Peak Religion

sentiententity · Post by **sentiententity** » 07 Feb 2008, 23:29

What evidence is there that it is an illusion?

See previous posting Wed Feb 06, 2008 4:10 pm. The proper question is what evidence is there that there is something?

Surely, if consciousness perceives there to be "something else out there" in other words, something greater than itself, then that is an empirical truth.

No, it's an anecdote. If everyone perceives it, then it is an observation. You need to do an experiment for it to be an empirical finding, but even then you would not be entitled to call it a "truth". In science, we don't claim to discover truths (which I would have thought you would know if you had "studied and practiced it at length") - that is mathematicians. Science, strictly speaking, is always provisional.

Me

reality, external to ourselves

caveman

Why does it have to be external to ourselves?

I'm working from the reasonable assumption that I am not the centre of the universe. If my description of reality only works for me, and is not generalisable, it seems more likely that I am a nutter rather than that the universe and everyone else in it, apart from me, is wrong.

If science is to be the one true accurate model

I would say, "as accurate a model as we can achieve". Other good models may be conceivable, but I think that science is the best one by a comfortable margin. I am genuinely surprised that this seems to be contentious.

how inanimate matter can become animate (its doing less well)

Why do you think this? This has been a brilliant success: it is called biochemistry.

evolve to become conscious of its own existence (its rubbish on the consciousness front)

I think it is easy to see the selective advantage of consciousness. Or do you mean that the description of consciouness is rubbish? Certainly, hardly complete. But then who claimed that science was finished? I certainly didn't. And of course, we get back to my "400 years of science v. 100,000 years of superstition" point, here...

How do you know there is no mind after death without having died (i assume, the internet can be tricky like that)?

Fair enough, in a picky sort of way. Maybe I should have said something like "no evidence of mind, or reason to suspect that the mind can survive death" or somesuch, but it wouldn't have been as catchy.

I don't think it does, it shows that the mind is intimately connected with the brain

Huh? In this sentence, "matter" means "live neurons, their associated synapses and other, higher levels of organisation".

you seem to be displaying many of the signs of being a religious fundamentalist

This is really insulting. And a bit dim. I'm clearly not religious, and can't be a fundamentalist whether I like it or not - I have no text to regard as fundamental.

fanatical belief that own belief system is the only truly accurate one

You' really are losing it here. Where have I said "truly accurate"? I've always been careful to emphasise the requirement for EVIDENCE. Why do you say I am fanatical? Oh, and science isn't a belief system.

Unable to accept that it could be limited or incomplete in any way

Wrong. See above. All I have claimed is that the scientific description of reality is closer to reality than that of religions, which ought to be a modest and uncontroversial claim.

Condemnation and derision of other belief systems

Derision, I'll accept. But, and hold on to your knickers here, because I am going to be horribly un-PC here: "Not all belief systems are equally deserving of respect".

s.

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 07 Feb 2008, 23:34

And now for something completely serious

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... &plindex=1

RevdTess · Post by **RevdTess** » 07 Feb 2008, 23:39

sentiententity wrote:
how inanimate matter can become animate (its doing less well)
Why do you think this? This has been a brilliant success: it is called biochemistry.

Biochemistry hasn't quite as yet managed to explain how life began. It has a few theories but they're tough to test and none have achieved scientific consensus. Theistic religion of course is even more infuriating. "God did it".

syberberg · Post by **syberberg** » 08 Feb 2008, 02:04

Please excuse me while I sit on the fence and throw stones into the pond...

Reality is what you perceive it to be. What if your perception limits what you see?

isenhand · Post by **isenhand** » 08 Feb 2008, 06:39

21st_century_caveman wrote:What a fascinating discussion, excellent.

sentiententity wrote: A combination of conciousness, intelligence and self-awareness creates the illusion that "there must be something else out there".
What evidence is there that it is an illusion?
Surely, if consciousness perceives there to be "something else out there" in other words, something greater than itself, then that is an empirical truth.

No, it can still be an illusion. People have in the past believed in many things and perceived them as real but they turned out not to be. Gods like Apollo and Jupiter, fairies, goblins and all kinds of daemons.

We have learnt to distinguish between those things that are real and those that are illusionary through a process of test and evaluation and through developing the simplest explanation to explain the results. So, we know there are no such things as gods like Apollo and Jupiter as we as fairies and goblins and all kinds of daemons because we can not do any test to show they are there. The simplest explanation becomes that they are figments of our imagination. The same then goes for the god of xianity or islam. There?s so way to tell the difference between that god and all the other gods and imaginary creatures we invent, thus that god belongs in the same set as the other imaginary creatures.

To assert something as true you need to demonstrate it. This is where truth is defined as that which is in agreement with reality (that is in a scientific sense).

.ui

isenhand · Post by **isenhand** » 08 Feb 2008, 06:43

syberberg wrote:Please excuse me while I sit on the fence and throw stones into the pond...

Reality is what you perceive it to be. What if your perception limits what you see?

Reality is external observable and testable. However, we do have a limited perception of reality. So, to overcome our limitations we conduct tests and experiments. We then put up our results and conclusions and see what others think. We then continue to test, trying to break our previous conclusions. Slowly we gain a body of knowledge that starts to make sense.

