Religion: Just a Form of Brain Washing?

[pat]

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
pat wrote:

First point…Forms don’t exist. Another way of saying “forms” is design. For people to “make” anything they first have an idea of what it is your trying to make. Try to make anything with out a design. If I sent you a bunch of motor cycle parts, with no instructions, and you’ve never seen one and don’t even know what a motor cycle is, could you build it?

Even if you were able to build two brains identically there is still one big difference. They occupy different spaces, and one would see the other from a different spatial perspective. Hence, they’d very well could be similar, but they could think the same thing because they cannot occupy the same space at the same time.

I’d say it would be a toss up between a motor cycle and pitching machine with left over parts :). If you reduce forms to designs, then doesn’t that remove any doubt that it’s all man made?
[/quote]
No, you are still discovering. Even when you conceive of “new” things, they are assembled from older thoughts or notions. Try to conceive of something totally original that is made up of completely original thoughts. Humans can’t do it, or I ahve never known one to do it. All new things are built on prior knowledge.

[quote]
Let’s extend this just for fun. Say you took a person, and made two exact copies of him (copy A and copy B), again right down the quarks and electrical activity. Then you put them in temperature controlled rooms and made sure everything from the humidity to the gravity was exactly the same. Again, nothing would be too small to get exactly right here. I think that if you had video of them for however long you kept them in the room, that no one would be able to tell between the videos of copy A and copy B. More so, I don’t think there would be any difference in the things they were thinking while in the rooms. I think as long as all the conditions were identical, the copies would be identical. [/quote]

There would be still one difference…they would occupy different space in different locations. Would they do and think the same things at the same time simultaneously? I don’t know…conceivably yes, but equally conceivably no. I just don’t know how you would test something like that. Experimenting with identical twins would be as close as you could get. I think we’d need some empirical data to get us on the road to a priori discovery.

[pat]

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

I disagree. The same assumptions are present for big bang as for creation of matter by a higher power. However, big bang does not even address the origin of the matter to go bang, and as such is a theory based on no hypothesis at all.

So I think both ideas are equal in terms of assumptions, one assumption is just more developed than the other.

I don’t think so. A god would have presumably limitless power, where as the big bang would only a finite amount of energy and matter. I think to get the assumptions in the same ball park, you’d have to put limits on god, or prove that the only possible uncaused event is god.

As to where the mass and energy came from, I’d say they are more likely to spring into existence than an almighty being. Pat and I have both agreed to the idea of an uncaused event (be it god or something else), we’re debating the details now.[/quote]

The “bang” lost it’s form from the bang. Since an uncaused-cause is out side the causal chain, it’s form would not be lost after “It’s” will was done.

[mbm693]

[quote]pat wrote:

Experiences, like war can change you, with no additional chemicals introduced.[/quote]

That’s sensory input which results in chemical changes to the brain.

[mbm693]

[quote]pat wrote:

The proof or evidence is pure deduction, pure reason…This stuff is a priori not empirical. You can’t put in a beaker and swirl it around.
If you think about what an uncaused-cause is, what does it take to be an uncaused-cause. You deduce, either hypothetically, or literally, that an uncaused-cause exists. You then move on to what an uncaused-cause is. For something to be an uncaused-cause, what kind of properties must it have to be what it is.[/quote]

I was looking for a logical proof. The way it looks to me, the only quality an uncaused event needs to have to be uncaused… is to be uncaused. I can’t see a good reason to add any other characteristics to it.

[mbm693]

[quote]pat wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
pat wrote:

No, you are still discovering. Even when you conceive of “new” things, they are assembled from older thoughts or notions. Try to conceive of something totally original that is made up of completely original thoughts. Humans can’t do it, or I ahve never known one to do it. All new things are built on prior knowledge.

There would be still one difference…they would occupy different space in different locations. Would they do and think the same things at the same time simultaneously? I don’t know…conceivably yes, but equally conceivably no. I just don’t know how you would test something like that. Experimenting with identical twins would be as close as you could get. I think we’d need some empirical data to get us on the road to a priori discovery.
[/quote]

I disagree. There was no such thing as a motorcycle, until there was a motorcycle. I’ll agree that creativity is probably nothing more than recombining old ideas or information in new ways. What’s this got to do with putting together motorcycle parts?

