A is for Atheism
March 5, 2008 · Print This Article
Atheism (a = non; theism = god) can be either a belief that no gods exist (strong atheism) or a disbelief in god/s (weak atheism, also called agnosticism).
Atheism comes out of a naturalistic worldview where the belief is that the physical world is all there is, was, or ever will be. This leads to a denial of the immaterial world regarding such things as thoughts or mind, etc. So how does one, who claims to be an atheist, account for the immaterial concepts that seem to exist, such as morals, thoughts, other minds, emotions, etc.?
I recently read a couple of blog posts (here and here) and in the first post, towards the end, this gentlemen makes such a claim. He says,
“But to be perfectly honest, I’m not an agnostic, because I don’t believe in a spiritual world or a world that is beyond human perception. I believe that matter exists, and that’s all. No Heaven. No Hell. No platonic forms. No ghosts or spirits or chakras or auras.
And most importantly, no God.
My ‘little white agnostic’ lie quieted my mother. She sat back satisfied, albeit a bit relieved. She relaxed and said, ‘Oh, okay,’ which, though ostensibly innocuous, subtextually meant, ‘Thank God my son isn’t a Satanist pedophile. At least he believes in something greater than himself.’
She was right about the latter. I do believe in something greater than myself - I just don’t think that thing is God.”
So I am curious as to what that “something greater is.” I am guessing that it must be a physical thing since he has already ruled out all possibilities that are beyond human perception. For me I find these claims quite interesting, not because I think they are silly or fallacious, but because I am not clear how one only thinks that matter is all that exists when there is abundance evidence to the contrary. The best thing for me to do will be to ask him, which I plan to do, and hopefully we will end up having a gracious and civil dialog.
miss you guys!!
A gracious and civil dialog would be ideal…but I wouldn’t count on it. For some reason, I’ve found those who claim to have the smallest beliefs, have the greatest belief in them. I’ve also found that those who claim to not believe in God or an afterlife seem to think it very important that no one else believe either.
Maybe that’s true. Not all of my experiences have been of that nature though. I’ve run across some very gracious and civil non-theists with whom I’ve had good dialog. There are always those out there, like Dr. Dawkins, who are extremely aggressive and militant, but I do not think they are necessarily representative of the whole, in much the same way, I do not believe the wacko religious people who often get the media attention are representative of my theistic beliefs.
Coming on over from PopCritics…
I’m an atheist, in the sense that I do not believe in any spiritual realm, god(s), afterlife, etc. In some people’s eyes I would be an agnostic, as I could be convinced I was wrong were credible evidence to be provided.
I can’t speak for the author of the piece you read, but I can certainly speak for myself. Matter and energy (really two faces of a subatomic Janus) are all I need for the Universe (or a multiverse of branes) to make sense. I’m fairly well versed in the theological philosophers and find their arguments lacking. To me they all read as having a deep desire to believe (thereby ensuing belief,) or an unwillingness to face the abyss without that safety net of belief.
If you’d like to know what I believe in that’s larger than myself, that would include the following:
- Shaquille O’Neal
- Starbucks
- Earth
- the Universe
Obviously, I’m kidding with the first two (three really,) but the Universe is the thing I consider to contain multitudes (unless, of course, it is part of a multiverse, in which case *that* contains the multitudes.) It IS.
It IS, and I believe it is its own First Cause. Or, more precisely, I don’t believe it *has* a cause, merely that it IS.
Thanks for jumping in R.A. (do you mind if I just call you Porter?).
Do you believe, to paraphrase Carl Sagan, that the material world “all there is, was, or ever will be?” For instance, do you believe in the mind as being distinctly different and separate from the brain?
What are a couple of things in particular that you do not believe are accurate in regards to theism?
Interested in your thoughts.
Porter’s fine. I do not believe the mind is separate from the brain’s chemical and electrical processes.
Theists, like most people, believe everything must have a cause, so there’s the infinite regression to the First Cause. Hume used that argument to show that there must be a God, as he was the place Hume ended the regression. He couldn’t or wouldn’t accept a cause-less Universe.
And please don’t get me started on modern theists and their misapplication/misconstruing of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
You said, “I do not believe the mind is separate from the brain’s chemical and electrical processes.”
How would you account for, or explain, first-person introspection? That is not a physical phenomena.
I wouldn’t go so far to say everything must have a cause. By definition God does not need a cause to exist. God is eternally self-sustaining, so to say that God would need a cause would be a nonsensical and illogical statement.
