Two can play this game—Chad Orzel, who sometimes likes to blame his insufficient popularity on his off-puttingly deep wisdom and excessive sense of moderation and fair play, notes approvingly that "All the world's stupidest people are either zealots or atheists," and that "certainty only comes from dogma," both rather interesting statements coming from a scientist. My certainty that I shouldn't step out of my second-story window, or that I shouldn't eat a large cake of rat poison, don't come from personal experience, but they aren't dogmatic, either—although I'm awfully darn certain that warfarin and high velocity impacts with solid surfaces would probably be lethal. I can think of many examples and experiments that demonstrate these facts without actually having to experience mortality personally, or requiring blind adherence to unsupported dogma.
Similarly, I am sensible enough to see that religion is an irrational course, without having to actually meet God face-to-face, and without having to comb through every particle of the universe looking for him. Waffling is not a virtue, nor is an absence of conviction a signifier of open-mindedness—not when the evidence all points one way.
Neither is traffic to a weblog a measure of its accuracy, whether inversely or otherwise, and heck, I don't get fifty thousand visitors a day, either. I hope he'll forgive me for adding to his damning tally of visitors with this link.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
"why I don't read Daily Kos, why I don't follow links to the Skpetics Circle or Carnival of the Godless"
Ok, I can understand why he doesn't do COG, but why the Skeptic's circle? It's usually debunking people like John Edward and Sylvia Browne who claim to have some otherwordly power. Or debunking the latest crackpot idea about how to cure this and that disease. What's so wrong with that?
What kind of world would Klosterman and Orzel like to live in? A world full of permanent moderates who refuse to come to conclusions about anything that's not irrefutable fact? Without passionate advocacy there is no action, development or progress. It's true it's messy, but it's the best and only way we have. It's easy to sit back and announce on blogs that polarized people aren't worth listening to, but they're also frequently the only ones willing to start a debate or take action. Where would we be if we had shunned radical abolishionists, or those boat-rocking New Dealers? They probably all had party membership cards.
Well, here's part of your answer:
this is a guy whose whole claim to fame revolves around the expression of weirdly absolute opinions about pop culture ephemera which I assume includes John Edward and Sylvia Browne, and here's another indicator:
" As I grow older, I find myself less prone to have an opinion about anything, and to distrust just about everyone who does."
In other words: he's open-minded! About everything! (Except perhaps, about being open-minded.)
It's a cowardly and intellectually shallow position to take in order to impress people with his opinions, which he seems to have, and about nearly everything.
This is a nice analysis/smackdown of the high-horse "moderates" in politics.
Sure, polarized people are annoying, but at least they're saying something. Or trying to, at any rate.
But if your only answer to any of the difficult questions in life is "I have no opinion on the matter," you're not being open-minded, you're just wasting everyone's time, including your own. It's the absurd pinnacle of ironically pointless postmodern "ironic" detachment.
Coturnix, the article you link to doesn't so much show why moderation is bad as it implicitly argues that American conservatives use the label as a means of center-shifting.
Nitpick, at least the way I use the terms, PZ: I'd say you're not certain that stepping out your second-story window is a bad idea. Just very, very confident.
99.99999999999999999% confidence != 100.0% certainty.
Simply brilliant, Chad! Make a sweeping snipe that includes PZ and watch your numbers increase exponentially. (note to self: work angle of cephalopod worship as a sign of the existence of the devil; bemoan the cliche of facial hair and glasses on a forty-something associate professor, etc...oops, scratch that last one.)
"This comes near the end of a 2004 piece from Esquire on the pointless nationalism of the Olympics, but it strikes me as an absolutely dead-on description of, well, a lot of things: why I don't read Daily Kos, why I don't follow links to the Skpetics Circle or Carnival of the Godless, why I don't post much to the "Culture Wars" channel on ScienceBlogs. And, probably, why I don't get fifty thousand visitors a day."
Cry me a river!
Great. Now everyone at Scienceblogs is going to try and get a piece of me.
You can't win, Darth. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
PZ,
I'm your father!
I think Orzel is confusing the epistemological status of certain claims. As scientists, we can provisionally assign a likelihood of outcomes to natural phenomena, and when they are very likely we can treat it as certain. But the odious Browne isn't asking for the sort of certainty we seek in science; she's looking for conviction. It is a disservice to science to misrepresent the provisional nature of our claims as the non-religious equivalent of opinion, or belief.
Scott
But he (Chad) should be happy to see that the post you linked to has about twice the amount of replies of his most popular post (about movies) and 10x the amount of his average post.
LOL :P
don't really want to dive into the froth, but Salman Rushdie opines it's the zealots who are the problem, including authoritarians.
no, atheists (*) don't carry their opinion with absolute conviction. it's just that as Rushdie observes, a lot of the world has gone fundie batty. people tend to get worked up when survival is at stake, even atheists.
=================================
(*) like me, and that's relatively new
=================================
just an one self-styled "moderate" who seeks to be moderate between 2+2=4 and 2+2=5, and scorns both as being "extreme"
Can you be as certain about not jumping out of windows as you are that most evil in the world comes from religion? (regardles of, say, that little thing called "unjustice"?)
You gotta be pretty certain too to be a one-note johnny and repeat everyday on your blog that ALL religion is devoid of rationality and is pure ignorance and superstition. That's the point: some of your certainties are just plain false but since you think they are "just so", you become the worse kind of dogmatic: The one that thinks all he does, is uphold truths as simply as rocks will fall.
Certaity does not ony come from dogma, but dogma always requires certainty. And many false certainties can exist, beyond those of bad religion...
Religion IS superstition. It always has been.
Boring prayer-like repetition of a false concept as dogma. Religion is NOT the same thing as superstition. Pick up a dictionary, for Darwins sake
Ok Vargas I'll bite. Which parts of religion are rational? And I'm talking about the claims it makes and that people believe not the wishy washy forgiveness/love stuff.
The rest of your post is just blather.
Oh my gosh, another argument on religion vs. superstition using a dictionary.
How about saying a roseary to remove whatever it supposedly removes?
How about holding a cross symbol as a means of protection?
How about holy water?
How about demon possession?
All these are superstitions.
pfff... dogmatic ignoramuses. One word, GH: Buddhism. Though I guess that at your level you are quite willing to wipe your ass "a priory" with just any religion, huh.
When you dudes say "religon is superstition", well sorry boys, its no great intelelectual achievement. Its mere confaltion of religon to something more simple and stupid. I would not like that kind of confkation against evolution, but hey, it happens. "evolution is Darwinism", for example. Sewage spews from extremists on any side, ya know.
just a small advice from me : before you start flinging around accusations of dogmatism, just try to show some evidence to back it up. For example, just only ONE example of religion not being pure ignorance and superstition would suffice ;-)
Don't buddhist believe in reincarnation?
Ummm. Superstition. A peaceful religion yes. but no less myth based.
How can I be dogmatic when I'm not even an atheist? I knew you where going throw Buddhism out there. And you would be correct. Whats funny is you think you are somehow at a 'higher' level in regards to understanding religion. Smacks of insecurity to me.
more simple and stupid? How so?
It would suffice to mentiona relgion if i knew it would not be immediatley turned down by the typical bunch of dogmatic religion haters looking for shoulder pats on this blog. Buddhism will work for normal people but not here. Cause, you're ignorant, too, and further you won't give buddhism much thought ever, because of your "certainties" on religion.
Ahhh, but do you think a peaceful religion can be obtained by myth alone? Peace is a rational achievement. Well hopefully you will think about it... if you were not so CERTAIN hahaha
you said Buddhism .. uhmmm... just tell me a few things : How to measure karma ? Why everyone gets reincarnated, but no one remembers his prevous life ? What exactly gets reincarnated, provided one's 'self' is only an illusion, as buddists teach ? If you can't, how can you claim that it is something more than superstition ?
I'm Confident that Vargas is a concern troll, or a buddhist.
You know Vargas your very arrogant.
I don't hate religion in the slightest. I don't appreciate many of it's hurtful and irrational dogmas but you seem to be painting with a broad brush here and completely missing the target.
Can you read? I said you where correct about Buddhism although I doubt it's without it's fanciful thoughts.
I see, you've been busy while I was writing... And, I'm glad you've managed to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that the only dogmatic ignoramus here, are you.
Teaching pea-brained people how religion and superstition are different things is SO, SO beyond stupid it fully confirms how hard-headed and dogmatic you have become. It does not deserve any time- wasting from me. Unless someone says something smart now, I'm getting out of the sewer.
bye bye.
Do you believe in reincarnation Vargas? how can you respect religion and not it's mindless dogma?
Religon is silly. no matter how harmless.
Perhaps the pea brained one is you Vargas-
From dictionary.com:
suâ§perâ§stiâ§tionâ /ËsupÉrËstɪÊÉn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[soo-per-stish-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun 1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
2. a system or collection of such beliefs.
3. a custom or act based on such a belief.
4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, esp. in connection with religion.
5. any blindly accepted belief or notion
Seems to fit alot of things. And I really am not at concerned with being correct here. I just don't think your angle has much merit.
no, the evidence accumulates every day. yes, the probability of it being true is not exactly one, but it is 0.999... and grows.
moreover, what is clear is that most people don't see this, rejecting evidence that religion is the problem out of some misguided belief religion does something constructive for them.
Buddhism is good, because at the surface and in its most prominent writings it admits to wanting to learn from experience, science, and its own mistakes. but even Buddhists have a dark history here and there, having engaged in "ethnic cleansing" and forced conversions in ancient Sri Lanka. Buddhism revels in myth about its past. myths aren't themselves bad, except when they are seen as more than just pedagogy. (Lord of the Rings is a good read for many people, but few pretend it actually happened.) myth about the past also tends to mask history, interfering with claims of wanting to learn. finally, the sangha in the narrow sense, the world of the bhikkhus, is authoritarian. that impedes.
finally, as valuable as lessons from Buddhism are, including the emphasis upon working upon your own happiness, monastic ideals taint day-to-day practice, encouraging renunciation of involvement with politics and such. if atheism and humanism say anything it is that we need to take charge 'cause there ain't noone else that will. sure, Buddhism teaches humanistic involvement with the poor, the sick, opposes capital punishment, and so on, but it says little about (e.g.) a need to learn how to zone national and regional resources so things like mega hurricanes and nuclear terrorist strikes don't hurt us so much, that is, the stuff of rational governance.
Well there you go, some spots here and there do not make it all pure ignorance and superstition, don't it...Oh wait: in this blog, YES, it does!!!! We're in extremy-O land!!!
go away, stupid troll...
Calling skeptics dogmatic, that is... why, that is like calling atheists religious, or bald a hair color.
Darth,
You are confusing your mentor Obi-Wan with your son Luke. Reach out with the Force and you will sense this.
Alexander:
There seems to be a lot of superstitions and supernaturalism in Buddism:
"The widely accepted doctrine of dependent origination states that any phenomenon 'exists' only because of the 'existence' of other phenomena in a complex web of cause and effect. For sentient beings, this amounts to a never-ending cycle of rebirth (saá¹sÄra) according to the law of karma (PÄli: kamma) and vipÄka."
"karma is used specifically for those actions which spring from :
* mental intent
* mental obsessions
which bring about a fruit or result (vipÄka), either within the present life, or in the context of a future rebirth. Karma is the engine which drives the wheel of Samsara for each being."
