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.
@ Alchemy
"If you have any idea, ANY idea at all of how we can observe things smaller then those smallest objects which reflect the highest possible wavelength, then you can collect your Nobel prize."
Go have a beer. Make it nice and cold and tasty. Make sure it is poured in a clear glass. See those bubbles rising up? See their source? No, because the source is a microscopic particle, probably an incredibly tiny speck of dirt, or etching deliberately built into the glass by beer manufacturers . And that nucleation point allows gas to attach, grow, and form into a bubble that breaks free and floats to the top.
Just because you can not see it, that does not mean you can not observe it.
@ Alchemy
"You arent going to find god in empirical reality, thats a fruitless search."
Once again, you are attempting to erect a wall around examination of your purported god. If your god has interacted in any way with this physical universe, then it can be examined by empirical means.
@ Alchemy
"If you are honest, you would look in Logic, Theology, and Mathematics."
If you were honest you would look in empirical examination.
@ Alchemy
"One problem atheists encounter is that we must be provided a definition of their "god" by the theist who is making the claim. If not, then there will never be effective communication."
The way you avoid this is take the notion that most philosophers and theologians have used since the 11th century, really. God is the greatest conceivable being. Once you realize that this is equivalent to what God is, you understand why so many minds in this reality disagree, but have yet come to similar conclusions in some respects (only three major monotheist religions for example)."
Bullfucking shit.
We have theists come in here, and not all hold the same position as you.
Just because a black man enters a store, we do not assume he is an armed robber.
I hope you "get" that example I posed. Because your arrogance is beginning to make a fish market seem like a fresh meadow. And that you expect me to assume a position of presupposition is just crazy. I have a critical mind, I do not blindly buy a car just because the shady used car salesman says "trust me".
Alchemy, you need to stop smelling your own farts.
What empirical evidence can you produce to prove the existence of your "god"?
David Killens wrote,
"Auguste Compte made that statement in 1835."
1. Auguste Compte, the Positivist, was mistaken. So confining oneself to the empirical is not infallible.
David wrote,
"My standards of evidence are similar to a court of law. And for the same reason you can never argue a settlement or judgement in court without some form of evidence, I will never accept a god argued into existence. My standards are not unrealistic or unreasonable, my standards are almost exactly what you would experience in a court of law."
2. Someone got convicted of murder when there was no body, there was no clear motive, no cause of death, no idea how the murder took place or even if a murder took place. It was all completely circumstantial.
3. If we accept the findings of science we know the universe had a beginning. Atheists may claim that the universe is just stuff that come to be by itself. That's metaphysics. While theists may claim that the universe looks like an invention and God created it. That's metaphysics too.
Metaphysics is not, strictly speaking, about things you can't see. Its about your assumptions of what you do see. Its about your assumptions of the essential nature of stuff. Atheists assume the stuff came to be by itself and just is. (Sounds miraculous). Theists assume God made it. Both perspectives are metaphysics.
@ Apollo
"Auguste Compte, the Positivist, was mistaken. So confining oneself to the empirical is not infallible."
Not at all. Compte's statement was valid based on the level of knowledge in 1835. Advances in science rendered his statement obsolete soon after.
"Atheists may claim that the universe is just stuff that come to be by itself. That's metaphysics. While theists may claim that the universe looks like an invention and God created it. That's metaphysics too."
Apollo, are you getting desperate? At the beginning you just used arguments and flawed logic. Not you are being dishonest.
Atheists do not make any claims, although a great percentage recognize that the scientific method yields valid explanations. The scientific explanation of the origin of this universe is base on a realistic assessment built on valid observations. There is no metaphysics in science.
@David
I'm glad someone else has called Apollo on his dishonesty. Why do theists think attacking science and empiricism remotely evidences any deity?
@ Alchemy
"Simulation theory is not taken seriously anywhere, and multiverse is literally only looked at in philosophy of physics."
I strongly disagree on that statement. You are 100% incorrect.
