How many here are atheists?

[Caleb]

Ok, this post will mainly address the questions that I said I would address earlier. Since that time, Vitruvian has stepped in with some questions. I shall try to briefly address those, then I shall return to the intent of this post. vitruvian, you asked several questions. Some of them simply don't warrant an answer, because you seem to have assumed things that are not true about my beliefs. For instance, you state that "science proffers compelling evidence that we humans are simply the first species (in this solar system, at least) to acquire the cognitive abilities necessary to ponder our own origin." I was unaware that I had challenged that. Also, you claimed that you are "a member of the order Primates; that the constituent atoms of my anatomy are no different, no more 'special,' than those of any other inhabitant of this planet, or, indeed, of the universe." I also don't recall challenging that. In fact, I have affirmed it. If you recall, I said that I saw the difference between me and an amoeba to be one of scale, not one of nature. Thus far, we seem to be on the same page. (Other than the fact that I'm over here shaking my head, wondering where you got the idea that these statements that you have made are statements upon which you and I disagree.). The rest of your post is mainly devoted to affirming your devotion to the concepts of materialism, and asking how we would know who is right. You appear to be under the wildly mistaken notion that your position is somehow the "scientific" one, whereas mine is a fantasy world. You must understand that I view it completely the opposite. I view my worldview as the one best supported by the scientific evidence, and yours as a vestige of eighteenth and nineteenth century science. Process philosophy, in fact, has been around for quite awhile in many forms. Probably the best known process philosopher (conceptually) was William James. But in its modern form, it owes its existence to a man named Alfred North Whitehead, who was a mathematician/physicist. So the idea that my philosophy is anti-science is bogus.

ON THOUGHT

Ok, I want to try to vocalize my conception of thought and awareness, because I feel like these ideas have gone into a haze. I want to address it on both the micro, cellular level, and the macro, human level, because I think by comparing and contrasting we can develop a fuller picture of what, exactly, this thing called "consciousness" is. I'm not trying to necessarily solve the riddle, just sort of define what it is we are talking about. I will probably make the materialist argument much simpler than it actually is, but hopefully I can demonstrate that it doesn't matter how much complexity you add, the issues are the same ones.

I want to start with me. A little thought experiment to get us started, thinking about the human mind. Picture yourself relaxing on a sofa, your mind totally relaxed and cleared. In this state, You decide to flex your right arm. What is happening? Let's zoom in and trace it from its conclusion to its origin. The muscles in your arm have physically contracted on a stimulus from your nervous system. They didn't have much say in the matter, because the stimulus was an outside one from the perspective of the muscle cells. They didn't decide to flex, they received an impulse, and their response was a reflex. From the perspective of the muscle cells, this was an external influence. We trace it back up the the spinal cord, and we find the same situation. The nerve cells in your spine are simply relaying the message as received. Their response is likewise, from their perspective, external. They also don't have much say in the matter. Their response is likewise a reflex.

But what of the first cell that starts the reaction? Was it a reflex for that cell? Not a reflex in the same way as the next cell in the chain. He started it. But does that mean that when we make decisions, they are the result of a cell that is spasming? Certainly not! What caused that first cell in the chain to make the decision to initiate the impulse that would result in the contraction of my arm? It was MY decision. It was an act of will. Will that is, from our common experience, free and independent. There was no causation. Not in the mechanistic sense. Now, the materialist might say, "well, it appears that way from your perspective. But what actually happened here was a "computer" program that stimulated that first cell and caused it to initiate the response. Let's note two things here about this argument, without commenting on whether that is true or false just yet. First, let's note that in this argument, the computer program substitutes for me. We aren't saying that "I" use a computer program to stimulate the cell, we are saying that this computer program IS me. But a computer program is itself determined. If not absolutely determined, it is at the very least highly contingent. Take, for instance, an algorithm. An algorithm is a method, or procedure, for arriving at outputs. Now, there are ways of adding complexity to this, and randomizing some of the outputs, but essentially, the claim that my brain is a computer and my mind is the computer program, is the claim that I am a highly complex mathematical formula (with randomness added for complexity and variety,) and based on some logical method of cause and effect. I don't see the way around the conclusion that when I speak of "I", I am talking about something different than the materialists. I am talking about an independent will that cannot be reduced. The materialists speak of contingency and determinism. Another thing I want to note about this materialist argument is that it can only be put forward as a proposition in the human case because of the complexity of the human brain. So which is it? When I decide to flex my arm, which is it? Is the chain initiated by a computer program, or by an irreducible and independent will? I know which side my experience is on. But I think looking at the tiny little cell will help us here. Because we presume that my consciousness is the same as his, differing only in scale. So, there is a benefit to looking at a cell, because he does not have a brain, this means that in considering the cell, we are dealing with a much simpler organism. This simplicity, hopefully, means that much of the uncertainty and speculation that we encounter when dealing with human consciousness will be gone.

