So far it is done by using arguments based on argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, for example: “You can’t prove something is impossible, therefore you must accept it might be possible.”
This is a classic example of that fallacy, they are usually used to reverse or deflect the burden of proof from a claim they are making, and onto those who don’t believe it, by implying they must be making a contrary claim.
Interestingly argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies quite often use a false dichotomy like this, where the argument presents two choice, you either accept something is possible or you’re claiming the opposite. but of course you can simply not know and withhold belief from either claim if it is asserted. This would involve both agnosticism, and disbelief. Unsurprisingly people who think this fallacy represents sound reasoning, also make the erroneous assertions that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive.
Perhaps you are not fully aware of all cellular activities, but what you are aware of is indeed cellular activity.
What I’m proposing goes beyond simply offering a yes or no answer. The potential outcomes of this interpretation of panpsychism could vary from the absence of “experience” (no universal mind) to a diverse range of consciousness forms, such as the universe having the experience of a cell, a plant, an animal, a human, or even a superhuman entity.
However, since we are currently unable to directly measure experience itself, the best approach we can take is to formulate possibilities and endeavor to discover methods for its measurement.
How am I supposed to know this if mental states can’t be measured? We acknowledge that we have mental states, and it is conceivable that matter could possess mental states under specific circumstances. The remaining aspects are merely interpretations we make.
I believe this definition does not accurately describe my problem, as it relies on the concept of ‘experience,’ which is an objective phenomenon. To explain this phenomenon, various theories have been formulated, including those proposed by atheists. However, these theories have numerous unexplored side effects. One such side effect that interests me is the potential existence of a universal mind, which is associated with panpsychism.
Therefore, I perceive this matter not as a question of belief, but rather as a choice between different explanations for an unexplained phenomenon. It is akin to selecting between string theory and an alternative theory. In this case, we are faced with a choice between the panpsychism theory and other available options.
Well, there is something important to consider here. While we haven’t found any evidence for the existence of gods, if we examine human groups across different places, times, and cultures, a consistent pattern emerges. These groups perceive their environment as an intelligent agent capable of feeling, and this pattern holds true without exception. Various deities are assigned different names, and people may subscribe to polytheistic or monotheistic beliefs, but the underlying pattern remains constant.
Moreover, if we observe human tribal groups, it becomes intriguing how diligently they avoid unnecessary resource consumption, despite allocating a considerable amount of energy towards rituals and magic. This contradicts our expectations, as we might have assumed that such behaviors would have been eliminated by natural selection over time. Instead, our observations suggest that this is a universal phenomenon.
In my opinion, it is essential for us to be cautious when assuming that we possess complete knowledge, especially when our predictions do not align with reality. Perhaps our interpretation of the facts is flawed or incomplete.
I understand that my viewpoint may not be well received by everyone, but it is quite evident that evolution does not support an atheistic understanding of reality.
The best for what? If we care more that a belief is true, than about the belief itself, then the “best” approach is to admit when we don’t know because we have no or insufficient objective evidence to support a claim, and so withhold belief, but keep an open mind in the event this changes in the future. Especially since all the objective markers for sentience only ever occur where there is a functioning brain, and disappear every single time that brain dies.
Beyond that I have read your “explanation” of why you think panpsychism evidences the possibility of a deity, and I see no evidence or cogent argument that panpsychism evidences a deity is possible, and even then your work would be all before, since possibility wouldn’t be evidence of existence.
Also the argument in the thread title is for the existence of a deity, not for the possibility of a deity, so that is misleading as well.
Except for the fact we can observe objective markers that sentience exists in animals with functioning brains, paradoxically there is no objective evidence whatsoever that this can occur in the absence of a functioning brain, and this alone is sufficient reason to disbelieve your claim.
I am not at all convinced this is true, and that is after reading every word you have posted. I am forced to conclude this is simply a subjective belief you hold, and therefor can lend the claim no credence.
You’re wrong, since this describes the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy you have used. Unless you accept it is rationally consistent to disbelieve your claim (that sentience or experience is possible without a functioning brain) without knowing or being able to demonstrate that it is untrue? Only this has not been your position throughout this discourse.
My choice is to disbelieve your claims, and panpsychism, as I see no objective evidence for it. Also to disbelieve panpsychism (even were it correct) evidences any deity, as again I see not rational argument or objective evidence to support that claim either.