I haven’t delved into any Hume yet, but it is correct that an infinite regress is not possible. Actual infinities cannot be obtained while potential infinities can.
I’m not sure what you’re saying about first-person introspection. Do you mean how do I account for the ability to think about oneself, or to contemplate the nature of consciousness itself? Because I don’t think that’s any harder than any other abstract thought, which in turn I don’t think is radically more difficult than any sensory perception. If I’m misunderstanding you, please let me know. If I am, however, correctly understanding you, please let me know how/why you consider that to require some non-physical or meta-aspect such as “mind” to accomplish it.
While I think Ray Kurzweil is generally off his rocker these days (he wants to marry a robot, I think…) and way too optimistic about the time frame for AI to gain consciousness, I don’t think that makes his predictions wrong. I suspect we’ll see that happen in the next century or so. I believe Blue Brain is a really good step in that direction. If a computer were to be self-aware and introspective, how would that impact your perception of brain/mind duality?
I understand what you’re saying about God being eternally self-sustaining; I merely attribute that quality to the Universe (again, or multiverse) itself. Thoughtless and insensate (at least I assume it is but could be wrong) but existent anyway.
Hi Porter -
“Do you mean how do I account for the ability to think about oneself, or to contemplate the nature of consciousness itself?”
Yes, that is what I meant. I do not see how this can be done through purely physical means. For instance, take dreaming as a sign of consciousness. While the “when” of dreaming can be detected via instrumental means, the “what” of dreaming cannot be detected. In order to find that out, the person must be woken up and asked. However, if all things are physical, then the “what” should also be able to be detected as well.
Ugh - I’ve been trying to concentrate to work on a response, but my tooth has been killing me today and it is difficult to think. I definitely want to answer your dualism question - i would like to get into that discussion. It’s a hard topic when I am thinking clearly - this is making it worse - lol.
I apologize - but I do want to continue this train of thought. I will write more in response as soon as I can get the pain under control…
Ugh. That sounds terrible, Ape. Sorry to hear it. I hope it feels better soon and we can get back to this discussion.
Might I recommend a cocktail of NyQuil and Tequila? It might not kill the pain, but you won’t really care about it anymore.
Ha - brilliant.
I am really hoping the pain subsides - I’m so looking forward to hearing Dawkins speak this evening.
Hey Porter - I’m back to a semi-conscious state and well enough to jump back into the conversation.
You made a statement/question at the end of your first paragraph, “If I am, however, correctly understanding you, please let me know how/why you consider that to require some non-physical or meta-aspect such as “mind” to accomplish it.” Before I answer it, I wanted to ask first if you are familiar with the Law or Identity? Understanding that is helpful and probably necessary for the answer I will give, so that is at least foundational to my answer.
In answer to your second question, “If a computer were to be self-aware and introspective, how would that impact your perception of brain/mind duality?” I would say that it would not impact it at all. The reason that it would not impact it much is, being a software developer and writing code for a living, I know that even if a computer were to manage somehow to become self-aware (which I do not think possible) then there is still the help from an outside intelligence to kick everything off. The outside entity (developers, hardware architects, engineers, etc) still had a significant part to play in helping the computer get to a state where it becomes “aware.” Even if it is to use some sort of Artificial Intelligence, in order for it to get to that point required outside intelligence and data injected in the form of code and complex algorithms to get it going in the proper direction.
Regardless of how it accomplishes it, the computer undoubtedly requires help from a ‘higher power’ - in this case, the team of engineers, developers, etc. that work on the project.
Sure, I’m familiar with the Law.
I too am a software engineer by trade, but the sort of software we write (I’m assuming you develop either application or infrastructure software as most all of us do) is very different from the work of AI practitioners. In the case of the latter, they generate simple rules for small agents and leave them to interact and build up complex systems. While it’s true engineers design the initial parameters, the system evolves on its own. I suppose one could still consider those engineers as being the first cause for the system, but that’s a bit different from assuming they’ve designed the intelligence and self-awareness in themselves.
The greater point I was attempting to make about computer self-awareness, however, is not whether it occurred by chance or through design, but how it impacted your view of brain/mind duality. In the case of sentient AI - which I do believe we’ll see within the next century - do you believe a mind will exist separate from the software?
To answer the question simply, I would say no, I do not believe that mind will exist separate from the software only because I do not believe that a mental substance is able to emerge from a material substance. Therefore, whether it is the next century or the next several hundred or thousand centuries, I do not envision this occurring regardless of how sophisticated the machines and software becomes.
