Atheism, please note the capitalisation❤️

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Sane,

Can't remember who said it  "we are becoming more intelligent but less human" I would debate the more intelligent bit but are we becoming less human.

Gonnagle.

Are we? Can we? Surely what we see just now is all too human. Despite everything we are not in some new dark age. To quote Hans Rosling

People often call me an optimist, because I show them the enormous progress they didn't know about. That makes me angry. I'm not an optimist. That makes me sound naive. I'm a very serious "possibilist". That's something I made up. It means someone who neither hopes without reason, nor fears without reason, someone who constantly resists the overdramatic worldview. As a possibilist, I see all this progress, and it fills me with conviction and hope that further progress is possible. This is not optimistic. It is having a clear and reasonable idea about how things are. It is having a worldview that is constructive and useful."

[Walt Zingmatilder]

For the bleedin' obvious? Try thinking, choosing, or acting in no time.

Mathematical truths are not minds. Jeez.

So, you can’t reference your point of view here.
I believe I suggested mathematical realism, but mathematical truth will do as an analogy of something independent of physics. I could of course have talked about moral realism, something else that militates against physicalism. In fact abstract things seem to do that anyway, which IMO is a problem for physicalism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Minds evolved to enhance the survival rates of the bodies from which they emerge.  Having a mind without a body would be pointless.

Minds can arise as you say but is that exhaustive? Dualism seems to have a problem with separating body and mind and Christianity seems to have an added issue by talking about spirit as well in an apparent trichotomy. However, concerning the fate of humans and the evolution of the individual 1 Corinthians 15.44 states that we are sown in a natural body but raised in a spiritual BODY,
suggesting that embodiment is not just a feature of the physical
IMO We could question also whether there isn’t also a mental body which is also not dependent on physics.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sane,

Touché monsieur pussycat

 https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen?language=en

Just watched it ( again ) the man is a bit of a prophet, and maybe this new AI thingy is our salvation, all the information is out there just waiting for us to access it with empathy and compassion for our fellow man, instead of greed, jealousy and envy, so just off to join the other dinosaur exhibits at our wonderful Kelvingrove museum

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dear Sane,

Touché monsieur pussycat

 https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen?language=en

Just watched it ( again ) the man is a bit of a prophet, and maybe this new AI thingy is our salvation, all the information is out there just waiting for us to access it with empathy and compassion for our fellow man, instead of greed, jealousy and envy, so just off to join the other dinosaur exhibits at our wonderful Kelvingrove museum

Gonnagle.

I noticed 2006, A great time. A period Andrew Marr and others described as the End of History.
How wrong we turned out to be but as they might say at Atheist HQ “Today is just a blip”.

[Nearly Sane]

I noticed 2006, A great time. A period Andrew Marr and others described as the End of History.
How wrong we turned out to be but as they might say at Atheist HQ “Today is just a blip”.

Did Andrew Marr use the phrase in that way at the time? It's surely much more associated with Francis Fukuyama
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Did Andrew Marr use the phrase in that way at the time? It's surely much more associated with Francis Fukuyama
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man

Yes you are right, It was a time of far greater optimism and we obviously got complacent forgetting ancestral warnings about what individuals were capable of.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Vlad,

Atheist HQ Now that brought a smile to my face😀, old Sane and Gordon never invite me to these gatherings, spoilsports

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dear Vlad,

Atheist HQ Now that brought a smile to my face😀, old Sane and Gordon never invite me to these gatherings, spoilsports

Gonnagle.

What, not even to lead prayers at the start of the session?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Vlad,

Thank you, that was a definite belly laugh😀 Cheers mate

Gonnagle.

[ekim]

We could question also whether there isn’t also a mental body which is also not dependent on physics.

In Vedanta philosophy there are 5 bodies or sheaths or koshas which need to be transcended.
.....  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosha

[Stranger]

But the presumption that the programmer could actually write his program without the need for conscious control of his own thought processes truly beggars belief.

The phrase "conscious control of his own thought processes" is still impossible gibberish. Nobody can consciously decide what conscious thoughts will occur to them.

You keep repeating this idiocy, and you never explain what you think it means. What is the matter with you?

And, yet again: consciousness and its role makes no difference to the logic that your version of free will is impossible. The entire contents of your consciousness are just as determined by the past as anything unconscious, so no matter what your silly mantra means, it's totally irrelevant.

[Stranger]

So, you can’t reference your point of view here.

I argued it directly. Did you manage to think, choose, or act in no time? If not, I rest my case.