This is a text book argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and as is often the case with this fallacy it is based on a false dichotomy fallacy. Since another choice you have omitted is that I can disbelieve any or all existing theories, even competing ones, without having any alternative, and to claim otherwise, as you have done here again is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
Or to put it another way, people have a propensity for unevidenced superstition, however implying this lends any credence to the belief in the absence of evidence (as you admit here), is called an argumentum ad populum fallacy. It seems you have not been reading that master list of common logical fallacies I linked for you.
Not really, one could as easily reason that religion has a survival benefit, by lending cohesion to societal groups, even though it ultimately has some negative consequences. However more importantly you are again straying into an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, where you imply a belief has some credence because we can’t offer an alternative explanation for its existence. Your claim is both facile, and irrational.
I have not seen anyone claim this? However we should also be cautious about making claims we cannot remotely evidence.
That’s pretty ironic since you are the one doing that, by claiming something exists / can exist, that we have no objective evidence for, and does not therefore reflect objective reality.
Existence noun
the fact or state of living or having objective reality.
Ipso facto, if your belief reflected objective reality, then there would be objective evidence, and you have already made it clear there is none.
This is a reason to withhold belief, not affirm it, and yet you are basing a belief on flawed (see your endless use of known logical fallacies), and incomplete interpretations (you have zero objective evidence), paradoxically my atheism on the other hand is not a claim or a belief, rather it withholds belief from claims based on this flawed and incomplete interpretation of reality.
On the contrary, that’s the funniest thing I’ve read in ages. Given that atheism is far higher among scientists, and is highest among biologists.
“According to a 1998 survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), nearly 95% of NAS biologists identify themselves as either atheists or agnostics, a percentage of unbelief far higher than in any other scientific discipline.”
"Similarly, according to a 2003 Cornell survey of leading scientists in the field of evolution, 87% deny existence of God, 88% disbelieve in life after death, and 90% reject idea that evolution directed toward “ultimate purpose.”
Now you are asking us to believe you understand evolution better than those elite biologists. I think you can see how spectacularly stupid that claim is in this context?
In other words, all you have is the usual blind, unsupported assertions on the subject.
Oh, and as for the assertion that mental states can’t be measured, I’m aware of several papers from the neuroscience literature refuting that assertion.
Poppycock. Evolutionary biology provides a robust explanation of the biosphere and biodiversity, exclusively in terms of testable natural processes, and as a corollary, treats cartoon magic men from pre-scientific mythologies as superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.
I can tell you’ve never bothered reading even elementary textbooks on the subject, let alone peer reviewed scientific papers.
Yes, yes, lets ‘formulate’ possibilities. Not just pull them out of our ass… FORMULATE: express an idea in a concise argument that is sufficiently clear that it can be formulated mathematically.
Or formulate it factually. Formulate it in some way that is verifiable instead of simply pulling it out of your ass and calling it a ‘possibility.’ How about that?
OH Fuck! Have you ever had a class in Social Anthropology or Sociology? Religion provided tribal identity, group purpose, and territorial boundaries. It gave meaning and purpose to life, reinforced social unity, and served as an agent of social control. Religion promoted psychological and physical well-being, and motivated people to work for the good of the tribe. Those who did not conform to the religious norms were shunned, banished, or killed. You are just talking your ass again. Don’t you feel stupid yet? When are you going to stop pulling shit out of your ass and flinging it about the place?
Yet, the only one who claims to have complete knowledge is you, as you assert, ‘rocks in an aquarium can have experiences.’ DEMONSTRATE YOUR ASSERTIONS!
Holy fuck!! After all this time and all those lengthy friggin’ posts, you two knuckleheads FINALLY figured it out! It’s about damn time. I was seriously beginning to worry about both of you. Quim must have the patience of a goddamn SAINT. He (she?) has been more than clear in the explanations which you two have been bumbling over like a couple of blind drunken clowns. I must say it’s a relief to see y’all have finally seen the light.
@Quim Forgive them, Quim, for they know not what they do.
[quote=“Quim, post:1, topic:4253, full:true”]In their attempts to explain this, atheists must develop theories that either propose matter can generate…/quote]
Why? Scientists (not atheists) have a fair few hypotheses to explain abiogenesis and other early stages but, more to the point, that science does not hacve a definitive argument in no way supports any religious one. All it says is, “we’re working on it”.
I am commenting here precisely because I know that this is where my ideas will encounter more resistance. So, I like to test them against people who will do everything they can to reject any logic I present. It’s challenging, but it’s the way I believe ideas should be tested. Well… actually, everything in life should be tested in this manner.