I guess the question is what properties would have to exist in order to verify that mind is present and in what ways are those different from the material (software/hardware)?
See, that’s the problem. As I don’t see the mind as separate from the brain, I have no problem seeing consciousness arising out of software/hardware. As for the properties that would have to exist, passing the Turing test would be a good first start. Beyond that, it would need to respond to interaction the same way as another sentient being.
How do you verify that anyone other than yourself has a mind?
Actually, before I answer, there is some clearing up I might need to correctly understand your positions.
Towards the beginning of the conversation you made the following statement: “I do not believe the mind is separate from the brain’s chemical and electrical processes.”
In your last post you say: “As I don’t see the mind as separate from the brain, I have no problem seeing consciousness arising out of software/hardware. ”
These are similar statements but not the exact same thing. This is why I asked about your familiarity with the Law of Identity earlier. For consciousness to “arise” out of software/hardware would imply that consciousness is distinct from software/hardware. Therefore these two things are not the same, but in fact separate.
The Law of Identity states: In general, if “two” things are identical, then whatever is true of the one is true of the other, since in reality only one thing is being discussed. However, if something is true of the one which is not true of the other, then they are two things and not one.
In symbolical logic it can be expressed as follows:
(x) (y) [(x=y) -> (P) (Px -> Py)]
This breaks down as follows, for any entities x and y, if x and y are really the same thing, then for any property P, P is true of x if and only if P is true of y.
In our terms if mind is the same as brain then they share exactly the same properties, no more, no less, and no different. But if a property is found in mind that is not possessed by the brain, then we are speaking of two distinct entities and not the same entity.
Sorry for my imprecise language. To clarify my point about consciousness arising, that will occur iff the complexity of the underlying system reaches a certain threshold. What that boundary value is, I do not know; however, at that point the system itself will be conscious.
Think of it as the critical mass required for consciousness to exist. Before that threshold, the brain will be unconscious; afterwards, self-aware and conscious. Since we are culturally attuned to using two distinct words for the meat - brain - and the consciousness - mind - it seems likely we will say of a sentient AI that it developed mind once it had passed the threshold. But in reality it will merely be a new property of the underlying system.
As the philosophy of consciousness itself is a contentious field of study, we may never come to an agreement about what it is or what its purpose is. But I suspect we will clearly understand each other’s positions.
But then would you agree that mind and brain are two separate entities? If they were the same then a brain, just by existing, would be mind (invoking the Law of Identity). That a threshold must be attained by the brain to become conscious, and before that time the brain is in a state of unconsciousness, then we cannot say that brain and mind are the same thing. They must be two separate entities.
I would say that two wheels were not a bicycle, but if enough parts and complexity were added than the whole would become a bicycle. Similarly, a few blades of grass are not a lawn, but enough of them together form a lawn.
The collection of grass blades is then both
- a collection of grass blades (the meat)
- a lawn (the mind)
in that analogy.
The question is one of system complexity.
Forgive me for what will probably seem a simplistic intrusion in your stimulating conversation, but I’ve been reading with fascination and would like to interject with one quick thought.
We accept that other humans have a “mind” because we know they are like us and we know ourselves to be self aware. But how will we ever know, or come to believe, that an artificial intelligence has actually reached a threshold and attained the self awareness necessary to qualify as “mind?” Couldn’t one simply argue that the AI system simply evolved a system to somehow mimic the qualities and properties we would expect them to have if they had an independent and self aware mind?
@ Porter - I think we are moving in the same direction, but correct me if I am wrong. Individual blades of grass is not the same thing as a lawn - it takes many blades (who knows precisely how many) to constitute a lawn. But a lawn is not the same thing as a single blade of grass and vice versa. The main reason for that is that they have different properties that make them distinguishable from one another which allows us to speak of a blade of grass and a lawn without confusing the two. Therefore the Law of Identity holds in this case.
Now, to carry this over to your analogy - the blade of grass (brain/material) is not identical (not the same) as the lawn (mind/immaterial).
I do thing that the break down in the analogy is that it does not take multiple brains to create a mind in the same way that it takes multiple blades of grass to create a lawn. However, regardless of where the breakdown occurs, the fact is that the mind and the brain are two separate and distinct entities just as the blade of grass and the lawn are two separate and distinct entities.
The same would hold true for your bicycle analogy. While it is true that a bike consists of at least two wheels, one would not confuse the front with the rear, nor would one confuse the either wheel with the seat, or handle bars, or the bike frame. Constituent parts comprising a whole does not mean that all the parts are identical.
