# Science and Atheism.



## crimeclub

So this isn't a question for Atheists, this is for people of science who also happen to be Atheists. 

Anyway, my best friend is an Atheist and today we were talking about religion and Atheism. As a person that's always been interested in both science and religion I've always been confused by how people on both sides try to negate the other. So coming from a pretty unbiased place here's my curiosity, if someone asks you if God exists what leads you to the answer "No"? I'm not asking this from a place of religious debate, it's purely as a person who's also a believer in the scientific method. In my opinion to say 'yes' or 'no' to the existence of God would go against the fundamentals of science. Religious people have the luxury/belief/ignorance to say "Yes, it's a matter of faith", but if you're living in a world purely of science and God doesn't exist, why is "No" even an option that comes to mind instead of "I don't know" or "I don't care". While talking to my friend I didn't feel satisfied with the logic of his line of thinking (or maybe just his explanation), I think there's a lot of "No" instead of "I don't know" due to wanting to shun a seemingly widespread "ignorance" so hard that it's a "No" despite the laws of the scientific method, which is what gives us the ability to have definitive answers in the first place.


----------



## ugh1979

You don't need to claim to _know _there is know god to be an atheist.



> *Atheism*
> Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.


Believing something to be true and knowing something to be true aren't the same thing.

The vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists, as of course nobody can know there isn't something someone could call a god.


----------



## crimeclub

ugh1979 said:


> You don't need to claim to _know _there is know god to be an atheist.
> 
> Believing something to be true and knowing something to be true aren't the same thing.
> 
> The vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists, as of course nobody can know there isn't something someone could call a god.


Yeah I bet that most Atheists are actually Agnostic-Atheists when it comes down to brass tacks, in today's world when everyone is becoming increasingly more divided and the internet teaches everyone to be more hostile and fast-and-loose with everything, I'd speculate that of 10 Agnostic-Atheists who would claim to rely on science as the foundation of their life, most of them in a real-world situation would answer with "God doesn't exist" almost habitually, I speculate that because that's pretty much what I usually see, and if asked on the internet there would be a hell of a lot more answers delivered with sh*tty remarks from both sides. Human nature I guess.



TigerWScarf said:


> You mean the entire universe as a being that composes everything, kind of like mother nature? Or one of the human mythological characters? There has to be some kind of compelling evidence for he/she/it's existence. Otherwise there's nothing to study. It's different when we find something like a footprint. Then you can use science to figure out what made it. Have you seen something?
> 
> I'd classify it as an alien. If it said something like "hey I'm Fred and I made the universe" I'd probably have hard time believing it.. It might've been observing Earth and thought it could play a practical joke on us. So far it's just silence out there other than cosmic noise and the roar if the Big Bang. We tend to see a lot of faces in the rocks. There doesn't seem to be a need for someone to tweak the clockwork of the cosmos, seems to be running on autopilot for the last 13.8 billion years.


I don't agree that there's any kind of qualification process for a theory to be eligible for proving right or wrong, the fact that there's even a question is enough. And your perception of what the universe needs is irrelevant.


----------



## crimeclub

^I meant it's irrelevant as far as being able to justify a definitive answer. 

Finding proof of anyone's personal description of God isn't necessarily what I was talking about, really just something as unspecific as some kind of intelligent force.


----------



## Testsubject

A person of science, by method alone, cannot debate religion. Religion is not falsifiable therefore it isn't a topic science can shed light on. The two things are unequivocally irreconcilable, they are mutually exclusive.


----------



## Cenarius

We don't _know_ beyond a doubt anything except mathematics. I don't even _know_ if my computer will fall if I drop it, if you're using absolute certainty as the definition of know. So unless you want to say you know nothing at all, not even that you exist, then we have to say accept something less than 100% certainty as acceptable to say we know something.

I will say I know that Mormonism is false because it's just a story that was invented by a person just like harry potter and Scientology was.


----------



## crimeclub

Really the inability to prove it right or wrong isn't my problem, my problem is how lots of people handle the issue, especially on the internet, there's a s***-storm of belittling and pushing away on both sides. If there's an important issue that needs to be discussed or debated to make some kind of change, then it should be a no-brainer that condescending and taking jabs between two groups of people is how you _divide_ them, not bring them together to have a chance at any real progress.

Condescension comes from ego and wanting to feel better than someone, anyone that is prone to resorting to it is part of the problem, people that are prone to resorting to logic in a factual manner are on-par, and anyone willing to speak respectfully to someone with differing views is the person most likely to get through to others and not put them in _information-shunning defensive-mode._ If getting an idea across to someone really is important to them, then they should treat it with the importance that it deserves by using tact so it even has a _chance_ at success. So if someone decides to debate an important issue and they see condescension as an option, I'd really be questioning their intentions, is the debate really to make progress, or is it to stroke their ego?


----------



## Testsubject

crimeclub said:


> Really the inability to prove it right or wrong isn't my problem, my problem is how lots of people handle the issue, especially on the internet, there's a s***-storm of belittling and pushing away on both sides. If there's an important issue that needs to be discussed or debated to make some kind of change, then it should be a no-brainer that condescending and taking jabs between two groups of people is how you _divide_ them, not bring them together to have a chance at any real progress.
> 
> Condescension comes from ego and wanting to feel better than someone, anyone that is prone to resorting to it is part of the problem, people that are prone to resorting to logic in a factual manner are on-par, and anyone willing to speak respectfully to someone with differing views is the person most likely to get through to others and not put them in _information-shunning defensive-mode._ If getting an idea across to someone really is important to them, then they should treat it with the importance that it deserves by using tact so it even has a _chance_ at success. So if someone decides to debate an important issue and they see condescension as an option, I'd really be questioning their intentions, is the debate really to make progress, or is it to stroke their ego?


I don't see how anyone can debate the two. They're mutual exclusivity is destine to render any debate to a battle of egos and condescension.


----------



## crimeclub

Testsubject said:


> I don't see how anyone can debate the two. Their mutual exclusivity is destine to render any debate to a battle of egos and condescension.


The inability to avoid condescension and ego in a discussion is on that individual person alone, you can't project something like that on all humanity. If someone can't control themselves when they debate, then for the sake of their cause they should stop debating.

My friend always speaks without condescension, and not only that but he puts his ego away and actually speaks with respect while talking about his views on my religion and religion in general. Not surprisingly he's been able to change a number of my opinions and even alter my point of view in a general sense, and a big reason why is he doesn't push me first before he starts speaking. Yes, debating whether one can negate the other is impossible, it's apples and oranges, which is why I rarely bother with the debate. But, just like with my friend, it's not an issue of "Can I get him to see how his beliefs are wrong?" It's about "How can I most effectively convey my point of view to him so he'll actually think about it?".

