Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
@dxm_dxm
Can you provide evidence of something immaterial that has an effect on consciousness?
"Can you provide evidence of something immaterial that has an effect on consciousness?"
Well, you could smash someone's head in with a rock I suppose. ;-)
Did you hear the one about the Buddhist who asked a hot dog vendor to "make me one with everything".
When he handed over a twenty and asked about change the hot dog vendor replied "ah, but change can only come from within".
For many decades now researches have been able to link the thought process with physical processes in the brain.
The brain and consciousness are not discreet, the brain creates consciousness.
If your brain was damaged, your consciousness would be altered.
Or you could just notice that when you smash someone over the head with a brick, their consciousness goes bye bye.
If hardware is damaged, software behavior will be altered. Yet this does not prove that software somehow originates from hardware.
You need to provide some mechanism, some explanation - ANYTHING - to explain why a primitive assembly of matter such as an insect with 5 neurons has consciousness but a complex computer that can defeat you at chess does not.
"If hardware is damaged, software behavior will be altered. Yet this does not prove that software somehow originates from hardware."
Once again then, have you any examples of consciousness without a functioning evolved brain? Can you demonstrate a single example of that consciousness existing after that host brain dies? We do for computers see, we can extract their software and put it into another host computer.
I think you're tearing towards Occam's razor here, we have objectively evidenced facts, albeit incomplete, for evolution and material brains and consciousness all being causally linked.
I totally agree with evolution, but not with the other part. In order to know what happens with consciousness after death, you need to know how it originated. If you do not know the mechanism through which it originated in the first place - it can possibly originate again, through the same mechanism that you do not know at the moment.
@dxm_dxm
We may not ever know exactly how consciousness originates, mainly because there may be no such thing as "consciousness" as most people describe it.
And if there is a consciousness and we do learn exactly how it arises, we may well, through, technological innovation: reach the point that we can make our various consciousness immortal, or close to it.
That said, we do not need to know what happens to consciousness after death, we can experiment with temporary losses of consciousness that do not involve death. So far, if we get knocked out (either chemically or via trauma to the brain or otherwise) but "wake back up" we can report what does happen with a temporary loss of consciousness.
A big fat... NOTHING is what everyone reports. Additionally with careful work we can do all sorts of crazy things with our physical brains with the right equipment. With enough practice and careful work by a professional with the right equipment we can make someone laugh uncontrollably against their will, or cry, or be euphoric or deeply depressed. This also done with numerous drugs. People can directly manipulate many aspects of one's "consciousness."
Certain very rare brain trauma can lead to very revealing results about exactly how our physical brains and location of injury to that brain has incredibly powerful effect on "consciousness."
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
LogicFTW: "Certain very rare brain trauma can lead to very revealing results about exactly how our physical brains and location of injury to that brain has incredibly powerful effect on "consciousness.""
And I am a living example.
rmfr
"I totally agree with evolution, but not with the other part."
Then I wasn't clear, inexplicably? When I said "we have objectively evidenced facts, albeit incomplete, for evolution and material brains and consciousness all being causally linked." I wasn't asking what you thought, it was statement of fact.
As has been pointed out consciousness dies with the functioning evolved brain, every single time. Consciousness has never once been observed without a functioning evolved brain. Damage a brain and consciousness is effected, the area of the brain damaged directly correlates to the function of consciousness affected.
That's an empirical causal link.
------------------------------
"In order to know what happens with consciousness after death, you need to know how it originated."
Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, AGAIN.
" If you do not know "
...and again....ho hum
" it can possibly originate again, through the same mechanism that you do not know at the moment."
...and again...
Now are you going to keep repeating this logical fallacy, or is there any evidence in any of our futures, only I am in danger of losing my own consciousness post by post?
Crackpot Index - 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
What's the record? He must be close? Someone should let the Guinness book of records know he's in with a shout.
I think our human bodies are simply the receivers of our consciousness, similar to a radio or a cell phone being a receiver.