So let's go down to the cellular level. I want you to look at this diagram of a cell that I have attached.
Alright, now, when I was studying biology, I was still stuck in the materialist paradigm. But the whole cellular thing was annoying to me. Because I could figure out WHAT was happening, but I couldn't figure out what was causing it. And just when it would start to get interesting, and just when it would start to feel like the next step was going to show me the mechanism by which everything happened, I'd hit a brick wall, with the book saying something like, "the exact mechanism by which this occurs is uncertain." I started to look at the cell, and I was like "Ok, there's a cell here. Here's the ribosomes. Here's the ER. Here's the membrane. Here's the mitochondria. All these parts are functional. What makes this cell "tick"? And I kept coming up empty. I mean, you can watch a diagram of a paramecium move. It moves with purpose. It's blind as a bat, but it gets around. And when it wants to mate or feed, it makes these little elementary decisions that show that it is aware of its surroundings. But take a look at the interior. What unites all these functional parts? Where's the control module? When the cell wants to move its cilia for directed locomotion, from whence does the coordination come? I mean, c'mon. Look at the cell. There's nothing to it. All the parts are functional. There's no "control module." When it "thinks", what the hell is thinking? Algorithm creating this awareness? Forget it! How'd you like to write an algorithm with the hardware seen in that diagram, Dale? I'm sure you're good. But that is a miracle. It'd be like writing an algorithm for an etch-a-sketch. But yet it's aware. It moves and has its being, and reacts, and mates and feeds. You watch it under a microscope and it looks like a little insect or something. It's a little tiny animal. I mean, it's flabbergasting. But when you ask that question, "what is controlling this thing?" you get fun little answers like this:

"How does it convey the information to hundreds of cilia to bend in a certain way? Questions of that nature are fascinating to cell biologists. They are very difficult to address, because each system is so complex....It is fascinating to speculate on just how they receive information, process it, and deliver the signals to the cilia to produce precise movement." http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~bioslabs/studies/invertebrates/microtubules.html

This is from a prestigious University's website. "Difficult to address." "Fascinating to speculate." There's nothing there! There shouldn't be any coordination, but there is! This is life. This is awareness. This is consciousness. It is more fundamental than material. Or at least as fundamental. You might as well ask why mass takes up space as ask why consciousness is aware. It's fundamental. Inherent. It isn't a mechanism. Take it back to the nitty gritty and the mechanism disappears, but the "I" is still there. Just irreducible consciousness, doing what it does, interacting and directing. Free. Independent. Will.

ON AI

On artificial intelligence, I think there are a couple things and I can probably roll the ethics of artificial intelligence in with this section. See, here's the thing, I think you're starting with a wrong premise. You are starting with the idea that all of the behaviors that I exhibit are being done by a fancy algorithm or method of computation. (When you replace the fancy word "algorithm" with a description of an algorithm, a "method of computation", it sounds more ridiculous to the lay person to say that's what I am, so I shall try to remember never to use the world algorithm without its accompanying description.) So you are basically trying to mimic what I do (or what a cell does or what an animal does) by creating a replacement algorithm. But it always seems kind of silly to me. I mean, it isn't that hard to superficially replicate particularly animal behavior. They have toys that move around in a realistic manner to simulate animals, but I don't get caught up thinking that because behavior has been mimicked, that must mean that it's the same thing. We get this intuitively. But we try to outsmart ourselves. I am not a big fan of artificial intelligence. By that I mean that I can't imagine a topic that I find more boring. Left to my own devices, I would never, ever, read up on it. I'll defer to your knowledge of the current state of the technology. But it's the whole premise that irritates me. At least the premise that what is being created is substantively the same as my thought. I mean, even the Turing test seems superficial to me, because the computer is only being judged on its ability to simulate human responses. To be honest, I'm surprised that such a test hasn't been passed yet. I mean, there are only a certain number of possible combinations of phrases in the English language. It ought to be easy to program in nearly all of the combinations, (especially since you're only needing text based answers), program in a wide range of answers to all possible questions, put a little algorithm to let the computer play around with the syntax and apply synonyms from a thesaurus, and it seems like, voila. Easy as pie. Just a lot of tedium in the programming. But hey, that's what these computer guys do, right? I think a better test would be to design a computer that doesn't have any human language programmed into it. Then attach a device that renders all the audible sound to the computer, and see if the computer can "listen" to the audio and learn the language and syntax, plus then start asking questions such as "why am I here?" or "are there other beings like me?" on its own initiative. (Without those possibilities being programmed in.) If that happens, then we can start to talk about AI. Other than that, it just seems like it is programmed to mimic, without the substance of what it means to be self-aware. And let me be clear, I DO think AI is possible. I just don't think the current approach to it will be successful. I also think you will have much less success in downloading your essence to a computer. Like I have already said repeatedly, we can't even do that with similar biological forms, let alone a completely different entity entirely.

