Opinions of atheism
-
Originally posted by kaister:I'm not a very intuitive person, but I kinda feel you don't agree to the conclusion I've made but yet you don't dare to voice it out directly.
Kaister .. I don't see you stopping SIS from making sweeping statements either.
I think you need to tell him labels are just that .. labels. -
labels r just labels, but we r discussing about labels
-
Originally posted by kaister:I'm not a very intuitive person, but I kinda feel you don't agree to the conclusion I've made but yet you don't dare to voice it out directly. I don't blame you cos' this is a society where we are taught to be politically correct and nice, even when your emotions and heart is running wild with frustrations from the conflicting views presented.
But hey, that's what forums are for. So don't feel the need to hold back and let us discuss any doubts you have in mind.
it's not that i do not agree. Rather, i do not agree with the statistics as it fails to take in extraneous factors. Being politically correct and nice is based on my personal epistemology and beliefs. However, i thank you for your politeness and your sincerity in discussion is something i can feel as you do not nit pick.
This came up in another forum that i frequently visit. Since this thread is about Atheism and i reckon we have moved on pretty well, although we cannot agree on the definition of a religious state. i would like to hear your view on how do atheist deal with the concept of "consciousness and self awareness" ? -
Seriously speaking, I kinda lost track after a few exchanges between ben and him.Originally posted by Icemoon:
Kaister .. I don't see you stopping SIS from making sweeping statements either.
I think you need to tell him labels are just that .. labels.
I think I kind of feel for SIS when he tried to refute certain defensive points made. The whole discussion then goes one big round all over again with no end in sight.
I think I dare to speak for most atheists, this is the most frustrating experience for us whenever we try to hold a good discussion. He might not be the most polite person but he does make certain valid points and I felt it's better for ben and him to sort out their points while I keep to the main focus. -
I think we do very well. There's an active element in choosing our belief and that is what I've always been trying to emphasise. By choosing atheism, we choose to speak with our behaviour and to show that religion is not the basis of good conduct, nor do we need an omnipotent being to judge us.Originally posted by ben1xy: it's not that i do not agree. Rather, i do not agree with the statistics as it fails to take in extraneous factors. Being politically correct and nice is based on my personal epistemology and beliefs. However, i thank you for your politeness and your sincerity in discussion is something i can feel as you do not nit pick.
This came up in another forum that i frequently visit. Since this thread is about Atheism and i reckon we have moved on pretty well, although we cannot agree on the definition of a religious state. i would like to hear your view on how do atheist deal with the concept of "consciousness and self awareness" ?
The better atheists are always conscious and self-aware because of his/her active choice, but then again it typically varies from person to person. -
no no. not that Kaister. I mean "consciousness". I spoke to this Lecturer the other day over lunch. He teaches physics and Science & religion. He told me the biggest problem in the explanation of Science lie in "consciousness" or aware of "being". In the past Descrates (sp) thought consciouness to lie in the pineal gland, but i think that has been disproofed. What i am interested in is how Aetheist reconcile their world view with this "consciousness".Originally posted by kaister:I think we do very well. There's an active element in choosing our belief and that is what I've always been trying to emphasise. By choosing atheism, we choose to speak with our behaviour and to show that religion is not the basis of good conduct, nor do we need an omnipotent being to judge us.
The better atheists are always conscious and self-aware because of his/her active choice, but then again it typically varies from person to person. -
no no. not that Kaister. I mean "consciousness". I spoke to this Lecturer the other day over lunch. He teaches physics and Science & religion. He told me the biggest problem in the explanation of Science lie in "consciousness" or aware of "being". In the past Descrates (sp) thought consciouness to lie in the pineal gland, but i think that has been disproofed. What i am interested in is how Aetheist reconcile their world view with this "consciousness".
Though it is not addressed to me, I still have to say it out my personal opinion tat I do not fully understand wat u r trying to say here. Can elaborate ? Can I assume u r trying to ask physically where in our brain is our conscienceness located or u r trying to ask why do men have consciencesness ? If u r asking the latter, then I can say tat in science, "why" is not a good question to us because there is never a moltive for things to happened in such a way. It is like asking why is there water or fire or air. Why don't u try to answer why is there water from a christian perspective ? -
Deleted - Double post.