It is an objective fact that matter exist without a consciousness, the computer your using has no consciousness.
It is an objective fact that consciousness requires a matter based body to exist.
The computer I am using exist without consciousness ? Quantum physics tells us it does not. Actually, it does not tell us that it does not exist if it is not observed - it tells us that it does not exist if there is no possibility of a conscious observer to ever observe it. These recent findings (experiments that came after the double slit one) have thankfully refuted solipsistic interpretations of quantum physics. Yet, they have left materialism as refuted as before. You're forced to believe in the many-worlds theory, same as Stephen Hawkings and other hardcore materialist, in order to not be refuted. That's the level materialism has gotten today. You need to believe that I've just split into a billion parallel universes while I was writing this message in order to continue to be a materialist....
That is not a postulate of QM, and it is not a consequence of the postulates. What you are describing is called Quantum Mysticism, a pseudoscience.
Mysticism ? You mean like getting split into a billion alternative universes even at this moment ? In your opinion, into how many billion parallel universes have I split since starting to write this message ?
I have no idea.
Actually none.
rmfr
I have never said I was a materialist.
Is the computer your using alive? Does the computer have a living brain? Does it have a consciousness?
Nope, but neither can it exist without the possibility of a conscious observer ever observing it. At least not without me splitting into a billion parallel universes while writing this message....
Hell, I can't even tell if i'm in the universe I think I am or weather I'm just a copy of myself being right now in the universe where u all turned to Jesus or something.
Be a dear and just cite the peer reviewed publication that published the research, and it's conclusions, which were? Oh, wait, don't tell me, I know this...it;s...ah...oh on the tip of my tongue...is it...(a) goddidit?
"You're forced to believe in the many-worlds theory, same as Stephen Hawkings and other hardcore materialist, "
That's *Professor Stephen Hawking, who the fuck is Hawkings (sic)? He's from Treasure Island.
"That's the level materialism has gotten today."
So the foremost physicists in the field disagree with you, quelle surprise, then again you're prostituting your wares anonymously in an atheist forum, with no scientific credentials. It's another Breezy moment.
"You need to believe that I've just split into a billion parallel universes while I was writing this message in order to continue to be a materialist...."
Utter nonsense.
Seriously, I almost put that as a bingo square idea. Kicking myself now.
@Sheldon:
No, I am not a high priest and neither do I believe in the infaliabillity of High Priest. Also, only 25% of High Priest believe in the Many-Worlds theory, and most of them do this because of attachment to certain beliefs. And yet, you have 75% of High Priest dropping their materialist beliefs due to discoveries in the study of matter and consciousness.
And please, don't start with some "I don't have to believe in the Many World theory not to be refuted, there are so many other options" - oh yes you do. The chain of science has tightened over the years. That's why you see high caliber materialist like Hawking forced to adopt the Many Worlds theory. You can't be taken serious in high level debates as a scientist while holding scientifically refuted views. You think it was a pleasure for so many respectable High Priest to start believing in that stuff ?
"
@Sheldon:
No, I am not a high priest and neither do I believe in the infaliabillity of High Priest. Also, only 25% of High Priest believe in the Many-Worlds theory, and most of them do this because of attachment to certain beliefs. And yet, you have 75% of High Priest dropping their materialist beliefs due to discoveries in the study of matter and consciousness."
What? No, seriously, what?
"And please, don't start with some "I don't have to believe in the Many World theory not to be refuted, there are so many other options" - oh yes you do. The chain of science has tightened over the years. That's why you see high caliber materialist like Hawking forced to adopt the Many Worlds theory. You can't be taken serious in high level debates as a scientist while holding scientifically refuted views. You think it was a pleasure for so many respectable High Priest to start believing in that stuff ?"
Well I'm sure your views on the late Professor Stephen Hawking mean something to you, but I'm not seeing your point sorry?
He was a genius whose work advanced scientific understanding of the universe, and you are???
I'm going to call this the "Breezy syndrome" from now on. Some Billy no name bursts into an atheist chatroom pretending they better understand cutting edge science than the best experts of the last 200 years.