.ui

isenhand · Post by **isenhand** » 08 Feb 2008, 06:44

Tess wrote:
sentiententity wrote:
how inanimate matter can become animate (its doing less well)
Why do you think this? This has been a brilliant success: it is called biochemistry.
Biochemistry hasn't quite as yet managed to explain how life began. It has a few theories but they're tough to test and none have achieved scientific consensus.

Good, it gives us something to work on then

.ui

Post by **mikepepler** » 08 Feb 2008, 08:01

snow hope wrote:I was particularly impressed by this video, posted by Aurora in the first page of this thread.

I recommend you view this video!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... &plindex=3

Tracy's seen it before, I've not had time yet. She found numerous debunkings of it on the web:
http://everblur.tblog.com/post/1969963013

I have it downloaded, so if I get round to watching it I'll add my own views, but it might be a while - maybe when the coppicing is finished...

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 08 Feb 2008, 08:39

Aurora wrote:And now for something completely serious

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... &plindex=1

Brilliant! And relevant.

Bozzio · Post by **Bozzio** » 08 Feb 2008, 09:03

If this thread were an argument based on a particular scientific issue or even something controversial like a conspiracy theory then each side would attempt to win over the other by presenting the best facts available. Any discussion involving the concepts of illusion, emotion, perception and mind would be laughed off as signs of weakness, desperation or even craziness. Strange then that those who argue the case for god use these very same tools to create a completely new platform from which to discuss the matter. It seems that if you believe in god then you need not have to account for any challenging arguments by using facts but by suggesting the challenger's perception and mind to be wrong which is a wonderfully convenient position to place oneself in.

Personally, I don't think it matters what you believe in as long as you don't hurt anybody else because of it. Sadly, that scores highly against the case for organized religion. I'd much prefer to see a world where there is no god worship and no religion. Just my opinion of course. I don't want to be stoned to death because of it......Jehovah, Jehovah!

Blue Peter · Post by **Blue Peter** » 08 Feb 2008, 09:08

Tess wrote:
sentiententity wrote:
how inanimate matter can become animate (its doing less well)
Why do you think this? This has been a brilliant success: it is called biochemistry.
Biochemistry hasn't quite as yet managed to explain how life began. It has a few theories but they're tough to test and none have achieved scientific consensus. Theistic religion of course is even more infuriating. "God did it".

I think that we can go a bit further than that and say that there is no place for 'life' in any biochemical theory, and therefore it will never explain it (and the same goes for mind as well),

Peter.

sentiententity · Post by **sentiententity** » 08 Feb 2008, 09:56

Lots of lucidity from Isenhand up there.

I think that we can go a bit further than that and say that there is no place for 'life' in any biochemical theory, and therefore it will never explain it

What does this mean? Biochemistry explains life at the most basic level. Do you mean by 'life' "some kind of magic animating "energy" that makes living things qualitatively different from non-living things"? One of biochemistry's most remarkable achievements is to show that only normal (but interesting, and complicated) chemistry is going on, and there is no mystic woo "Life Force" involved.

s.

Blue Peter · Post by **Blue Peter** » 08 Feb 2008, 10:15

sentiententity wrote: What does this mean? Biochemistry explains life at the most basic level. Do you mean by 'life' "some kind of magic animating "energy" that makes living things qualitatively different from non-living things"? One of biochemistry's most remarkable achievements is to show that only normal (but interesting, and complicated) chemistry is going on, and there is no mystic woo "Life Force" involved.

s.

Well, indeed, what is life? There clearly is a difference between living and dead things and between living things and things that never have life, but what is it. As far as I can tell biochemistry (or any other science) does not explain, or even have room within which to explain, this difference. Biochemistry studies the reactions which go on in living systems, but it can't explain what it means for a system to be living or not,

Peter.

sentiententity · Post by **sentiententity** » 08 Feb 2008, 10:41

what is life?

A self-contained chemical system that uses energy available from it environment to locally and temporarily reverse entropy to self-organise, replicate and conserve the information required to do these things.

There clearly is a difference between living and dead things

Yes - The dead things are no longer doing the chemistry.

and between living things and things that never have life, but what is it.

Never-living things, like rocks, don't have the molecular infrastructure to perform the necessary reactions to achieve characteristics of life, such as replication. That's all. There's no difference between an iron ion in a hemoglobin molecule and in a bit of rust on an old bike.

Biochemistry...can't explain what it means for a system to be living or not

It can and does. Go look it up.

s.

Blue Peter · Post by **Blue Peter** » 08 Feb 2008, 11:37

The trouble with answers like this is that they smuggle in the things which they are trying to explain, ?A self-contained chemical system? ?self-organise, replicate?.

You are trying to explain how, after starting off from a universe of ?fundamental particles? we come to have selves. Simply using the terms doesn?t count as explaining them. What is this self which is organizing and replicating? What distinguishes this entity from the rest of the universe? What is its ontological status?

It?s perhaps worth pointing out that rocks do ?self-organise, replicate? ? the structure of forces within a rock are continually maintaining the rock. It?s just that it?s not a very interesting self-organisation/replication because the rock looks the same before and after. It?s qualitatively the same, though, as the far more exciting chemical reactions in which A changes to B and then B changes to C and then back to A, etc. ? just atoms/molecules interacting.

Peter.