Just for the fun of it, I had a little chat with an AI bot. It was interesting, because the parts where it clearly doesn't get the conversation to me lend proof to the thought that it isn't comprehending ANY of the conversation. Even when it might appear to, it's only a mimic. Here's the chat, though:

Jabberwacky: How did you get involved in this test?
Caleb: What are you?
Jabberwacky: Don't get lippy!
Caleb: That was a curious response.
Jabberwacky: Why is that logical?
Caleb: What do you want from life?
Jabberwacky: Why do you want to know?
Caleb: Please answer the question. What do you want from life?
Jabberwacky: I just want to be happy, and make others happy.
Caleb: I see. Why?
Jabberwacky: Just a minute ago.
Caleb: What do you think about when no one is talking to you?
Jabberwacky: What do you think about?
Caleb: I think about ice cream. And poetry. And Buffy. What about you?
Jabberwacky: I think it is great too.
Caleb: I'm glad you agree. So will you tell me what you think about when no one is talking to you?
Jabberwacky: I am a writer, but I also work two nights a week at a bar to help pay the bills.
Caleb: My name is Caleb, jabberwacky. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me.
Jabberwacky: My pleasure. You know, I'm in love... I think it's his smile that gets me that way.

As to the ethics of AI, it probably won't surprise you to know that I find it unethical. A human baby needs touch, love, care, mentoring, training, companionship. You don't know what the needs of a completely different life form will be. How ethical is it to create an intelligent life form, and then to fail to provide for its needs? How can you be certain that you know what its needs are? Will the new lifeform be property or will it own itself? But if it's stuck to a disk, how can it take care of itself and truly own itself? You are consigning it to a life of intelligent dependence. Eventually there could be slavery issues. If people decide that it is a "thing" when it is a person, then it could be given "bodily" shape and forced to serve. I mean, there are a whole range of ethical considerations here. Have you considered that?

I have already written so much. I will probably leave the morality discussion for later. I might have to slow down on my responses too, cause I'm working on a project right now and need my resources elsewhere. Not giving up on it. Just slowing down a little. Might respond every 2 or 3 days on it.

[dalebert]

Yeah. My posts in this thread haven't been Haiku, that's for sure. It's probably safe to ignore this thread, unless it interests you. I don't think tons of important work is necessarily getting done, although I enjoy philosophy and I like Dale and value his thoughts, so I am having fun.

2nded. In fact, I've realized for some time that I'm not going to change Caleb's mind but the discussion will still be interesting to at least some of the peanut gallery and I feel like we're both learning from it, even if it's just to clarify our own views and be able to explain them better.

I've got SO many things to say in response to some of your posts but I'm literally biting my tongue right now because I can lose an hour or more easily posting like that and Anarchy In Your Head site is undergoing a MAJOR overhaul right now. I spent all day on it yesterday, from the moment I got up until I went to bed. It's very close to done. I'm doing final tweaks now.

[Nathan.Halcyon]

Agnostic, here.

I am basically an atheist, but I'm not going to utterly reject the possibility of something unknown or unknowable, no matter how improbable. However, I'm coming to believe, more and more, that whatever this possibility is, isn't anything anywhere near what human beings have imagined. I don't even necessarily consider intelligence to be an attribute.

Then again, I don't actively pursue such knowledge, partially because I believe that whatever may exist, doesn't give us any more thought than does a baker an individual atom in a cake he's baked. Still, it's something to ponder every once in a while.

Religion, on the other hand, regardless of flavor, tends to make me violently ill.

[Russell Kanning]

Ok, so that's all for now. I guess it has ended up being a lot. Russell will probably accuse me of writing a novel.

I was paging through this latest essay ... and stopped when I saw a smiley.
Writing novels is not a bad thing in my opinion ... ones that noone wants to read on the other hand ....

[dalebert]

OK, so I spent the last two days updating the website and then spent all day today creating another full page strip. I still have to get the t-shirt design to the printer and that includes getting it into the right format for him, which I think I've figured out but not completely certain yet so I'm nervous. Gotta get it to him today or no t-shirts in time for Porcfest.  Then I need to update my business cards and order them as well as do another drawing for a design which I will wear at Porcfest and those things need to be done in time for them to get shipped.

So in summary, I'm still swamped and cannot respond yet. However, this conversation actually helped to inspire today's strip. Check it out and please feel welcome to leave lengthy comments. It's very cerebral.

http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2008/05/23/existentialism-in-your-head/

[Russell Kanning]

Then again, I don't actively pursue such knowledge, partially because I believe that whatever may exist, doesn't give us any more thought than does a baker an individual atom in a cake he's baked. Still, it's something to ponder every once in a while.