I don’t think being in different locations would matter. There are lots of variables in physics, but location isn’t one of them. The properties at a given location can play a huge factor though. That’s why I’m saying no detail would be too small. Even one extra graviton in one of the rooms could have a huge impact on the results.

Twins would be the logical choice, but I still think they are too different to yield any real data for an experiment like this. They’re just too different.

[mbm693]

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:

in an empty sense, you might say that all math deduces to addition (subtraction being addition of negative numbers). This though isn’t really correct, because you can’t explain algebra without a basic notion such as “equals added to equals are equals”–ie, without some more advanced set theoretic properties of equivalence relations (transitivity, reflexivity, and symmetry of equality). Further, algebra requires the notion of a variable, or a type of meta-symbol in mathematics. so really, everything after arithmetic requires these more advanced set-theoretic concepts. calculus is a whole different game, because somehow you must define the operations of integration and differentiation. this is pretty complicated once you get past the hand-waving done in normal calc classes about limits and reamen sums. i don’t really understand it all myself. Finally, geometry is a whole different ball game. I don’t know how much pure geometry you’ve done, but, systems of geometry can be constructed without any numbers at all. the definitions and proofs will look a little weird to someone accustomed to seeing metrical geometry, but they nevertheless work. so in this case, not only can geometry not be reduced to addition, it has no numbers at all.

anyway, all of this leads into a good point on the foundations of mathematics. That is, (1) numbers themselves cannot be defined purely in terms of addition, and (2) the set-theoretic functions that are the basis of algebra cannot be reduced to an addition function, and (3) axiomatics play a key role in the development of higher math (such as calculus and geometry).

Really, i suppose answering the question about whether or not math is about real things comes down to the question of whether or not numbers are real. But, defining just what a number is, is very difficult. the reason i mention all of the functions and axiomatics is that often these things themselves are used to try and define “number” contextually. i’m also trying to be fair here, and give you the stuff mathematicians care about when they discuss this stuff. (unlike what some people think, i really do try to be fair and complete when i talk about things)

pure philosophers, as you can imagine, generally only care about what “numbers” are, and whether numbers really exist. this is probably the part you really want to hear about anyway, so i’ll try to overview a little.

Numbers are generally considered to be abstract entities, or “universals”. that is, the number 2 is merely abstracted away from many particular instances of 2 (like seeing 2 sheep, hearing 2 sounds, seeing 2 colors, etc…). The question of whether universals really exist or not (or, in Plato’s terms, the question of whether Forms exist, though i hesitate to make anymore then a casual link here, because plato would reject the above account of number for many reasons) is huge. while you might deny that the universal form of “2”, the number itself, exists, and claim that only particular instances of 2 exist (and further that the universal 2 is merely a product of human imagination, just like unicorns), you run into some problems with such a claim. this is a complicated subject that i’m not really prepared to discuss in detail (i don’t want to say misleading things).

the general problem though is that rejecting the universal form requires showing how the particulars can perform the same theoretical functions as the universals. in simpler terms, rejecting the existence of universal numbers requires explaining mathematics in terms of only particular instances of the numbers.

anyway, i’m sorry for not having more time, i love math. ha. anyway… given your background you should be able to handle any of the stuff i suggested.

also, i forgot about this site when i typed my first response. you might find these two articles interesting:

http://plato.stanford.edu/...sm-metaphysics/

http://plato.stanford.edu/...hy-mathematics/

hope you find those helpful.[/quote]

Haven’t forgotten about this one, just trying to read a bit before responding.

You’re definitely correct that math can’t be reduced to just addition. Whether this presents a real hurdle to it just being imaginary I’m still unclear on. I read the links and I seem to agree with Intuitionism, minus the ideal mathematician… seems extraneous so far, but I’m still reading. As to the difficulties this view presents, the article was very vague, only saying that they exist at the higher levels of math. Over the next few weeks I’ll read up on what exactly those difficulties are (this stuff takes a long time to digest). My hunch now, is that these difficulties only arise when math is used to model something that can’t exist… like an 11 dimensional object for lack of a better example.