And I understand debating for the enjoyment of debating, and there's probably not much need for delivering your message gift-wrapped in respect for that, but there's still never a reason for disrespect. If someone wants to be an a**hole to someone else that's fine, but they shouldn't think for a second that they are enhancing the effectiveness of their message rather than just purely being an a**hole.


----------



## Testsubject

crimeclub said:


> The inability to avoid condescension and ego in a discussion is on that individual person alone, you can't project something like that on all humanity. If someone can't control themselves when they debate, then for the sake of their cause they should stop debating.
> 
> My friend always speaks without condescension, and not only that but he puts his ego away and actually speaks with respect while talking about his views on my religion and religion in general. Not surprisingly he's been able to change a number of my opinions and even alter my point of view in a general sense, and a big reason why is he doesn't push me first before he starts speaking. Yes, debating whether one can negate the other is impossible, it's apples and oranges, which is why I rarely bother with the debate. But, just like with my friend, it's not an issue of "Can I get him to see how his beliefs are wrong?" It's about "How can I most effectively convey my point of view to him so he'll actually think about it?".
> 
> And I understand debating for the enjoyment of debating, and there's probably not much need for delivering your message gift-wrapped in respect for that, but there's still never a reason for disrespect. If someone wants to be an a**hole to someone else that's fine, but they shouldn't think for a second that they are enhancing the effectiveness of their message rather than just purely being an a**hole.


First I'd like to apologize for my poor grammar. I used their instead of they're. Second, I think I understand what you mean now. I experience it daily and I don't understand it myself. When I see debate online, or participate in one myself, dealing with moral issues it usually results in name calling and other poor argumentative tactics. It blows my mind sometimes.


----------



## AngelClare

Testsubject said:


> A person of science, by method alone, cannot debate religion. Religion is not falsifiable therefore it isn't a topic science can shed light on. The two things are unequivocally irreconcilable, they are mutually exclusive.


Exactly. All science really does is explain observations reductively in terms of simpler observation.

That's why a child will always win by asking a continuous stream of why. At some point you reach basic building blocks that cannot be explained or reduced further.

So we can simplify the universe but science cannot explain why the blocks exist or why they behave the way they behave.

Beyond this point we enter the domain of the metaphysical.


----------



## Testsubject

AngelClare said:


> Exactly. All science really does is explain observations reductively in terms of simpler observation.
> 
> That's why a child will always win by asking a continuous stream of why. At some point you reach basic building blocks that cannot be explained or reduced further.
> 
> So we can simplify the universe but science cannot explain why the blocks exist or why they behave the way they behave.
> 
> Beyond this point we enter the domain of the metaphysical.


Totally agree. Though, I would like to throw the word "yet" in the overall meaning of your comment. Slowly but surely science does continue to awe and amaze. There is a chance, given enough time, science will eventually expand our currently understanding. Which may lead to even more questions lol. A never ending cycle I guess.


----------



## HabitableExoplanet

Because you could say "I don't know" to a thousand things that are quite probably false and/or non-existent. You don't know that there aren't invisible, undetectable pixies keeping the planets in their orbits, but there's no good reason to think there are, and very good reasons to think there is not.

There are a thousand ridiculous things you could be agnostic about, but there's no good reason to think they are true, or even probably true. God is no different. Almost always the concept of God has been displaced by explanations based on natural laws. Newton explained gravitation and the motion of the planets, but then attributed what he couldn't explain to God. We used to believe God was the first cause of everything, but now we have the Big Bang model which can accurately describe the universe to 10^-43 seconds after the beginning of the universe. 

The way I see it, God has always been a placemarker for our ignorance, and has almost always been displaced by explanations based on natural law. You can't disprove the God hypothesis - it's just a useless hypothesis. The principle criterion of a hypothesis it that it should be falsifiable. There must be some in principle way to experimentally test the hypothesis. If it's not falsifiable (at least in principle), there's no good reason to believe it. There's a thousand absurd things you can't disprove, but are very probably false. I don't see why the existence of God should be any different. That is why your "remain agnostic" reasoning fails.


----------



## HabitableExoplanet

This isn't about personal approval. This is about the criterion of what a hypothesis means to be scientific. You wanted to know why you don't just remain agnostic, and the reason you don't remain agnostic about God is because as a hypothesis, God isn't falsifiable. This means that by definition, the hypothesis of God's existence is not a scientific hypothesis. Science only works with what is empirically observable and testable. God is neither. 

Now, you are of course free to argue that because God is non-falsifiable, that therefore you should remain agnostic. But then you must remain agnostic about invisible pixies keeping the planets in their orbits, and a thousand other equally absurd hypotheses. In fact, science is agnostic on the concept of God, just as it is agnostic on any other non-falsifiable, non-testable hypotheses. The point here is that there's no good reason to believe these explanations are true, and there's much better reasons to believe they are probably false. To remain agnostic on God, you must remain agnostic on any number of equally unfalsifiable explanations for any number of things, and that's the crux of the matter.


----------



## Zyriel

This delves into the realm of philosophy, something which is sorely needed in the modern world lol. Many educated people I have met, either shun, mock and ridicule 'humanities' and other liberal arts. However, those are the very foundation of scientific thought, as well as the social context, laws, and regulations which keep science within ethical boundaries.

Most people fall into two camps, those which are totally against scientific advancement and things such as genetic engineering, biotechnology, birth control, abortion, even to the extent of vaccines lol. Then the opposite side which takes refuge in science to ignore, or even criticize the things they dislike, such as creativity, as well as other aspects of humanity that make the species, what it is.

My opinion aside though, here is a great show for people who are interested in the subject called 'Closer to Truth' that crosses boundaries between science, religion, philosophy, and other fields of study that house intellectuals from various perspectives, to debate the topics humanity has been questioning since the dawn of civilization, such as "Why is there something rather than nothing" and in the larger context, "Why do we exist". 

http://www.closertotruth.com/series/why-there-something-rather-nothing


----------



## HabitableExoplanet

AngelClare said:


> Exactly. All science really does is explain observations reductively in terms of simpler observation.
> 
> That's why a child will always win by asking a continuous stream of why. At some point you reach basic building blocks that cannot be explained or reduced further.
> 
> So we can simplify the universe but science cannot explain why the blocks exist or why they behave the way they behave.
> 
> Beyond this point we enter the domain of the metaphysical.


Because the "why" doesn't matter. Science describes how the universe works, and fundamentally, that is the only thing you can explain. It always comes down to a basic understanding of the fundamental physical laws and mechanisms that govern the universe. Beyond a certain point you don't enter the domain of the metaphysical, you simply enter the domain of that which has yet to be scientifically explained. When what was once unexplained becomes explained, you push your definition of the "metaphysical" back even further. Same with God.