-
no no, not conscience. consciousness. It's one of the pivotal arguements in science and religion that has not been well addressed. that's why i am bringing it upOriginally posted by stupidissmart:Though it is not addressed to me, I still have to say it out my personal opinion tat I do not fully understand wat u r trying to say here. Can elaborate ? Can I assume u r trying to ask physically where in our brain is our conscienceness located or u r trying to ask why do men have consciencesness ? If u r asking the latter, then I can say tat in science, "why" is not a good question to us because there is never a moltive for things to happened in such a way. It is like asking why is the word "the" spell as T-H-E and not spell as D-E or I-L or N-O
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
could u look at the URL and then express your views. My apologies for not posting it here. it's really too long.
The arguements centers around dualism and monolism. Or the classic ghost in the machine arguement. -
Oh my bad...Originally posted by ben1xy:no no. not that Kaister. I mean "consciousness". I spoke to this Lecturer the other day over lunch. He teaches physics and Science & religion. He told me the biggest problem in the explanation of Science lie in "consciousness" or aware of "being". In the past Descrates (sp) thought consciouness to lie in the pineal gland, but i think that has been disproofed. What i am interested in is how Aetheist reconcile their world view with this "consciousness". I thought you meant moral consciousness.
To answer for this, we would need to first define consciousness. "Consciousness is a quality of the mind generally regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment."(Wikied)
Most atheists would agree that consciousness is not unique in humans. Dolphins and other high-level animals also displayed consciousness.
This can be explained using scientific approach. Every emotion, feeling and thought process that we experience, are but a series of complex electrical signals handled by our brain, not just the pineal gland.
Take for example the corpus callosum (communicating bridge between two cerebral hemispheres). If you cut it, the 2 brains will not be able to communicate with each other. They will not be able to receive perceptive signals from either sides of the body. This effectively creates '2 consciousness' , if you will, in the same physical body.
Then again, neurology is still pretty much at it's infantile stage and is very underdeveloped. Being no subject matter expert, this is the best explanation I can offer you now. -
cool. u've hit the nail.Originally posted by kaister:Oh I see! My bad Cos' I thought you were referring to "Consciousness" which derived from Latin conscientia which primarily means moral conscience.
To better answer this question, we need to look at what consciousness means. I would define it as "quality of the mind generally regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment." (Wikied)
I'm no subject matter expert on this. Atheists are more likely to refer back to scientific explanations. The foundamental reasoning most atheists would agree is that humans are not the only ones who have consciousness. Dolphins and other high-level animals also showed consciousness.
This prompted approaches that seek similarities between us and these animals. All the emotions and feelings, thoughts are but complex electrical signals handled by our brain. It is possible and was demostrated that we could lose awareness of half of our body if our corpus callosum (communicating bridge between our two cerebral hemispheres) is lesioned. One side of our brain would know what is happening to the other side. Neither side can receive perceptive signals from either sides, effectively creating "2 consciousness" if you will, in one physical body.
Other than that, I can't provide much cos' science on the neurology is still at its infantile stage, pretty much under-developed.
just the process of articulating the concept of consciousness gives most people headaches.
Moving on, being Atheist, you would probably subscribe to evolution? or am i mistaken? my apolgies if i am assuming too much. Personally, i am more towards theistic evolution (i think it's only fair i present my case first). I find the theory of evolution lacking in describing consciousness. maybe u can provide me with some insights? -
Blame my late nights... now then I understand what you were asking for. Conscience. Ignore my previous blabbering. Sorry for making you read thru all those.Originally posted by ben1xy:cool. u've hit the nail.
just the process of articulating the concept of consciousness gives most people headaches.
Moving on, being Atheist, you would probably subscribe to evolution? or am i mistaken? my apolgies if i am assuming too much. Personally, i am more towards theistic evolution (i think it's only fair i present my case first). I find the theory of evolution lacking in describing consciousness. maybe u can provide me with some insights?
Evolution DO explain conscience, although it's a very bad explanation.
Evolution focuses on survival of species, not individuals. That's why individuals in a species can compete but the species advances. It is explained that individuals with conscience helps advancement of the whole species. By having a conscience and being good, the species can hope to reduce conflicts, promoting its survival.