If that turns out to be the case, I think it would be a more of a knock against the way math is practiced than against the view that numbers are imaginary. It would be like reformulating algebra because it couldn’t tell you how many angels can dance on the head of pin.

Just my thoughts for now.

[mbm693]

[quote]wirewound wrote:

How can you gauge what is accurate? For hundreds of years, the opinion that the world was flat was an ‘accurate’ opinion.

My point is that without relying on subjective value judgments, you cannot gauge that which is more accurate. Hence, determinism runs into the performative contradiction. Your argument would be no more valid than any other, in that they would all be the results of mechanical processes and chemical reactions. A mechanical action or chemical process cannot be ‘right’ in any sense of the term as a gauge of accuracy. ‘Combustion’ is not right or wrong. An apple falling from a tree is not right or wrong. It just is. The millions of microscopic explosions and falling apples that lead you to your conclusion do not differ QUALITATIVELY from the ones that lead to mine. Hence, if what you say is true, it is false, and so it is false.
[/quote]

Thinking the world was flat was never accurate, it was just widely believed. There is a world around us that has various characteristics and follows certain rules. Any thought or opinion that contradicts these is wrong. You’re correct that an apple falling is neither right nor wrong; but if one did fall, and I said it didn’t (or that it fell up), I’d be wrong.

[wirewound]

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
wirewound wrote:

Thinking the world was flat was never accurate, it was just widely believed. There is a world around us that has various characteristics and follows certain rules. Any thought or opinion that contradicts these is wrong.

[/quote]

Okay then, reconcile Newtonian physics with Einsteinien physics, and then reconcile the rules of both to Quantum physics.

Each of these contradicts the other in important ways. Which of these is wrong?

[mbm693]

[quote]wirewound wrote:

Okay then, reconcile Newtonian physics with Einsteinien physics, and then reconcile the rules of both to Quantum physics.

Each of these contradicts the other in important ways. Which of these is wrong?

[/quote]

I never said that we knew the rules, we might not ever completely figure them out. Newtonian physics is wrong, plain and simple. It’s close enough to use almost all of the time, but it’s still wrong. Currently, quantum mechanics is the best we can do for things that are really big, and special relativity is the best we can do for things that are really small (I might have this backwards but I’m too lazy to look right now), but they are probably wrong too.

[wirewound]

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
pat wrote:
Ideas, dreams, thoughts, love, etc. Are they nothing? None of them are made out of physical material.

Synapses that fire together, wire together.

…

You may continue…

I think that they are made out of physical material. Love is a particular chemical reaction. Hate is another. That’s why drugs like prozac and alcohol can literally change who you are. They cross the blood brain barrier and affect the chemical reaction going on inside.

[/quote]

‘Love’ is not a chemical reaction, it is LINKED to a chemical reaction. No one ever says ‘I feel like I’ve got an abundance of serotonin and norepinephrine.’ They say, ‘I’m happy.’ There’s a qualitative difference between the two.

Consider Tibetan monks who, through years of ‘metta’ practice, have actually increased the size and activity of the pleasure centers of their brains.

The two are linked, but one cannot be reduced to the other.

[wirewound]

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
wirewound wrote:

Okay then, reconcile Newtonian physics with Einsteinien physics, and then reconcile the rules of both to Quantum physics.

Each of these contradicts the other in important ways. Which of these is wrong?

I never said that we knew the rules, we might not ever completely figure them out. Newtonian physics is wrong, plain and simple. It’s close enough to use almost all of the time, but it’s still wrong. Currently, quantum mechanics is the best we can do for things that are really big, and special relativity is the best we can do for things that are really small (I might have this backwards but I’m too lazy to look right now), but they are probably wrong too.[/quote]

Yeah, you got them backwards. The problem is that the rules are not consistent - hence, they are limited rules.

[stokedporcupine]

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
Haven’t forgotten about this one, just trying to read a bit before responding.