The real irony is this high priest BS coming from a BS and levelled at someone for accepting the work of a scientists whose work has advanced the entire scientific field he worked in, and of course has been peer reviewed.
What do you validate your verbiage with, some scented candles and a fucking tambourine?
@Sheldon :
Missed this post. This forum design is terrible. I am sure many High Priest did great things and are worthy of respect, yet that does not make them correct. That is the flawed argument of authority. Plus, with only 25% of high priest believing in the many worlds theory and the opposite theory being called "traditional interpretation", you can't even use this flawed argument in favor of materialism.
And yet, never forget that quote from the Buddha about "don't go by tradition, by reports, by probability, by what is popular, etc." when deciding weather something is correct or not. You need evidence, you need logic, you need reasoning.
"And yet, never forget that quote from the Buddha about "don't go by tradition, by reports, by probability, by what is popular, etc." when deciding weather something is correct or not. You need evidence, you need logic, you need reasoning."
If only we had a method for this, of wait a minute...it's not Buddhism is it? No that's right it's science. So Professor Steven Hawking seems to have managed to spend his lifetime at the forefront of his field, and you are here on an atheist chat room claiming his work evidences a deity, a fact he seems to have missed, as he was a self professed atheist.
Come on Dan, it's risible enough to try and tell me what I *must think, but to imply Stephen Hawking's work validated the existence of a deity, and that he must therefore have missed it as he was an atheist, is just fucking hilarious. I've no idea what the High priest nonsense is implying at all?
-----------------------------------------------------
"That is the flawed argument of authority. "
"never forget that quote from the Buddha"
Oh ffs this is too funny...Stephen Hawking's work was validated by the best objective method we have, unlike claims and beliefs attributed to Buddha. This is such a ridiculous claim from you it's almost Orwellian double think.
@Sheldon: You're arguments are great against the usual christian debater, not against buddhist. As for the last point - can that rock exist if no conscious observer has the possibility to ever observe it, not even 10 or 100 years from now ? Ask quantum physics :)
@LogicFTW: I totally agree with you and take it one step further. The historical Buddha claimed we are just like computers, made out of 5 aggregates and has 1500 pages of "higher dhamma" regarding how these 5 aggregates work and depend on one another based on cause and effect. Go check "book of causality", "book of aggregates" and "book of sense bases" if you are ever interested - chapter 2,3 and 4 from the "connected discourses" volume: http://www.forum.theravada.ru/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2466
The fundamental teaching of the Buddha, the thing that sets him apart from all other philosophers in the world is the no-self idea. He claims there is no self in humans, same as there is no self in a computer - just the metal, the plastic, the software, etc. There is one trickery that makes it seem that there is a self. In order to understand that trickery, one has to understand how the 5 aggregates technically work. After doing that, one becomes a so called "stream enterer" or "one who has opened the dhamma eye".
Every philosopher out there claimed there is a self that exists. Even atheist believe there is a self that get anihilated at death. The Buddha is the only one to claim there never was a self to begin with. He claims this is provable through understanding how the 5 aggregates technically work.
When pressed on why do people believe there is a self in humans but not in computers, their arguments all come down to a feeling that appears from time to time due to conditions. That's where the trickery lies. But maybe this should require a topic of it's own.
The rock exist without you observing it.
If there is no self, explain why you are here?
It does exist without me observing it, but it does not exist if there is no possibility for me or anyone else to perceive it 10 years or 100 years from now. If there is not possibility for it to ever be perceived by a conscious observer, it simply does not exist to begin with. It's not there.
Me being here ? I see no "me" being here, I only see the physical matter, consciousness, volition, feelings, perceptions that make up a human organism. Same as hardware, software etc. makes up a computer.
What makes you believe there might be a "me" inside these 5 aggregates, while no "me" is present in a computer ? (remember what I said before, that whatever you will answer here, after being pressed even more, it will all fall back to a specific feeling)
Pages