belligerent drunk
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2015
- Messages
- 3,482
Was re-reading the thread and noticed another thing I would like to address.
Why? I think it is the opposite of a logical and scientific stance on such a matter. It may be (and probably is) extremely difficult to prove that something like that is purely a chemical mechanism - we would need to come up with and experimentally prove a very detailed model of how consciousness/brain works. Right now we're very far off from that goal, but that doesn't automatically mean that there is something more to our mind. If there is no evidence to disprove something, it doesn't mean that it exists. Just like there's no evidence to disprove the existence of god (and how can there be?), but that doesn't automatically mean that god exists.
I'm of the opinion that one should base their beliefs and understandings on things that there is compelling evidence for. There is no evidence to suggest that (if there is, I would like to see some!) our brains cannot be a result of chemical reactions, and that there needs to be something "supernatural" for it to all work. Sure, there is no evidence to exclude that possibility either, but that is not enough to believe in it.
I can see why humans tend to prefer to believe such things as "there is a purpose in life", "I have free will" and so on. It makes existence easier and it can also help explain a thing or two, but only on a spiritual and subjective level. You can just as easily say that our illusion of free will is a mechanism in our brains that developed as a part of our ability to analyze everything around us. It is hard to imagine a thinking device, which is able to analyze events and whatnot around itself to such an incredible extent that we're able to, but cannot and does not analyze itself.
In short, I see such a stance as saying "I believe that the Sun orbits around the Earth (although there is NO evidence to suggest that), and although it is more logical (based on current available evidence) to think that it's the other way round, I will believe in it only after my position is utterly disproven". Do you not agree that it is not a very rational way to go about believing things?
I'll believe it after conciousness is proven to be nothing more than a chemical construct.
Why? I think it is the opposite of a logical and scientific stance on such a matter. It may be (and probably is) extremely difficult to prove that something like that is purely a chemical mechanism - we would need to come up with and experimentally prove a very detailed model of how consciousness/brain works. Right now we're very far off from that goal, but that doesn't automatically mean that there is something more to our mind. If there is no evidence to disprove something, it doesn't mean that it exists. Just like there's no evidence to disprove the existence of god (and how can there be?), but that doesn't automatically mean that god exists.
I'm of the opinion that one should base their beliefs and understandings on things that there is compelling evidence for. There is no evidence to suggest that (if there is, I would like to see some!) our brains cannot be a result of chemical reactions, and that there needs to be something "supernatural" for it to all work. Sure, there is no evidence to exclude that possibility either, but that is not enough to believe in it.
I can see why humans tend to prefer to believe such things as "there is a purpose in life", "I have free will" and so on. It makes existence easier and it can also help explain a thing or two, but only on a spiritual and subjective level. You can just as easily say that our illusion of free will is a mechanism in our brains that developed as a part of our ability to analyze everything around us. It is hard to imagine a thinking device, which is able to analyze events and whatnot around itself to such an incredible extent that we're able to, but cannot and does not analyze itself.
In short, I see such a stance as saying "I believe that the Sun orbits around the Earth (although there is NO evidence to suggest that), and although it is more logical (based on current available evidence) to think that it's the other way round, I will believe in it only after my position is utterly disproven". Do you not agree that it is not a very rational way to go about believing things?