Take for example altruism. Self-sacrifice. A stranger might sacrifice himself for a boy crossing the road and about to be hit by a car. It's an act of conscience - doing the right thing, however, it would mean the death of him and not getting his genes in the gene pool.
However, such a behaviour allows the boy to survive, which may prompt similar social behaviours, hereby aiding in the survival of human youths as a whole.
It's not the best explanation but it's the best evolution got. -
when you're talking about conciousness, are you talking about conciousness in terms of how bacteria has no perceivable thoughts, or are you talking about humans as a sentinal being kind of concious?Originally posted by ben1xy:cool. u've hit the nail.
just the process of articulating the concept of consciousness gives most people headaches.
Moving on, being Atheist, you would probably subscribe to evolution? or am i mistaken? my apolgies if i am assuming too much. Personally, i am more towards theistic evolution (i think it's only fair i present my case first). I find the theory of evolution lacking in describing consciousness. maybe u can provide me with some insights?
eg: how did we evolve from bacteria to a human with a concious thought?
OR
eg: why are humans the only species to posses the ability to think conciously? -
Hi nomood. the sentinel category.Originally posted by nomood:when you're talking about conciousness, are you talking about conciousness in terms of how bacteria has no perceivable thoughts, or are you talking about humans as a sentinal being kind of concious?
eg: how did we evolve from bacteria to a human with a concious thought?
OR
eg: why are humans the only species to posses the ability to think conciously? -
Wah... I'm so confused now...Originally posted by ben1xy:Hi nomood. the sentinel category.
Okie for atheist's explanation on conscience, look at altruism example above. For explanation on consciousness, look at corpus callosum example even further above. -
no worries. same thing here on my side .. thankfully, workload is starting to clear up.Originally posted by kaister:Blame my late nights... now then I understand what you were asking for. Conscience. Ignore my previous blabbering. Sorry for making you read thru all those.
Evolution DO explain conscience, although it's a very bad explanation.
Evolution focuses on survival of species, not individuals. That's why individuals in a species can compete but the species advances. It is explained that individuals with conscience helps advancement of the whole species. By having a conscience and being good, the species can hope to reduce conflicts, promoting its survival.
Take for example altruism. Self-sacrifice. A stranger might sacrifice himself for a boy crossing the road and about to be hit by a car. It's an act of conscience - doing the right thing, however, it would mean the death of him and not getting his genes in the gene pool.
However, such a behaviour allows the boy to survive, which may prompt similar social behaviours, hereby aiding in the survival of human youths as a whole.
It's not the best explanation but it's the best evolution got.
Hmm, interesting. i have always thought of evolution to only explain the physical aspects. Consciousness is an abstract construct (or at least i think so). Does evolution therefore explain emotions? And how would mutation, natural selection pass on something that is not readily passable through our genes? Or am i outdated and new research has discovered the existence of a "emotion" gene? -
no no. dun worry. u're on the right track i think. That's why i posited earlier that the debates on consciousness has not been well constructed. I'm sure we will make good headway here.Originally posted by kaister:Wah... I'm so confused now...
Okie for atheist's explanation on conscience, look at altruism example above. For explanation on consciousness, look at corpus callosum example even further above.
-
This is where the explanation could take days...Originally posted by ben1xy:no worries. same thing here on my side .. thankfully, workload is starting to clear up.
Hmm, interesting. i have always thought of evolution to only explain the physical aspects. Consciousness is an abstract construct (or at least i think so). Does evolution therefore explain emotions? And how would mutation, natural selection pass on something that is not readily passable through our genes? Or am i outdated and new research has discovered the existence of a "emotion" gene?
Shortly put, we've already discovered where emotional parts of our brain is. You put an electrical signal thru those bits, you elicit the emotion you want. (Sad to say this was done on monkeys and some humans in science's early days) And all parts of our body were coded by genes. We've not exactly mapped out the functions of all the genes but we're sure not far from it.
As to how emotions are passed down, it's all speculation. Emotions must have some evolutionary advantage. A mother would feel sad if she loses her child, therefore she would do all she could to protect her child to stop those emotions.