You’re definitely correct that math can’t be reduced to just addition. Whether this presents a real hurdle to it just being imaginary I’m still unclear on. I read the links and I seem to agree with Intuitionism, minus the ideal mathematician… seems extraneous so far, but I’m still reading.

As to the difficulties this view presents, the article was very vague, only saying that they exist at the higher levels of math. Over the next few weeks I’ll read up on what exactly those difficulties are (this stuff takes a long time to digest).

My hunch now, is that these difficulties only arise when math is used to model something that can’t exist… like an 11 dimensional object for lack of a better example.

If that turns out to be the case, I think it would be a more of a knock against the way math is practiced than against the view that numbers are imaginary. It would be like reformulating algebra because it couldn’t tell you how many angels can dance on the head of pin.

Just my thoughts for now.
[/quote]

The articles are really only brief overviews. as you mention, intuitionist math (and an intuitionist approach to logic) runs into problems when it tries to formulate different things in higher math.

There are two general types of problems the intuitionists run into (that i can remember off the top of my head). the first are problems dealing with infinity, the second are problems dealing with proof theory.

The former stem from the intuitionists rejection of theorems that depend on the assumption of an existing infinity, the latter stem from the intuitionists rejection of double negation and the law of the excluded middle. (i can go into more detail, but i’ll leave it at that for now)

the fact is that an intuitionist based math is not nearly as powerful as a formalist conception. ie, proof by mathematical induction is out, as well as large parts of number theory and calculus. intuitionism is attractive when dealing with basic systems of arithmetic, but has serious problems after that.

your hunch is basicly the intuitionist line, but its a line that has several problems. First, how does one “intuitively” know whether or not something exists? for instance, how do you know that no actual infinities exist?

Further, even if no actual infinities exist (only potential infinities), how or why does that stop you from studying hypothetical statements about such things? mathematics after all is a general science of hypotheticals. math’s power derives from its ability to abstract and generalize.

this though is a complicated subject, i’ll try to respond more when i have time. i don’t want to short change you by doing this all off the top of my head.

[Lorisco]

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

I disagree. The same assumptions are present for big bang as for creation of matter by a higher power. However, big bang does not even address the origin of the matter to go bang, and as such is a theory based on no hypothesis at all.

So I think both ideas are equal in terms of assumptions, one assumption is just more developed than the other.

I don’t think so. A god would have presumably limitless power, where as the big bang would only a finite amount of energy and matter. I think to get the assumptions in the same ball park, you’d have to put limits on god, or prove that the only possible uncaused event is god. [/quote]

Spontaneous energy originating from nothing and matter originating from nothing, and a system that allows these processes to occur originating out of nothing? That all sounds just as unlikely as a god or higher power originating from nothing and putting in place the systems required to allow matter, big bang, and evolution to exist.

[stokedporcupine]

I haven’t really been following the whole discussion of “big bang vs. creation by God”, but I’d like to just point something out that I don’t believe has been said. (if it has, sorry)

It seems like there is one hell of a straw man being built up in this discussion of the big bang.

It has been said in the discussion that since the big bang does not address the question of where the matter came from before the bang, that it unsupported. For instance:

[quote]
Spontaneous energy originating from nothing and matter originating from nothing, and a system that allows these processes to occur originating out of nothing? That all sounds just as unlikely as a god or higher power originating from nothing and putting in place the systems required to allow matter, big bang, and evolution to exist. [/quote]

The problem is though that the big bang is not some ad hoc, unsupported hypothesis that the minds of godless astrophysicists have merely conjured up. Rather, the theory is a complicated conclusion derived from physical observation and our knowledge of the propagation of light.

In effect, the “big bang” is an event retrodicted from observation and relativity theory. It is a logical consequence–a classic example of Hemple’s deductive nomilogical model of theory development.

What this in effect means is that “disproving” the big bang involves showing where and how the models that retrodict it go wrong. merely hand waving about it’s absurdity does no good.

Further, of course there are many questions about the origin of the universe that the big bang doesn’t answer. That though does not discredit the huge physical and theoretical evidence pointing to such an event. Any honest scientist will freely admit this.