Simulations are powerful tools use by physicists regularly.
There are multiple scientific teams hard at work on the multiverse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne5OvDr_zTs
You know you are being dishonest with the Simulation theory. We were all taking about the computer simulation theory, and you
are just muddying the waters with equivocation fallacy.
Give me a single (1) paper that shows that the multiverse hypothesis is anything other then metaphysical speculation. The videos you linked just shows, and in fact proves, that there exists an alternative mathematical formulation for the development of space time. Why bring another universe into the situation?
@ Alchemy
"You know you are being dishonest with the Simulation theory. We were all taking about the computer simulation theory, and you
are just muddying the waters with equivocation fallacy."
You did not have any problems understanding my post, and I am sure many others. I am not being dishonest with equivocation fallacy, you are loose and imprecise in your communications.
Please define "computer simulation theory" and give an example.
Nick Bostrom's computer simulation theory. Or simulation hypothesis: the proposal that we are in an ancestor simulation. The concept which was posted in the OP.
Trust me, I know about simulation and modeling. There are no ontological minds being created when you program a symbol manipulation machine. The only mind involved is the one that interprets the symbols that pop up when the program is done running.
@Alchemy
I am pleased you have sharpened up your communications skills.
Your vagueness in previous posts led me down the wrong path. I have previously stated my position on this hypothesis in post #2.
I was convinced when you mentioned sets that you would pull the rug out from under them somehow. That is one of the reasons I kept asking you about them.
You chastised me (more than once) for trying to get clarification. And now finally, after all of that you decide to mention that when you wrote the word set, you knew damn well you were not talking about the sets I was talking about; but kept that to yourself. Dirty pool!
It IS a set that most mathematical Platonists believe exist, it is not a set as in some formal definition which is dictated by whatever orthodox set theory axioms are in place at the moment. For example, I believe the Continuum hypothesis is True. I do not have proof, but I believe it to be so. I would say even most pure mathematicians agree with my notion of set more then the formalist interpretation of set.
If you want to understand what Im saying, look at Formalism vs Platonism/Realism. That should clear up your understanding. Im also
going to mention you still havent offered your theory of change, so im thinking youve never actually thought about it.
@Alchemy: "There is no existence without mind, and there is no mind without concepts."
UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY RETARDED. A tree has no mind, yet exists. Virus have no mind, yet exist. A rock has no mind but exists. Elephants, Dolphins and Apes have minds but as far as we know, no way to express concepts to someone outside their own species if they have any.
"We know dolphins are capable of understanding artificially created language, both acoustic and gestural, and abstract concepts,” says Herzing. “However, we simply do not have the data to suggest that they use words or labels in the wild.”
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/09/dolphins-conversation-ex...
Primates are capable of high levels of cognition; some make tools and use them to acquire foods and for social displays; some have sophisticated hunting strategies requiring cooperation, influence and rank; they are status conscious, manipulative and capable of deception; they can recognize kin and conspecifics; they ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate_cognition
DEMONSTRABLY YOU HAVE NO CLUE AS TO WHAT IN THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!.
@Alchemy
First off, I’m enjoying this conversation - l don’t like to “read” intentions or emotions into the text and until it becomes obvious to me (some posters on here are “swifter”), I like to exchange ideas and arguments in the spirit of learning.
...I really don't understand what you are saying with the analogy.
It was an analogy in reference to “knowing”. Some people, not all, “know” things with a very low standard of evidence for that knowledge - or “know” things by feeling it. Then they live their live’s based on that “knowledge”, a life that has real-world consequences.
...My point was this: We are finite beings which were thrown into existence, and nobody knows exactly why. Trying to conceptualize the reason for existence at all is not something you should just shout down.
Well, I was “thrown” into existence’cause my parents had sex (ewwwww, lol). There is no “reason” for existence, IMO. It just “is” as opposed to “is not”.
This isn’t a flippant response, I really have put a lot of thought into it - tracing my steps as to “why do I think that?”