----------



## crimeclub

HabitableExoplanet said:


> Because you could say "I don't know" to a thousand things that are quite probably false and/or non-existent. You don't know that there aren't invisible, undetectable pixies keeping the planets in their orbits, but there's no good reason to think there are, and very good reasons to think there is not.
> 
> There are a thousand ridiculous things you could be agnostic about, but there's no good reason to think they are true, or even probably true. God is no different. Almost always the concept of God has been displaced by explanations based on natural laws. Newton explained gravitation and the motion of the planets, but then attributed what he couldn't explain to God. We used to believe God was the first cause of everything, but now we have the Big Bang model which can accurately describe the universe to 10^-43 seconds after the beginning of the universe.
> 
> The way I see it, God has always been a placemarker for our ignorance, and has almost always been displaced by explanations based on natural law. You can't disprove the God hypothesis - it's just a useless hypothesis. The principle criterion of a hypothesis it that it should be falsifiable. There must be some in principle way to experimentally test the hypothesis. If it's not falsifiable (at least in principle), there's no good reason to believe it. There's a thousand absurd things you can't disprove, but are very probably false. I don't see why the existence of God should be any different. That is why your "remain agnostic" reasoning fails.





HabitableExoplanet said:


> This isn't about personal approval. This is about the criterion of what a hypothesis means to be scientific. You wanted to know why you don't just remain agnostic, and the reason you don't remain agnostic about God is because as a hypothesis, God isn't falsifiable. This means that by definition, the hypothesis of God's existence is not a scientific hypothesis. Science only works with what is empirically observable and testable. God is neither.
> 
> Now, you are of course free to argue that because God is non-falsifiable, that therefore you should remain agnostic. But then you must remain agnostic about invisible pixies keeping the planets in their orbits, and a thousand other equally absurd hypotheses. In fact, science is agnostic on the concept of God, just as it is agnostic on any other non-falsifiable, non-testable hypotheses. The point here is that there's no good reason to believe these explanations are true, and there's much better reasons to believe they are probably false. To remain agnostic on God, you must remain agnostic on any number of equally unfalsifiable explanations for any number of things, and that's the crux of the matter.





HabitableExoplanet said:


> Because the "why" doesn't matter. Science describes how the universe works, and fundamentally, that is the only thing you can explain. It always comes down to a basic understanding of the fundamental physical laws and mechanisms that govern the universe. Beyond a certain point you don't enter the domain of the metaphysical, you simply enter the domain of that which has yet to be scientifically explained. When what was once unexplained becomes explained, you push your definition of the "metaphysical" back even further. Same with God.


Sorry I deleted my post probably like 10 seconds after I posted it, I figured I wouldn't cause a further debate but you caught me haha.

Anyway the word 'absurd' has no place in science, some of it's greatest triumphs come from shunning a phrase like "too absurd". Science isn't based on the current scientific frontier, it's based on the rules of it's own method, that method is the very thing that gave you the information on the big bang you used in your argument, a previously absurd idea that you're now using to denounce a currently absurd idea. Modern humans have been around about 200,000 years, the theory of the Big Bang has been around for like 100 years, that's a pretty big percentage of human history that would have thought the idea that 'Literally everything originated from the space smaller than a needle point' as being ridiculous, so one of the great things about science is that it's a good guide-line for hedging your bets.


----------



## HabitableExoplanet

Once again, the difference comes back to falsifiability and empirical observation. The Big Bang can be falsified. We can measure the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. We can measure the age of stars, and the large-scale distribution of galaxies, and all of these observations are consistent with the Big Bang. 

The existence of God is not supported by any empirical observations. I would go further and say that God is not even in principle falsifiable. No matter what evidence you come up with to disconfirm the existence of God, you could always come up with some ad hoc explanation to explain it away and still cling to the concept of God. You can have a seemingly absurd idea, but if it is entirely consistent with math and empirical data, then you should accept the theory. The notion that the entire universe is composed of atoms, which are themselves composed of subatomic particles, which are composed of even more fundamental constituents may have seemed absurd at some point, but the point is that we have a mathematically consistent model of the atom that can actually make falsifiable predictions. 

There is nothing like that with the idea of God. God is a vague, unfalsifiable, hypothesis. It's the reason that science is agnostic on God, because the hypothesis of God is not testable. You can go ahead and be agnostic on the pixies pushing the planets as well. After all, you can't disprove it, and there's been a lot of crazy ideas throughout history. Both are equally useless hypotheses, and both equally unfalsifiable.


----------



## Znuffle

A person that answers "No" To farie tails isn't really a big deal..
I would be the same as to if someone ask. Is peter pan real? Or There is a chance that lord of the ring has been real!? O_O 

And if you answer "No" you're considered to be an ignorant person to not think of possibilities...

*sigh*... I usually just say no to everything that has to do with god. I hate hearing it and i'd denie it for many reasons. I know that there is a posibility that god is true but I doubt that the 0.000000000000000000000000009% chance of all the words written in a book is 100% accurate due to so many other believe systems.

Say I say "No" There is no god dam god.. Why? Because you need to stop making fantasy are possibility. Because it hurts people. It hurts yourself and it hurts rational thinking.. 

So "NO!"... there is no god.. And there never was. it's a story and I'm not gonna sit around letting a posibility be the slightest of good thoughts towards believers who hear the words from athiests: "I don't know" Because it makes them feel as if they are right. When the possibility of them being right is so god dam small 

The possibility is so small that I could say: "I will **** out popcorn tomorrow for no reason" It jsut wont happen.. ^.^


----------



## ugh1979

Testsubject said:


> A person of science, by method alone, cannot debate religion. Religion is not falsifiable therefore it isn't a topic science can shed light on. The two things are unequivocally irreconcilable, they are mutually exclusive.


Much religious doctrine is falsifiable, or at least able to be shown implausible by science.


----------



## ugh1979

AngelClare said:


> Exactly. All science really does is explain observations reductively in terms of simpler observation.


That's part of what it does. It also gives us an increased ability to make accurate predictions about reality.



> That's why a child will always win by asking a continuous stream of why.


What are they winning?



> At some point you reach basic building blocks that cannot be explained or reduced further.
> 
> So we can simplify the universe but science cannot explain why the blocks exist or why they behave the way they behave.
> 
> Beyond this point we enter the domain of the metaphysical.


It's not just science that can't explain why the most fundamental levels of the universe behave they way they behave. Nothing we know of can.


----------



## AngelClare

HabitableExoplanet said:


> Because the "why" doesn't matter. Science describes how the universe works, and fundamentally, that is the only thing you can explain. It always comes down to a basic understanding of the fundamental physical laws and mechanisms that govern the universe. Beyond a certain point you don't enter the domain of the metaphysical, you simply enter the domain of that which has yet to be scientifically explained. When what was once unexplained becomes explained, you push your definition of the "metaphysical" back even further. Same with God.


At some point you will have a set of entities and behaviors you cannot explain because they are fundamental and irreducible. You can't have an infinite series of explanatory entities.