I believe I suggested mathematical realism, but mathematical truth will do as an analogy of something independent of physics.

And I addressed it. Did you actually read my post at all?

[Alan Burns]

The phrase "conscious control of his own thought processes" is still impossible gibberish. Nobody can consciously decide what conscious thoughts will occur to them.

You keep repeating this idiocy, and you never explain what you think it means. What is the matter with you?

And, yet again: consciousness and its role makes no difference to the logic that your version of free will is impossible. The entire contents of your consciousness are just as determined by the past as anything unconscious, so no matter what your silly mantra means, it's totally irrelevant.

My reasoning is simple.
Without conscious guidance you will have no personal control over where your thought processes will end up.

You start with a consciously perceived intention to reach a specific goal.
You then consciously guide your conscious mind to reach that goal by consciously invoking thought, words and deeds.
You then consciously verify whether or not you have succeeded in reaching your consciously intended goal.

Such guidance and verification can only be achieved within your present state of mind.
You appear to infer that it can all be achieved by past events reacting within your sub conscious brain activity

[jeremyp]

...the presumption that the programmer could actually write his program without the need for conscious control of his own thought processes truly beggars belief.

Minds are not programmed in the conventional sense. They are neural networks that can change and adapt according to circumstances. You can call that "programming themselves" in a loose sense and you can say they control the way they change and adapt. I don't have any problem with any of that. The problem arises because the way they choose to change and control how they react is determined by their own existing state (including memories etc) and external circumstances. The way they choose to modify themselves is a deterministic function, a very complex one, but deterministic nonetheless.

[jeremyp]

My reasoning is simple.
Without conscious guidance you will have no personal control over where your thought processes will end up.

You start with a consciously perceived intention to reach a specific goal.

How is the goal determined? Why choose a particular goal?

[Enki]

My reasoning is simple.
Without conscious guidance you will have no personal control over where your thought processes will end up.

You start with a consciously perceived intention to reach a specific goal.
You then consciously guide your conscious mind to reach that goal by consciously invoking thought, words and deeds.
You then consciously verify whether or not you have succeeded in reaching your consciously intended goal.

Such guidance and verification can only be achieved within your present state of mind.
You appear to infer that it can all be achieved by past events reacting within your sub conscious brain activity

Your reasoning is simple indeed. That is not to say that consciousness doesn't play a part, of course, but the idea that it is linked in some way to a 'soul' which guides our thoughts and therefore is not deterministic is an idea without any foundation at all.

To illustrate the idea that our subconscious plays an important part in our thinking,  try reading this:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2015/apr/07/subconscious-mind-creative-writing-mark-haddon-michelle-paver

[Stranger]

My reasoning is simple simplistic.

FIFY.

Without conscious guidance you will have no personal control over where your thought processes will end up.

But the point is that the conscious mind is just as determined by nature, nurture, and experience as any other part of your mind, so it doesn't matter to impossibility of 'free will' what the conscious mind does or doesn't do and what, if anything, it controls.

Such guidance and verification can only be achieved within your present state of mind.

"Present state of mind" is another idiotic mantra. Nothing can be achieved is zero time.

You appear to infer that it can all be achieved by past events reacting within your sub conscious brain activity

For fuck's sake, pay attention!!! How much is conscious and how much is subconscious doesn't matter a jot to the impossibility of 'free will' in the way you mean.

[torridon]

Minds can arise as you say but is that exhaustive? Dualism seems to have a problem with separating body and mind and Christianity seems to have an added issue by talking about spirit as well in an apparent trichotomy. However, concerning the fate of humans and the evolution of the individual 1 Corinthians 15.44 states that we are sown in a natural body but raised in a spiritual BODY,
suggesting that embodiment is not just a feature of the physical
IMO We could question also whether there isn’t also a mental body which is also not dependent on physics.

Magic is not dependant on physics.  That's probably what you're reaching for, but cannot utter.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi all. I haven’t abandoned ship - just been out of the UK a lot recently.

In no particular order though:

1. A very warm welcome back from to Gonnagle from me too. Great to see you here again compadre.

2. I see that Vlad has essayed a string of lies misrepresenting pretty much everything I’ve said on this subject. There’s little point in correcting them one-by-one only for him to do it again though. As a rule of thumb however, whenever Vlad begins a sentence with “so what you’re saying is…” you can be pretty much certain that what follows isn’t what the other person said at all. See also efforts like “as P Z Myers said” with no citation, meaning that P Z Myers et al almost certainly never said what Vlad claims them to have said at all.   