...In fact my claim is that gradually, you can come to understand the ultimate telos of the world, the reason for everything even if only slightly, and you can become happy though this. Look up the philosophical movement Optimism.
I can appreciate a suggestion, especially given to improve, say, my emotional well-being ( a sincere/empathetic exchange). If needing to “understand” the ultimate telos?(not sure what is meant by this) makes you happy, good.
Personally, I’m at peace. I have felt “happy” but I don’t need to feel it continuously. I am also optimistic (not in an unrealistic way)...my optimism is tethered to my experiences, my abilities to weather some shit, to “learn” from each negative experience so I gain something positive from it. And - this one for me is important- an appreciation for life and everything I have...this includes my own life challenges.
My only advice is don’t exchange words. If you believe consciousness exists as a “force” call it consciousness, not “god”. The god label gets thrown on everything mysterious.
https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332819403_Are_We_Living_in_a_Si...
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/quantum-computing-explained
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.space.com/amp/31465-is-our-universe-just...
David and Alchemy ... simulation Universe is in the philosophical realm and is crossing into other disciplines. And we do use “simulations” often, one of many uses that Quantum Computing will advance further.
Multiple Universe has many papers...so I just provided a link for a rundown.
So, yes the ideas are “woo”. But the papers are beginning- proposals and or advancement of technology for testing may one day bring these types of woo to fruition.
In either case, “continue as you are” is in order.
I think I could make a pretty good argument that we are not living in a simulation running on a Von Neumann machine (basically a standard computer). But of course that says nothing about other systems.
Von Neumann machines are Hardware models which describe a way to implement a computer in the physical world basically. I have an even stronger claim: I am claiming that Turing machines, which is the actual mathematical essence of what a computer is, is contradictory to what we experience in our minds and the external world, and so our minds cannot be based on any conceivable computation at all
Pay attention to the very first part of the paper. He makes the controversial claim that a mind can emerge from ANY sufficient computational structure. Ironically, This is an extremely unpopular opinion in philosophy of Mind because it directly implies the existence of a supreme mind or consciousness. Exactly because I can conceive of the universe itself as mapped to a computational mathematical structure with rigorous proof: namely take an input of the location and nature of every component of the natural world, then calculate where the world will be according to some function. This algorithm would be vastly more complex then our minds, because our minds are a subset of the universe according to this view. This mind would literally have the will of classical theism, be all knowing and all powerful. I don't believe this, but If you believe that a sufficiently complex Turing machine can create a mind, and you also believe the computer simulation hypothesis, then it seems to me it logically follows God exists. (Not to mention ancestor simulations are still contingent beings)
Apart from that there is no reason to think that a mind can come from a sufficiently computational complex structure at all. This is because a computation IS an abstraction of the mind. Once we were conscious enough to map information to natural structures in reality, we were able to make computers run algorithms we program, And we find that that is all they ever do: follow the program according to the rules we were already conscious of. A slot machine, or any symbol manipulation machine, does not become conscious after adding some sufficient amount of slots, no matter how many you add. It is always just an unfolding computational process.
Not to mention that my mind can conceive of uncomputable numbers, irrational numbers, infinite sets and so on. We can do math and talk about any structure without contradiction, even the higher infinities that computers cannot deal with. How is it the case that these things objectively exist in our thoughts if we are in a computer simulation?
Also, I am taking a graduate course in Quantum computing next year, and it is fascinating stuff, but there is nothing in principle in quantum algorithms that will make much difference in Simulation (computational models of things). The algorithms will get faster and so on, yes, but not get us any closer to understanding the relation between something like mind and matter
Generations “Ship in a Bottle” episode...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_in_a_Bottle_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation)
Alchemy “ ...controversial claim that a mind can emerge from ANY sufficient computational structure. Ironically, This is an extremely unpopular opinion in philosophy of Mind because it directly implies the existence of a supreme mind or consciousness.”