"Sensation (vedana). When material elements in the world bump into each other, in the human body sensations arise"
"A Buddhist who has attained Nirvana has escaped the world of cause-and-effect (they are free from the cycle of birth and rebirth)." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism )
"By the term "mind" is meant the "non-physical phenomenon which perceives, thinks, recognises, experiences and reacts to the environment", as per A View on Buddhism, while "mental qualities" refers to such things as intention, concentration, regret, ignorance, etc. Thus, roughly speaking, the mind is the perceiving/conceiving entity, while mental qualities are the perceptions/conceptions." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path )
I prefer to call it supernaturalism and other dualisms, OTOH its sources are superstitions.
"Well there you go", Buddhism teaches a thing or two that are useful, and you infer the remainder is more more than "pure ignorance and superstition"?
I can't believe I'm reading posts where a person is making the claim that religion is not superstition. Amazing. I'm glad someone posted the actual definition of superstition, but in case that's not clear, here's a little help:
Religion can most certainly be shown as:
- make believe
- let's pretend
- magic
- fantasy
Vargas, you've been made to eat your own words.Religion IS superstition by practice and definition. If you want to characterize science as dogma then fine - it's the dogma of skepticism. Science backs up all of its (substantive) claims with reason, evidence, and rational thought through the process of rigorous skeptical inquiry.
Not the remainder, ekzept. The totality. Because that is what they say all the time at this blog, that it is ALL just ignorance and superstition. Which is as false as saying it is all reason. Whether it agrees with someone's dogmatic certainties or not.
So I'm curious Vargas which part of the definition are you arguing about now?
So your essentially saying because one small minute part of something might notbe superstition the folks here are incorrect to say religion is based on superstition?
You have a really, really weak argument.
"Science backs up all of its (substantive) claims with reason, evidence, and rational thought through the process of rigorous skeptical inquiry."
Its amazing how many salutes to the flag of reason you have to hear every three seconds of this blog. Of course anyone can tell, that praising it does not mean you use it. More probably you have spent too much time making it clear your allegiance is with science, and less time trying to sieve out your own prejudices.
And no, religion is not "all superstition". This is clear to any person with some knowledge of history or that merely has some room left for sophisticated thinking, rather than repeating the same partisan and dogmatic "rationaloid" chestnuts. So I don't care to explain it any more. Just a waste of time.
Alexander Vargas:
You are certainly passionate about your line of thinking. However, it gets really mentally difficult for us to read post after post your replies that tersely go "You are wrong." (you must have seen that Monty Python sketch) most notably because you just can't go in enough detail in a small space reserved for comments.
So, Alexander, go forth and furnish the internets with your own articles, and provide links to them here when you are answering someone. This way, we can deeply appreciate the complicated line of thinking we must all achieve to follow the discussion. Think about the millions of atheists who just get lost in all this comment traffic, which you now can save!
How many times has Vargas announced that he's going to flounce off in a huff? Only to come back again and again and again?
"...dogmatic certainties..."???? Whaaa.....????
You mean like "believing" in gravity, the existence of electrons, the distance to our Sun, the geologic column?
There's very little if any body of evidence that dispute these "dogmatic" beliefs.
So, what can you show about the whole "born a virgin" quackery - ehh? What body of rigorous skeptical inquiry can you point to that shows the certainty of the alleged event?
OK OK!! Jeez!!! I'm outta here. I Just thought that ekzept was maybe a bit less of a fundie than the average , ya know. Aaah wel.. I'll let you guys get on with the shoulder patting then; bye bye (Yeah, this time for real haha!!)
Are you showing that form of thinking here?
I really haven't even seen you make anargument much less substantiate it. No one argues religion hasn't done things(history) best I can tell people are simply admitting what is obvious. By definition most religions are a collection of superstitions adhered to and endorsed by a group of people.
What is there argue about that really? What sophisticated thinking are you engaged in Vargas?
Um, seven times seventy?
Ooh wait, that was a rhetorical question, wasn't it? Darn.
Your such a goofball Vargas as mentioned I'm not an atheist. But of course carry on with your dogmatic thinking that anyone who finds your 'arguments' pathetic is as such.
oh well, so much for remaining out of the fray. :-)
there is noone more nuanced and willing to change their opinion than people who've based theirs upon evidence.
unwillingness to alter course and hypothesis irrespective of what the world actually says is an operational definition of "ignorance and superstition".
surely, you're not really arguing that religion has benefit and so a reality to it because people find it useful, claim they benefit from it, or like it, are you? most religions don't address findings from psychology and sociology. at best they coexist with them, most often they compete with them, and sometimes they condemn them.
many false certainties might exist, including the pretend certainties that because it's Our Team, We're Gonna Win.
religion has always been as false as it is today, and there have long been injustices. but religion, as carrier of vile bad thinking, is seething out of the ground, writhing into decision making where it does not belong, and noone condemns it. it intrudes into the highest places of governance, including within the Supremes, and because it is couched in respected garb, most consider it unassailable.
moderates are cowed by its extreme manifestations, either wanting to still break bread with coreligionists, or lacking the courage to take them on.
we assault religion here, and at similar haunts. it deserves it.
we need to be completely secular.
no, this forum isn't 100% reason and evidence, but these are respected far more here than in media, in today's "balanced discussions", and surely in any pulpit or study group. i have personally concluded there is no other way, despite years of trying.
don't pull the "But you're practicing a religion that way" bullshit. that's trying to re-endow the word "religion" with archaic meaning. it's monotheists who have narrowed it.
There are so many different kinds of Buddhism that it's impossible to generalize about it, really.
It's pretty clear that Gautama Buddha did not want to be worshipped, and yet for so many Buddhists he is. Buddhism experienced the schisms and subversions that most, if not all, religions undergo.
Images of Buddha are adored as a shortcut to enlightenment, just as the original followers of Jesus became worshippers of Jesus. Tibetan Buddhism is esoteric for the monks and nuns, but for the common people it's the experience of adoring saints, worshipping gods, fearing demons, and avoiding hell (patala) and getting to heaven (pamida -sp?), neither of which are eternal, by the way...
I've lost a lot of my illusions about Buddhism by after learning all of this. So yes, I have a problem with this religion, too.
Vargas,
"Its amazing how many salutes to the flag of reason you have to hear every three seconds of this blog..."
This is because of insinuations that science is somehow a belief system akin to religion. It is not. The "beliefs" of science, if you can call them that, are all supportable and demonstrable - something religion would love to be able to pull off.
Additionally, you left of reason, and evidence. I try not to just use words for fun here. With reason I was hoping to imply the tools of logic....a very important aspect of inquiry. For instance, it is illogical that god made insects with 4 legs, or rabbits that chew cud. That is where evidence comes in. You see, science can show you the substance of its claims. This is also something religion would love to pull off, but can't, with many of its claims. I'm guessing that it's because they are false...just a guess.
I'm done feeding the troll.
He's having a tough time. His religious upbringing was so "nice" and "harmless" that now that he's an atheist he thinks all this picking on religion is mean and counterproductive.
All squares are rectangles. Not all rectangles are squares.
If you're talking to a person who doesn't understand the concept of a superordinate set, even intuitively, there's a simple solution: stop talking to them.
Vargas is right when he says "religion is not all superstitiion". The parts that aren't superstition are criminal. Things like fraudulently soliciting money and harboring child molesters.
75% in Arkansas, Alabama Believe Bible Literally True
Rasmussen Reports, August 26, 2006
Not surprisingly, the Bible Belt region lives up to its name -- Alabama and Arkansas came out on top as 75% say they believe the Bible is literally true. West Virginia (70%) and Tennessee (68%) are close behind. The northeast region of our map represents the other extreme. In Vermont and Massachusetts, only 22% of those respondents believe the Bible is literally true--the lowest percentages in all states surveyed. Earlier this summer, a national survey found that 54% of American adults believe the Bible is literally true.
"religion is not all superstitiion".
The parts that aren't superstition are not religion.
I mean, if all a "religion" said was "be cool to one another" then it would not be a religion. Religion, by definition of the word (duelling dictionaries, anyone?), means belief in a supernatural agency. Belief in a supernatural agency is superstition.
In certain sects of Buddhism the supernatural agency is not personified, but it is still supernatural (eg "karma"), therefore still superstition.
QEFD
At the risk of feeding a fantastic character, it seems to me that there might be a meaningful distinction to be made between superstition, a religion and a personal belief, at least on the basis of the definition GH provided, which I find reasonable.
This is just my opinion, but it seems to me that the word 'ominous' implies something along the lines of a portent or a sign and the word 'blindly' suggests an idea held unquestioningly. We all believe things without knowing them to be true, but most of those things are based on some kind of evidence, even if it is just of the experiential, subjective kind. Surely that in and of itself does not qualify as superstition, much less organized religion!
The public exercise of religion seems to inevitably wrap itself in superstition over time: the Buddha is venerated despite his wishes, a Virgin birth is added to the Gospels, and so forth. Does it then follow that the private exercise of religion is necessarily so? I confess to being uncertain on this point, based on my personal experience. I have never in my life seen an omen, a portent or a sign; I think, prior to my mid-twenties, I might have held many ideas 'blindly' but if my personal inventory is accurate, I've tended to cull those things over time.
Do I believe, without evidence, things that I can never prove? Sure, but I don't see that I hold these thinks unquestioningly, or out of fear, or because I am desperate to experience the supernatural. I believe because personal experience has led me to esteem reason highly, but just not exclusively.
Standard disclaimer for the staunch non-believer: Relax. This is just food for thought, and I'm not here to convert anyone. I have no ax to grind, no flock to feed. My real interest is in discussing the epistemic status of different sorts of belief.
Peace to all....Scott
Speaking as a born and bred Arkansan, those studies are most definitely accurate. I'm surprised that it isn't a higher percentage. What do expect from a state whose governer is Mike Fuckabee? That slimy, science-hating asshole bigot.
anyone have a wooden stake i could borrow? oh, and a hammer?
gee, i don't know what to do with this. it is a direct continuation of the discussion in this thread in this entry on this blog. but it appeared under an "Anonymous" posting on my blog in a completely inappropriate place. so, this is what i've done. i am quoting the response, without comment below. i will respond at my own blog when i have time if i wish to. i don't think the post deserves response because it is an objection to a comment which was posted here and should be replied here. i will do this once.
okay, garlic ready? here is >>Vargas<<, quoting me represented in boldface, his response in italics:
... unwillingness to alter course and hypothesis irrespective of what the world actually says is an operational definition of "ignorance and superstition".
OK, but it does not mean it is ALL ignorance and superstition, nor that "what the world says" does not turn out now and then to be wrong... For example it worries me that some say "religion is superstition" as if it were a scientific fact as unquestionable as evolution. Does any one realize how important it is not to conflate things?
surely, you're not really arguing that religion has benefit and so a reality to it because people find it useful, claim they benefit from it, or like it, are you? most religions don't address findings from psychology and sociology. at best they coexist with them, most often they compete with them, and sometimes they condemn them
People who find it more useful are those looking for glue and momentum to carry out international wars and such. its them that are responsible, not "religion" per se.
religion has always been as false as it is today, and there have long been injustices. but religion, as carrier of vile bad thinking, is seething out of the ground, writhing into decision making where it does not belong, and noone condemns it. it intrudes into the highest places of governance, including within the Supremes, and because it is couched in respected garb, most consider it unassailable.
