• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Banana, an Atheist Nightmare (revisited)

punshhh said:
Pixy's theory explains free will Ok to me, its basically a computation, if a multi faceted and integrated one.

The will is a choice or a succession of choices and for this to occur, a self is required to make the choice. The self can also be explained approximately with a computation as well, in terms of performance.
Click to expand...

In my view, the self doesn't pre-date the rest of it. Rather, it is the result of the choices and not independent. I know it "feels" like the choice is made by an independent entity, but I'm proposing that is an illusion. And we are already familiar with these types of illusions in the brain.

A couple of examples of how the brain creates a false narrative should suffice. If I touch my toe to my nose, I feel both sensations at once. But there is a nerve transmission delay that should have me feeling from the nose before the toe. If I watch as I touch one toe to another, my eyes should see it happen before I feel it. But my brain corrects the narrative.

This also happens in a suite of similar experiments where our brains lie to us about our perceptions. (Inversion glasses, 3D from 2D, moving colored dots where inbetween states are "filled in" and many others.) I suspect the brain is lying to us and creating a narrative with the feeling of choosing as well.

Here is an abstract of a study showing that decisions are made long before conscious awareness of those decisions: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18408715

From wiki:
One significant finding of modern studies is that a person's brain seems to commit to certain decisions before the person becomes aware of having made them. Researchers have found delays of about half a second (discussed in sections below). With contemporary brain scanning technology, other scientists in 2008 were able to predict with 60% accuracy whether subjects would press a button with their left or right hand up to 10 seconds before the subject became aware of having made that choice.
Click to expand...

The main article is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

If you think about it, one of the brain's jobs is to create a model of the world with good fidelity. It is advantageous to hide from awareness those background activities which do not contribute to the picture. For example, it is more useful to have an "urge to pee" rather than a direct experience of muscles in the bladder expanding, or an "urge to breathe" rather than a direct measure of blood acidity (from CO2 build-up). There are many things I could be thinking about that would overwhelm my conscious analysis -- what's the current oxygenation level of my muscles? Has gravity changed? Which direction are my feet oriented? Are both my eyes pointing in the same direction?

All I'm saying is that, at the level of awareness, there's already been a great deal of editing and processing that creates a narrative, generally true, but specifically false, and part of that narrative is a sense of an independent observer.

My claim is that there is no separate "me" in the event: "me writing this post," but that the "me" is part and parcel of the activity. I'd also point out that when there is no "me," as during a deep and dreamless sleep or anesthesia, there is also no willed activity. The agent and the action are intimately bound together. The two are always paired, even if the activity isn't visible, and nothing but introspection. I think they are the same thing and that choices aren't made by us, but are part of what makes us.

So, in a sense, we are the result of our choices, but the chooser is also created as part of the process and simultaneous with the choice.

Here is how I experience it. First there are options I am aware of. Later, I have made a choice. In-between, I can find no point where the choice is actually happening. I can only catch it after a decision has been made. So too, I can see a finger still and I can see a finger move, but I cannot access the part where the nerve transmission is going from my brain to my finger.
 
marplots said:
In my view, the self doesn't pre-date the rest of it. Rather, it is the result of the choices and not independent. I know it "feels" like the choice is made by an independent entity, but I'm proposing that is an illusion. And we are already familiar with these types of illusions in the brain.

A couple of examples of how the brain creates a false narrative should suffice. If I touch my toe to my nose, I feel both sensations at once. But there is a nerve transmission delay that should have me feeling from the nose before the toe. If I watch as I touch one toe to another, my eyes should see it happen before I feel it. But my brain corrects the narrative.

This also happens in a suite of similar experiments where our brains lie to us about our perceptions. (Inversion glasses, 3D from 2D, moving colored dots where inbetween states are "filled in" and many others.) I suspect the brain is lying to us and creating a narrative with the feeling of choosing as well.

Here is an abstract of a study showing that decisions are made long before conscious awareness of those decisions: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18408715

From wiki:

The main article is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

If you think about it, one of the brain's jobs is to create a model of the world with good fidelity. It is advantageous to hide from awareness those background activities which do not contribute to the picture. For example, it is more useful to have an "urge to pee" rather than a direct experience of muscles in the bladder expanding, or an "urge to breathe" rather than a direct measure of blood acidity (from CO2 build-up). There are many things I could be thinking about that would overwhelm my conscious analysis -- what's the current oxygenation level of my muscles? Has gravity changed? Which direction are my feet oriented? Are both my eyes pointing in the same direction?

