The problem knowledge poses to atheism

[Bella Fortuna]

57378788325
24689990494
...68539071739

I came.

I saw.

I wankered.

[Coito ergo sum]

Some theists have argued that if god had omniscience and omnipotence and omnipresence, and knew in advance everything you would do, say and think, and created the universe in that way, then he by necessity chose what you do, say and think. Therefore, while you feel like you have free will, you do not.

I don't believe in an omnipotent God, so this does not apply to me.

How about an Omniscient one?

You're jumping through a lot of hoops to try to make it seem rational that you believe in a god.

Why not just get right to it: What god do you believe in and what is it like? And, what evidence do you have that it exists?

The reality is that free ill is not incompatible with atheism or theism.

Then where do decisions come from in the monist world?

The brain. Why do they have to come from anywhere else?

And what do you mean the "monist" world. Atheism doesn't mean monism, and theism doesn't mean dualism or pluralism, necessarily. Theists can be pluralists, and theists can be dualists, and theists can be monists, and atheists can be any of those three. Atheists just don't believe in gods.

If everything is just the result of physical laws, then we have no choice because we are just inevitably obeying the laws of physics.

Except that our brain allows us to choose what to do. It is not supernatural for the brain to think and decide what to do. We never violate the laws of physics -- ever - when we act.

Even if we were to admit that your conception of dualism is reality, we still don't violate the laws of physics - ever. Humans always act within the laws of physics - thinking and choosing are not violations of the physical laws of the universe.

In order for choice to exist, you need the power to violate Newton's first law. You need to be able to move a body that is at rest.

Here is where your'e dead wrong. Newtons' first law is never violated by humans. So, if you are of the impression that our choices to move are somehow violations of the principle that objects at rest tend to stay at rest unless acted upon by a force -- let me clear this up for you - they aren't.

Yes - you need to move a body that is at rest - but the body moved (a part of the human body) is moved because it is acted upon by force - and that force is supplied by the energy the body takes in through digestion and chemical burning of fuel in the alimentary canal - that fuel is transported to the brain, which operates the brain, and electromagnetic impulses are sent from the brain which signal the muscles to move and energy is supplied by blood vessels in the body.

All this rigamarole we've been through today boils down to one tremendous misconception you have: You think that when our brains tell our muscles to move, there is a violation of the first law - I have to stress this -- there is no violation. The body supplies the energy (which it gets from food) to create the force needed to move the muscles within the body. That energy is transferred to a rock we want to throw, and the rock is hurled. We do not violate the first law, second law or third law.

Please, Spinoza99 - really - you honestly think that when your brain/mind tells your fingers to type on the keyboard, that you are every single time violating Newton's first law?

[FBM]

57378788325
24689990494
...68539071739

I came.

I saw.

I wankered.

Vini. Vidi. Wanci.

[Coito ergo sum]

Come on wankers! Wasn't it worth it? I actually got to the nub of Spinoza99's misconception.

His whole argument boils down to the proposition that there must be a mind separate from the brain, because every time we cause our bodies to do something, we must violate the first law of Newtonian physics because we have to get "power" from somewhere to push the thing that we are going to move. He thinks there isn't enough in our bodies to do that, so some power must be found - and that comes from "the mind."

The reason that has to be wrong, though, is quite simple. Energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed in form That is another fundamental law of physics. If "the mind" is providing "power" to the body so that things can be caused to be moved, then we would be adding to the total energy of the universe. Thus, the mind-brain duality that spinoza99 is theorizing must be wrong.

I submit that spinoza99 cannot on the one hand rely on Newtonian physics and then reject it on the other. Although, I have no doubt that he will try!

What say you, spinoza99? Uncle?

[FBM]

I just caught up on what you wrote, CES. Yes, I think you've hit dead center and found it wanting.

[JimC]

I just caught up on what you wrote, CES. Yes, I think you've hit dead center and found it wanting.

Agreed.

[spinoza99]

Things operating without a mind need not be "random."

This is a semantic dispute which I generally avoid. If their movement is not random, and it is not coordinated then it is due to a predictable law.