Hmmm if you think it's religon, you miss the target. It is usually rightwing rich people who want to maintain the supremacy of their kind. They could find another ideological banner, but religon is traditional and seems to work fine.
moderates are cowed by its extreme manifestations, either wanting to still break bread with coreligionists, or lacking the courage to take them on.
we assault religion here, and at similar haunts. it deserves it. we need to be completely secular. no, this forum isn't 100% reason and evidence, but these are respected far more here than in media, in today's "balanced discussions", and surely in any pulpit or study group. i have personally concluded there is no other way, despite years of trying
No. Just because they are fundies around means the only way to counter them is by being just like them, but of an inverted polarity: if you do so, you quite plainly make the situation worse. Sure, you don't have to give equal time to both sides of a story, if one of them is crap; but this does not mean that the concept of "balanced discussion" is wrong. Sounds like all you believe in is one-sided apologetic monologues. If the other side is pure crap, you should be able to succintly say why. Not just say it's crap. That just does not work, for obvious reasons
sorry i tried presenting with block quoting but it didn't present well, tending to close the block quote prematurely.
If the other side is pure crap, you should be able to succintly say why.
that presumes "the other side" is being honest. they are not. they not only insult their opponent by misquoting them, and failing to address their objections, they exploit the ignorance of their audience to make it appear they are knowledgeable and have a superior position, are willing to lie and deceive to do so, and use the most manipulative ends to use anyone remotely associated with their opponents positions in a manner to enhance their own purposes (reminisce Collins).
so, i "succinctly say why" by saying they are liars, and will lie in public. because to them, they have the ultimate ends, and any way of achieving them, even deception and lies and thievery, they are all acceptable.
Sorry to interrupt the smackdown of A Vargas, but when I clicked on the link to Chad's blog, as soon as I saw he was quoting Chuck "Inane, Annoying Pop Culture References At The Ready" Klosterman, I knew it was going to be nonsense. What an utterly debased culture we are if Chuck Klosterman is held up as a cultural critic worth anything but mockery and scorn.
Or as Dan wrote earlier:
It's the absurd pinnacle of ironically pointless postmodern "ironic" detachment
or, to put it another way: if I don't take a position on anything, I won't risk losing hipster points with my peers.
For any religion the remaining ones are superstitions. So by induction all religions are superstition. :-)
"The parts that aren't superstition are not religion."
But this is too restrictive, that is the same as conflating religion with superstition. Religion is also tradition, often organised, and a worldview. Granted, this still makes it no different from astrology or dowsing. Well, who say it is? ;-) I'm only half joking here - I can't see how to define a qualitative difference.
ekzcept:
Okay, keep him down while we get the stakes!
Not only does this confirm his troll status, I think it is the first zombie troll I've seen myself, posting all over without control.
Anyone can blog. Is there a stupidity filter?
Anyone can blog. Is there a stupidity filter?
yes, but some have perfected the art to the most exquisite, the most sublime.
oh, right, i meant trolling, didn't i?
When characterizing religion people here -- with Scott Hatfield as a notable exception -- use as examplars the most unsophisticated representives they can find. Contrast that with how the same people characterize science as being the paragon of truth, knowledge, and virtue. Yet we can find any number of dispicable, or merely unsophisticated, people practicing science. It defies reason.
Klosterman? Klosterman - that name rings a bell.
Oh, right.
Hm, what an angry man that Mr Ames is.
Anyway, carry on.
Feel free to present examples of despicable people practising science, and I'll be more than prepared to condemn them for their despicableness, if indeed that is the case.
Or indeed, find examples of people practising science in an unsophisticated way, and I'll be happy to point out their errors (assuming that it's actually my field and I'm qualified to comment).
Who will call religious idiots on their stupidity?
I thank AndyS for kindly excluding me from the unsophisticated. In fairness to my skeptical friends, though, I have to point out that they've expressed the opinion that I'm the exception to the rule. And, if one only went by the evangelical fraction of American society, who could argue against them? Even one of their own, Mark Noll, has written rather poignantly about 'the scandal of the evangelical mind.' Feel free to Google, unbelievers!
As for myself, Andy, I would like to think that there is something about science that tends to mitigate the case of its despicable practicioners, namely the self-corrective role of the scientific community over time. Honesty compels me to admit that I'm hard-pressed to say the same thing about the religious impulse. Very few of my fellow believers seem to have even heard of John Wesley, much less take to heart his proverb "to think, and let think" which so informs my understanding of the relationship between science and faith. Much more work needs to be done on my side of the aisle than, say, here on Pharyngula, if that hoped-for dialogue is to prosper. To do otherwise, I would be like that fellow who complains about the toothpick in his brother's eye while ignoring the telephone pole in my own.
Hopefully....Scott
I must take issue with the notion that Buddhism is somehow less black than other religions:
Sri Lanka: Monks Held In Abuse Of Orphaned Boys
"Two Buddhist monks and eight other men are being held in connection with the sexual abuse of 11 boys at at orphanage near Colombo, the capital, the National Child Protection Authority said."
---------------------------
Burma: Buddhist Abbot to be hanged
"According to reports, the religious unrest broke out with a minor dispute, as someone threw a stone into a Buddhist monastery compound and it sparked the anger of the Buddhist monks, who mistakenly believed that the occupants of a nearby mosque were responsible for the alleged stone throw.
"Subsequently, number of Muslims were attacked and injured in the religious riot that ensued, while others fearing for their lives sought shelter in the homes of the neighbouring Buddhist families."
--------------------------
As for the notion that religion is not entirely irrational: most religions are not entirely irrational. Are the notions that theft and murder are wrong irrational? Of course not. However, the rational parts of religion do not require religion. Strip religion of the superstitious and irrational elements, and it's no longer religion.
We all believe things without knowing them to be true
Well, technically we don't know if *anything* is "true", including our own existance. (The Greek philosophers tagged just about everything, didn't they?)
When characterizing religion people here -- with Scott Hatfield as a notable exception -- use as examplars the most unsophisticated representives they can find.
Given that the majority of people are not screaming nutjobs, and given that the majority of people are religious, it pretty musch goes without saying that the majority of religious people are not screaming nutjobs.
But you don't have to be a screamming nutjob to hold a belief that is not based on reason. I have a co-worker that believes that there is a face on Mars, that much of modern technology was gotten from crashed alien spacecraft, and that our office is haunted. He's a perfectly functional, reasonable human being, otherwise... well, except for the fact that he's a Conservative. ;-)
We don't hold *scientists* up to be the modern equivalent of saints... we hold *science* to be the best way we have of understanding the universe. Big difference.
"So by induction all religions are superstition."
Actually, or at least simpler, by consistency.
Andy:
"When characterizing religion people here -- with Scott Hatfield as a notable exception -- use as examplars the most unsophisticated representives they can find."
That is a misrepresantion. Some of us (eh hrmm!) is genuinely trying to capture the essence of it, and understand why it is different from other worldviews like astrology.
BTW, I just figured out a qualitative difference - most religions claim to have a comprehensible worldview. They are qualitatively *worse* than astrology and dowsing. :-)
"Yet we can find any number of dispicable, or merely unsophisticated, people practicing science."
Sure. They are called specialists. ;-) Look, it takes all sorts. But the claim is that science is the paragon of truth, knowledge and virtue. That is different. And supportable. (Depending on which virues you mean.)
Hm, what an angry man that Mr Ames is.
As The Clash song The Clampdown muses:
Let fury have the hour
Anger can be power
D'ya know that you can use it?
But, yes, wishing that Klosterman be sent to a death camp for writing a vapid bit of nothingness book maybe is a *little* over the top. I mean, won't exile to Gorky --or in Klosterman's case, North Dakota-- do? Still, this is good:
In other words, Klosterman and his girlfriend would be as crazy as Sid and Nancy if they were shooting smack on a stained mattress in the Chelsea and not sitting in their parents' basement watching tv, giggling and drinking chocolate milk.
That is different. And supportable.
yes: science isn't so much "the truth" as a means of finding out the truth, or, as one dude said, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool."
Look at statements like this one:
Its author, False Prophet, then goes on to give two examples where it appears Buddishts have misbehaved. The first is a one sentence article from the NYT from three years ago. The other is without any attribution (FP your 2nd link is not a link). From this we are to conclude that Buddhism is not "less black than other religions"? I'm sure one can find much more recent examples of scientists who have abused children, do we then conclude that science is not "less black"? Teachers and coaches are getting caught abusing children all the time, are they black too -- as a class?
That is truly twisted -- and quite irrational -- reasoning.
Torbjörn Larsson writes,
Science is very useful within its narrow realm; it has nothing to do with virtue -- or ethics. However, to do good science you need do need to make accurate observations and have some insight. Those things seem quite lacking here with respect to religion.
I don't know what you mean by "worldviews" -- why do you need a fuzzy concept like that to distinquish religion from astrology?
Yeah, one thing that's always struck me as ironic is that these middle-of-the-roaders who pride themselves so much on their ability to teeter, hedge, and to not have an informed opinion about anything at all are so militant about it.
Besides being the position that is so very, very easy to maintain, they seem to think that, by sitting on the fence and not weighing evidence, pragmatic justifications, or even the completely subjective palatability of an idea, they're being intellectual, or somehow enlightened.
Did it ever cross their minds that part of the polarization in the public discourse isn't because both sides are wrong, but that it might possibly have arisen because one side in the culture war was asked to act in a responsible manner, and now they're simply being reactionary and contrarian? I mean, even at its most polemic and thoughtless, the American left hasn't even come close to the depths of purely reactionary knee-jerking and belligerence achieved in "Godless" or the PIG's.
More than that, thinking that it's somehow proper, mature, or well-adjusted to simply wander around without a care in the world while patting yourself on the back for your lack of opinions is dangerous. When people do that, they're leaving the door to their government open to cynics and idealogues who will be able to do whatever they damn well please. It's like Hitler said: "How fortunate for leaders that men do not think."
"However, to do good science you need do need to make accurate observations and have some insight. Those things seem quite lacking here with respect to religion."
But I so crave your approval!
At its worse, religion is about rituals and dogma and often inspires conflict, even violence.
At its best, religion is about finding value and meaning in one's life and compassion for others. It addresses that vast area in which science does not function: How do you cope with old age, death, illness, uncertainty, and suffering? How do you share your wealth, skills, and time?
On the other hand, at its best and its worse, science establishes objective knowledge about the world. We might wish it had all the answers -- and someday maybe it will approach that goal -- but it has taken thousands of years of hard work to gain the limited knowledge we have today.
Getting a scientific explanation of why your spouse had a stroke is not particularly helpful when you are watching your companion suffer and wondering how you are now going to pay the bills -- a situation many older women face across the globe. Religious training and a religious community can be of immense help, however. There is no "science" in being with suffering and dying people or in learning how to face creditors for the first time at the age of 70.
Numad, what have I said that earns me this snarky reply?
You'd have a point, Andy, if bucking up and dealing with those problems like an adult were less effective than babbling on about God's Mysterious Plan at a funeral.
Yes, yes. Those things are outside of the realm of empirical investigation. But why does that mean religion gets to have a say in them?
There is a marked difference in the way an atheist deals with death and pain and the way a religious person deals with them. When all of life is, to you, orchestrated according to some divine plan, that's just going to make the greiving process all the more malicious and difficult. When you realize, instead, that the universe is indifferent to you, you stop vainly grasping for the why's. You accept things, pick up the pieces, and move on. Being able to do that is the single defining characteristic of an adult, and it's something that religious adherents have denied themselves.
So, ethics and values aren't prescribed by science. Well, so what?
"At its worse, religion is about rituals and dogma and often inspires conflict, even violence.
At its best, religion is about finding value and meaning in one's life and compassion for others. It addresses that vast area in which science does not function: How do you cope with old age, death, illness, uncertainty, and suffering? How do you share your wealth, skills, and time?"
Strangely enough, supernatural elements do not figure anywhere in your description of religion. You skip over what is essentially the single distinct province of religion: the belief in a superior force/principle/being. Maybe it's an oversight?