All I'm saying is that, at the level of awareness, there's already been a great deal of editing and processing that creates a narrative, generally true, but specifically false, and part of that narrative is a sense of an independent observer.

My claim is that there is no separate "me" in the event: "me writing this post," but that the "me" is part and parcel of the activity. I'd also point out that when there is no "me," as during a deep and dreamless sleep or anesthesia, there is also no willed activity. The agent and the action are intimately bound together. The two are always paired, even if the activity isn't visible, and nothing but introspection. I think they are the same thing and that choices aren't made by us, but are part of what makes us.

So, in a sense, we are the result of our choices, but the chooser is also created as part of the process and simultaneous with the choice.

Here is how I experience it. First there are options I am aware of. Later, I have made a choice. In-between, I can find no point where the choice is actually happening. I can only catch it after a decision has been made. So too, I can see a finger still and I can see a finger move, but I cannot access the part where the nerve transmission is going from my brain to my finger.
Click to expand...

Yes that all chimes with me. I can agree that we are almost entirely deterministic and the self is illusory.

However I also consider that matter is not necessarily what it appears to be through the study of physics. Also that time and space may only appear the way they do from a limited or relative perspective. Indeed what we perceive as reality is precisely tailored to our evolutionary position and we only see what we happen to have evolved to see. The actual reality if viewed from another position might be very different, contradictory, illogical or inconceivable.

Therefore due to our acknowledged limitations I give similar weight to alternative ontologies and what this might mean for our understanding of reality.
 
HansMustermann said:
Ok, so explain what IS your version of consciousness, that that "basic" self-awareness, and awareness of the world, and awareness of abstract concepts, etc, doesn't cover.

I mean, take for example a Homo Ergaster, the first which purposefully built rafts to cross rivers on. Imagine one of those guys knapping some flint. Why? To make an axe. Why? To cut a tree with. Why? To make a raft. Why? To cross a river. Why? To hunt boars which seem to be more plentiful on the other side, where nobody is there to hunt them.

It must somehow "know" all those entities, and to follow a plan that involves entities he doesn't actually see. We're not talking a cat chasing a mouse when it sees one. We're talking a guy whose plan involves cutting a tree that exists only as an abstract concept at that point. He's not actually looking at it while making the axe to cut it down. Which in turn is to cross a river which he currently doesn't have in his field of view. And that is to hunt some animals which he also can't see at the moment. He must basically just "know" about those entities as part of the stuff he's aware of.

Better yet, consider the reasoning backwards, from seeing some animals across the river, to "I'll need a raft", to "then I'll need to cut some trees", to "then I'll need an axe." His mind must work through associations with stuff he isn't currently seeing. E.g., he doesn't have an axe to look at and go "oh, yeah, this'll work", or he'd already have one. He must work backwards through stuff that exists only as part of his world model or even just as concepts.

Better yet, these are group animals, so he must have these concepts clear enough so that he can tell someone else about it (e.g., "you go gather some vines so we can tie the trunks together"), and to operate based on such things that he was told.

Once someone is aware of and able to juggle with entities that include not just self and surroundings, but also stuff he just remember existing somewhere else (e.g., the trees on the other side of the hill), and stuff which exists only as intent, and stuff which exists only as abstract notions and instructions received from another H Ergaster, etc... is that guy not already conscious? WTH else would he need to count as conscious?
Click to expand...

Again you are describing intelligence. I define consciousness approximately as having being which knows experience. This does not include intelligence, however intelligence is likely to be an essential ingredient in more advanced forms of consciousness.
 
punshhh said:
Again you are describing intelligence. I define consciousness approximately as having being which knows experience. This does not include intelligence, however intelligence is likely to be an essential ingredient in more advanced forms of consciousness.
Click to expand...

How did we get here from bananas?
 