3. Poor AB still seems to be lost in a world of shifting the burden of proof, oblivious to the fact that his claim that a naturalistic explanation for consciousness is “totally impossible” is his to justify regardless of whether or not he likes the explanations he’s actually given. Ah well, plus ça change eh?

Cheers all.       

[Alan Burns]

But the point is that the conscious mind is just as determined by nature, nurture, and experience as any other part of your mind, so it doesn't matter to impossibility of 'free will' what the conscious mind does or doesn't do and what, if anything, it controls.

So you must presume that we can have no control over our destiny since everything will be pre determined by the past events within nature, nurture and experiences.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hi all. I haven’t abandoned ship - just been out of the UK a lot recently.

In no particular order though:

1. A very warm welcome back from to Gonnagle from me too. Great to see you here again compadre.

2. I see that Vlad has essayed a string of lies misrepresenting pretty much everything I’ve said on this subject. There’s little point in correcting them one-by-one only for him to do it again though. As a rule of thumb however, whenever Vlad begins a sentence with “so what you’re saying is…” you can be pretty much certain that what follows isn’t what the other person said at all. See also efforts like “as P Z Myers said” with no citation, meaning that P Z Myers et al almost certainly never said what Vlad claims them to have said at all.   

3. Poor AB still seems to be lost in a world of shifting the burden of proof, oblivious to the fact that his claim that a naturalistic explanation for consciousness is “totally impossible” is his to justify regardless of whether or not he likes the explanations he’s actually given. Ah well, plus ça change eh?

Cheers all.     

Blimey, Captain Jack has only been back onshore for five minutes and he’s already spoiling for a fight.
PZ Myers popularised the Courtiers reply fallacy which suggests you don’t have to know about a topic in order to dismiss it and to say that you do is a fallacy, as you well know Captain.

Then of course there was this.

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/04/26/we-have-a-term-for-that-neil-degrasse-tyson-intelligent-design/

[Gonnagle]

Dear Thread,

WoooHooo Old Blue is back in town, good to see yer still alive and kickin, now do me a massive favour and go get those God bothererers they are daein ma heid in, God did it, naw he didnae, aye he did naw he didnae, aye he fuckin did, naw he fuckin didnae

Here's a wee list and guidance to help you on your way, no particular order ( aye right )

Gordon ( nice guy, Christian type, well he certainly acts like one )
Nearlysane ( whit is his problem )
Profdavey ( swallowed a dictionary, well every word beginning with Anthropo )
Stranger ( now watch that boy needs to watch his blood pressure )
Vlad ( serious whit is that guy on )
Alan burns ( definitely Christian, but well he just does not seem to get what that Jesus guy is all about )

The above list is not exhaustive I will try to update and keep you posted

Oh and me, don't worry about me, I know God did it, just waiting for science to tell me how

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

So you must presume that we can have no control over our destiny since everything will be pre determined by the past events within nature, nurture and experiences.

Faith really has crippled your mind. If anybody needs a reason to think religion can be dangerous, your example should remove all doubt.

Nature, nurture, and experiences has made you the person you are and the person you are is in control. There is no different 'you' that would make the statement "we can have no control over our destiny" make any sense at all. You can't, however, change the person you are. You can't want what you don't want.

And there really is no escaping the logic that there is nothing else that can possibly be a reason for any choice you make, so if any variation is possible it must be for no reason (random). Of course, it's a very complicated, quite possibly chaotic (mathematical sense), and indirect process. All the influences throughout your life change who you are (if only by a tiny amount) and it's who you have become at a moment of choice that determines what you choose.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dear Thread,

WoooHooo Old Blue is back in town, good to see yer still alive and kickin, now do me a massive favour and go get those God bothererers they are daein ma heid in, God did it, naw he didnae, aye he did naw he didnae, aye he fuckin did, naw he fuckin didnae

Here's a wee list and guidance to help you on your way, no particular order ( aye right )

Gordon ( nice guy, Christian type, well he certainly acts like one )
Nearlysane ( whit is his problem )
Profdavey ( swallowed a dictionary, well every word beginning with Anthropo )
Stranger ( now watch that boy needs to watch his blood pressure )
Vlad ( serious whit is that guy on )
Alan burns ( definitely Christian, but well he just does not seem to get what that Jesus guy is all about )

The above list is not exhaustive I will try to update and keep you posted

Oh and me, don't worry about me, I know God did it, just waiting for science to tell me how

Gonnagle.

Blessed are the peacemakers, Gonnagle.