That second paragraph is a good description. Of philosophy. And others have said it before, again and again; if you remove religion's supernatural and ritual elements you get philosophy.
"Numad, what have I said that earns me this snarky reply?"
Where to begin!
Science is very useful within its narrow realm; it has nothing to do with virtue -- or ethics.
Being *human* is about "virtue" and ethics. It has nothing to do with either science or religion in any direct sense.
Religion, where it intersects with "virtue" and ethics, is usually about hijacking them and substituting arbitrary superstition in their place.
If lying to yourself is a comfort to you, you go right ahead and do that.
Getting a scientific explanation of why your spouse had a stroke
is not the only alternative to believing he has a ghost haunting his body that's going to live forever in a far-off enchanted land.
In : "All the world's stupidest people are either zealots or atheists," the point might be that atheists are zealots, if not for a believe in god. People that don't believe in god but are not zealots would presumably prefer to be called not-believers, rather than atheist.
This is not true. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Lately I've criticized the Pope and Francis Collins and D. James Kennedy. If they are "unsophisticated representatives," please do tell me who the sophisticated ones are.
Have you considered the possibility that no matter who we pick on, when their religious beliefs are dissected they all look like foolish rubes?
PZ:
I can't speak for Andy, but I consider that possibility on an almost daily basis. It's not pleasant, I can tell you that. Perhaps my own willingness to do that makes it easier for me to bear the slings and arrows of outrageous skepticism from others. Or, conversely, that listening to skeptics encourages me to bring a similar skepticism to my own beliefs.
Regardless, it seems to me that real dialogue between believers and (ahem) 'brights' has value, and I appreciate the fact that every now and then real dialogue takes place here, PZ.
Sincerely....Scott
The Buddha, for one, didn't think that believing in fairy tales was a very effective strategy for dealing with the inevitable tragedies of life, nor a good way of finding meaning and developing compassion. I happen to agree.
So, at its best, it's a way of patronizing the weak and/or foolish?
Not enough to offset its worst, if you ask me.
To elaborate a bit, religion is about providing "value and meaning in one's life" for people who don't realize (or cannot face) that we - each individually - create our own value and meaning. To adopt, wholesale, the value and meaning a religion provides is to abdicate this unique human ability.
Furthermore, compassion for others (of a sort) is part of human nature. Of course, if the "other" is too strange, we tend to attack it out of fear. To the extent that a religion reminds us that "all men are brothers", etc., it can counter the latter. But it can also be used to promote it, and is certainly not the only way to counter it.
Vargas seems to be the kind of person who looks through a huge pile of shit, finds one pebble, and proclaims "Look! Now you can't say it's ENTIRELY a pile of shit! How dare you be such extremists as to compare this MIXTURE of different substances to a pile of shit?!"
I'll believe in the existence of non-superstitious religion when I see credible evidence. And not before.
AndyS: Has it, perhaps, escaped your knowledge that science deals with old age, illness and suffering through medicine? That reasonable people share their skills and knowledge through education? That people who don't believe in an afterlife can work to accomplish something meaningful *before* they die? Does the name "Gates Foundation" ring a bell?
Religion is not helpful in these situations. Religion often coopts and attempts to claim methods that *are* helpful, such as philosophy, or simple human compassion. But these helpful human achievements are not caused by religion, and indeed, are often hindered by them. (The religious explanations of how AIDS is God's wrath on sinful homosexuals are not very helpful to the confused and suffering AIDS patients or their relatives, for example.)
Partly, I suppose, this depends on your estimate of the value of comforting delusions. I consider them more harmful than helpful, in general.
PZ,
What's sophisticated about the Pope who parrots dogma that was worn out decades if not centuries ago and rules over an organizational empire that blatantly discrimates against women? Collins and Kennedy are representatives of the most simplistic of religious belief systems, although kudos to Collins for at least not taking the Bible as a science textbook.
If you would like some insight into a more sophisticated form of religion, one that's alive, healthy, growing, self-critical, and devoid of supernatural mumbo-jumbo read this 1998 essay http://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/articles/InsightintheUS.html which provides an overview of an American form of Buddhism that is "offered independent of much of its traditional Theravada Buddhist religious context." The references at the end of the piece point to a number of people who I think might serve as "sophisticated" representatives of religion.
Yeah I'm back so what?
Believe it or not, Buddhism is not a huge pile of superstitious shit with maybe a pebble of good in it. This is how you show yourself to be prejudiced and ignorant. Suffice it to say that you only talk of superstition but fail to even think of the concept of mysticism. Mysticism can assume its irrationality, and can be free of dogma too. Not always the case for superstitions. We westerners do not have much understanding of mysticism. Even our western religions try to look "rational", because our western cultures are more rationalist than mystical.The mysticism of catholicism is something mostly to be chuckled at, even more so, american christians trying to "scientifically" prove their faith. I'm guessing that most of what can be argued to be good about christianity has been copied from oriental religions. Yet western societies will recurr to religion as a banner to feel more united and demonize enemies. This, my dear religion bashers, you cannot do with "mere superstition". If you keep thinking like that, you will never see religion coming. In fact, you already seem quite happy, just blaming "superstition" and "ignorance" and "doing your best" by shaking your fist at the air. You don't need to think about the problem any more, huh? All you have to do, is be as tough as them fundies, Right? Pffff
Andy, I agree with you about Buddhism, except that I don't necessarily agree that such "purified" Buddhism (which by the way may well be pretty close to what the Buddha intended to teach) can aptly be classified as a religion. More a philosophy of life, or guide to living. It lacks not just the supernatural element (which is also lacking in quasi-religions like Marxism, so that's not an altogether fatal objection) but also any element of dogma (the Buddha specifically warned against taking his teachings as such.)
well, if you're here, Vargas, who is the zombie over there?
Jeez, Ekzept what is the big deal? You want me to be a zombie? OK, that's fine!! but you are offering no good brains to eat, if you get what I mean. Argue!
i'd also say that Buddhism shares a lot of the trappings it has with teachings of people in its religious neighbors, notably Hinduism. how different is Buddhism? is it a refinement of certain thought in Hinduism? what about the branches of Buddhism? if they have these ideas in common, why do they exist and consider themselves markedly different practices? there may be some Good Things in there, Vargas, just like there may have been some Good Things in Christianity at its roots. but the Buddhist ones were lost when the teachings became a religion, as were the Christian ones, primarily at the hands of Paul and Augustine. sure, there's contigency, too, since the James thread would have done better had the Romans not taken it out.
so, i agree with Steve.
let's compare with something else. i think that often American's poor understanding of science has had them, at times, worship technology in a religious manner. i've seen this from people you would think would know much better, especially high-placed managers at corporations. they somehow think you can throw technology at problems and magically solve them, while they're cutting the budgets for corporate technical libraries and engineering education at the same time. you see this in sci-fi shows where all is repeatedly saved by having One Smart Guy. who needs more?
zzzzzzzzzzz.
Seperate reincarnation from most of the core teachings and it's not such a bad philosophy.
But part of the purpose of seeking enlightenment is to not come back as a "lower" life form. That most certainly is superstition.
Well, I've read a lot on the Theravada branch of Buddhism (which is the closest to the original form) since my wife is an observant Theravada Buddhist. In theory, you can believe most all of the core tenets without any supernatural beliefs required; in practice, there is a lot of superstitious baggage attached for *most* Theravadins. Mahayana and Vajrayana are more the "folk versions" of Buddhism and have a much higher superstition content.
That said, Buddhists are generally a pretty inoffensive bunch, and a lot of the superstitions are kinda fun even for us nonbelievers.
Vargas, are you still wasting your time here? I thought you had given this place up as a lost cause.
I'm conflating my religions. I think too much bad karma just gets you a return trip to try again.
i don't think anyone said they were offensive. the argument was whether or not religions as a whole were bad. there was consensus they were, and Buddhism was, as i recall, offered as an example of an "inoffensive religion" so why should the consensus be against it, too. lots of examples of superstition in Buddhism ensued, and hints about Buddhism's dark side.
so, the point was made, and there was a consensus all religions were bad.
All religions are bad, but some are badder than others?
now some in the conversation think that extreme and unreasonable and unfair. so they can. haven't heard an argument from them to change my mind. indeed, what i have heard from some is a lot of loud claims about how one-sided and prejudiced and biased the consensus is.
i think people need to realize they believe in these religions despite how bad they can be.
forgot to close the blockquote properly up there. sorry. my stuff begins with "i don't think anyone said they were...".
ezkept,
Didn't say you implied it- that was just my two cents. Although I like Buddhism and its adherents generally, I still think much of the religion is fairly charming superstition.
And, for anyone who happens to visit a Theravada country, it is always interesting to remember that most likely, the taxi driver who rips you off at the airport... the guy hawking fake gem scams to gullible tourist... the fellow on the street trying to steer you into the nearest go-go bar or brothel... chances are, they were all ordained Buddhist monks on at least two occasions in their lives. So, as much as I am fond of the religion, I don't think it is a huge improver of moral fiber versus, say, absence of any religion at all. For the men, at least, that is... the women seem to take it a bit more seriously.
It may not be sophisticated, but it's certainly representative of the organizational empire.
Scott says:
We all believe things without knowing them to be true, but most of those things are based on some kind of evidence, even if it is just of the experiential, subjective kind. Surely that in and of itself does not qualify as superstition, much less organized religion!
do you believe in luck, Scott?
how many have you met that carry a rabbit's foot or think a four-leaf clover or a horseshoe brings luck?
they can claim from "experience" that these things influence their luck to be "good".
It's still just superstition, though, unless they can show through repeated experiments and statistical analysis that these mojo items can actually influence the course of events.
subjective evidence is merely justification for superstition. That's why science requires independently verifiable, objective evidence.
sorry, but that dog just don't hunt.
Steve,
The discusion about Buddhism being philosophy rather than religion has a long history and, I suppose, is only relevant in a thread like this one. Because the concept of religion has become demonized among many intellectuals, I think even some practictioners of American Buddhism like to avoid the religious label -- but many prefer it. More objectively, even American Buddhists have weekly gatherings, advocate a simple ethical code, organize to help people in need, and have simple ceremonies for marriages and "christenings" all of which fit more in realm of religion rather than philosophy.
Dustin,
Like which adult?
Funerals don't have to involve babbling or God. Concepts like compassion, sacred, and spiritual do not have to be loaded with supernatural mystery. And I'm sure if you were faced with a person who had just suffered a permanently disabling stroke or the death of a child you would have more to say than "buck up and act like an adult."
... the women seem to take it a bit more seriously ...
women seem to take religion more seriously than men in all cases. well, used to. it's possible there's a selection bias. after all, with the menfolk all out workin' it's only those womenfolk that can pretty up the pews.
in any case, the fraction of attendees at daily Mass in RCC or who attend Shabbat services on Fridays in Reform or who are active in organizational functions, even with women in the workforce tends to be women. Orthodox shuls seems to be an exception. can't speak for Islam at all, although i bet most of the day-to-day supporters there are men.
Concepts like compassion, sacred, and spiritual do not have to be loaded with supernatural mystery
WHOA, AndyS: why don't they? agreed, compassion doesn't, but "sacred", "spiritual"?
Concepts like compassion, sacred, and spiritual do not have to be loaded with supernatural mystery
WHOA, AndyS: why don't they? agreed, compassion doesn't, but "sacred", "spiritual"?
Vargas spouts:
Yeah I'm back so what?
answer your own question.
Is it meaningful that you return, time and time again, after telling us all we're simply uninformed anti-religious bigots?