My brother used to do a neat trick using a needle and thread in which you pre-slice a banana without peeling it. Then, you proceed to peel the banana in front of people. The slices fall away; amazement ensues. This is also a good bar bet where you hold out a banana and a knife and bet your bar buddy that you can slice the banana without peeling it or cutting the peel. The sucker will of course take you up on the bet thinking that you intend to use the knife somehow (you never said you will use the knife--you're merely holding it while saying what you intend to do). Then you produce a needle and thread from your pocket and proceed to slice the banana, and claim your winnings.
 
Last edited:
punshhh said:
Yes that all chimes with me. I can agree that we are almost entirely deterministic and the self is illusory.

However I also consider that matter is not necessarily what it appears to be through the study of physics. Also that time and space may only appear the way they do from a limited or relative perspective. Indeed what we perceive as reality is precisely tailored to our evolutionary position and we only see what we happen to have evolved to see. The actual reality if viewed from another position might be very different, contradictory, illogical or inconceivable.

Therefore due to our acknowledged limitations I give similar weight to alternative ontologies and what this might mean for our understanding of reality.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree. What I was laying out was a version of "how it all fits in my head." I can't really claim truth, just consistency. Pragmatically, it appears that many different systems (even contradictory ones) suffice to take us from cradle to grave.

Materialism has a kind of downside that mysticism escapes. It's the loss of hope in a happy-ever-after and a sometimes interfering internal commentary. The inner monologue tends to blunt emotional reactions with what seems like an unappealing third party perspective.

So, for example, "I'm really mad" is quickly followed by, "Oh, this is me feeling mad" and it can become as distracting as thinking about how your bum looks during sex. The shift in focus ruins the enterprise.

It was an advantage when I was in the medical field, a kind of switching off of emotional content while dealing with the flowing blood or whatever. It can help in other areas as well, but one wonders if materialism and the outline I have described exchanges ignorant joy for mere satisfaction.

Still, although I hold that stance, I don't recommend it to anyone.
 
Psi Baba said:
My brother used to do a neat trick using a needle and thread in which you pre-slice a banana without peeling it. Then, you proceed to peel the banana in front of people. The slices fall away; amazement ensues. This is also a good bar bet where you hold out a banana and a knife and bet your bar buddy that you can slice the banana without peeling it or cutting the peel. The sucker will of course take you up on the bet thinking that you intend to use the knife somehow (you never said you will use the knife--you're merely holding it while saying what you intend to do). Then you produce a needle and thread from your pocket and proceed to slice the banana, and claim your winnings.
Click to expand...

That trick works with apples too.
 
Wolfman said:
Awhile ago, Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron came under fire for producing a video in which Ray argued that the banana is the atheist's "worst nightmare", because it conclusively proves the existence of God. He pointed out the a banana is perfectly shaped not only to be held in the human hand, but also to point towards the mouth as eating it. The convenient stem on top works as a 'tab' to open it, like the tabs on the top of a can of Coke.

Critics were quick to pile on and point out that the modern banana has been deliberately engineered by humans, and that the original wild ancestors of our modern banana enjoyed almost none of those human-friendly characteristics.

However, in a moment of remarkable inspiration/revelation, I've come to realize that Mr. Comfort was absolutely correct...he was just looking at it from the wrong perspective!

Evolution had no way of predicting that the modern banana would ever appear. Therefore, evolving a hand that is perfectly engineered to hold, open, and eat a modern banana would have had no evolutionary purpose whatsoever. Why would evolution have given us banana-holding hands, if there were no modern bananas to hold/open/eat? The only reasonable conclusion is that there must be a God who knew that some day, bananas would appear on the scene, and that humans would need properly designed hands with which to hold, open, and consume those bananas.

Thus, through the exercise of pure logic, devoid of any fallacies or errors whatsoever, I have demonstrated the unequivocal, undeniable reality of God's existence.

Discuss.
Click to expand...

Easy. The same way some fruit/seed were adapted by selection by predator : predator bird only get some seed with special shape as easier to get, those without that shape are only "seeded" near the original plant with a lot of concurrence, fruit with special
shape OTOH get seed spreed far and wide. Win for predator (more fruit with same shape/seed), win for the plant.


What could not be explained with evolution would be the fact that the plant banana do not have seeds. banana with seeds would be always an evolutionary advantage over banana without seed.

But carry on, the thread is funny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom