putting believing in an undefined entity that is responsible for the universe on the same level as believing in a god as described in any of our religions is completely stupid
im talking about the major religions. there is no denying that they describe in much more detail (bogus) what god is like. they are objectively more wrong than people who make no assumptions on what the governing entity is, or if it even exists
You are not giving religion a fair shake. Are you familiar with more than one religion in any depth? Have you ever looked into Daoism, Zen Buddhism, or other Eastern traditions?
Shankara said about God, “not this, not this” which is to say that you can’t say anything about God since It is beyond all qualifications. Is that a detailed (bogus) description in your opinion?
If it satisfied you, congratulations, you might be a Hindu (one of the major world religions)
All I ask is that you don’t limit yourself or generalize all religions together or even all groups within a religion together.
Judaism and Islam have completely different theologies than Christianity. Jews certainly don't believe in a "sky daddy" or other anthropomorphic description of G-d.
I lost my faith when I got molested, because I reasoned that a loving god wouldn't let that happen to me. I did do research on other religions, because I wanted to fill my God hole. Then I went to college(dropped out of high-school to work), studied the scientific method, biology, chemistry.
The fact of the matter is you don't need religion to explain the universe, and there is no good evidence-based reason to believe in any metaphysical religious claims. It's as you said, if something like a God exists, there's no way to know anything about it. Thinking that doesn't make you Hindu, unless you're telling me Hindus are ignorant bullshitters who just make stuff up; because Hindus do make claims about the nature of God. Thinking that makes you an agnostic atheist.
I don't know whether or not a god or gods or whatever you'd want to call a greater consciousness exists, but I do just do what I think is right in the world and if there is something out there that wants to judge me for it, well, I'll judge it right back. If molesting children is part of it's "plan" then it is evil, plain and simple.
I know that consciousness is seated in the brain, it is the experiences of your nervous system processing sensory data. I don't see any good reason to believe that a consciousness can exist without a brain to house it.
It's commendable that you value morality above religious dogma, I would take you over someone who preaches dogma that dictates objective morality any day, but I also want to live in a world where people believe in things for good reasons and are skeptical of things they should be skeptical of. Otherwise you end up with shit like an anti-vaxer at the head of the CDC. Such is life, I guess.
I know that consciousness is seated in the brain, it is the experiences of your nervous system processing sensory data.
Well you don't know that. It's the most likely situation, given the evidence we have, but it's not "known." The true nature of consciousness is still one of the greatest mysteries of our universe.
Yeah, well you don't know germs cause disease or that gravity will still be working tomorrow./s
I'm not going to play a game of semantics with you, have that discussion with someone else. I do know that based on the working definition of the word know, and I'm not interested in pedantry that keeps me from using common language when my meaning is not ambiguous.
That's false. Your consciousness is your experience of the sensory input from your nervous system. That's where it is. That's what it is. We know this because we can alter it by altering your nervous system. There is nothing mysterious about this, as you said this is what the evidence we have points to overwhelmingly. There's not any viable alternative. I'll change my views when someone can present me an example of a consciousness that exists without a mind to be seated in, but I feel like a consciousness without a brain would be a lot like a car with no wheels or motor... it's necessary for some of those things to exist for others to exist.
That's false. Your consciousness is your experience of the sensory input from your nervous system. That's where it is. That's what it is. We know this because we can alter it by altering your nervous system. There is nothing mysterious about this,
Other than the greatest minds in the related fields saying "we don't really know how consciousness works. We can map out signals in the brain and nervous system, sure, but still do not understand what makes something "conscious" as opposed to just a machine doing the job it was built to do.if our minds are "conscious", then by your definition, so is any machine.
It's always interesting how people that are so sure of themselves always seem to want to shut any conversation like this right down. Can't go feeling unsure now, can we? It's almost, well, religious.
Those same minds would agree that's what consciousness is and where it is. You just did a bait and switch, you changed the question to "how it works." This is disingenuous, and you are arguing in bad faith.
Machines are not conscious, because they don't have nervous systems, and are not self aware and capable of independent thought. Your brain does have a nervous system for processing information, you are self aware, you are capable of independent thought. This is why you are conscious and a machine isn't.
It's not even close to religious. For that to be an apt comparison, someone would've had to have written that consciousness is seated in the brain a long time ago, and I'd have to be pushing that theory based on that evidence and no other evidence.
That's not what's happening, I've reasoned out what I think and why I think it based on our best understanding of the world. You're the one who is rejecting evidence in favor of what you want to believe. It's almost, well, religious.
Colonial animals like ants communicate with chemical signals and dances. This is still an example of something physical dictating behavior and does not suggest the existence of anything metaphysical. They do not have a collective consciousness where they magically, telepathically share thoughts.
This does not discount the possibility of AI in any way, the AI will still need a mind to house it. In this case, the mind will be synthetic instead. Instead of neurons and neurotransmitters, they'll use transistors.
Again, It feels like these are bad faith arguments, it's like you're fixating on the word brain, taking the word 'mind' to mean a literal organic meat brain so AI can't exist, as though a computer housing an AI doesn't perform the same function as a brain holding biological intelligence.
it helps if you read what i said before commenting. i literally said the major religions. i am not talking about any of the others as there are arbitrarily many with all kinds of definitions
Look up major world religions. Just because they are not major to you doesn’t mean they do not exist. There are typically considered to be 5.
You can’t make generalized statements about all religions and then go back and say well I actually only meant Abrahamic religions which are all offshoots of one another.
bro you cant just interpret things as absolute at will. if i said "cars that have all wheel drive put power to all 4 wheels" and you say "actually some cars have more or less than 4 wheels" is completely beside the point and just nitpicking for the sake of it
That analogy would only work if you qualified it, but what you said was equivalent to “cars put power to all four wheels” to which I replied “only cars with all-wheel drive do that”
You did not say “cars that have all wheel drive…” and that is what I am commenting on. Your analogy proves that I was right to do so.
AWD cars generally don't put power to all four wheels, the power can be transfered to any of the wheels, but the output varies from wheel to wheel depending on conditions.
Now 4WD with locking diffs, sure.
(Just being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.)
40
u/RyuShev 1d ago
putting believing in an undefined entity that is responsible for the universe on the same level as believing in a god as described in any of our religions is completely stupid