I think you, of all people, would be best suited to answer that question for yourself.
all of us here already know the answer.
(shh! don't tell him!)
Is it time to call shenanigans on Vargas yet?
AndyS,
"More objectively, even American Buddhists have weekly gatherings, advocate a simple ethical code, organize to help people in need, and have simple ceremonies for marriages and "christenings" all of which fit more in realm of religion rather than philosophy."
Why is that, exactly?
Is that because there are rituals involved? Rituals and ceremonies exist independantly of religion.
Ethical codes? I think that philosophy is not totally unconcerned with ethics. As a matter of fact I think ethics have always been a major philosophical concern.
The whole thing is absurd, though. Buddhism stripped of all concerns regarding superior beings, principles or forces (supernatural, for lack of a better term) isn't representative of the concept of religion. To pretend otherwise is a bit suspect.
Well, think about this... can hinduism be accussed of being dogmatic?
I know you guys can't think freely, compelled as you are to make every idea orbit around and come back to the primal "fuck religion" concept... but try this. The search for wisdom, of any kind, and recognition that "wise men" are necessary, found its first "institutionalization" in religious forms naturally charged with mysticism. this allowed a tradition of make of thought and the keeping of wisdom some kind of profession, an ackowledged and legitimate way of life.
Do you mean to say that no people such as the Dalai lama, should exist unless they are scientists? Are you even able of realizing why that would not work? Well, probably not.
Cause everyone here just want to thumping loud that religion held myths "for which there is no evidence" and sob that they lied to you when they told you a snake actually spoke to eve...(DUH, guys. I guess that's why its called religion, no?)
BTW most of those attempting to describe science here mostly make is sound like the most anal thing... like its all about being super carefull and objective and shit... pfff you know guys, imagination and creativity is also need it, believe or not... anf¡d limein anything, the majority of scientists are not at all great... they just apply the tools and gather information basically parroting the subjects set out by the greater ones.
"I know you guys can't think freely"
Yet, you're still here.
Haha I would not have said that if I did not KNOW that many around here proclaim themselves over and over again to be "freethinkers". Let me tell ya: the more they procalim it, the more probable it is that they are not.
Vargas. We get it. You respect Asian religions. Great. Thanks for telling us how we think about every member of any religion anywhere. If you hate us so much why do you keep coming back?
And yes of course Hinduism can be dogmatic. When followers want it to be.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2001/welch1.html
http://www.friendsofsouthasia.org/textbook/AmartyaSen_On_Hindutva.html
Definite troll, there.
Well, I'm just thinking, with millions of pages of sacred text, packed with allegedle millions of years of all kind of stories, countless gods, etc. it becomes quite impossible to "live by the book". I guess this is one of the reasons why some hindus consider Buda just another god of the pantheon... and you may disagree if you wish too (but buddhism did originate from hinduism, right?). Hinduism can take a peaceful form, it can take a rathful form...of course more fanatic forms can claim inspiration from it too if they want to get rid of christians.. and so may those who watch they never kill any organism, even if it is a fly... Sot as far as evolvability goes, hinduism is quite, quite flexible.
Put down the bottle, man, and come back to us when you're feeling a little less lightheaded.
"Freethinkers" is a well defined term. It refers to atheists, agnostics, and deists -- anyone who does not accept a particular form of organized religion. I am a freethinker. Saying so does not mean I'm not, anymore than saying I'm male will turn me into a female.
Weird. I must have been hallucinating this.
I think you've got some kind of obsessive-compulsive disorder, and I'm not doing you any favor by continuing to allow you to post here. Either stick to your claim that you're leaving, or I'll start enforcing it in my own way.
Icthyic:
I don't believe in luck, but I am persuaded that people do hold certain things to be true without attempting to test them, all the time. I certainly don't believe the latter deserves any standing in science, but I see no reason to equate any and all appeals to subjective experience as 'superstition.' I would limit that term to those who invoke the supernatural to justify their subjective impressions when adequate (or even just promising) natural explanations exist for the phenomena in question.
Of course, as a scientist, I refuse to even consider supernatural explanations: that dog can't hunt in science. As a personal matter, however, while I might prefer natural explanations, I will not rule out a priori the possibilities that such explanations are either unreal or inaccessible to ourselves. There are places that the scientific dog can't hunt, you know!
I suppose the way that some here would reply would be along the lines of 'those places don't exist, so it doesn't matter.' I find that response unsatisfying, since there may well be things that are real, not at all supernatural, and yet inaccessible. In those cases, subjective impressions may be the best data that we possess, and I'm not willing to dismiss all of it as 'superstition.'
Peace...Scott
Y gys hv trll-bssssn... dn't s wht s ntrstng bt th trm tht y fnd t s hndy. s t bcs bcs th nchrstn lngg? s t bcs mx my dscssn wth gttng kcks frm t? Hnstly, wh dsn't?
r w sppsd t ll b pltclly crrct nd dlvrng dd srs srmns fr th gd f hmnty? ts jst n ntrnt blg, gd grf! Wht ls dd y xpct??? Th flwr f cvlztn? S wht th fck s t, t b trll, thn?
Nthng tht cr bt, fr sr. Jst nthr stpd prctc f rjctn mch blvd t th lcls, gss
ekzept,
I think something is made sacred by placing a very high value on it. Life is sacred to me, not because some magic book tells me so, but because my life is the only one I have and similarly for others; I choose to value it highly. Leading a spiritual life doesn't necessarily entail praying to some supernatural god; it can be a decision to act with care and compassion. The root word "spirit" can be understood in the sense of "in the spirit of" or "with spirit" rather than akin to "ghost."
Without concepts like these what becomes of materialist humanism?
Pfff K jst brd hr... 11 mnts t g yt n th gl.. bt PZ , K "th frthnkr" (hhh) s LRDY mncng wth cnsrng m fr n gd rsnl!!!!! s t bcs flt lk gng wy bt thn chngd my mnd?? h my gd, hw vl. r wht mks m th hrnd dmn ths tm? Rpttn?
PZ, y dsh t t t ths y d nt gr wth, dn't y? k, thn y shld b cpbl f TKNG sm, t. N?
but I see no reason to equate any and all appeals to subjective experience as 'superstition.'
so you use a subjective definition of superstition to argue that subjective experience does not fall under the definition of superstition?
interesting.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&defl=en&q=define:superstition&sa…
Of course, as a scientist, I refuse to even consider supernatural explanations: that dog can't hunt in science. As a personal matter, however, while I might prefer natural explanations, I will not rule out a priori the possibilities that such explanations are either unreal or inaccessible to ourselves. There are places that the scientific dog can't hunt, you know!
My perception is that you are doing a poor job of compartmentalizing; but maybe that's just my subjective assessment.
whatever works for ya, I guess.
cheers
I call shenanigans on Vargas.
everybody get your brooms!
PZ = PMS!!!!
Vargas=Jason!
hehe. disemvoweling is funnay. looks like someone speaking in tongues.
I'm sure if you were faced with a person who had just suffered a permanently disabling stroke or the death of a child you would have more to say than "buck up and act like an adult."
I'll tell you this, at the funeral of my fiance I was about ready to punch the next person who said "God called X home". So telling them to "buck up and act like an adult" is actually a much milder response to such childish, trite bullshit.
Yeah, the really funny part is that the removal of vowels from his gibberish didn't result in any measurable decrease in the amount of sense he makes.
And Andy, did I touch a nerve there? I mean, it kind of rankles a bit when someone puts a damper on the "make-believe and forget it" philosophy of problem solving, so I understand. I'm very sorry if you feel that recourse into imaginary worlds full of gods and fairies and whatever is necessary, but I'll be more than happy to leave you to it if you stop trying to act like it has some kind of special dominion over morality. And anyway, I'm sure as hell not going to tell some kid or someone with a debilitating disease that "God has a plan". That's easy. It lets fire off a prepackaged condolence so that you don't feel awkward, and does jack squat for the person who's been injured. It isn't just delusional and ineffective, it's selfish.
If it's inaccessible, then we can't have had any impressions, subjective or otherwise. As long as data can pass from it to us, there are causal links that science can examine. Even if those links are really beyond our current ability to investigate in practice, they're accessible in principle. More to the point, their effects must be accessible for us to conclude they exist. Believing in a thing whose existence you cannot verify and whose effects you cannot verify IS superstition, plain and simple.
ok, I'm stumped. What exactly is the pre-disemvoweled spelling of "bssssn"? ;-)
Icthyic:
Intriguing comment regarding a self-referential definition. I'd like to think that one over. I didn't CONSCIOUSLY have that in mind. In fact, in an earlier post on this same thread, GH cut-and-pasted a definition from dictionary.com and I responded specifically to that definition. In that response, I confessed to a lack of certainty with respect to whether I could or could not claim any part of that definition as a caveat to exclude my own experience. Since I'm uncertain there, honesty compels me to admit that I MIGHT be thinking circularly here; again, I have to think that over.
As far as your last comment, well, what can I say? Maybe you're right, and my mental compartments are looking a little shabby. But I prefer to look at it differently: I'm trying to break down the barriers of dichotomous thinking that prevent different parts of my experience from interacting from one another, as in science and belief. I'm deeply interested in the interaction, and I appreciate thought-provoking responses like yours. Thanks....Scott
Caledonian:
I apologize, I should've anticipated that appeal to dichotomy and spoken more precisely. By accessible, I meant accessible to the protocols of science, by whatever criteria you wish to evoke: falsifiable, verifiable, what have you.
We certainly have good reason to believe that bats have something like our consciousness, and we can look at their behavior, and fiddle with their neuroanatomy, and increase our stock of knowledge. But, with Nagel, I don't think we're in the position, even in principle, of "knowing" what it's like to be a bat. There is no reason to believe that science will not eventually be able to discover how mental phenomena are stored in the brain, but that is not the same thing as 'knowing' the subjective character of experience.
If this post annoys you, I am sure some sequence of events could in principle be evoked as to how that experience is manifested in your awareness. Neurotransmitter A does this, as-yet-unknown global storage Algorithm B does that. Sure, and it's reasonable to hope that there is a scientific research program that can address that, because we must all share similar, if not identical, processes for facilitating that experience.
But is the quality of that experience, YOUR experience, of the same type, that it would admit a reductionist explanation? I think not; rather, it constitutes a singularly emergent property of one organism, yourself. And it seems to me that it would be unbelievably arrogant of me to declare that your experience was unreal, or irrelevant.
I suppose you could say that about yourself if you want to, but why would you need to make that declaration? After all, acknowledging that there might be phenomena not accessible to scientific investigation in no way constitutes an admission of the existence of the supernatural. I suppose one might also object that such a position constitutes a 'science stopper', but I don't think that necessarily follows at all. I think it was Max Perutz who said something to the effect that what matters is not the correctness of one's hypothesis, but whether the attempt to falsify it is productive.
I hope this post doesn't annoy you that much, but I hope you will favor me with a spirited reply.
Sincerely....Scott
OK, last post on this thread unless someone replies, I promise. I'm hoping Keith Douglas and Torjborn Larsson will reply, especially, to a serious question. With respect to my two replies above to Ichthyic and Caledonian, would either or both necessarily constitute some sort of dualism, and if so, why or why not?
Hoping to hear from you fellows...Scott
First, a moment of silence for lxndr Vrgs, at least until he decides to actually say something (disemvoweling on prps is fun!).
SH, I'm pretty obsessed with cognition and whether or not anybody can *know* what it means to be a bat. Subjectivity is so unobjective (nearly universally so?) and nobody can be fooled so easily as oneself. Was that a religious experience, or something I decided to classify as such?
