I certainly understand that, and didn’t mean to deny the possibility. Equally though, I can decide that there is sufficient reason to find meaning in life.
No. This not evidence of a correlation between religious faith and decreased suicide rate. My guess is it is multi-factorial. These curves are age standardized. There could be differences in the age structures that affect the curves, as different age groups have different risks. My specific experience says drug dependence, mental illness, and abuse play a role. That’s enough.
Well, not the way you put it.
My wording is like this:
Seeing that Consciousness is the most mysterious thing in the Universe, i conclude that a Universe without God would have no reason or ability to attach consciousness to evolutionary changes in neural processing.
So the fact that I AM conscious is sufficient evidence that there is a God of SOME kind.
1 Like
So, nothing about evolution or even atheism, right? You’re just making that part up, right?
1 Like
It seems that your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premise. Can you actually connect them?
Why do you see consciousness as an attachment, rather than a built-in?
1 Like
I would suggest that you cannot disconnect them, because neither you nor I know how consciousness is possible. And so, being on equally speculative ground, it is sufficient for MY use, though it may not be sufficient for your use, @John_Harshman.
Because I know enough about neural networks to know it is the complexity of neural networks that make them sufficiently important in evolution.
There is nothing about Consciousness that adds to survival… thus from an Evolutionary point of view, it is an epiphenomenon.
For Consciousness to be important, if even possible, God (as the source of all consciousness) is required.
Isn’t that a straight-up argument from ignorance? We don’t understand consciousness, therefore God?
1 Like
You don’t know that consciousness doesn’t add to survival. It’s part of the way we deal with the world. It influences how we respond. And if it didn’t, it could easily be a spandrel. You just can’t say that the existence of consciousness needs God to explain.
2 Likes
But what we understand of neural networks tells us that consciousness is just not a requirement.
And as all good solipsists know, the only person we can be sure is conscious … is ourself.
That appears to be a religious-like belief on YOUR part. I don’t think Consciousness makes my neural network work any better than without it.
We understand only quite simple or artificial neural networks. We don’t understand the architecture of the brain well enough to know how it produces consciousness. It also doesn’t matter whether it’s a requirement, only that’s it’s a possible result.
What’s the relevance of that snippet?
Do you have any basis for that belief? I don’t think you do. (Also, why do you consistently capitalize “Consciousness”? It’s not important; I’m just curious.)
1 Like
I think you are assuming the neural network from computer science and AI, rather than the biological ones.
I disagree with that.
I consistently capitalize Consciousness because it IS important.
Since I am not asserting that my logic is entailed logic, my position on God and Consciousness is of the same type used by millions of people to conclude, to their own satisfcation, that there is a God.
Your refutations are simply the same kind of refutations attempted to convince Theists there is no God. And that’s pretty much an impotent approach.
Sure… lots of people do. And your opinion is as right as my opinion.
But for your opinion to be conclusive on matter, you should be able to prove that someone other than you is Conscious. I don’t believe you or anyone can actually do that.
Prove to me that your wife or children or anyone else is conscious… and you will prevail in your counter-arguments.
1 Like
You mean you, right? Neither Patrick nor Pinker were being selective in only looking at one country.
But you haven’t offered any real data to support your claim.
I would think that given your claim, the difference between many and most is significant. Which is it?
So Pinker wasn’t hiding any of the data at all. What’s the problem?
Yes, and religion doesn’t appear to be a positive for youth that aren’t heterosexual:
Are you saying that the US is the only country that counts? Do you not realize that not all of the participants here are from the US?
Data? The idea that people outside the US are people too?
The nerve of some people!
1 Like
That seems Silly.
1 Like