A bike wheel (substance) has certain properties (like roundness). But even the front and the rear wheel are distinct from one another both relationally (front and back) as well as properties (the rear wheel will have sprockets for the chains while the front wheel does not), therefore they are not identical even though the share some properties together. In order for them to be identical, they must share all the same exact properties between them (as the Law of Identity stipulates).
There’s nothing simplistic about that question at all, Jason. I think the most central problem to consciousness study involves figuring out what it looks like from the outside. Descartes knew he existed only because he knew he thought. Further back, Eastern mystics argued (fancifully I suspect) that all reality was a dream of one observer. The nature of consciousness is elusive.
I think the best we can do is trust our guts. I believe I’m conscious, and I believe others who exhibit certain behaviors are likewise conscious. I’m predisposed to believe that any AI that passed the Turing test would probably be conscious. At least, it would make sense to interact with it that way (lest its killer robots grew angry with me.) Searle’s Chinese Room argument takes some of the predictive air out of Turing, but if my interactions with that room appear to me no different from my interactions with a speaker of Chinese, I’d either have to conclude that it was conscious, or that it acted exactly as though it were.
@T.A. We are close. The only correction I’d make in your understanding of my analogy was that I was trying to say that…
collection of grass blades : brain :: lawn : mind.
Porter -
Regardless of the simplicity or complexity of the code the AI practitioners write, the intelligence of the computer is still front-loaded in the sense that the sentient-like behavior it might produce is still traced back to code. Searle pointed this out by putting forth the following argument:
1. Programs are purely formal (syntactic).
2. Human minds have mental contents (semantics).
3. Syntax by itself is neither constitutive of, nor sufficient for, semantic content.
4. Therefore, programs by themselves are not constitutive of nor sufficient for minds.
By formal (syntactic) Searle meant that computer operations respond to the “explicit form of the strings of symbols, not to the meaning of the symbols. Minds on the other hand have states with meaning, mental contents. We associate meanings with the words or signs in language. We respond to signs because of their meaning, not just their physical appearance. In short, we understand.”
The problem here is that Searle is applying his own bias in his analysis. While it is correct to state that computer operations are purely syntactic, he cannot actually know that humans actually act in a semantic way, as opposed to appearing to act that way. Put another way (credit to Clarke for the form:) any sufficiently advanced syntactic analysis is indistinguishable from semantic understanding.
As I see it, AI will be developed that can pass the Turing test and appear to all observers to be conscious, but all that will really do is clearly delineate the line between those who see mind and brain as two aspects of the same thing and those who see mind as something other. The former group, of which I count myself, will accept the consciousness of the AI; the latter will, I suspect, argue that it is merely a simulacrum of sentience that lacks the spark of mind.
But all of this really comes back to the original topic from which we’ve strayed. As an atheist, I don’t ascribe any special characteristics to humans that are not present, if in lesser degree, in many other creatures. Language, toolmaking, emotions, the ability to plan for the future, a sense of justice, war-making, and peace-making are all present in a variety of other species: primates certainly, but birds, cetaceans, canines, and others also demonstrate these “human” traits.
I have no clear idea whether any of these other animals are conscious or self-aware, but in many cases they appear to be. Other than in extent, I don’t see how humans differ from these other species.
Given my clear bias, how could I think otherwise?
Porter - thanks for the discussion. Yeah, none of us can shed our worldviews all that readily, so bias is always present in some form.
I read through the McGinn article. I did not check out the response and rejoinder to it though. However, I have listened to several lectures given by McGinn in the past and found him to be interesting and engaging in some areas and off the mark in other places, but that should not be surprising to you.
Just one last thought to what you just posted by Clarke, “any sufficiently advanced syntactic analysis is indistinguishable from semantic understanding.” If that is the case, then how does one know if they are speaking of syntax or semantics? Unless there is a distinguishable difference then speaking of either of them as two different concepts is meaningless.
In terms of how we are different from the rest of the animal kingdom I would offer the following: 1. The ability to reason and think rationally, and 2. The ability to think in the abstract (mathematics for one example, philosophical thought is another) are the two that I can think of immediately. I am positive that there are others, but I would have to give it some more thought.
Hey Porter - I was at Barnes & Noble tonight and picked up a magazine called Seed. They were doing a Special Issue on Blue Brain. I picked it up - I’m expecting a good read.
Just thought you might like to know.
Very cool! Let me know how it is. I check them out online sometimes, but I’ve never picked up the print version.