For example, do dreams constitute an internal language of symbols and narrative that open up a rich field for creative plunder, or are dreams merely overnight garbage collection? And what of the way the brain behaves when neurotransmitter analogues play havoc with the mental patch bay? Do such experiences reduce to set and setting, or does abstract internal subjective experience ever map onto anything other than itself? Are beliefs true because I want them to be so much, that I can convince myself that they're so? How about that Marsh Chapel experience, where Timothy Leary gave a serotonin analogue to theology students?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxDZW6n69-0
Why would turning on a religious experience with a chemical convince you of the validity of your belief system, when it could just as easily convince you that if a religious experience is so readily triggered chemically, that the experience has far more to do with the experiencer than with any external reality?
Do you realize that you're making the problem worse? There are no real phenomena that are inaccessible to the protocols of science.
You're a qualia advocate. Why am I not surprised?
Caledonian:
Yes, I suppose that's true in the sense that no one has persuaded me that the concept refers to something which is unreal. With Chalmers, I don't think we can explain the quality of conscious experience on the cheap. What's your take? Physicalist? Functionalist? I'm curious.
Also, you wrote: "There are no real phenomena that are inaccessible to the protocols of science."
What about the case of, say, the exact position and velocity of an electron at any given moment? Surely you would not argue from the fact of indeterminancy that a given set of paired states (S) does not exist. It is simply inaccessible to any measurement whose resolution exceeds Planck's constant. OK, I suppose you could try to finesse this issue by saying that (S) is not, in a sense, phenomenal but would that REALLY demonstrate that (S) is unreal? What evidence could you cite to support that claim? At the end of the day, what arguments do you possess, other than assertion?
Genuinely curious...Scott
According to QM, those are the only measurements (interactions) that exist.
Dustin,
If you choose to see all religions as appealing to "imaginary worlds full of gods and fairies" and are stuck on that point to the exclusion of everything else, you are left thinking that a religious person might advise telling "someone with a debilitating disease that 'God has a plan'." In my actual experience of hospitals and hospice workers, what I see are religiously motivated people who choose to spend time with the sick and dying -- without evangelizing or talking about "God's plan" -- just to provide some companionship, to read out loud, to talk about everyday things, to hold a hand, .... I'm quite thankful there are people like this, whatever their metaphysical leanings. I've never met anyone who does that sort of work who does not have some religious affiliation.
(paraphrasing) "Those are the only measurements that exist"
OK, yeah, right, that's another way to look at it and I've got no problem with that. But, correct me if I'm wrong, does QM necessarily take a position on whether or not such a condition obtains, measurable or otherwise? Or is the position something along the lines of 'it doesn't exist until it's measured', collapsing the wave function and all that?
(sigh) There's got to be a way to put some of these ideas more succintly, without all the obnoxious but seemingly-inescapable caveats to ward off the supernatural, obscurantism, etc. Help!
Scott
AndyS,
"I'm quite thankful there are people like this, whatever their metaphysical leanings. I've never met anyone who does that sort of work who does not have some religious affiliation."
Is this some kind of comedy act?
"If you choose to see all religions as appealing to "imaginary worlds full of gods and fairies" and are stuck on that point to the exclusion of everything else, you are left thinking that a religious person might advise telling "someone with a debilitating disease that 'God has a plan'.""
First: this kind of thing happens. Second: this is a pretty big leap of logic. The notion that all religions contain appeal to the supernatural (broadly speaking) doesn't entail that this be all that all religions contains (many being the vehicle of philosophical teachings and ethical codes, as no one has denied). Even if a particular religion was strictly limited to supernatural bunk, it would not entail that this supernatural bunk would define every holder of the religion (unless dogma specifies otherwise).
Numad: Strictly you get a philosophy with missing holes in various places because removing the supernaturalistic portions leaves several positions still possible. I.e. there are several possibilities in a naturalistic philosophy; I find adopting one that feeds/feeds upon science and technology the best way to fill most of the holes. I suspect the remaining ones can be by similar attention in the aesthetic realm to the fields of art and so on.
Steve LaBonne: Near as I can tell, Gautama (no sense in using his title) probably thought he was founding a philosophy and would probably have had much to discuss with Epicurus or Zeno of Citium, etc. (i.e. the more naturalistic of the Greek philosophers).
"All religions are bad, but some are badder than others?" - that's exactly what I say.
Scott Hatfield: I've been on vacation, so I only caught your call for aid on Wednesday. Maybe you'll see this. It does seem you are using "emergent" in the sense of Broad and the other early 20th century emergentists, not in the sense I or Bunge use the term. The early emergentists were definitely mind-body dualists; they thought somehow an ontologically different stuff was involved. Whereas Bunge and I claim that mentation (or better, specific sorts of same) involve properties at higher levels of organization. See my website for the paper on neuroscience and philosophy that has been mentioned elsewhere, and Bunge's recent Emergence and Convergence and, if you can find it, The Mind-Body Problem
Your argument about the "felt experience" is, however, best taken to task by Dan Dennett in Consciousness Explained and elsewhere. Shorter argument from Paul Churchland: why do you think your experience cannot be further analyzed? On pain of infinite regress there must be experiential simples, which would strike one as being brute, when of course really they are "tips of an iceberg", so to speak. Speaking of the "mysterian" view (which you seem to espouse), Paul Churchland has just demonstrated how scientifically sterile it is - he has discovered new colours! (Yes, you read that correctly.) Though, to be fair, my Inuit friend thinks the Inuit knew about them tacitly as apparently after-images are important in Inuit art ...
As for the electron thing: it is quite acceptable to say that electrons (and "quantons" in general) have no sharp position and momentum at all, but rather a spread of such values. (I.e., the uncertainty relation is misnamed and applies even in the absence of "measurement".) The subjectivist versions are provably wrong, as many physicists have said intuitively, and has been done rigorously by Bunge, Popper and others for quite literally decades.
Keith Douglas,
"Strictly you get a philosophy with missing holes in various places because removing the supernaturalistic portions leaves several positions still possible. I.e. there are several possibilities in a naturalistic philosophy; I find adopting one that feeds/feeds upon science and technology the best way to fill most of the holes. I suspect the remaining ones can be by similar attention in the aesthetic realm to the fields of art and so on."
I didn't mean to argue that religion is a good vehicle for philosophy. Whatever the relation a religion's philosophical content has with its supernatural elements (and at first glance these are very varied), the latter can only detract to the former as the product of rational pursuit, if only by association.
I find the mention of art interesting, since it might already be the biggest (only?) province of non-religious, non-dogmatic spirituality. As something that is articulated, I mean.
I'm personally fascinated by the notion of a lucid, fictional religion filling a function in reality.
Keith:
Thanks for the tips, comments. It's obvious that I need to delve into the primary literature; I simply don't understand the issues well enough to reply at this time, other than to state that I'm pretty sure I'm not espousing a necessary dualism. It bothers me that, on the one hand, I agree with Dennett and Damasio that Descartes was 'mistaken' and I certainly don't mean to appeal to the absence of a naturalistic account of consciousness as 'evidence' for the supernatural. Yet, at the same time, my intuition (which may be a poor guide here) tells me that there is an 'otherness' to consciousness that, if natural, is likely to remain inaccessible. But out of fairness to some of the fellows here who have from time to time hung me out to dry here, I think I need to learn more about this before I shoot my mouth off again on that topic. I hope that if I learn more, I could get some feedback from you as your time permits it. It's nice to talk to someone who knows what they're talking about it.
Sincerely...Scott
Scott, you're approach to dealing with questions you don't have the answer to is something we dream of in the creationists who are so close minded and convinced of the absolute truth of their position, regardless of what the evidence might say.
regardless of whether I agree with anything you post or not, I salute your approach to problem solving.
If everyone on both sides of the "culture war" approached questions like yourself, the problematic nature of this "debate" would likely disappear right quick-like.
just saying; remember this whenever I disagree (even vehemently) with something you have posted.
If even a tenth of the students I have ever taught approached problem solving with a similar open mind, I probably wouldn't have left teaching myself.
cheers
Then you are both profoundly ignorant and deeply unable to think about your cherished beliefs, because dualism is easily and obviously derivable from the inane positions you've espoused here. One is not to keep such an open mind that one's brains fall out - the approach that Ichthyic so lauds isn't a sign of your virtue but of your incompetence.
You don't know what the historical arguments on the subject are. You're unable to think clearly and thoroughly about your own arguments. Most damning of all, you don't think about the arguments of others.
I suggest you take another philosopher's advice: on the things about which we cannot speak, we ought to remain silent.
Ichthyic: Thanks for the encouragement. I'll try to live up to your sentiments.
Keith Douglas: I'm enjoying learning more.
Caledonian: I know the HISTORICAL arguments. I did a seminar on consciousness with Terry Winant and we read Descartes, Berkeley, William James, etc. What I don't feel up to speed on is the CONTEMPORARY literature on philosophy of mind. I've read some of it, but when Keith in passing mentions Bunge and Broad, I just don't have the context to follow what he's saying.
EVERYONE: I might add that it doesn't bother me in the slightest to admit that I need to go back and learn more in order to follow the arguments presented by someone more learned than myself. I always tell my students that the provisional nature of scientific claims is a strength, rather than a weakness of science.
In that context, Caledonian's invective is curious, to put it mildly. To paraphrase: "You're an idiot. You don't know anything. Shut the hell up, and don't presume to question your betters." Is there anyone here who would want someone with that attitude teaching science, at any level?
Peace....Scott
Cldnn lcks ny srnty. H lwys snds dsprt. Myb h thnks f vrythng ds nt ft prfctly, h shld rn ff qckly t chrch.
I thnk Vrgs wld gr wth th prms f ths st.
http://originoflifefairness.org/
Andy:
"Teachers and coaches are getting caught abusing children all the time, are they black too -- as a class?"
If the practice leads to such beaviour it, not the class, is questionable. But schools are supposed to be policed which makes a difference vs religion.
"Science is very useful within its narrow realm; it has nothing to do with virtue -- or ethics."
That it set standards for truth, knowledge and virtues around that is itself a virtue. As all practices it needs, and sets up, standards of ethics. At least my university had such.
I don't see the point of separating out the social parts, if we are discussing its place in society.
"why do you need a fuzzy concept like that to distinquish religion from astrology?"
Because no one has given me an alternative. And from the following commentaries I see that you can't come up with anything that stands up to inspection from others.
What exactly is fuzzy about the concept of worldviews? It is both operative ('science', 'religion', ...) and descriptive: "It refers to the framework through which an individual interprets the world and interacts in it." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview )
"If you would like some insight into a more sophisticated form of religion, one that's alive, healthy, growing, self-critical, and devoid of supernatural mumbo-jumbo read this 1998 essay http://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/articles/InsightintheUS.html which provides an overview of an American form of Buddhism that is "offered independent of much of its traditional Theravada Buddhist religious context.""
Again, it seems to be a lot of unfounded epistemology/superstition here:
"While the meditation practices themselves vary from school to school, the underlying principle is the investigation of phenomena as they manifest in the five aggregates (skandhas) namely, matter or form (rÅ«pa), sensation or feelings (vedanÄ), perception (saá¹jñÄ, PÄli saññÄ), mental formations (saá¹skÄra, PÄli saá¹khÄra) and consciousness (vijñÄna, PÄli viññÄá¹a). This process leads to direct experiential perception, vipassanÄ. ...
VipassanÄ as practiced in the TheravÄda is the understanding of the Four Noble Truths that were taught by the Buddha. It is understanding the transitory nature of phenomena and the selflessness of persons, that the conceptual consciousness, "I" does not exist.