Animals have emotions too. They are known to cry prior to their deaths. It's usually a misconception that only humans have emotions. It seems that way cos' we can express our emotions better. -
Plus, have you seen the matrix? Every emotion and sensation that you feel is merely an electrical signal, expressed by neurons, which were coded by genes.
It's hard to believe but it's an exciting field that would spark more debates on how we use that info. -
Originally posted by ben1xy:Hi nomood. the sentinel category.
that's where it starts to go very vague. To my knowledge, nobody is sure why humans have evolved beyond what was needed for survival.
"sentinality" is really one aspect in which science has problem defining. in the context of evolution however, if we were to take it as anything beyond survival instincts, there are other creatures which may be considered sentinal. eg: elephant herds have been known to divide into societies, and it has also been observed that the matriarch of an elephant herd may pay respects to a deceased matriach of another herd. ie: the creation of a basic feudal society.
I hope that answers the question. -
Consciousness or conscience ? My thinking is tat conscienceness is developed when men learn to live together. Helping another teammate when he is in trouble make the team stronger and help themselves survive better in the long run and thus make them more fitter to survive. Emotions help survival too since "sadness" and "happiness" make them strive to live better. "sadness" may arise from pain so tat u will not do an action tat will hurt your body and "happiness" when u find food so u can survive better. Emotion get richer as beings evolved.
-
In evolution, they attempt to explain everything as having a use in survival.Originally posted by nomood: that's where it starts to go very vague. To my knowledge, nobody is sure why humans have evolved beyond what was needed for survival.
"sentinality" is really one aspect in which science has problem defining. in the context of evolution however, if we were to take it as anything beyond survival instincts, there are other creatures which may be considered sentinal. eg: elephant herds have been known to divide into societies, and it has also been observed that the matriarch of an elephant herd may pay respects to a deceased matriach of another herd. ie: the creation of a basic feudal society.
I hope that answers the question.
Formation of a social group will aid in survival. A group of elephants survive better than a single, loner elephant. Development of a basic feudal society allows command and control by a dominant male, which is always beneficial in a group setting.
I know these explanations are sketchy and I've to admit there's no hard evidence on these yet. -
yes, but survival only on a very primary level. Lions band together to hunt, but you don't see them paying each other respects, greeting one another ya?Originally posted by kaister:In evolution, they attempt to explain everything as having a use in survival.
Formation of a social group will aid in survival. A group of elephants survive better than a single, loner elephant. Development of a basic feudal society allows command and control by a dominant male, which is always beneficial in a group setting.
I know these explanations are sketchy and I've to admit there's no hard evidence on these yet.
sentinal thinking and feelings are the things which supposedly transcends survival, which, admittedly is really really difficult to mess with. -
haha. i can't believe i just dug this big hole. ok then, to my knowledge emotions are but 1 component of consciousness. And the emotions that are elicited cannot be exactly placed on what part of the brain, but many different areas. So i guess its still one big grey area.Originally posted by kaister:This is where the explanation could take days...
Shortly put, we've already discovered where emotional parts of our brain is. You put an electrical signal thru those bits, you elicit the emotion you want. (Sad to say this was done on monkeys and some humans in science's early days) And all parts of our body were coded by genes. We've not exactly mapped out the functions of all the genes but we're sure not far from it.
As to how emotions are passed down, it's all speculation. Emotions must have some evolutionary advantage. A mother would feel sad if she loses her child, therefore she would do all she could to protect her child to stop those emotions.
Animals have emotions too. They are known to cry prior to their deaths. It's usually a misconception that only humans have emotions. It seems that way cos' we can express our emotions better.
nothing we can do abt that.
Emotions fit well with the Jewish and Catholic explanation with the person having a soul, body and spirit. Extrapolating, i could say that it's the soul that enables humans n animals to emote.
-edit-
i forgot to mentioned that animals ave soul and body according to Jewish and Catholic thought -
so u reckon emotions could be programmed via algorithms and the likes? but what about consciousness and self identity? would algorithms be able to do that?Originally posted by kaister:Plus, have you seen the matrix? Every emotion and sensation that you feel is merely an electrical signal, expressed by neurons, which were coded by genes.
It's hard to believe but it's an exciting field that would spark more debates on how we use that info.