----------



## ugh1979

AngelClare said:


> At some point you will have a set of entities and behaviors you cannot explain because they are fundamental and irreducible. You can't have an infinite series of explanatory entities.


That may not be an issue when it comes to the quantum mechanical fundamental nature of the universe.


----------



## Testsubject

ugh1979 said:


> Much religious doctrine is falsifiable, or at least able to be shown implausible by science.


I apologize, I was using religion loosely as an existence of god. The entity being what is not falsifiable. However, you are correct science does continue to further recede the god of the gab. I didn't mean for comment to come across as a defensive statement of religion, my intention was to insinuate that science cannot be bothered with questions or debates on religion because it falls out side of its scope.


----------



## ugh1979

Testsubject said:


> I apologize, I was using religion loosely as an existence of god. The entity being what is not falsifiable. However, you are correct science does continue to further recede the god of the gab. I didn't mean for comment to come across as a defensive statement of religion, my intention was to insinuate that science cannot be bothered with questions or debates on religion because it fall out side of its scope.


Fair enough, but it's confusing to say religion rather than god. Especially in this context where your point is that science has nothing to say on god (which is correct since it's such a vague and unfalsifiable concept), but as you admit can on religion.


----------



## Testsubject

HabitableExoplanet said:


> Once again, the difference comes back to falsifiability and empirical observation. The Big Bang can be falsified. We can measure the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. We can measure the age of stars, and the large-scale distribution of galaxies, and all of these observations are consistent with the Big Bang.
> 
> The existence of God is not supported by any empirical observations. I would go further and say that God is not even in principle falsifiable. No matter what evidence you come up with to disconfirm the existence of God, you could always come up with some ad hoc explanation to explain it away and still cling to the concept of God. You can have a seemingly absurd idea, but if it is entirely consistent with math and empirical data, then you should accept the theory. The notion that the entire universe is composed of atoms, which are themselves composed of subatomic particles, which are composed of even more fundamental constituents may have seemed absurd at some point, but the point is that we have a mathematically consistent model of the atom that can actually make falsifiable predictions.
> 
> There is nothing like that with the idea of God. God is a vague, unfalsifiable, hypothesis. It's the reason that science is agnostic on God, because the hypothesis of God is not testable. You can go ahead and be agnostic on the pixies pushing the planets as well. After all, you can't disprove it, and there's been a lot of crazy ideas throughout history. Both are equally useless hypotheses, and both equally unfalsifiable.


Thank you.


----------



## Testsubject

ugh1979 said:


> Fair enough, but it's confusing to say religion rather than god. Especially in this context where your point is that science has nothing to say on god (which is correct since it's such a vague and unfalsifiable concept), but as you admit can on religion.


Yeah a very poor choice of words on my part. I apologize for the confusion.


----------



## AngelClare

ugh1979 said:


> That may not be an issue when it comes to the quantum mechanical fundamental nature of the universe.


There is nothing special about quantum mechanics in this regard. It's just a model that fits the universe better than the classical model. All models at some level have irreducible explanatory entities.

And also it's not just God who is unobservable. Human consciousness is also unobservable. An alien scientist can observe the physiological aspects of pain but he cannot observe what it feels like to be in pain--the qualia. You cannot scientifically observe what it feels like to be in love. I know it's controversial for some but science cannot fully explain human beings. In other words, science cannot fully explain the scientist.


----------



## ugh1979

AngelClare said:


> There is nothing special about quantum mechanics in this regard. It's just a model that fits the universe better than the classical model. All models at some level have irreducible explanatory entities.


I disagree. In quantum mechanics set states become void.



> And also it's not just God who is unobservable. Human consciousness is also unobservable. An alien scientist can observe the physiological aspects of pain but he cannot observe what it feels like to be in pain--the qualia. You cannot scientifically observe what it feels like to be in love. I know it's controversial for some but science cannot fully explain human beings. In other words, science cannot fully explain the scientist.


Of course there is much still to learn, but we can't know certain things are not able to be learned. Future/extra terrestrial science is currently speculative or unknown.


----------



## AngelClare

ugh1979 said:


> I disagree. In quantum mechanics set states become void.
> 
> Of course there is much still to learn, but we can't know certain things are not able to be learned. Future/extra terrestrial science is currently speculative or unknown.


Can you elaborate on your first point?

Yes, there is much to be learned through science about the observable universe but science cannot tell us anything about the unobservable. I think we can all agree that science cannot explain anything that is unobservable, right?

Then the question becomes, is the qualia of consciousness empirically observable?

If you believe that it is observable, isn't it your obligation to prove it? I think the genuine sceptic's position is that it's not observable because there is no proof that it is and therefore falls outside of the domain of science.

Searle's Chinese Room Experiment does a good job shedding light on the difficulties of observing consciousness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

Whatever your opinion may be it's more of a philosophical opinion than a scientific one.


----------



## ugh1979

AngelClare said:


> Can you elaborate on your first point?


In quantum mechanics particles only take on set states when 'observed'. It's a big subject to try and explain on a forum reply so I suggest reading up about quantum mechanics if you want to learn more.



> Yes, there is much to be learned through science about the observable universe but science cannot tell us anything about the unobservable. I think we can all agree that science cannot explain anything that is unobservable, right?


It's not just science that can't explain something that is unobservable.



> Then the question becomes, is the qualia of consciousness empirically observable?
> 
> If you believe that it is observable, isn't it your obligation to prove it? I think the genuine sceptic's position is that it's not observable because there is no proof that it is and therefore falls outside of the domain of science.


I don't believe it's observable at the moment, other than 'knowing it when you see it', but don't rule out that there may one day be a way of doing so empirically using exotic future technology.



> Searle's Chinese Room Experiment does a good job shedding light on the difficulties of observing consciousness.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
> 
> Whatever your opinion may be it's more of a philosophical opinion than a scientific one.


Yes i'm familiar with the Chinese Room Experiment, and its issues.


----------



## Azazello

AngelClare said:


> Can you elaborate on your first point?
> 
> Yes, there is much to be learned through science about the observable universe but science cannot tell us anything about the unobservable. I think we can all agree that science cannot explain anything that is unobservable, right?
> 
> Then the question becomes, is the qualia of consciousness empirically observable?
> 
> If you believe that it is observable, isn't it your obligation to prove it? I think the genuine sceptic's position is that it's not observable because there is no proof that it is and therefore falls outside of the domain of science.
> 
> Searle's Chinese Room Experiment does a good job shedding light on the difficulties of observing consciousness.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
> 
> Whatever your opinion may be it's more of a philosophical opinion than a scientific one.