Even suggesting that the big bang, a theory backed by well accepted physics and observation, is on the same evidential level as creationism is absurd. Show me the observation, laws of physics, and models that predict creation, and i’ll concede.

[pat]

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
pat wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
pat wrote:

No, you are still discovering. Even when you conceive of “new” things, they are assembled from older thoughts or notions. Try to conceive of something totally original that is made up of completely original thoughts. Humans can’t do it, or I ahve never known one to do it. All new things are built on prior knowledge.

There would be still one difference…they would occupy different space in different locations. Would they do and think the same things at the same time simultaneously? I don’t know…conceivably yes, but equally conceivably no.

I just don’t know how you would test something like that. Experimenting with identical twins would be as close as you could get. I think we’d need some empirical data to get us on the road to a priori discovery.

I disagree. There was no such thing as a motorcycle, until there was a motorcycle. I’ll agree that creativity is probably nothing more than recombining old ideas or information in new ways. What’s this got to do with putting together motorcycle parts?
[/quote]

You had to have some plan to put together the parts to make a motorcycle. It doesn’t matter if the plan was stagnant, or fluid
and came along as the parts started to come together…The idea still happens before the assembly. The idea of the motorcycle would be the form.

I don’t think being in different locations would matter. There are lots of variables in physics, but location isn’t one of them. The properties at a given location can play a huge factor though. That’s why I’m saying no detail would be too small. Even one extra graviton in one of the rooms could have a huge impact on the results.

Twins would be the logical choice, but I still think they are too different to yield any real data for an experiment like this. They’re just too different.

When conducting the “experiment” if you actually could, it is a difference that has to be noted. For instance if the two “beings” did not act the same as predicted they should, the location and space problems would have to be taken in to account as a possibility as to why.

If they acted the same in every way, the differences would then be dismissable.
The results would dictate how much occupied space would matter. In the case of gun parts of car parts, it doesn’t really matter. Biological engineering, it could be a huge difference.

[pat]

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
I haven’t really been following the whole discussion of “big bang vs. creation by God”, but I’d like to just point something out that I don’t believe has been said. (if it has, sorry)

It seems like there is one hell of a straw man being built up in this discussion of the big bang.

It has been said in the discussion that since the big bang does not address the question of where the matter came from before the bang, that it unsupported. For instance:

Spontaneous energy originating from nothing and matter originating from nothing, and a system that allows these processes to occur originating out of nothing? That all sounds just as unlikely as a god or higher power originating from nothing and putting in place the systems required to allow matter, big bang, and evolution to exist.

The problem is though that the big bang is not some ad hoc, unsupported hypothesis that the minds of godless astrophysicists have merely conjured up. Rather, the theory is a complicated conclusion derived from physical observation and our knowledge of the propagation of light.

In effect, the “big bang” is an event retrodicted from observation and relativity theory. It is a logical consequence–a classic example of Hemple’s deductive nomilogical model of theory development.

What this in effect means is that “disproving” the big bang involves showing where and how the models that retrodict it go wrong. merely hand waving about it’s absurdity does no good.

Further, of course there are many questions about the origin of the universe that the big bang doesn’t answer. That though does not discredit the huge physical and theoretical evidence pointing to such an event. Any honest scientist will freely admit this.

Even suggesting that the big bang, a theory backed by well accepted physics and observation, is on the same evidential level as creationism is absurd. Show me the observation, laws of physics, and models that predict creation, and i’ll concede.
[/quote]

That wasn’t exactly what was discussed. It wasn’t the big bang vs. creation…It was the big bang as the first cause was what was argued.

[Lorisco]

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:

Even suggesting that the big bang, a theory backed by well accepted physics and observation, is on the same evidential level as creationism is absurd. Show me the observation, laws of physics, and models that predict creation, and i’ll concede.
[/quote]

This is a nice explanation of how science works, and it’s apparent limitations, thanks.

However, The big bang was not observed, so stating the theory is based on observation is not accurate. Observation of other properties or natural phenomenon and then applying that to the big bang is assumption and conjecture. Reasoned conjecture, but conjecture all the same.

And as any scientist knows, even in very controlled studies there is still wide variability. So applying anything to other than the actual time, place, event, etc that it was observed or occurred is conjecture at best.