The planets aren't behaving randomly. I was pointing out your conflation of something being "undirected" with "random." It doesn't matter if the planets don't achieve a result, they are not behaving randomly.

Ok, I admit that the planets are not moving at random

Also - there has been a result achieved - the formation of the solar system as it is today.

Whether the eight planets revolving around the sun is a result is another semantic dispute. In any case, maybe the 8 planets revolving around the sun is a result but is certainly a much different result when an enzyme catalizes a reaction and makes that chemical reaction happen 10,000 times more quicker. Eight objects forming eight ellipses isn't much of result. I can't right now define the difference between the enzyme result and the planets result but I'll define it eventually.

Energy is not just the "degree to which particles move." Energy and matter are interchangeable - E=MC2. Matter can be transformed into energy and energy into matter. There is thermal energy, electromagnetic energy - different kinds of energy. It's not a mere property of matter. Properties of matter are that matter takes up space and has mass, and its physical properties like density, chemistry, and shape/size, etc. Energy is not a "property of matter."

Maybe energy is not a property, but I stand by the wiki definition that energy is the ability to do work, essentially the movement of particles. If there is no movement of particles there is no energy. Whether energy is a third substance does not have much to do with monism or dualism. What we're arguing is do you need intention, power and knowledge in order to achieve coordination.

I believe that whatever you are describing as the mind - that sense of being "us" inside of a body - the idea of being separate from our bodies and inhabiting our bodies - is a construct of the brain. It's not a "thing" or "energy field" that exists separate and distinct from the brain - it is a construct of the brain. Yes, I can get by with the word brain. However, you've been talking about something called a "mind." And, when you describe what it is you are defining as "mind", I don't disagree that there is a perception of that - what I am stating is that there isn't any reason to suppose it isn't just a construct of the brain (and there are many reasons to suppose that it is, in fact, a construct of the brain).

You need to define construct. I think what you mean is something invented by the brain to make sense of reality, sort of like inventing the story about Phoebus riding the Apollo's sun chariot and creating the Milky Way, but I want to be sure.

I suppose you are only talking about a human mind.

Is there a mind somewhere that you are aware of that is not affiliated with a brain? If so, what, where, when?

God.

When you phrase a question "if there were no evidence that the human mind could effect reality without a body...." You PRESUME the existence of a human mind as a separate thing from the human brain. So, I'll ask again - is there any evidence of a mind existing without a body, or after a body dies? The answer is, of course, no there isn't. There is no evidence of a mind existing without a body, or after a body dies.

If you're interested in researching it, Kubler Ross, she's the one who wrote the book on death and dying, wrote a book on life after death. I haven't read it but if you consider yourself open to new ideas you might want to look into it.

I wasn't going to bother bringing this up because I know it won't convince you but I have seen a lot of evidence that my brother who died in 1992 continues to manipulate reality. My dad made a best friend for 10 years with a man named Michael (that was my brother's name) three months after my brother died and the guy was about 16 years younger than my dad, my dad rarely befriended young people. My best friend of four years is named Michelle. When I did couchsurfing in Jordan I hosted about 50 people and the only two that I'm still in touch with are named Michael. I also might be getting into a relationship with a woman named Maika. These kind of stories happen all the time. I didn't bother to bring it up at first because the evidence is very subjective but since you insisted I'm telling you. If you're interested in finding out more just do a google search life after death.

But again the point we were arguing about is that just because a human mind cannot manipulate a human brain if the brain is damaged and beyond repair does not mean the mind cannot exist. Let's take this analogy. Let's say you're a piano player and can play no other instrument whatsoever and moreover your body is a piano. If you're piano breaks and you can't get another one because all the other pianos are occupied by other players, then you can't influence reality.

Moreover, a human body can "coordinate" without a mind. No mind causes the embryo to develop into the fetus inside the mother. It happens according to known biological laws and processes, physical laws and processes and chemical laws and processes. It is undirected, but not random. No "mind" is needed. The undirected and nonrandom processes proceed and a human being eventually comes into being. The brain of that human being develops and begins to think. What that being perceives as its "mind" is produced by its brain. Smash the brain, and the mind is gone.