Oh boy, I feel a déjà vu coming on... Haven't you been here already? Will you be running off again without acknowledging any of the issues raised in this thread?

http://www.socialanxietysupport.com/forum/f133/did-an-architect-create-existence-447257/


----------



## ugh1979

Azazello said:


> Oh boy, I feel a déjà vu coming on... Haven't you been here already? Will you be running off again without acknowledging any of the issues raised in this thread?
> 
> http://www.socialanxietysupport.com/forum/f133/did-an-architect-create-existence-447257/


Well remembered Azazello.


----------



## Azazello

ugh1979 said:


> Well remembered Azazello.


Hard to forget... I haven't come across many people who treat Chinese Room as proof of duality.


----------



## AngelClare

Azazello said:


> Hard to forget... I haven't come across many people who treat Chinese Room as proof of duality.


I totally forgot that I argued this before. It's was amusing to read through it again.

I don't use the Chinese Room argument as any kind of proof. A lot of people, I was one of them, have a hard time understanding why complex behavior does not equate to consciousness. The argument only serves to give you an example of reasonably complex behavior that appears conscious to an external observer but is not. It's not a proof of duality. It simply clarifies the idea that symbol manipulation is not consciousness.

Searle's experiment tries to show that it's possible to manipulate symbols or one's and zero's without any awareness.

You pointed out that it's an "old" argument. You're very intelligent, so can we at least agree that, "it's old" is not a valid counterargument, right? Can we also agree that just because there are counterarguments doesn't make the argument false? I am aware of the counterarguments and all of them are extremely weak in my opinion.

A common argument is that the room is conscious. It's an argument but a weak one. A conscious room? Worst yet, we know the man is conscious of manipulating symbols so a conscious room involves a room consciousness that is dependent on another conscious being? Is this a collective consciousness? It's a muddled idea and weak argument but that's just my opinion. Maybe you disagree.

Look, my objective is not prove anything. My aim is just to communicate a rational reason for believing in a god. That reason is rooted in the belief that human consciousness is not just matter behaving according to the laws of physics. My aim is to show you that there are very rational well reasoned arguments for a belief in a god.

Finally, I want to point out that if you're right and everything, including us, is just matter and physics then even this argument we're having is just matter and physics. So, what's the point of this argument if my agreement or disagreement is just determined by very complicated physics equations or random probability? Do you see how irrational that sounds? I can go into depth as to how destructive it is to believe that the love you have for your child is just matter and physics but that would take forever.


----------



## Azazello

AngelClare said:


> ...can we at least agree that, "it's old" is not a valid counterargument, right? Can we also agree that just because there are counterarguments doesn't make the argument false? I am aware of the counterarguments and all of them are extremely weak in my opinion.


That's the thing though, the issues raised in that thread were not counter arguments, they were legitimate criticisms of the Chinese Room thought experiment, and those were just the few examples. The fact that it is an old philosophical toy means a lot of philosophers got to play with it and pick it apart in the last 40 years, yet for some reason you chose to ignore all the faults they identified.

I have asked you in the other thread whether you were familiar with identified faults of the Chinese Room argument, so are you? Because this argument is flawed to the core, and unless you are prepared to address these concerns you are not really in a position to put it forward as a legitimate demonstration of duality.

It is a fascinating subject and I would genuinely encourage you to explore it, if only for the joy of doing the mental acrobatics. You said it yourself, this experiment is not your proof. From what I can see your dualistic belief can be sustained even if this particular example did not survive the close scrutiny. So what do you have to lose?

There are plenty of free resources online dealing with the subject, otherwise if you are interested you can get hold of Douglas Hofstadter's _Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid_ and or Steven Pinker's _How The Mind Works_. Both books not only address the weaknesses with the Chinese Room assumptions but also put them in perspective and in the case of the latter give quite comprehensive workarounds. I would warn you though, these books are blinking huge and the style of the first one can leave you wondering what the heck is going on but if you persevere you will find them a great treat and fantastic food for thought.

Edited to add: That last book is actually great in addressing your last paragraph.


----------



## AngelClare

So, is this how you typically debate? "My counterargument is in a book. Go read it." 

Can't you succinctly argue what you believe is the best counterargument?

Look, I don't want this to be adversarial. This shouldn't be about egos. I don't want to necessarily convince you of anything. This should be an exchange of ideas.

My point is pretty straightforward. Science has explained many observable phenomena throughout the years. I love science. I majored in physics. But it's an error to infer that because science has all these observable phenomena that it can explain something unobservable like consciousness. 

And won't you concede that there is something incoherent about believing that this discussion we're having is ultimately driven not by beings making decisions and judgments but by matter behaving according to physics?


----------



## Azazello

AngelClare said:


> So, is this how you typically debate? "My counterargument is in a book. Go read it."
> 
> Can't you succinctly argue what you believe is the best counterargument?


Ummm, which part of *not a counter argument* did you not get? You name dropped Searle into your conversation with Ugh, and I pointed out that you had failed to address the failings of Searle's argument in another thread. What you are essentially doing is pointing at a heap of metal on a floor and saying this is a perfect example of how I can get from A to B. When someone tells you that, no, there have already been a bunch of mechanics who looked at it and found it was missing an engine, petrol tank, steering control and wheels, you simply dismiss this and argue that it is still a perfectly valid means of transportation since no one has given you any alternatives. I mean seriously? Personally, I wouldn't call it adversarial, not sure if you'd like my alternatives though.

So let me repeat this again. Are you familiar with the criticisms of the Chinese Room? Do you have a valid response to the few examples I have provided in the other thread and the rest of its weaknesses? If not, it would be foolish of you to posit it as any sort of example of duality.



AngelClare said:


> Look, I don't want this to be adversarial. This shouldn't be about egos.


ROFL, transference much?



AngelClare said:


> I don't want to necessarily convince you of anything.


Convince me of what exactly? That you have your blinkers on with regard to Searle's argument? That's alright, I've known this since June last year.



AngelClare said:


> This should be an exchange of ideas.


Which you seem to be very conveniently ignoring.



AngelClare said:


> My point is pretty straightforward. Science has explained many observable phenomena throughout the years. I love science. I majored in physics. But it's an error to infer that because science has all these observable phenomena that it can explain something unobservable like consciousness.


I don't care about this point. This was not what I was addressing with my post, this was between you and Ugh. I simply brought to your attention the fact that the argument you are trying to advance in defense of duality has more holes than a gynaecologist's wet dream.



AngelClare said:


> And won't you concede that there is something incoherent about believing that this discussion we're having is ultimately driven not by beings making decisions and judgments but by matter behaving according to physics?


How is that relevant to Searle's argument? Do you seriously think this is a reasonable way of avoiding the issue with it? I mean, come on. Your only seeming defense for duality is the Chinese Room, yet you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge the problems with it. Remarkably though you still expect people to humour you and debate duality in spite of your lack of leg to stand on. Here's a thought for you, argument from incredulity is no argument.

My reason for posting here was nothing else but your Chinese Room example, if you haven't got the balls to address the issues around that argument then you prove my point and yet again run away from the problem.


----------



## CD700

Atheism may lack a sky god but its become a religion in itself......its possible they have become even worse then your average religion because its self hating in nature....pathetic

"if someone asks you if God exists what leads you to the answer "No"? I'm not asking this from a place of religious debate, it's purely as a person who's also a believer in the scientific method. "

Science is not fact and doesn't provide any kind of undeniable truth...Its just the best process we have to come to a conclusion based on current evidence. 

As far as the yes/no thing on sky gods
Evolution is the consensus....it doesn't say no or yes, it has no agenda or bias, it is what the current evidence provide.


----------



## ugh1979

CD700 said:


> Atheism may lack a sky god but its become a religion in itself......its possible they have become even worse then your average religion because its self hating in nature....pathetic


What is self hating about the disbelief in deities, and how does it constitute a religion?


----------



## Gamaur

George H. Smith makes a pretty compelling argument for being an atheist with the confidence to say 'no' in his book 'Atheism: The Case Against God'. To do so he devotes the first quarter of the book to the philosophy of logic, and then makes his argument consistent with that. I haven't read it in 10 years, may do after seeing the OP here. 

I can't wait until we create our first lifeform in the lab. Religion will prevail, but many of these arguments won't.


----------



## CD700

ugh1979 said:


> What is self hating about the disbelief in deities, and how does it constitute a religion?


Yes, but it has moved on from that beginning 
They are now preachers of their own ideology

No different or less warpy 2 me then the sky god cults


----------



## ugh1979

CD700 said:


> Yes, but it has moved on from that beginning
> They are now preachers of their own ideology
> 
> No different or less warpy 2 me then the sky god cults


Which ideology is that? People who are also atheists have innumerous different ideologies. Atheism in itself says nothing other than a disbelief in deities, so doesn't really constitute an ideology.


----------



## Gamaur

CD700 said:


> Yes, but it has moved on from that beginning
> They are now preachers of their own ideology
> 
> No different or less warpy 2 me then the sky god cults


They're an important counter-balance to the imposing influence of religion on society, politics and education, and for that reason many are very passionate. Can't say I've seen examples of 'warpy-ness'. Preachiness could mean a lot of things, but if you're referring to a parallel to actual preachers, again I'm unsure what you're talking about.

Who/what have you been watching?


----------



## Gamaur

ugh1979 said:


> Which ideology is that? People who are also atheists have innumerous different ideologies. Atheism in itself says nothing other than a disbelief in deities, so doesn't really constitute an ideology.


Pretty sure he means the new atheism movement launched by Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris.


----------



## CD700

ugh1979 said:


> Which ideology is that? People who are also atheists have innumerous different ideologies. Atheism in itself says nothing other than a disbelief in deities, so doesn't really constitute an ideology.


None of them are logical so no argument can be made of it

Atheism has become a cult, its own religion against religion
Agnostics disbelief deities


----------



## CD700

Gamaur said:


> They're an important counter-balance to the imposing influence of religion on society, politics and education, and for that reason many are very passionate. Can't say I've seen examples of 'warpy-ness'. Preachiness could mean a lot of things, but if you're referring to a parallel to actual preachers, again I'm unsure what you're talking about.
> 
> Who/what have you been watching?


You cant sit on the fence
Lets all try some critical and objective thought


----------



## Gamaur

Come on mate, I'm just asking for examples. It's a strong claim you're making and I'm genuinely interested.


----------



## ugh1979

CD700 said:


> None of them are logical so no argument can be made of it


None of what are logical? Ideologies?



> Atheism has become a cult, its own religion against religion


What definitions of cult/religion are you using?



> Agnostics disbelief deities


Many do, but disbelief in deities is called atheism, not agnosticism. Agnosticism concerns knowledge of the existence of deities. Atheism concerns lack of belief in the existence of deities, hence why most atheists are also agnostic.


----------



## CD700

Yes ideology is illogical
It lacks objectivity and reason

Sky god from which scripture ?
It becomes preachy when I hear about it

Anyone experienced the agnostic movement ?


----------



## ugh1979

CD700 said:


> Yes ideology is illogical


What an unusual statement. I can't say I've ever heard of anyone criticising the holding of ideologies in general. Can we assume you subscribe to no ideologies?



> It lacks objectivity and reason


Why does an ideology need objectivity? It's subjective by nature. As for reason, you can't deny there are innumerable reasons why people hold ideologies, both credible and non-credible.



> Sky god from which scripture ?
> It becomes preachy when I hear about it


I have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## Gamaur

CD700 said:


> Yes ideology is illogical
> It lacks objectivity and reason
> 
> Sky god from which scripture ?
> It becomes preachy when I hear about it
> 
> Anyone experienced the agnostic movement ?


There's no need to speak rhetorically, this isn't an episode of Q&A, we're just having a chat here. Why can't you help me understand your point of view by showing me examples?

I've explained how I've observed passion, but what you've described is very foreign to me. Help me understand you


----------



## AngelClare

Azazello said:


> I simply brought to your attention the fact that the argument you are trying to advance in defense of duality has more holes than a gynaecologist's wet dream.


I enjoy arguing philosophy with people because it allows for an exchange of ideas. I enjoy exploring ideas and seeing the world from a different perspective. What I don't enjoy is when people turn it into a battle of egos. I wrote that this argument need not be adversarial and you respond with "you don't have the balls."

Keep in mind that we're communicating via text so things may sometimes sound condescending when that wasn't the intention.

Let me address some of your points:



Azazello said:


> I simply brought to your attention the fact that the argument you are trying to advance in defense of duality has more holes than a gynaecologist's wet dream.


Philosophy is not mathematics. There are no rigorous proofs. A philosopher makes an argument another philosopher makes a counter argument which then followed by a response by the original philosopher. Now unless the original philosopher abandons his argument or it's shown to contain logical fallacies, the argument lives. Like any debate determining who has the strongest argument is purely subjective. Just because you believe Searle's argument "has more holes than a gynaecologists wet dream" doesn't make it so. That's just your opinion. And if that's what you believe you should at least present in your own words what you believe to be the most valid criticism.

I'm still not clear what you believe is the most valid criticism. At one point you mention "the learning process" but the Searle's argument has nothing to do with learning. It's about consciousness. It attempts to explain that symbol manipulation is not consciousness and simply behaving like a conscious being doesn't make you a conscious being.

So please express what you believe to be the strongest criticism of Searle's beief that symbol manipulation is not consciousness?



Azazello said:


> 1) Compared to the thought experiment of Ned Block, on which Chinese Room problem is based, how do you conclude that the latter and not the former is the _true _representation of 'understanding' and/or 'consciousness'?


I don't think the intent is to be a "true representation" of consciousness. Consciousness is a tricky thing to discuss because it not easily defined. I would argue that it cannot be defined, it is something we know only through first hand experience. I think, therefore I am. It's very difficult if not impossible to discuss the "I am."