Disproving the big bang “model” is not a fair request. You are setting the rules and then saying we have to disprove the theory without disturbing or changing the rules, when in fact, it is these very rules that hold up the model.

Without these rules or theoretical framework the model has little meaning. So in essence you are saying; “try to knock over this chair without touching or disturbing the position of the legs that support it”

Within the “rules” set by creationists, the model has just as much “observation” and theory as the big bang, the rules are just different. And within the context of the human experience, it is just as valid.

For example; show me the positive effect that a belief in the big bang has had on someone’s life. How it has helped the person recover from illness, deal with difficult circumstances, help their fellow man, etc. Show me how it has help society and bettered mankind on an individual level and I will concede that the big bang model is valid.

Are you following my point?

[mbm693]

[quote]wirewound wrote:
‘Love’ is not a chemical reaction, it is LINKED to a chemical reaction. No one ever says ‘I feel like I’ve got an abundance of serotonin and norepinephrine.’ They say, ‘I’m happy.’ There’s a qualitative difference between the two.

Consider Tibetan monks who, through years of ‘metta’ practice, have actually increased the size and activity of the pleasure centers of their brains.

The two are linked, but one cannot be reduced to the other.
[/quote]

Nobody says that because it sounds nerdy… that’s not proof of anything.

The monks aren’t proof of anything in particular. If the parts of their brain they use the most get bigger, then I’d say that makes the brain similar to muscles. The ones that get the most work, get the biggest.

I think still think the chemical reaction is the emotion.

[mbm693]

[quote]wirewound wrote:

Yeah, you got them backwards. The problem is that the rules are not consistent - hence, they are limited rules.
[/quote]

I don’t see where the rules are inconsistent. If I drop an apple, it falls every time. We sent men to the moon because the rules are consistent (and physics at the time replicated them closely enough).

Not knowing the rules doesn’t make them inconsistent, it just makes them unknown.

[stokedporcupine]

[quote]pat wrote:

That wasn’t exactly what was discussed. It wasn’t the big bang vs. creation…It was the big bang as the first cause was what was argued. [/quote]

Ah, I’ll throw something else out there too then.

In philosophy the distinction is often made between questions that are internal and questions that are external to a language system. It’s generally accepted that different ways of talking or different language systems are fairly ontologically “contained” (if i can put it that way).

Each language has its own specific sets of meanings and rules. For example, the technical language of physics has its own set of meanings and rules, separate from that of common English.

Take a word like “time” for instance. the meaning of the word “time” and the rules for its use in the technical language of physics differ from that of common English. The main point is that different language systems are not coextensive and that translatability between them is limited.

Given these different language systems, Carnap points out that one can ask internal and external questions. An internal question is a question that is framed inside the language system about an object in the system itself.

An external question is a question that is framed from outside the language system about an object inside the system. For example, an internal question about the language of physics might be what the definition of acceleration is. Perhaps a more interesting internal question in the language of physics would be whether “power” exists.

For this question, the answer would be yes, power exists. In the formal language of physics, power is a meaningful term, and thus as far as technical physics is concerned, power is just as real as mass or matter.

An external question on the other hand might be framed in common English, and be a question about whether the conception of “power” in physics is true or corresponds to reality. Lastly, Carnap points out that these external questions are largely senseless. would could it even possibly mean to ask whether power (or anything) “exists” outside of the technical language of phsyics. (hopefully this makes sense)

Now, onto some application.

while you might disagree with Carnap’s (and the positivists in general) conclusion that the external questions are senseless, the differences between language systems and internal/external questions are important.

When you ask whether the big bang can suffice as a “first cause”, you have in effect confused language systems and asked a senseless external question. The “big bang”, though it has been popularized and explained in layman’s terms, is a technical theory formulated in the language of physics.

Asking such a question would require interpretation–of either what a “first cause” would mean in the language of physics, or what the “big bang” really means in terms of common English. The approach is normally to do try and do the latter.

Even so, the point is that one must be careful when trying to compare different language systems. You must be aware of the ontological difficulties involved in asking “external” questions of a system.