Ok, explain how Beethoven writes his 9th symphony, all the while obeying physical laws.

The brain has the knowledge and power to perform its functions.

Define knowledge and power in completely monist terms.

It develops over time from a sperm and an egg, which meet inside the mother, and attaches to the wall of the uterus. The chemical, biological, and physical processes naturally follow, non-random yet undirected, according to the laws of nature and the cells divide and redivide, through the various stages, blastocyst, embryo to fetus. The brain develops from its early stages to its later stages, and begins to function in accord with the laws of nature.

What law of nature could force Michelangelo to sculpt the statue of David? Most physical laws are rather simple. I can't imagine what a law would look like that would force Michelangelo to sculpt such a statue.

It has certain built in processes and abilities (keep the organs functioning - control breathing and heart rate - and many others)

Yes, it does, but other functions such as speaking language are much more complicated.

and it has certain abilities - e.g. receive input from the sensory organs - and it processes that information.

Explain processing information in purely monist terms. Define information.

I define information as: a description of the properties of objects

Gravity is not located in the object, it is a property of the object.

No, it is not a "property" of the object. Gravity is a force created by the object bending space-time.

That object's ability to bend space-time is its property. A metal's ability to conduct electricity is its property.

It doesn't "know" - the neurons fire in accordance with the properties of the brain. The problem with using words like "know" in these circumstances is that you tend to start thinking of these things as conscious actors. They aren't. A neuron doesn't "know" when to fire. It fires because of how it is built - energy is transmitted and passes through the neurons as they are made to do. ...[later you said:] I think Einstein's brain developed the way it is because of what his DNA coded, but I do not think that DNA preordains particular thoughts. Einstein could easily have chosen to be a lazy lay-about and stayed int he patent office, rubber stamping inventions.

What you're saying is the neurons are coordinated because other material is coordinated, the DNA I suppose. To build the neurons such that they coordinate you need to coordinate the building. So how does that building get coordinated?

Why does monism require Beethoven to be "forced" to do anything?

You said: "The mind receives input, and can initiate actions based on that input." Writing a symphony is an action. So how would you program a brain to produce an output like a symphony?

All I'm arguing here is that the mind is a construct of the brain. Isn't it? Or, are you seriously suggesting that there are minds floating around somewhere, that eventually show up and inhabit brains. That is what you are arguing after all. You're saying the brain and the mind are separate things. Well, if they are separate things than they exist separately, and a mind could hang around if the brain were incinerated. That appears to be what you think.

The mind can only manipulate reality if it has a working body that it has knowledge of, maybe. I only know that 100 billion neurons cannot self-coordinate and that 2000 amino acids cannot self-coordinate into a protein. Whether or not a mind, after the body is incinerated can go on to do other things is too speculative. It's like an invisible hand and a glove. If there is no glove then nothing happens. If there is no hand then the glove does not move.

what we perceive as the mind is a construct of the brain and does not exist apart from the brain. What is that evidence? The fact that we can destroy the mind or change it by doing things to the different structures of the brain, and there is no evidence that the mind exists unaffected thereby.

You need to define mind. You seem to have a different definition from mine.

What is the human mind? You mean the brain? Or, is it something else floating around separate and apart from the brain, or temporarily inhabiting the brain? Of course it isn't! Again - what you perceive as the mind is a construct of your brain. The "mind" knows nothing. The brain does.

I look forward to your definition of knowledge. As for mind I defined them already here. I looked over my definition of body and I decided to add a sentence.

definition of mind: an immaterial force that can compel a number of bodies to move in a certain direction

The dualist position, which is the one I support, is that there exists a mind that can compel a limited number of bodies to obey its will. The three basic properties of mind are: knowledge, will and power. The mind first wills a result, then it uses its knowledge to determine what bodies must be moved, then it uses its power over a limited number of bodies to move them to the location it wills. All results in the physical world are due to a correct sequencing of the proper bodies. The mind is that force that seqeunces the material. This is all that is required for coordination to arise.

