[atanu]

--
Quantum entanglement is in need of explanation, but it is still entanglement between different entities.

The fact that two photons appear to communicate at faster than speed of light suggests one underlying unseen thing that connects.

True, science cannot observe it since it is unobservable -- that is the point. But its effect is at least now recognised. And despite what you say, theoretical physisicts do not deny the possibilty.

Nobody disputes that the universe if full of strange and interesting interactions, but that does not really help us to understand the nature of consciousness, which correlates rather tightly with physical brain activity

It is a child's view that an electical bulb lights up only becuase of its filament.

 

[Manahel.Fatima]

Atheism is rejection of belief in gods, not just the Abrahamic version of God. Most arguments against that version of God focus in logical inconsistencies, but let's just focus on a generic concept of a "god": an intelligent agency that has full power over some aspect of our reality. Here are some of my favorite reasons for rejecting belief in gods:

1. Minds depend on physical brains. Religions depend on belief in souls--essentially minds that can exist independently of bodies. But experience tells us that minds depend on brain activity to function properly.
2. Record of failed explanations. Religions have a historical record of making failed explanations of observed natural phenomena. The most powerful argument for gods--the argument from design--has been overturned by the discovery of evolution by natural selection. This pattern of failure has resulted in a pattern of "God of the Gaps" explanations. That is, natural explanations always trump supernatural ones.
3. Record of failed revelation. Humans have a record of worshiping false gods. If gods communicated through revelation, we would not expect to see such variety of religious belief in the world. Moreover, we would expect to find the same religious beliefs arising spontaneously in different locations, since the same set of gods (or "God") would presumably contact different people in different locations.
4. Record of failed prayers. No religious group seems to be luckier or healthier than any other. If prayer worked, we would expect to see some people of faith leading more fortunate lives than the rest of us.
5. Record of failed corroboration of miracles. Religions depend on stories of miracles--events that contravene natural laws--to support religious belief, yet miracles are notoriously resistant to corroboration and verification.

Of all the above reasons, I consider #1 the strongest, because mind-body dualism seems to underpin all religions. I do not oppose the idea of dualism so much as the belief that minds can exist independently of brains. It seems pretty obvious that our minds depend on the physical state of our brains.

Note: None of the above reasons is intended as an absolute proof that gods do not exist. These are reasons that make me consider belief in the existence of gods to be highly implausible.

Well these are lame excuses to not to faith on GOD. GOD is one. HE is the only creator and those who pray are collecting their prayers for her after life where GOD will Decide where we should go in hell or Paradise.

 

[Quagmire]

It is a child's view that an electical bulb lights up only becuase of its filament.

:yes: Just as: if you showed a radio to a group of Amazonian tribesman they would probably think the radio was producing the music or voices they were listening to. A few of the more inquisitive tribesmen might look into it a bit further and decide the batteries actually contain the music:
Take the batteries out--no music.
Put the batteries back in---music starts again.
Conclusion: the music is inside the batteries and the radio lets it out.

We know that the radio is just picking up a signal and that that signal is there regardless of whether or not the radios on.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

:yes: Just as: if you showed a radio to a group of Amazonian tribesman they would probably think the radio was producing the music or voices they were listening to. A few of the more inquisitive tribesmen might look into it a bit further and decide the batteries actually contain the music:
Take the batteries out--no music.
Put the batteries back in---music starts again.
Conclusion: the music is inside the batteries and the radio lets it out.

We know that the radio is just picking up a signal and that that signal is there regardless of whether or not the radios on.

It's adorable how misinformed you are. There are actually tiny people inside the radio playing music. Similar to the tiny people inside my head telling me what to say.

 

[painted wolf]

Or Amazonian tribal people aren't congenitally stupid and they ask questions and figure it out. :slap:

With the Help of GPS, Amazonian Tribes Reclaim the Rain Forest

Seriously, why do people always try to make native people out to be incomprehensibly stupid and unable to understand modern technology? They don't have some sort of mental disability that makes them "primitive" anymore than being "advanced" makes you intelligent. :sarcastic

wa:do

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

:yes: Just as: if you showed a radio to a group of Amazonian tribesman they would probably think the radio was producing the music or voices they were listening to. A few of the more inquisitive tribesmen might look into it a bit further and decide the batteries actually contain the music:
Take the batteries out--no music.
Put the batteries back in---music starts again.
Conclusion: the music is inside the batteries and the radio lets it out.

But that's not enough to tell you that the music comes from something external. The same would be true of a tape player: take the batteries out, no music. Put them in, music starts.

We know that the radio is just picking up a signal and that that signal is there regardless of whether or not the radios on.

But how do we know this? Apart from the fact that we know they were designed this way, of course - how would someone just given a radio deduce that the source of the music was an external signal?

For one thing, you can create a barrier to the signal and see what happens. If you take a perfectly working radio and place it inside an aluminum foil coccoon, it'll only give static.

For another, you tune two different radios to the same signal and they'll play the exact same music in perfect sync.

Do either of these tests work with a brain? For instance, if you put a human being in some sort of shielded room, does his mind stop working?

 

[atanu]

Do either of these tests work with a brain? For instance, if you put a human being in some sort of shielded room, does his mind stop working?

Hi Penguin,

Two paired photons separated miles apart know each other's spin state instantaneously -- violating Special Theory of Relativity and violating speed of light. It is thus not even a flow but the very property of this existence. There is no known barrier.

 

[PolyHedral]

Hi Penguin,

Two paired photons separated miles apart know each other's spin state instantaneously

No, they don't. An observer does, because the result from one can be calculated from the other, but the photons themselves do not, and cannot. They cannot possibly know it because, until the system is observed, that information does not exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hi Penguin,

Two paired photons separated miles apart know each other's spin state instantaneously -- violating Special Theory of Relativity and violating speed of light. It is thus not even a property of this existence. There is no known barrier.

So, then, the answer is "no". People's minds don't stop working when we erect some sort of "shield" around their brains.

Do you have any actual evidence that our minds are external to our brains?

 

[atanu]

No, they don't. An observer does, because the result from one can be calculated from the other, but the photons themselves do not, and cannot. They cannot possibly know it because, until the system is observed, that information does not exist.

So, that actually proves the point: Brain is observed and is not the observer.

Since, experiment after experiment Bell's Inequality is not violated, but instantaneous communication, or "spooky at a distance", seems to occur. OTOH, if you rule out instantaneous communication, Bell's Inequality is violated. Thus, you either accept that spooky action of information passage faster than light takes place. Or, you accept the above that phenomenal observation exists becuase of observation but has no objective reality.