Anyway, despite their consistent attacks, I believe that @Sheldon did a commendable job in understanding my point. Therefore, I don’t consider it a total waste of time, at least not for me.
It’s incredibly humbling when someone articulates your ideas more effectively than you can.
But the real problem here, for me, is that it is extremely difficult to simply reach the first point. Every time I initiate a debate, I find myself having to explain my true intention behind the term ‘experience,’ and then I bear the burden of ensuring that someone comprehends the point. I may bear some responsibility for this predicament, but I also believe that our language remains highly ambiguous when discussing such matters. I am unsure if there exists a better word or method to explain it without encountering these issues and misunderstandings.
So what have you learned, bear in mind your arguments have been riddled with known logical fallacies? The core of your argument is based on an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy for example. It’s one to thing to want your ideas to be subjected to critical scrutiny, it is quite another to have the intellectual integrity to abandon arguments and beliefs when they are demonstrated to be irrational.
To put it as simply and as bluntly as possible:
1. Are you looking to improve your arguments because you want the belief to be true?
or
2. Are you looking to be as rational as possible and believe only what is true?
Why despite, i thought that was what you wanted for your ideas and beliefs? Also if someone does a commendable job in challenging ideas what does that infer for those ideas?
I’m glad to hear this, perhaps you could explain what you think you’ve gained, again will it involve addressing the logical fallacies and what this infers for the arguments presented?
Sometimes these things can get a little dry and repetitive, humour is a welcome distraction. I’ve learned over the years not to take myself or my ideas too seriously, now I realise that may not always come across, but if someone rubbishes an idea of mine, I tend to focus on why, rather than indulge hurt feelings. Of course this is essential for me, as I am a middling intellect, with a fairly mediocre formal education. So perhaps debate comes easier to others than it does me.
Incidentally, the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy occurs between steps 2 and 3. Step 4 is pure unevidenced assumption, as it equally might not exist, and of course it is based on a known logical fallacy that precedes it. Step 5 is again pure unevidenced assumption, and worse, it has not been demonstrated yet that a deity is possible, and not one word to define it beyond the circular reasoning of assuming it matches the previous claims about it. If my steps are very wrong beyond the deliberate attempt at levity, I’d welcome a simple & concise explanation.
Well of course, if you can’t explain it simply and concisely this implies you don’t fully understand it, that’s a given. However a far bigger problem is that you can demonstrate no objective evidence for it.
Again this presents an obvious inference, people drift into mysticism and appeals to mystery when their arguments claims and beliefs cannot be properly evidenced. There is a reason the Catholic church kept their superstitious ceremonies in Latin long after the language had died, and forbade anyone outside of the clergy to read the bible, on penalty of excommunication for heresy.
I would focus on the ubiquitous logical fallacies if I were you. or address your obviously erroneous claim that evolution can’t be explain if you don’t believe in a deity, when the evidence shows that among elite biologists atheism is almost universal. When you make a claim like that, then don’t address the facts that refute it, this doesn’t suggest you’re looking to examine your ideas objectively.
That said here is a pretty concise explanation of Panpsychism:
Panpsychism is the idea that consciousness did not evolve to meet some survival need, nor did it emerge when brains became sufficiently complex. Instead it is inherent in matter — all matter.
Problems:
In order for me to believe this (anything), it would need to be supported by sufficient objective evidence, there is none.
Since there is no objective evidence, this seems to violate Occam’s razor, since a) we know consciousness exists and we know evolution if an objective fact, and we know brain evolved, what’s being added (panpsychism) is the only part for which there is no objective evidence.
The fact that the scientific theory of evolution can’t explain consciousness is not a rational basis for believing anything at all, this NB is a textbook argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
The addition of a deity is not just pure unevidenced assumption, the expert philosophers you cited were outspoken atheists, which suggest that people who have good grasp of the it don’t see it evidencing any deity.
Purely addressing your own arguments, as I have take great pains to explain, they use ubiquitous known fallacies in informal logic, I even linked a master mist of common logical fallacies for you, until you address those your arguments that use them will get no traction, as they are by definition irrational.
HERE is the list again for you, if you do nothing learn to create arguments that are at least rational, by avoiding use these.
I was seriously beginning to worry about both of you. Quim must have the patience of a goddamn SAINT. He (she?) has been more than clear in the explanations which you two have been bumbling over like a couple of blind drunken clowns. I must say it’s a relief to see y’all have finally seen the light.