Definition of a body: an enclosed unit of material that has a finite set of properties

Bodies are routinely combined and often when two bodies merge, they acquire properties that they did not have otherwise. When a body acquires a new property, it ceases to be the old body and becomes a new body. When two hydrogen combine with one oxygen, the body suddenly acquires a whole new property. Three Billion base DNA pairs alone have few remarkable properties, but if sequenced correctly they can initiate a chain reaction that will result in a human.

Addition: a body has no knowledge, no will and no power. When bodies move they do so either due to a mind or due to an obedience of a physical law.

And, I suppose you have some evidence that there is a mind out there separate and distinct from the brain? I've asked you for that. You've not been willing to describe that evidence because you said it was incidental. Here it is again - central to the argument.

I already outlined in my paper four major proofs for the existence of mind. If you would quote from those proofs and show me where I have erred I would be happy to consider your ideas.

The brain forms the way it does according to DNA code,

There are 100 billion neurons and only 3.2 billion base DNA pairs, much of it junk DNA, or, just in case someone finds a use for it one day, 50% of DNA is the same sequence over and over again. Moreover, do you really believe the code for Tolstoy to write War and Peace is in the DNA? How would Natural Selection know what War and Peace is?

Natural selection doesn't "know" anything at all. It's no different than gravity in that regard. Gravity doesn't "know" how to make planets orbit the sun and apples to fall to the Earth. It's a physical law - a law of physics. Natural selection is no more than that - it's just a law of nature that operates when there are changes in the frequencies of alleles within a population of interbreeding organisms. That's it. Natural selection (more of one trait breeding than another) operates to cause the frequencies of alleles within a population of interbreeding organisms to change.
Natural Selection doesn't "know" anything. The brain evolved, and it's not "natural selection" that writes War and Peace, it was Tolstoy.

But all actions must be the result of properties of the brain. How do you write a law/property along the lines of
if stimuli x
then write 1300 page book? First you have to define every input, an impossible task, then you have to program each input for one output. Every word written is one output, how would you program a brain to write a book?

Life

dualist definition of life: the extent to which a body is manipulated by mind

Would a dualist then be prochoice, up until a point when there is a brain?

Seperate issue[/quote]

I knew you'd dodge that one. You are right, though....it is a separate issue. I'd like your answer, though.

Dualists can disagree on this issue. I do not believe ethics is grounded in dualism. Let me also say something that really upsets me. I'm a green, or a radical leftist, and I spent a month in solidarity with the Palestinians yet I am offended that so many radical leftists favor abortion. We will fight for the rights of a hamster, John Wayne Casey or a tree but won't fight for the rights of a fetus? Sounds pretty bizarre. I believe life is sacred, so yes I oppose abortion except in cases of rape and incest. This is a sticky issue in my family because my mother had an abortion and she does not know that I oppose abortion even though I changed my position back in 2003. But if someone believes abortion is ok, that's not that big a deal because they're reasoning that you cause less harm by not bringing an unwanted life into the world and they might have a point. It is very hard to judge which action does less harm which is why it's ok for rational people to disagree on this issue.

But clearly, when an atom within the human body is set in motion, it is because a force has acted upon it. The brain instructs the muscles to move by transmitting electromagnetic energy to the muscles. That electromagnetic energy is the "force" which acts on the muscles to cause them to move. Of course it is in accord with Newton's law that an object at rest tends to stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force.

If you're a consistent monist you have to believe that the brain does not instruct, rather the brain receives a stimuli (an input), which causes the brain to perform an output. I'm a dualist, so I believe the idea starts in the person's mind and they then cause the proper neurons to fire so that the desired result is achieved.

That definition is also valid. I'm not saying that my definition is the only definition. I'm just focusing on how dualism and monism differ in their conceptions of what life is.

I don't think that your concept of "dualism" makes any sense. You'd need to establish that a mind exists outside of a brain.

I'm arguing that the mind has limited resources. Resources are those bodies the mind has control of. Why do you insist that the mind must have resources other than the brain?

Natural Selection has to select for 20,000 proteins in the human body, how can it possible have time to also encode Einstein's ideas.

Nobody ever said it "encoded Einsteins ideas." All the ideas don't need to be in the DNA code.