Most of TheravÄda's teachers refer to knowledges evolving during practice. The meditator gradually improve his perception of the three marks of existence until he reaches the step sensations constantly disappear, which is called bhaá¹gÄnupassanÄ Ã±Äá¹a (Sanskrit: bhaá¹gÄnupaÅyanÄjñÄna), knowledge of dissolution." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vipassana )
"After much meditation, the Buddha concluded that everything in the physical world (plus everything in the phenomenology of psychology) is marked by three characteristics, known as the three characteristics of existence, three signs of being or Dharma Seals. Together the three characteristics of existence are called ti-lakkhana, in Pali; or tri-laksana, in Sanskrit.
* Dukkha or unsatisfactoriness. Nothing found in the physical world or the psychological realm can bring lasting deep satisfaction.
* Anicca or impermanence. This refers not only to the fact that all conditioned things eventually cease to exist, but also that all conditioned things are in a constant state of flux. (A convenient way to visualize this would be to recall that the atoms constituting your body are constantly being replaced.)
* Anatta impersonality, or non-Self. The human personality, "soul", or Self, is a conventional appellation applied to the assembly of physical and psychological components, each individually subject to constant flux; there is no central core (or essence); this is somewhat similar to a bundle theory of mind or soul.
There is often a fourth Dharma Seal mentioned:
* Nirvana is peace. Nirvana is the 'other shore' from Samsara.
By bringing the three (or four) seals into moment-to-moment experience through concentrated awareness, we are said to achieve Wisdom - the third of the three higher trainings - the way out of Samsara. In this way we can identify that, according to Sutra, the recipe (or formula) for leaving Samsara is achieved by a deep-rooted change to our Weltanschauung.
According to the Buddhist tradition, all phenomena (dharmas) are marked by three characteristics, sometimes referred to as the Dharma seals, that is dukkha (suffering), anicca (impermanence), and anatta (non-Self). " ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_marks_of_existence )
Note the use of Weltanschauung. :-)
Scott:
"would either or both necessarily constitute some sort of dualism, and if so, why or why not"
Well, I'm honored that you mention me and Keith on the same page, especially considering your later comments that implies you have read much more philosophy than me. I'm mostly fumbling around with the tools science has given me.
Anyway, as I understand it you are discussing subjective experience. I think of it as an (emergent) representation of our mind, much as a program and its data is a representation of the workings in a computer. So for me it isn't any mysterious, unobjective or dualistic about it.
Already in simple system analysis one has nodes in the states that are unobservable from the outside. But we don't call these systems mysterious or singular, even if as analog systems they may be individual. Of course we care especially for the inner states of persons due to our empathy and ability to model minds.
Hmmmphf! Torbjorn, I want to agree with you. It definitely simplifies things to treat the quality of conscious experience as epiphenomenal. I agree that the latter is an emergent property, and constitutes a representation of an underlying system that in principle might be wholly natural in origin. In fact, I'll put my cards on the table: I prefer an entirely natural origin for consciousness, for a lot of reasons.
Having said that, I just don't buy the analogy. Minds aren't engaged in computation; machines do a wonderful job of calculating things, but AI is at best a shadowy representation of what real minds do. It doesn't even have to be a human mind, as far as I can see. The flight of a projectile like a frisbee is predicable on the basis of a few equations, but when a dog catches a thrown frisbee they are not 'solving' a few equations to predict its motion. They are summing a vast number of imputs regarding the spatial and temporal position and state of an entire set of objects. In the process of accomplishing this feat, the dog is clearly FEELING something.
I might believe that eventually a very sophisticated robot could be constructed that might be able to accomplish that task, but would it follow that said robot would FEEL anything while it is doing it, joy, satisfaction, pleasure, etc.? What evidence could we adduce for that proposition? The whole thing strikes me as ill-defined, and so I lean to the notion that subjective experience is emergent, but not epiphenomenal, in principle explicable as a natural object only in terms of its origins.
What do you think of that?
SH
No, it doesn't. To the degree that the idea is coherent (which it ultimately isn't) it makes things far, far more complicated.
You may have *read* historical examinations of consciousness, but it's clear you didn't *understand* them. Given that, what difference does it make whether you familiarize yourself with modern works or not?
I think you're misunderstanding the analogy; saying that the mind is an emergent process of the brain is like software doesn't mean that we necessarily can emulate the brain with our current level of understanding. However, it does mean that all of the phenomenon associated with mind, hypercomplex as it all is, is only the result of physical phenomena interacting.
Saying that you could build a robot, but that it wouldn't "FEEL", is arguing from your own lack of knowledge regarding electronics and cybernetics (so you don't know how to model emotions in hardware and software) and neuroscience (so you don't know what it is that is to be modeled).
No one is saying that anyone on the planet knows how to do that, at this point in time. But it follows from a non-dualistic concept of mind that it would indeed be possible to one day construct an automaton that could think and feel, based on an advanced knowledge of neuroscience and cybernetics.
Of course, the question that you might ask yourself at this point is, is such a construction possible? That is to say, is there some inherent complexity that will render the workings of the brain's emotions and thought process (and hence, the mind), forever eternally incomprehensible, at some level? Well, I don't know the answer, but I strongly suspect that there is no such barrier; that while specific instances of mind might be problematic to analyze, a general theory will be discovered, and eventually, be implemented in silico.
But you might want to educate yourself on neuroscience so as to gain a better idea for yourself as to what's currently known.
OK, Caledonian. I'll bite.
1) Why does the claim that subjective experience is epiphenomal make things more complicated? (For the record, I wasn't arguing for that position!)
2) What historical accounts of consciousness do you claim that I don't understand, and why?
3) Finally, do you ever bother to *explain* your positions to the ill-informed, or do you just enjoy baiting them with smug putdowns? If the former, could you please favor me with a substantive reply now and then? If the latter, could you please just confirm that by ignoring this plea?
Not holding my breath....Scott
Owlmirror:
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. You make some valid points. If the only argument I can make against strong AI it to appeal to our present ignorance, I grant that's pretty weak.
The original question was not to rehash a strong vs. weak AI argument, though; it was whether or not the possibility that the quality of subjective experience would defy scientific investigation, and (assuming one adopts that position), whether that implies dualism. Torjborn affirmed a non-dualistic account that made an analogy to artificial intelligence. I actually *like* his account and I prefer, as I've stated, a natural origin for consciousness. I just am not persuaded by his analogy.
Since you mentioned neuroscience, and since Keith has mentioned this twice, I suppose I will start with the Churchlands. Thanks again for taking the time to write.
Scott
Ah, OK. I think I understand.
A basic introduction that I liked is Carl Zimmer's Soul Made Flesh: The Discovery of the Brain--and How it Changed the World. Among other things, it relates the development from classical philosophy and theology (and a dualistic view of mind) to the first anatomists, surgeons, and natural philosophers working just after the English Civil War (who were dualists, of course, but I think one or two sometimes felt a certain dissatisfaction with the view), ending with the basic discoveries of modern neuroscience.
Along the way, he also addresses the problems with dualism in light of our current understanding of brain function. I seem to recall that the neuroscience argument against dualism was fairly simple, based on various examples of known disorders and diseases of the brain having a direct correlation with malfunctions of the mind.
I'm too tired right now to find the exact wording; perhaps in the morning or on the weekend.
Hi Torbjörn Larsson,
It's not at all clear to me what you are trying to say by quoting passages from a Wikipedia article on Vipassana. I mean, Wikipedia is hardly an authoritative source and vipassana is a meditation practice, not a religion. While American Buddhism advocates vipassana practice, the religion is a much larger, richer thing and perhaps unique in its emphasis on each person deciding for themselves what is right and wrong, true and not true.
Science doesn't do ethics, people do; science is not prescriptive. The standards of ethics your university enforces, while important to doing good science, are external to science. Look at how budgeting decisions are made. Which scientific research projects are funded and to what extent is largely, if not solely, the result of an ethical decision-making process -- by no means an optimal one, certainly not a scientific on
Religion, on the other hand, is all about ethical decision-making processes, for better or worse. Some religions are dogmatic in this regard, others -- which get little notice in the popular media -- stand out due to lack of dogma and emphasize personal investigation, American Buddhism being a case in point.
Scott,
Bravo for speaking out with and about intellectual integrity. But, Jesus, that goes against everything blogs -- at least high-volume blogs -- are about. You must be some kind of subversive! Caledonian -- channeling O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter, et al. -- sets an example we should all be following.
I have perhaps a similar intuition in the following sense: I'm not a mind-body dualist, yet I think the my subjective experience is both unique and private. That my subjective experience is at least colored by, if not completely determined by, my personal history makes it unique. No other person can claim having the same set of experiences in the same locales and conditions. That seems rather obvious. The privacy claim is not as strong -- but is pretty damn strong even so.
Some future technology may be able to create a reliable representation of my internal mental state (brain state) and in that sense compromise its privacy, but that is purely speculative. To assume such a thing is possible is just as ridiculous as assuming it is not. What we can be sure of is that it is not possible today, and we can be pretty sure it is not possible in the near future -- Ray Kurzweil aside.
So I think I'm on firm ground in saying my subjective experience and that of every other human being is both unique and private.
That's important for a host of reasons. For example, it means I cannot share the judgments derived from my subjective experience in any "rational" way with other people -- just the opposite of what science can do. Science lives and dies in the objective, shared world of repeatable experience. All sorts of experts and consultants make their living from this state of affairs. Your financial advisor or stock broker is one of them, your minister, priest, or psychologist another.
This subjective experience and the "knowledge" I derive from it are all I have to fill in the many gaps in the "rational knowledge" that science provides. While science may eventually fill in all knowledge gaps, we must accept that, today, our knowledge remains incomplete -- yet we still must act, make decisions, and run our lives as best we can. To do that we need some heuristics to guide our day-to-day, moment-to-moment actions. I claim most of these come from our subjective experience of the world, part of which comes from people and organizations that we accept (subjectively) as reasonable authorities like respected elders/friends, religious figures/organizations, philosophers/organizations, etc.
Thanks for listening to my little rant. Subject experience is not something to cast aside. Neither are religious and philosophical systems that attempt to propigate useful heuristics from generation to generation -- especially those that emphasize the testing and re-evaluation of those heuristics.
Scott:
"It definitely simplifies things to treat the quality of conscious experience as epiphenomenal. "
I don't think of a representation as an epiphenomena. I think it is a representation that emerges from a physical substrate.
If I understand epiphenomenalism correct it is "a view in philosophy of mind according to which some or all mental states are mere epiphenomena (side-effects or by-products) of physical states of the world". But the representation (program, consciousness) is part of the physics. Otherwise it is yet another dualism.
"I might believe that eventually a very sophisticated robot could be constructed that might be able to accomplish that task, but would it follow that said robot would FEEL anything while it is doing it, joy, satisfaction, pleasure, etc.? What evidence could we adduce for that proposition?"
Owlmirror describes this well, this is an argument from lack of knowledge on both what to model and how to model. Nature has had 500 My, by a massive parallel genetic algorithm, to wire up some 1000 Gb of wetware to something sensible. It will take some doing to come close.
But the comfort is that CS through the Church-Turing thesis has shown that algorithmic systems of any kind, deterministic or probabilistic or quantum or biological, are forced to be at most turing complete or solve the halting problem (ie destroy gödel incompleteness). All effective computation systems are the same. (But some things are easier to do on some systems than others.)
Andy:
"While American Buddhism advocates vipassana practice, the religion is a much larger, richer thing and perhaps unique in its emphasis on each person deciding for themselves what is right and wrong, true and not true."