Searle puts a human in the room in the room because we can imagine being the human and we can feel certain that we wouldn't be conscious of the meaning of the symbols we're manipulating. In Ned Block's China Room you have a network of humans behaving like neurons and again we can imagine being one of those humans and we can feel certain that we wouldn't be conscious of what's really going on.

Someone may object and claim the room is conscious or the nation of China is conscious. There is no way to disprove that objection but philosophy is not or at least should not be about rigorous proof. It's about convincing arguments. We both agree that the man in the room is not conscious of what he is doing. But do you believe the room is conscious? If the man becomes depressed and stops working well would the room be conscious of why the man is depressed? Of course not, because the room does nothing but follow a set of instructions. It's only as connected to reality as the instructions allow it to be. Just as a calculator is only as connected to math as its architects allow it to be.



Azazello said:


> 2) As a follow up to the first question, define in biological terms 'understanding' and 'consciousness'.


As I stated above it's impossible to define consciousness. It must be experienced. We can discuss consciousness because we have both experienced it. There is no way to define consciousness because it is through consciousness that we experience the meaning of definitions. So we can't define that which gives definitions meaning.



Azazello said:


> 2) Name and then provide a rebuttal to the arguments proposed against the Chinese Room problem.


As I've stated before in this thread most of the arguments proposed against basically claim that the room as a whole is conscious, the "system reply." I addressed this argument above and I addressed it briefly earlier in this thread.

I hope I have addressed all your questions. Now I hope you would be so kind as to answer my question.

This argument we're having, do you believe it is ultimately driven by matter behaving according to physical laws? Are there little men in our heads mindlessly executing instructions that will determine if we come to some agreement?


----------



## Azazello

*CRIMECLUB, PLEASE ACCEPT MY APOLOGIES FOR WHAT IS ABOUT TO FOLLOW! *

I regret derailing your thread to this extent, and would be happy for the Mods to split my discussion with AngelClare into another thread. I am hoping this to be my last response on the subject (as it speaks nothing to your OP), unless it is continued in a separate thread.


----------



## Azazello

*Searle's Chinese Room argument*



AngelClare said:


> I enjoy arguing philosophy with people because it allows for an exchange of ideas. I enjoy exploring ideas and seeing the world from a different perspective. What I don't enjoy is when people turn it into a battle of egos. I wrote that this argument need not be adversarial and you respond with "you don't have the balls."


Correction, I suggested that in your talk of adversary and egos you were displaying the signs of transference. The comment about the ball deficit related to your failure to address the issues in the other thread. Seeing as my only concern here is to get a response from you with regard to Searle's argument, I don't particularly care how you interpret the tone of my posts, particularly since it seems to have done the trick and gotten you to engage this time.



AngelClare said:


> Philosophy is not mathematics. There are no rigorous proofs. A philosopher makes an argument another philosopher makes a counter argument which then followed by a response by the original philosopher.


Sure, if you completely disregard the entire body of critical philosophy as championed by Kant.



AngelClare said:


> Now unless the original philosopher abandons his argument or it's shown to contain logical fallacies, the argument lives.


Whether the argument lives or not says nothing of its validity, which is determined by how well it stands up to the weight of criticism mounted against it.



AngelClare said:


> Like any debate determining who has the strongest argument is purely subjective. Just because you believe Searle's argument "has more holes than a gynaecologists wet dream" doesn't make it so. That's just your opinion. And if that's what you believe you should at least present in your own words what you believe to be the most valid criticism.


This is not my opinion, and I am not sure how much clearer I can make this for you. This argument has been and still is subjected to relentless criticism, with many an issue identified in its premise. These issues were derived through the analysis and evaluation of the validity of original assumptions and how they fit with the reality, which is pretty much the definition of criticism.



AngelClare said:


> I'm still not clear what you believe is the most valid criticism.


This is because I have never implied there is one most valid criticism. I maintained through out that there is a large body of criticism surrounding this argument, which you continuously failed to acknowledge for who knows what reasons.



AngelClare said:


> At one point you mention "the learning process" but the Searle's argument has nothing to do with learning. It's about consciousness. It attempts to explain that symbol manipulation is not consciousness and simply behaving like a conscious being doesn't make you a conscious being.


This illustrates perfectly how much you know about Searle's argument. 

The Chinese Room thought experiment was in itself a criticism (and not just a counter-argument ) of a particular form of AI theory as illustrated by Roger Schank et al.

It was designed as a challenge to AI proponents who claimed that specifically programmed computers can simulate cognitive functions and properties of a brain, i.e. mind.

The only cognitive property it focused on was "understanding" - an undefined by Searle cognitive property which he hoped to illustrate by putting a spin on the language learning process.

The only instance of Searle using the term "consciousness" was in his acknowledgment that it may well be possible to produce it an artificial machine.

Last but not least, the Chinese Room thought experiment served as an argument *against *the idea of "dualism" that Searle claimed was presupposed by the "strong" AI proponents and to which he vehemently objected. He insisted that cognition, and in particular "understanding" is a biological phenomenon, and - although he was quick to admit we may not have the answers as to how it comes about - a possible result of brain's biochemistry.
So, how exactly does the Chinese Room fit into your dualistic beliefs of a disembodied consciousness?


----------



## Azazello

*Searle's Chinese Room argument*



AngelClare said:


> So please express what you believe to be the strongest criticism of Searle's beief that symbol manipulation is not consciousness?


Please see above.

In addition if you can't grasp the fact that philosophers have been poking holes in this argument since its conception, please note that on the day it was first published it was accompanied by *28* different responses, many of which contained criticisms of Searle's method and assumptions. Now, I have been encouraging you to explore the subject, read the criticisms in your own time, and see whether or not it impacts your understanding of it. Instead you act as if this argument received no criticism whatsoever choosing to pursue my own personal opinions on the matter, rather than go to the horses' mouths, so to speak. Under the circumstances, it is irrelevant what I feel is the best critique; what matters is that there is over 30 years worth of criticism questioning the validity of the Chinese Room argument and it appears you are not aware of any of it.

Now ignoring for a second your somewhat warped assumptions about the premise and the apparent consequences of the argument, I would have thought that anyone aiming to support their position by relying on some specific information would at least attempt to check how relevant it is to their argument and whether or not there are any existing issues surrounding it. You seem to have done neither, yet you keep replaying the same argument like a broken record. And to think you've had over a year to read up on the subject.



AngelClare said:


> I don't think the intent is to be a "true representation" of consciousness. Consciousness is a tricky thing to discuss because it not easily defined. I would argue that it cannot be defined, it is something we know only through first hand experience. I think, therefore I am. It's very difficult if not impossible to discuss the "I am."