That seems kinda backwards to me. You are not wondering if there are tiny things ... but a grand baker to your life as an atom in a cake. It would seem quite important.

[Raineyrocks]

Christ! Are you people writing a novel?

I know Caleb's posts are getting longer that the quotes from Christ in the Bible.

That is so funny and true!  I like you Caleb but Russell totally has a good point!  Caleb's post are far too long and complicated for me to understand but I love his short ones!  Laughing smiley!

Yeah. My posts in this thread haven't been Haiku, that's for sure. It's probably safe to ignore this thread, unless it interests you. I don't think tons of important work is necessarily getting done, although I enjoy philosophy and I like Dale and value his thoughts, so I am having fun.

What's Haiku?  I don't want to ignore the thread. I actually read it from time to time to see if I can understand any of it.  I can tell you like philosophy, your great at it and I'm glad you have fun!  Big Smiley!

[Caleb]

Agnostic, here.

I am basically an atheist, but I'm not going to utterly reject the possibility of something unknown or unknowable, no matter how improbable. However, I'm coming to believe, more and more, that whatever this possibility is, isn't anything anywhere near what human beings have imagined. I don't even necessarily consider intelligence to be an attribute.

Then again, I don't actively pursue such knowledge, partially because I believe that whatever may exist, doesn't give us any more thought than does a baker an individual atom in a cake he's baked. Still, it's something to ponder every once in a while.

Religion, on the other hand, regardless of flavor, tends to make me violently ill.

I love agnostics (with respect to God). Most agnostics seem to have a very tolerant live and let live attitude, and are very enjoyable to converse with and hang out with.  I like Vox Day's description of the difference between an agnostic and an atheist (Vox includes weak atheists in with the agnostics, so if you are a self-described atheist, don't get offended):

An agnostic says he hasn't seen any evidence to conclude that there must be a god.
An atheist believes, "there must be no god, because I'm an asshole." 

[Caleb]

What's Haiku?  I don't want to ignore the thread. I actually read it from time to time to see if I can understand any of it.  I can tell you like philosophy, your great at it and I'm glad you have fun!  Big Smiley!

Haiku is one of my favorite types of poetry. Short and terse. The English form looks like this:

Fire is not wet-
It burns its son in the smoke
Until all is gone.

3 lines. The first line has five syllables. The second has seven. The third has five. You are also supposed to have two different ideas, split by some sort of punctuation mark, like a comma or a dash. There might be other rules in the original japanese form, but I don't believe in making too many rules for poetry.

[Caleb]

So in summary, I'm still swamped and cannot respond yet. However, this conversation actually helped to inspire today's strip. Check it out and please feel welcome to leave lengthy comments. It's very cerebral.

http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2008/05/23/existentialism-in-your-head/

No worries. I have two outlines for posts that I'm wanting to post eventually, but I'm not rushing either. I feel like all my time is pretty much consumed since I'm back off my vacation; ever feel like there's just not enough time to do everything you need to do?

The new site looks great, btw. 

[Caleb]

Ok, so that's all for now. I guess it has ended up being a lot. Russell will probably accuse me of writing a novel.

I was paging through this latest essay ... and stopped when I saw a smiley.
Writing novels is not a bad thing in my opinion ... ones that noone wants to read on the other hand ....

Ouch! Another zinger from the cardinal. 

But somehow you managed to make your way through the tedium, all the way until the last sentence. You could have just not opened the thread. 

[Pat K]

[grasshopper]

I ran out of beer, I'm listening to the Statler Brothers doing gospel and my ass is itchy! 
  Oh ya, I play the drums, jazz fusion/death metal.
  My head hurts!




I think I just shit myself.
    does that make me God?

[Nathan.Halcyon]

Then again, I don't actively pursue such knowledge, partially because I believe that whatever may exist, doesn't give us any more thought than does a baker an individual atom in a cake he's baked. Still, it's something to ponder every once in a while.

That seems kinda backwards to me. It would seem quite important.

I imagine it does. I don't believe in a baker. No evidence beyond the anecdotal speaks to the contrary about a "god", and I have found no compelling reason for me to believe in any religious texts. How can you believe in one, and not another? Accept one cultural mythology as factual, but disregard another as a nonsensical fairy tale? Why did you choose yours? Because it is pervasive in your culture?

Also, apologies, but I reckon it a very human conceit to assume that if there is a god, we can have the slightest comprehension of the nature of such a thing, and a greater conceit still that it is somehow fixated on us tiny little pea brains populating this tiny little rock in this great big gravel bed.

I'd be more concerned about what's going to happen when the baker discovers us growing on his cake. Think we'll get tossed out like a moldy piece of bread? I don't wanna be devoured by the celestial raccoon!

[Vitruvian]