Ideas are outputs. If the brain is an input/output machine which a consistent monist believes, you have to program every output. An input/output machine cannot perform an output for which it has not been programmed.

I think you have a limited notion of what monism and dualism is. You're using the terms in relation to brains and minds. Your argument is about - is the brain all there is, or is the mind a separate and distinct entity from the brain. Monism actually is any philosophy that tries to explain everything by resort to one governing principle, or the manifestation of a single substance.

I described the specific idea I was attacking in my paper. It's more the computational theory of the brain but in order to believe in the computational theory of the brain you have to be a monist. There are other monists but I believe they invent terms that don't exist.

Most Christians are monists, because they reduce this single governing or unifying principle, and single substance, as "god."

I would imagine that if I read their argument I would find inconsistencies in it.

Hegel considered the spirit as one reality, and he was a monist, and Spinoza the pantheist said we are all attributes of the one substance, the deity. Ernst Haekel took one substance, "energy" and said that was the one reality. Monistic philosophies are juxtaposed against "pluralistic" - not just "dualism" -- philosophies.

I'm aware of other third ways but I believe they are logically inconsistent. They invent concepts that do not exist. Monism, or the computational theory of the brain, is the only one that does not resort to the invention of things that are not there and is the only one that is really rigorous. Also I did not choose the name Spinoza because I like him or agree with him. I just chose a philosopher that was not annoying or not a cliche like Socrates, Plato or Kant.

A monistic philosophy, however, does not require that humans be automatons, as you suggest. Our thoughts need not be predetermined. You seem to be mixing up obedience with the laws of physics and being predetermined. Those aren't the same things at all.

You could say that actions are like rolls of dice, not predictable but also not intended. When a dice returns a six that is not the result of an intention. Monism however in my humble opinion requires there to be no knowledge, will or power, only a simulation thereof.

The Andromeda galaxy is chock-full of movement, and none of it because anybody is willing it, or anyone knows about it - it's moving according to gravitational laws, and the laws of physics. But, look at it! It's not random at all!

This is similar to the argument that design can arise randomly, just look at crystals. Crystals and the Andromeda Galaxy are just obeying a natural law. They do not exhibit specified complexity, which is not my term and I don't really like it. For something to be designed it requires the selection of several correct choices either from an infinite list or a very large list. So the sentence: do unto others as you would have them do unto you, is designed because it requires the selection of 10 words among a list of about 30K such that they follow the rules of English grammar.

I don't believe in an omnipotent God,

How about an Omniscient one?

Also not omniscient

Why not just get right to it: What god do you believe in and what is it like? And, what evidence do you have that it exists?

I only believe that God designed the universe, everything else is too speculative. Here is my reasoning:
if the human mind can have power over bodies then it is reasonable that there is a mind (God) with limited power over bodies in the universe
As for evidence I outlined others in my paper such as calculating the odds of life.

where do decisions come from in the monist world?

The brain. Why do they have to come from anywhere else? our brain allows us to choose what to do. It is not supernatural for the brain to think and decide what to do. We never violate the laws of physics -- ever - when we act.

But you've said that actions are the results of properties/laws of the brain. A decision is not a decision if it is an inevitable obedience to a law.

Newtons' first law is never violated by humans. So, if you are of the impression that our choices to move are somehow violations of the principle that objects at rest tend to stay at rest unless acted upon by a force -- let me clear this up for you - they aren't.
Yes - you need to move a body that is at rest - but the body moved (a part of the human body) is moved because it is acted upon by force - and that force is supplied by the energy the body takes in through digestion and chemical burning of fuel in the alimentary canal - that fuel is transported to the brain, which operates the brain, and electromagnetic impulses are sent from the brain which signal the muscles to move and energy is supplied by blood vessels in the body.
You think that when our brains tell our muscles to move, there is a violation of the first law - I have to stress this -- there is no violation. The body supplies the energy (which it gets from food) to create the force needed to move the muscles within the body. That energy is transferred to a rock we want to throw, and the rock is hurled. We do not violate the first law, second law or third law.

Take a look at the words in bold. The neurons have to be coordinated. You can't program 100 billion neurons to coordinate. The mind has to know which neurons to fire. The correct neurons fire not because some other body acts on them but because the mind commands them to fire. The mind commands them not because it is obeying Newton's First Law, but because the mind wants to. The hand is at rest and it should stay at rest until another BODY acts on it. But what acts on the hand is not another body but a mind. The neurons become coordinated not because of an obedience to physical laws but because of the mind.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

God doesn't exist. Get over it. You will die some day and go out like a light, utterly and totally and forever. Your ego may tell you something different, but it's lying to you.

[Thinking Aloud]

Ok, explain how Beethoven writes his 9th symphony, all the while obeying physical laws.

Why the obsession with Beethoven or War & Peace?

Unless you claim that the sentence you typed right there also violates physical laws, it makes no difference what form of creativity you're talking about. That sentence is a thing built out of a satisfactory combination of language units intended to convey information, that your body produced at the request of your brain. Your 10,000 word paper is a longer bunch of similar sentences. A book is a huge combination of language units that someone's body produced at the request of their brain. A symphony is a thing built out of a satisfactory combination of audio signals, that the composer's body wrote down or otherwise programmed at the request of his/her brain.

Whether it was Beethoven or Thinking Aloud, it's the exact same process. I know that I wrote my words and music, because I was there and remember doing so. I remember cycling along one day, and playing with sounds in my thoughts, thinking "that sounds good" to myself, and repeating those thoughts long enough that I could use my body to replicate the sounds using machines when I got home.

If you wish to claim that absolutely all creativity violates some physical law, and comes from outside then that's one hell of a lot of "input" that needs to be accounted for, as your every thought, every keypress is being sent to you from somewhere else. What's the mechanism, and why can't we detect it? Why are some people favoured over others to receive variations on these inputs?

And remember that when you respond, you're violating the laws of physics, and nothing you write comes from you. It's all sent from outside. You're just an instrument that your god is using to try to convince its other instruments (that also receive all their signals from it) that it exists. Seems a tad pointless, especially if that same god is too busy sequencing amino acids to give any time to what its instruments are actually up to.

[Clinton Huxley]

You're just an instrument that your god is using to try to convince its other instruments (that also receive all their signals from it) that it exists. Seems a tad pointless, especially if that same god is too busy sequencing amino acids to give any time to what its instruments are actually up to.

So God basically spends all his time talking to himself, like that tramp in the park or maybe some celestial version of Johnny Morris. Explains a lot.

[Thinking Aloud]

You're just an instrument that your god is using to try to convince its other instruments (that also receive all their signals from it) that it exists. Seems a tad pointless, especially if that same god is too busy sequencing amino acids to give any time to what its instruments are actually up to.

So God basically spends all his time talking to himself, like that tramp in the park or maybe some celestial version of Johnny Morris. Explains a lot.

But without the gorilla.

[Clinton Huxley]

Haha.

"Hello, Mr Panda. How are you today?"

[MrFungus420]

Gawdzilla,
If you can think of a 3rd way, I would be happy to hear it.

Simply a combination of both.

Gawdzilla if you believe that some human actions are not a blind obedience to physical laws, then you admit that an immaterial thing such as will exists. You're not a hard-core atheist. Once you admit that will exists and you admit that an immaterial force has hegemony over material then you've virtually accepted theism.

Wow. Are you really that ignorant?

An atheist is someone who does not have belief in a god. Will has nothing to do with it.

[FBM]

Gawdzilla,
If you can think of a 3rd way, I would be happy to hear it.

Simply a combination of both.

Gawdzilla if you believe that some human actions are not a blind obedience to physical laws, then you admit that an immaterial thing such as will exists. You're not a hard-core atheist. Once you admit that will exists and you admit that an immaterial force has hegemony over material then you've virtually accepted theism.

Wow. Are you really that ignorant?

An atheist is someone who does not have belief in a god. Will has nothing to do with it.

Damn. After all that time I spent 'splainin' the either-or, false dichotomy thing and the black-and-white thinking thing, he/she/it still hasn't figured out that there are other options.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Strong the tl:dr is in this thread.