Yes, your reference said something such, but nothing specific. My point was that the original religion is superstitious, and that it isn't clear that american vipassana isn't. I also wanted to point out that the meaning of vipassana, at least originally, is direct experiential perception, a mystical concept. So I think we need better proof that american vipassana isn't superstitious.
"Science doesn't do ethics, people do; science is not prescriptive."
Whether science do ethics or not is irrelevant. What is relevant here is whether science *is* ethical - a paragon of truth, knowledge and virtue. I claim it is, and have supported it. Nothing you have said has relevancy to these claims.
"For example, it means I cannot share the judgments derived from my subjective experience in any "rational" way with other people -- just the opposite of what science can do."
I think of it as an (emergent) representation of our mind, much as a program and its data is a representation of the workings in a computer. It isn't opposite of a naturalistic view, it is explainable by such a view, as I have just shown. Especially it can't be taken as evidence for that religious and those philosophical systems which aren't constrained by facts should propagate their ideas indefinitely.
It's not exactly that "it doesn't exist until it's measured", rather that existence as we know it arises from quantum interaction. The wavefunction may or may not "really" collapse, depending on which QM interpretation you use (e.g. Copenhagen vs. Many-Worlds), but the result is the same. Until there is a quantum interaction, there is only a probabilistic field of potential.
If we choose to call post-interaction quantum entanglement "true" existence, as opposed to pre-interaction fuzziness, I suppose that's our philosophical prerogative. At any rate, we have no means of experiencing that pre-interaction state.
Numad: There are two broad characterizations of "spirituality" - since one has religious connotations, using something like "disinterested cultural pursuits" for the other is pretty good - covers science, arts, humanities.
Scott Hatfield: I have found that out right saying "read the literature!" sounds rude, so I've tried to coax you and others now and then in the right direction. Good luck with your quest, and I'm willing to help as far as I can. (Philosophy of mind is not my speciality, though, so if you go off in weird directions I might not be able to help.) BTW, Broad is not a contemporary; his work dates from the 1920s. I actually don't know much about his position per se. The contemporary literature does tend to reject his position for various reasons, some for bad reasons. (E.g., the supposed mysteriousness of "downward causation" that Kim claims.)
I might add that neither I nor Bunge thinks of consciousness as epiphenomenal. I am agnostic about what experience is "for"; Bunge postulates a sort of "dashboard" view - a sort of easy access to certain features in the world and inside the organism itself. This is similar to Dennett's view, amazingly, despite Bunge's hostility to Dennett.
Owlmirror: It isn't quite so simple. I ultimately agree with you, but there are materialist viewpoints which deny computationalism: Bunge and Searle (though Searle's claim that the brain causes the mind is mistaken for other reasons). I think Putnam and Fodor are now skeptical of such as well, amazingly, given their role in the early history of such things.
Torbjörn Larsson: Actually, that's not true (re: Gödel). Even noncomputable theories can be formally incomplete. It is just easier to state and prove the result if they are computable. See Feferman's review of Penrose's Shadows of the Mind. Moreover, there are theories of "hypercomputation" or "Super-Turing" computation which are not logically impossible as you seem to suggest; rather they return to Turing's original formulation of the TM as an idealized human clerk and examine carefully the assumptions therein. I don't think any of the current proposals are anything more than mathematical curiousities, but that takes work. (See my MS thesis on my website for one example.)
Keith Douglas:
Hypercomputability relies on systems that are capable of manipulating infinities. There is good reason to believe that no such systems are possible. They make beautiful fairy tales, but they can't actually exist.
Hatfield:
Look up 'epiphenomenalism' in a dictionary of philosophy. (Even an online philosophical dictionary will do.) Then think very, very carefully about the implications of that definition.
If you can't figure out the problem yourself, you couldn't understand any explanation I or anyone else could give. Who would explain the explanation to you?
Keith:
I can certainly be wrong, and I like to know more.
My current view come from a recent discussion on Mark Chu-Carroll's blog Good Math, Bad Math. While Mark, who is a computer scientist, is very careful to not mention biological systems outside neural nets, he unambigiously states that superturing machines aren't feasible due to gödel/halting.
Even in such cases where we don't discuss classical systems, which a brain probably is, we can't do better. "The big different between a quantum machine and current hardware is performance. Different computing systems can solve all of the same problems; but some can be exponentially faster on some problems than others. Quantum machines, at least theoretically, have the capability to push things that are currently *intractable* into the realm where they become reasonable. ...
Quantum computers aren't super-turing. What they *are* is non-deterministic, in the formal sense. The formal computational meaning of non-deterministic is that all possible paths are followed at the same time... A quantum machine would make NP-complete problems tractable. ... But since a quantum machine is non-deterministic, it means that the NP problems are polynomial time on the quantum machine." ( http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/07/mocking_a_silly_antirelativity…¨)
So as I understand it, QC in a way solves P != NP by making NP problems P in QC, but it doesn't make them superturing. He rather efficiently corrected my confusions.
After that discussion, I looked briefly into hypercomputability proposals in connection with neuroscience. They seem to have both mathematical and physical problems. Solving the halting problem wreak havoc with incompleteness, oracles, Omega undecideability, et cetera. Physically some demand infinite resolution/no noise, others time machines, others infinite speed/energy, et cetera. Combining fundamental problems from two different areas, I very much doubt that they work.
"Even noncomputable theories can be formally incomplete. It is just easier to state and prove the result if they are computable. See Feferman's review of Penrose's Shadows of the Mind."
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Looking at the brain fundamentally, it follows physical laws that we can assume are formally describable on a basic level. In the face of the problems seen and recent work done here by science (math, CS, neuroscience, physics) it seems difficult to break away from the main effort.
I haven't read Penrose and I have been discouraged to do so since physicists criticise his later ideas on physics. Feferman's review isn't an easy read and it would take me a while. What I can quickly find is his saying "So on the face of it, mathematical thought as it is actually produced is not mechanical; I agree with Penrose that in this respect, understanding is essential, and it is just this aspect of actual mathematical thought that machines cannot share with us." So he is discussing how the representation of our mind seems, not what it is. ( http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v2/psyche-2-07-feferman.html )
Penrose's book seems to be heavily reviewed though. I stumbled on one by the physicist LJ Landau who says the same thing I did. "It is not necessary that F deduces all sorts of crazy formulas. In short, although F cannot deduce f, there is no reason why F cannot deduce that H believes f. Gödel's theorem doesn't say anything about what can be proved concerning the state of H's mind! The essential point is that H's beliefs do not form part of the deductive system F. ... No one would think of incorporating a non-mathematical belief, such as `It will rain tomorrow', into the formal system F !" ( http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~llandau/Homepage/Math/penrose.html )
I'm proud to note that I actually made much the same analysis as Landau, informally but nevertheless, right before I browsed his review! It seems to be an interesting review with a lot of exposition about thinking and mathematical thinking, so I offer it in my turn. :-)
Caledonian: Well, there is a lot of weasel-room packed into the word "manipulate" there. For example, does a Zeus machine "manipulate" an infinite quantity? No, it just has an infinite running time compressed into finite time by what is likely an impossible trick. What is important to realize is that this is a factual claim, not some claim about "the platonic heaven" or "mathworld" or whatever you want to call it. (For me, a mathematical fictionalist, they are metaphors, but the important thing is the distinction.) Moreover, it is difficult to rule out all possible schemes of "hypercomputing" all at once. Both Gandy - sort of - (in an unpublished paper which I have read thanks to Sieg) and Davis have tried to do so, unsuccessfully in my view. (Once again, see my MS thesis.)
Torbjörn Larsson: He's wrong, if that's the claim. There is nothing logically impossible about a hypercomputer - it is an interesting problem precisely because the "implementation" question raises issues about idealizations and the like. For example, there aren't really (as far as we can tell) any (things describable as) Turing machines, either. But why do we use that model then? (IMO, because it captures the notion of "programmability", but that's a long story) The "halting problem" is really better stated, then, as "the halting problem for Turing machines" as certain hypercomputers, were they implementable, would be able to solve that problem, but also be subject to their own halting problem, which would be solvable by another class of machines, and so on up the arithmetic hierarchy. (If you've read Gödel, Escher, Bach, this is sort of like the tower of djinn.) And yes, most quantum computers as proposed are Turing-equivalent.
The point about the uncomputable theories was basically the important issue that even if we aren't (describable as) Turing machines, our system of arithmetic if it is formal at all (and probably otherwise, though that's a difficult issue) is incomplete. My reference to Penrose was that he had made that error as well. If you haven't read his stuff, never mind that. And I don't endorse all of Feferman's review, either, for anyone else paying attention to this stuff.
Keith:
"He's wrong, if that's the claim. There is nothing logically impossible about a hypercomputer"
I don't think he claims that there is a proof. It seems that it isn't a likely answer for a computer scientist due to all the mathematical and physical problems, and since all machines and languages to this day haven't performed better. I believe I now can add the possibility of a scenario with hypothetical computers all the way up, as regards oracle machines. (Yes, recursion seems like a GEB theme.)
"Because all these different attempts of formalizing the concept of algorithm have yielded equivalent results, it is now generally assumed that the Church-Turing thesis is correct. However, the thesis is a definition and not a theorem, and hence cannot be proved true. The physical version could, however, be disproved if a method could be exhibited which is universally accepted as being an effective algorithm but which cannot be performed on a Turing machine." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church-Turing_thesis )
Chu-Carroll calls it "two of the fundamental rules of computer science: ... The Church-Turing Thesis ...
The Halting Problem."
"For example, there aren't really (as far as we can tell) any (things describable as) Turing machines, either. But why do we use that model then? (IMO, because it captures the notion of "programmability", but that's a long story)"
What I understand efficiently computing (Turing) machines are an equivalence class of idealised machines, where they have the same properties. "Any computing system that reaches that limit is called an effective computing system (ECS). Anything that one ECS can do, any other ECS can do too. That doesn't mean that they're all identical. A given computation can be really easy to understand when described in terms of one ECS, and horribly difficult in another."
It is used over other models of computation since it is more general. "This model is perhaps the most important model of computation in computer science, as it simulates computation in the absence of predefined resource limits." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computability_theory_%28computer_science%29 )
Not all software languages are Turing. Apparently the Chomsky-Schützenberger hierarchy captures programmability. "Chomsky-Schützenberger hierarchy is a containment hierarchy of classes of formal grammars that generate formal languages. ... proper inclusions ... Type-0 Recursively enumerable Turing machine No restrictions" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy )
So a Turing language on a Turing machine is recursive, enumerable and principally without resource limits. (Achieved in practice by erasing used memory.) It is both a programmability and a computing model, and seems to be the best we can achieve. (Possibly in the faster QC sense.)
"The point about the uncomputable theories was basically the important issue that even if we aren't (describable as) Turing machines, our system of arithmetic if it is formal at all (and probably otherwise, though that's a difficult issue) is incomplete."
I see. Of course I agree on the incompleteness.
you said Buddhism .. uhmmm... just tell me a few things : How to measure karma ? Why everyone gets reincarnated, but no one remembers his prevous life ? What exactly gets reincarnated, provided one's 'self' is only an illusion, as buddists teach ? If you can't, how can you claim that it is something more than superstition ?
you said Buddhism .. uhmmm... just tell me a few things : How to measure karma ? Why everyone gets reincarnated, but no one remembers his prevous life ? What exactly gets reincarnated, provided one's 'self' is only an illusion, as buddists teach ? If you can't, how can you claim that it is something more than superstition ?