Because you are unable to define something does not mean no definition could be put forward, or as in this case that there is anything to define at all. Your failure to define something may simply speak to your faulty axiomatic assumptions as to the nature of the property you are trying to define.


----------



## Azazello

*Searle's Chinese Room argument*



AngelClare said:


> Searle puts a human in the room in the room because we can imagine being the human and we can feel certain that we wouldn't be conscious of the meaning of the symbols we're manipulating. In Ned Block's China Room you have a network of humans behaving like neurons and again we can imagine being one of those humans and we can feel certain that we wouldn't be conscious of what's really going on.
> 
> Someone may object and claim the room is conscious or the nation of China is conscious. There is no way to disprove that objection but philosophy is not or at least should not be about rigorous proof. It's about convincing arguments. We both agree that the man in the room is not conscious of what he is doing. But do you believe the room is conscious? If the man becomes depressed and stops working well would the room be conscious of why the man is depressed? Of course not, because the room does nothing but follow a set of instructions. It's only as connected to reality as the instructions allow it to be. Just as a calculator is only as connected to math as its architects allow it to be.
> 
> As I stated above it's impossible to define consciousness. It must be experienced. We can discuss consciousness because we have both experienced it. There is no way to define consciousness because it is through consciousness that we experience the meaning of definitions. So we can't define that which gives definitions meaning.
> 
> As I've stated before in this thread most of the arguments proposed against basically claim that the room as a whole is conscious, the "system reply." I addressed this argument above and I addressed it briefly earlier in this thread.


Firstly, let me please reiterate that your idea of consciousness is entirely different to that of Searle. As I mentioned previously, he specifically argues against your type of Cartesian dualism.

Secondly, simply giving a title to an argument and then proceeding to argue against it from the point of incredulity without acknowledging the actual criticisms speaks to your lack of understanding of the subject. What you call a "system reply" is an umbrella term for a number of criticisms raised against the Chinese Room. Some of these "system reply" criticisms that you have failed to acknowledge and respond to relate to:


Searle's misrepresentation of the actual cognitive processes; 
his disregard for the difference in complexity between perceived cognition and symbol manipulation; 
as well as what could be a faulty assumption of the uniqueness of the two systems and that they must necessarily be sealed from one another.

These are just 3 of many such criticisms in the "system reply", as I would hope you have by now found out, there are plenty of other responses.



AngelClare said:


> I hope I have addressed all your questions.


Your attempt, however unsatisfactory, is greatly appreciated. But may I repeat my suggestion that you look into this subject properly, as your understanding of it leaves a great deal to be desired.



AngelClare said:


> Now I hope you would be so kind as to answer my question.
> 
> This argument we're having, do you believe it is ultimately driven by matter behaving according to physical laws? Are there little men in our heads mindlessly executing instructions that will determine if we come to some agreement?


I would not be, for the reason I have mentioned above. Not only is my own personal opinion irrelevant in our discussion but your lack of understanding of the subject would make the whole exercise utterly futile.

Now, as I mentioned in my post to Crimeclub, since this discussion adds nothing to the topic of this thread I would suggest that we take it "elsewhere". If my understanding of forum etiquette is anything to go by, it would be a considerate move. Your choice.

P.S. My apologies for any glaring mistakes. They are a product of my lack of sleep and a 10 hour shift.


----------



## AngelClare

Azazello said:


> Firstly, let me please reiterate that your idea of consciousness is entirely different to that of Searle. As I mentioned previously, he specifically argues against your type of Cartesian dualism.


I am not Searle. How is Searle's idea of consciousness relevant? Maybe my idea of consciousness is different. Am I not allowed to use his Chinese Room argument? I am using his Chinese Room example to advance my argument not Searle's. I am not a dualist. I am somewhat of an idealist. I'm trying to point out to you the incoherence of materialism.



Azazello said:


> Secondly, simply giving a title to an argument and then proceeding to argue against it from the point of incredulity without acknowledging the actual criticisms speaks to your lack of understanding of the subject.


That's far better than what you're doing. You make no argument. You simply repeatedly claim that other philosophers have made good arguments. I've repeatedly asked you to put what you believe to be the best argument succinctly in your own words. You have not.

I have done my best to have this be a civil discussion and exchange of ideas but to no avail.



Azazello said:


> I would not be, for the reason I have mentioned above. Not only is my own personal opinion irrelevant in our discussion but your lack of understanding of the subject would make the whole exercise utterly futile.


You're right. You're way too smart for me. It's just futile for me to argue with you.


----------



## crimeclub

Azazello said:


> *CRIMECLUB, PLEASE ACCEPT MY APOLOGIES FOR WHAT IS ABOUT TO FOLLOW! *


No problem I'm done with the original post anyway so I didn't mind just reading everything else, I like hearing a point of view that sounds good to me then hearing the counter idea that also sounds good, kind of forces me to actually think about it rather than just finding the first good idea then closing the door.


----------



## Azazello

crimeclub said:


> No problem I'm done with the original post anyway so I didn't mind just reading everything else, I like hearing a point of view that sounds good to me then hearing the counter idea that also sounds good, kind of forces me to actually think about it rather than just finding the first good idea then closing the door.


Thanks for not holding a grudge. Oh, and I salute you on your willingness to reconsider your views.


----------



## AngelClare

I created a thread where I do my best to express my argument. This time I avoid using Searle's Chinese Room since I don't want my argument confused with his or his beliefs.

I would be interested in hearing your opinion. Not that of other philosopher, but your personal opinion.

I won't defend my opinion. I may ask question or two. But I am open to hearing arguments that may change my opinion.

http://www.socialanxietysupport.com...-explain-human-beings-1153698/#post1074729762


----------



## Azazello

AngelClare said:


> I created a thread where I do my best to express my argument. This time I avoid using Searle's Chinese Room since I don't want my argument confused with his or his beliefs.
> 
> I would be interested in hearing your opinion. Not that of other philosopher, but your personal opinion.
> 
> I won't defend my opinion. I may ask question or two. But I am open to hearing arguments that may change my opinion.
> 
> http://www.socialanxietysupport.com...-explain-human-beings-1153698/#post1074729762


Yeah, I've seen it. Sounds like an interesting thread, I might take part in it at some point but it may not be for a while. I am not actually a regular poster here, it's just you were unlucky enough to catch me when I had some time off. With work coming out of my ears and my day to day problems I'm usually pushed for time, energy, and frankly motivation to contribute here properly. Mind you, I'm not sure I'd be able to comply with your 'personal opinions only' request, since I find them completely irrelevant in these kind of discussions but I will do my best to join in when I feel like posting more than a few non-committal sentences.

Thanks for invitation, I appreciate the gesture.


----------



## ugh1979

AngelClare said:


> I won't defend my opinion.


This is a discussion/debate forum so you should discuss/debate rather than make a contentious claim then run away from it. Doing that could actually be viewed as trolling.


----------

