Ask a Radical Atheist

[Alric]

I think consciousness exists, in the same way other patterns in nature due. Its a state or a process. However, patterns, states or processes are ultimately based on physical and quantifiable objects that can be mapped and described by animal brains. The brain, stars or the tides, for example.

I am still unclear on how this relates to the god question. There is no pattern or physical object found in nature that could be related to god. You may argue that we have not found it yet, but if this is the case, why consider it in the first place.

It might explain why god's last hiding place is grammatical ambiguities.

 

[Piscivore]

I think consciousness exists, in the same way other patterns in nature due. Its a state or a process. However, patterns, states or processes are ultimately based on physical and quantifiable objects that can be mapped and described by animal brains. The brain, stars or the tides, for example.

I agree with that.

I am still unclear on how this relates to the god question.

I've tried to explicate it, but the thread is full of noise, and as I said, it's not an easy one. I'll keep trying.

There is no pattern or physical object found in nature that could be related to god.

How about the pattern of behaviours of the believers?

You may argue that we have not found it yet, but if this is the case, why consider it in the first place.

I agree. Unobserved evidence is not evidence.

It might explain why god's last hiding place is grammatical ambiguities.

That's a conclusion masquerading as a premise, be careful with it, they're dangerous.

I am not relying on grammatical ambiguities. I've spent most of the worthwhile time on this thread just trying to clear them up. If there is something you feel I'm being unclear about, please bring it to my attention.

 

[Alric]

How about the pattern of behaviours of the believers?

If you can think of any way to link belief in god with actual existence of god let us know.

 

[Piscivore]

If you can think of any way to link belief in god with actual existence of god let us know.

That's what I've been endeavouring to do this whole time. The problem is, people have a hard time looking past the old, parochial definitions for "god".

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Piscivore, correct me if I'm wrong here, sometimes using other words and concepts help (this is words and concepts from a different POV)

Alric, I believe what he says is that minds are capable of creating ideas, and that sometimes this ideas are capable to have an existence outside the minds. Nope, nothing supernatural, nothing that contradicts what we know.

For example, "Santa Claus" exists beyond the beliefs on individuals. It exists as part of a culture. Now, if the culture dies, and every vestige of "santa claus" (this is images, writing, etc) we can say that "Santa Claus" will cease to exist, but as long as the culture remains, so it will remain.

Take a more mundane example. Table (this is a small surface with four legs). Now, suppose you invented this object because you believe it would be easier to sit in a rock in front of this table than to eat in the ground. Others will see the utility of your invent and will call it table too.

Now, tables exist as solid objects but only because they are also relational concepts (otherwise they wouldn't be TABLES and a new word and concept would have to be created). As a concept they belong to a culture and exist in a realm other than individual consciousnesses.

 

[Piscivore]

Piscivore, correct me if I'm wrong here, sometimes using other words and concepts help (this is words and concepts from a different POV)

Alric, I believe what he says is that minds are capable of creating ideas, and that sometimes this ideas are capable to have an existence outside the minds any individual mind. Nope, nothing supernatural, nothing that contradicts what we know.

With that minor correction, yes. That's just one element, though.

For example, "Santa Claus" exists beyond the beliefs on individuals. It exists as part of a culture. Now, if the culture dies, and every vestige of "santa claus" (this is images, writing, etc) we can say that "Santa Claus" will cease to exist, but as long as the culture remains, so it will remain.

I've used that exact analogy myself.

...exist in a realm other than individual consciousnesses.

That's going a little too far into Plato for me.

A better analogy would be one of those big signs in Times Square (pre plasma TVs) made up of millions of individual light bulbs, that can display any picture you want by lighting and darkening the bulbs in a pattern. The individual bulbs don't matter- they can be replaced, and a couple burned out bulbs here or there won't disrupt the picture overmuch, but the picture, the pattern, cannot exist apart from the bulbs as a whole. At least, not so it can have an effect on things (in this case, the people who see the sign, perceive the picture, and react to it) outside the bulbs.

 

[Tricky]

I agree. Unobserved evidence is not evidence.

I must disagree with you here, Fishophage. If you can describe what evidence will look like when it is discovered, then if it exists, it is evidence.

For example, if you thought that there was a link between two groups of animals, you might say that you hypothesize that there is was a species that had some characteristics of both groups. If indeed such a fossil does exist, it is undiscovered evidence for your hypothesis.

And of course, consider a forensic crew that goes to the scene of the crime to collect evidence. The evidence is there, they just have to collect it.

Yeah, a minor point I know, but semantics is so exciting!

 

[Piscivore]

I must disagree with you here, Fishophage. If you can describe what evidence will look like when it is discovered, then if it exists is found, it is evidence.

Fixed. What you think the evidence will look like is another hypothesis, not evidence itself. Take Piggy's phlogiston example. The men of science of that day hypothesized it existed, went looking for it. They thought it was evidence they just hadn't found yet. It wasn't. When they observed its absence, though- that was evidence.

For example, if you thought that there was a link between two groups of animals, you might say that you hypothesize that there is was a species that had some characteristics of both groups. If indeed such a fossil does exist, it is undiscovered evidence for your hypothesis.

And if it doesn't exist, it isn't. And if you haven't found it, you cannot assume it exists- except hypothetically.

And of course, consider a forensic crew that goes to the scene of the crime to collect evidence. The evidence is there, they just have to collect it.

In other words, observe it.

You can't bring the fingerprints or the murder weapon you didn't find into court, or put the DNA samples you didn't collect before the peer review commitee.

Yeah, a minor point I know, but semantics is so exciting!

Indeed. I let the poetry of repeated terms get the better of accuracy. I should have better said "undiscovered data is not evidence". That's what unobserved "evidence" is, a point of data, meaningless unobserved.

ETA: At skeptigirl's request, I recently put up a lengthy post on this very topic in another thread.

 

[Tricky]

I'm not in the mood for fighting about this. I think that observation doesn't change the nature of a thing into evidence. I can understand why you do, but our difference is purely semantics. You will simply have to go through life knowing you were wrong.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I'm not in the mood for fighting about this. I think that observation doesn't change the nature of a thing into evidence. I can understand why you do, but our difference is purely semantics. You will simply have to go through life knowing you were wrong.

You have to read later his answer on that thread. That said, let me attempt to put it in other words. Observation does not change the object as it is beyond us, but we do not relate to the object as it is, we relate to the object using concepts, desires, needs, particular senses, etc. In this sense, "evidence" is a relation, not a thing, and the object is one of the ingredients, and nothing else.

 

[Alric]

The above is not true.

 

[Tricky]

You have to read later his answer on that thread. That said, let me attempt to put it in other words. Observation does not change the object as it is beyond us, but we do not relate to the object as it is, we relate to the object using concepts, desires, needs, particular senses, etc. In this sense, "evidence" is a relation, not a thing, and the object is one of the ingredients, and nothing else.

What is it before it is evidence? Does anything about the thing that you are now calling "evidence" change? I say no. You now making your first observation of a thing that was previously there. So is the thing you are observing the evidence, or is it you that are the evidence? Because "you" are the only thing that has changed.

 

[Piscivore]

What is it before it is evidence?

The same thing as it was after, whatever that was. "Evidence" is a human judgement, not an inherent quality of the object.

Does anything about the thing that you are now calling "evidence" change? I say no. You now making your first observation of a thing that was previously there. So is the thing you are observing the evidence, or is it you that are the evidence? Because "you" are the only thing that has changed.

Who said anything changed?

I addressed this point just now in the other thread.

 

[Tricky]

The same thing as it was after, whatever that was. "Evidence" is a human judgement, not an inherent quality of the object.

I disagree. I believe it is a fundamental property of the item. Whether or not you see the evidence or evaluate it correctly, it is still evidence.

Who said anything changed?

You do. You are arguing that by observing the object, it has changed from not-evidence to evidence, or that you have changed from not-having-evidence to having-evidence. What has changed? Having. Not evidence.

 

[Piscivore]

I disagree. I believe it is a fundamental property of the item. Whether or not you see the evidence or evaluate it correctly, it is still evidence.

You are making the same error plumjam does about beauty. Evidence means nothing outside of a human mind. The floor derives no conclusion fron the chair that rests on it. The tree learns no truths from the wind that blows through its branches. The bloody knife- without a human to evaluate the blood, whose blood it is, whose knife it is, what the scrapes on the blade signify, and how it got there- is just a forged piece of steel with a thin coating of organic molecules.

If "evidence" is a thing, then why is the absence of a thing also evidence?

You do. You are arguing that by observing the object, it has changed from not-evidence to evidence,

Fair enough, but these are just human categories, not essential properties. The same as "beautiful" and "ugly". If "evidence" is an essential property, than anything can be evidence for anything. The fossil we haven't found yet that shows a bipedal erect posture and tentacles for arms is evidence that my family evolved from molluscs, because that's the sort of intermediate form I'd expect to see.

or that you have changed from not-having-evidence to having-evidence. What has changed? Having. Not evidence.

"Having" is a verb, not an adjective. "to posess". It isn't a quality of either the possesser or the object, it is a happening.

If I have a nice piece of fish, I'm still the same person when the fish is gone, yes?

 

[Tricky]

You are making the same error plumjam does about beauty. Evidence means nothing outside of a human mind. The floor derives no conclusion from the chair that rests on it. The tree learns no truths from the wind that blows through its branches. The bloody knife- without a human to evaluate the blood, whose blood it is, whose knife it is, what the scrapes on the blade signify, and how it got there- is just a forged piece of steel with a thin coating of organic molecules.

I disagree. Evidence is essentially data. The objective and correct meaning of that data is independent of the human mind or of any mind. How do you tell what is correct from what is incorrect? Evidence. With luck and work, humans will interpret the evidence correctly. If not, they will be wrong. The evidence is still there.

This is not the same as beauty, which, by definition, is totally subjective.

If "evidence" is a thing, then why is the absence of a thing also evidence?

It isn't. The absence of evidence is "no evidence". You're falling into the intellectual trap that ID proponents set. They feel that if they can show that if evidence doesn't exist, or is faulty, then it is evidence FOR their claim. And that is wrong.

Fair enough, but these are just human categories, not essential properties. The same as "beautiful" and "ugly". If "evidence" is an essential property, than anything can be evidence for anything. The fossil we haven't found yet that shows a bipedal erect posture and tentacles for arms is evidence that my family evolved from mollusks, because that's the sort of intermediate form I'd expect to see.

What is human is the interpretation of the evidence. Certainly, evidence can be interpreted wrongly. We don't have perfect objectivity. But our lack of observational skills doesn't change what the data truly means to that idealized concept of a perfectly objective observer.

"Having" is a verb, not an adjective. "to possess". It isn't a quality of either the possessor or the object, it is a happening.

Sorry, I was trying to be all literary again. Actually, "having" in the sense I used it, is a gerund, as in "skiing is fun". That makes it technically a noun. The "having" or the "perception" is the thing you are calling evidence. And I disagree. Respectfully.

If I have a nice piece of fish, I'm still the same person when the fish is gone, yes?

Actually, you're not. You were a hungry person before. Now you're a satiated person. And of course, the fish molecules become part of you. So you are changed somewhat, admittedly not a lot.

Sorry if I'm duplicating. I don't want to read a long thread elsewhere. I want to TALK, dammit!

 

[Piscivore]

I disagree. Evidence is essentially data.

Yes, evidence is data, but an object unobserved is not data, it is just an object.
This is data:

da·ta
pl.n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
1. Factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.
2. Computer Science. Numerical or other information represented in a form suitable for processing by computer.
3. Values derived from scientific experiments.
4. Plural of datum (sense 1).

These are all kinds of information, not objects.
This is information:

in·for·ma·tion
n.
1. Knowledge derived from study, experience, or instruction.
2. Knowledge of specific events or situations that has been gathered or received by communication; intelligence or news. See synonyms at knowledge.
3. A collection of facts or data: statistical information.
4. The act of informing or the condition of being informed; communication of knowledge: Safety instructions are provided for the information of our passengers.
5. Computer Science. Processed, stored, or transmitted data.
6. A numerical measure of the uncertainty of an experimental outcome.
7. Law. A formal accusation of a crime made by a public officer rather than by grand jury indictment.

Every single one of those senses (excepting the last, strictly legal case) has to do with observation or manipulation of perceptions, not inherent qualities of objects.

The objective and correct meaning of that data is independent of the human mind or of any mind.

There is no meaning without a human mind, let alone an "objective and correct" one.

mean·ing
n.
Something that is conveyed or signified; sense or significance.
Something that one wishes to convey, especially by language: The writer's meaning was obscured by his convoluted prose.
An interpreted goal, intent, or end: “The central meaning of his pontificate is to restore papal authority” (Conor Cruise O'Brien).
Inner significance: “But who can comprehend the meaning of the voice of the city?” (O. Henry).

You are confusing data with facts. Facts are discovered after data has been evaluated, checked, tested, repeated, replicated, etc. until they can be judged evidence, and that evidence combined with other similarly tested and vetted evidence.

How do you tell what is correct from what is incorrect? Evidence.

Wrong, with repeatability, replicability, etc.

With luck and work, humans will interpret the evidence correctly. If not, they will be wrong.

I'd rather like to think the scientific method was more reliable than effort and a bit of luck. You make discovery sound like an Horatio Alger story.

The evidence is still there.

But it isn't the object. A bone just sitting there in the dirt isn't evidence. A bone that is measured to be 14 m.y.o. is data, which, when checked against other bones or retested to check against measuring (perception) error, becomes evidence.

This is not the same as beauty, which, by definition, is totally subjective.

So are perceptions, which is why science has the built in error checking. If evidence were objective and an inherent property of an object, there wouldn't be any dispute over what it represented.

It isn't. The absence of evidence is "no evidence". You're falling into the intellectual trap that ID proponents set. They feel that if they can show that if evidence doesn't exist, or is faulty, then it is evidence FOR their claim. And that is wrong.

So it is. Which is why I didn't say "absence of evidence". I said absence of a thing is evidence. The phlogiston that should have permeated every centimetre of interstellar space wasn't there. That's evidence that phogiston doesn't exist- or is there some "anti-phlogiston" to bear this "objective, inherent evidence"?

What is human is the interpretation of the evidence. Certainly, evidence can be interpreted wrongly. We don't have perfect objectivity. But our lack of observational skills doesn't change what the data truly means to that idealized concept of a perfectly objective observer.

Now we're inventing extraneous entities beyond necessity? Idealized entities? Put down the Plato and step away from the keyboard.
Cut out "objectivity" except as a verified, factual conclusion from properly vetted evidence derived from thouroughly tested observational data and there's no reason to go running for some preposterous "ideal" entity for validation.

Sorry, I was trying to be all literary again. Actually, "having" in the sense I used it, is a gerund, as in "skiing is fun". That makes it technically a noun.

I never trusted those damn gerunds. Sneaky bastards.

The "having" or the "perception" is the thing you are calling evidence.

Not quite. There are a couple of steps from "perception" to "evidence". Important, scientific steps. To just declare that perception was evidence would be as unwarranted as saying an unobserved object was. Respectfully.

Actually, you're not. You were a hungry person before. Now you're a satiated person.

Dude, you've met me, I've never been satiated.

Sorry if I'm duplicating.

Oh, that's fine. I love copy-and-pasting...

I don't want to read a long thread elsewhere. I want to TALK, dammit!

So, how was the ren faire? My family went to the one out here, but I was having a "Captain Tripps" weekend with the flu.

 

[Piscivore]

Actually, "having" in the sense I used it, is a gerund, as in "skiing is fun". That makes it technically a noun.

Oh, and nouns are not adjectives, either.