Which one of those papers were you reading and where exactly...I reread the initial paper and then the other and did not come across wording that suggests what you said.
He (Bostrom) ...” Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine‐grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct)...
Also (Bostrom) ...” we consider some empirical reasons for thinking that running vastly many simulations of human minds would be within the capability of a future civilization that has developed many of those technologies that can already be shown to be compatible with known physical laws and engineering constraints.”
Also ...(Bostrom) “ Provided a system implements the right sort of computational structures and processes, it can be associated with conscious experiences. It is not an essential property of consciousness that it is implemented on carbon‐based biological neural networks inside a cranium: silicon‐based processors inside a computer could in principle do the trick as well.”
Pages 1&2
He’s pretty clear you need a “processor” whether brain (organic) or futuristic silicon to operate a mind and experience consciousness.
@Alchemy ... can create a mind, and you also believe the computer simulation hypothesis, then it seems to me it logically follows God exists.
But I don’t believe the hypothesis. I read it, find it extremely interesting, “mind-candy”. The second paper written by a Sask U prof sort of tears at it and I also found his points interesting. I wouldn’t even venture into confidence in this until testing and forms of some type of useful function was demonstrated.
For me it doesn’t logically bring me to god. You’re presenting a proposal/claim with certainty however I explained that I don’t even know what outside time/space means, let alone conclude intelligence to something I can’t envision. If I said “nixelstatusgekor” and then left you to explain it to me, that wouldn’t be fair. You’d have no clue what the fuck I’m talking about or referencing - and my using the English alphabet system to communicate it to you doesn’t say anything about it. This is how it sounds to me (and I’m not trying to be a smartass).
"Which one of those papers were you reading and where exactly...I reread the initial paper and then the other and did not come across wording that suggests what you said."
Hes claiming that consciousness arises out of a sufficiently complex structure. I can then just show that the universe itself is a computational structure because it can be converted to one that is isomorphic. This is because everything in the universe is observable, by definition. So we observe the sense experience we have, assign numbers to those things we see in space and time, then make our algorithm convert a description of the state of the universe to the next discrete state according to the laws of physics. You can demonstrate mathematically, that this proves the next state of the universe, and so the universe is this computation. Notice that we are in the universe, so given that our mind arose from the computation of our bodies, then there must be a higher consciousness that encapsulates everything. Because we know that we are complex enough to be conscious, it follows that the universe must also be conscious because we are just a subset of the universe, in other words the universe is a priori more complicated then us.
Also, What I was talking about was in the beginning of the first paper. He claims that the entire argument rests on this particular assumption from philosophy of mind: that sufficient computation gives rise to mind.
Im not saying it should bring you to God, I am explaining that if you think the simulation hypothesis is reasonable, then you think the existence of a classical God is reasonable. I could be wrong about that statement, but someone would have to demonstrate why Im wrong. As of now I believe it.
"Which one of those papers were you reading and where exactly...I reread the initial paper and then the other and did not come across wording that suggests what you said."
Hes claiming that consciousness arises out of a sufficiently complex computational structure. I can then just show that the universe itself is a computational structure because it can be converted to one that is isomorphic. This is because everything in the universe is observable, by definition. So we observe the sense experience we have, assign numbers to those things we see in space and time, then make our algorithm convert a description of the state of the universe to the next discrete state according to the laws of physics. You can demonstrate mathematically, that this proves the next state of the universe, and so the universe is this computation. Notice that we are in the universe, so given that our mind arose from the computation of our bodies, then there must be a higher consciousness that encapsulates everything. Because we know that we are complex enough to be conscious, it follows that the universe must also be conscious because we are just a subset of the universe, in other words the universe is a priori more complicated then us, and is therefore a higher mind.
Also, What I was talking about was in the beginning of the first paper. He claims that the entire argument rests on this particular assumption from philosophy of mind: that sufficient computation gives rise to mind.
Im not saying it should bring you to God, I am explaining that if you think the simulation hypothesis is reasonable, then you think the existence of a classical God is reasonable. I could be wrong about that statement, but someone would have to demonstrate why Im wrong. As of now I believe it.
@Alchemy. ..” Im not saying it should bring you to God, I am explaining that if you think the simulation hypothesis is reasonable, then you think the existence of a classical God is reasonable. I could be wrong about that statement, but someone would have to demonstrate why Im wrong. As of now I believe it.”
I see. And I see how you got there from what you described. The idea of mind or consciousness arising from complexity. Our brains are complex, and fortunately for us, we also have the means (our thumbs) to put this brain to use (build things). I worded it like that because dolphins are incredibly intelligent but we can’t measure it fully (although we’re trying to bridge the gap) or put it to use (build things). But their displays of empathy, cooperation, dolpheze (my word for their language) communication etc is amazing...
I’m not distracting...then why the ramble about dolphins? Because I would grant them a mind or consciousness.
I don’t want to, but we can, get into “mind” - my take on reading the paper was we’d have a future that has mapped, understands “minds” or “consciousness” and could therefore have the technical support to run this type of thing...
Alchemy...don’t you just love how writing words and hoping their meaning comes through sucks?!?! This is meant with humor, not sarcastic - but I could read your above statement and it “sounds” like you believe that I believe a classical god would be reasonable and someone would have to disprove it.
I’m the only one that could, perhaps by saying, “I don’t”...
The crux of the matter is we are human. So communication errors, errors in thought, in our projections or predictions occur, so we do our best with a “self-correcting” mechanism (peer review).
This thread isn’t for discussing “Classical God” - my initial opening BUT you’ve brought other things to the table which are.
Personally I’d like to state that my confidence level upon retreading was pretty high initially in this particular idea. So I’m think it could be I’m biased. A play on the “we’re just gods dream”, an idea since man realized, “hey, I dream, maybe something bigger than me is dreaming and I’m apart of that dream” - but it’s updated because of video games. Also my initial use of confidence was more in the realm of probability(?!?) - you know, like if I was to place a bet...
Mind candy. My subconscious craves this stuff.
@Alchemy ...
I was rereading posts again. I had focussed mostly on your replies to me ... I had noticed this “ that mind independent ontological object which is the supreme perfect being
and necessary intelligible explanation and efficient cause of everything.” (to David) and then to me “ then there must be a higher consciousness that encapsulates everything. Because we know that we are complex enough to be conscious, it follows that the universe must also be conscious because we are just a subset of the universe, in other words the universe is a priori more complicated then us, and is therefore a higher mind.”
Your claim is that the mind came first though? No processor necessary...or is the “universe” the processor? And what level of consciousness does the universe experience, ie plant compared to insect compared to dog compared to ...etc ?
I dont know the exact origin of the mind, but I know it is ultimately god which is responsible, or else I would claim to be going "outside" my mind. thats why I start with mind and logic and work outwards.
Remember I don't believe mind is created from computational complexity. I was simply showing that a classical theist interpretation of god follows from computational complexity = mind. I don't believe what I would call a classical theist interpretation.
@Thread
Alchemy's god ideas, to me could be summarized, and neatly explained, if he would swap out the word "god" for universe. Everything I read from him so far, describes the universe, just he tries to wedge his particular god idea in to claim credit, and make his god idea correct, with, to me quite hilarious word salad results to try to fit that square peg into a round hole.
I see this fairly often, god ideas created by humans, trying to fit what is now known about the universe. Except the god ideas are quite often 2000 years old or more, so the mental gymnastics to make a 2000 year old human idea fit with 2000 years of advancement of human knowledge.
It would all be comical to me until I remember billions of people live this way and set laws and behavior based around this insane act of trying to make a 2000 year old completely unevidenced idea work.
Nope. I believe the corporeal world is independent of god, but God is the ultimate principle of everything IN the natural world. This is because God exists objectively as intelligible thought, basically the supremely complete infinite set or class.
Pages