Conciousness

So I've been thinking about conciousness. What makes our experience of life work? Personally, I believe it's something external - the human soul, that is joined to our physical experience in a simular vein to how things work in The Matrix. The bit of us that makes us who we are isn't tied to the same 3 (4?) dimensional world that our bodies are. I like to think of it being like our brain is an interface that our soul is plugged into.

However, I was thinking about conciousness as a product of merely a physical brain, and I can't resolve some ideas. These all revolve around the experience of the person rather then external person looking on. For example, if conciousness was purely physical, I should be able to walk into a room, copy myself exactly (technology permitting) and have the clone walk out and go on with my life as if they were me - because from their perspective, they ARE me (with not much gramatical sense either). However, even though they feel as though their conciousness has been continuous, I know that they are a copy. To everyone looking on, I've walked into a room, and I've walked back out. So is it really me? Well, no - because I can then also walk out of the room. But while I'm in the room, doing nothing, experiencing nothing... say I'm asleep or unconcious or something... is the clone "really" me? It's the me having the experience of being concious, but my conciousness has stopped - I'm unconcious. Or if you'd like to argue that unconciousness is not really no conciousness, then say the me in the room dies. Is the clone, who wasn't the original me, now the real me?

You may note there's been movies that has explored this idea like The 6th Day, or The Island, and The Matrix does the most well-known job of exploring the idea of a reality above this one, although I'm personally rather partial to The 13th Floor. The ideas are around, but as scientific research moves forward I wonder if anyone has actually considered this to an appropriate level. Say you could deconstruct someone's matter and reconstruct it somewhere else - a common science fiction idea that is being worked on in real science. From an external viewpoint, there appears to be no adverse side-effects, as the person on the other end appears externally to be the person who was deconstructed. But who is to say that the person on the sending end didn't die - that is, their experience of conciousness stopped at the point they were deconstructed. How could you tell?

Just something I've been thinking about...

A Conversation with a 'New Atheist'

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy."
Richard Feynman

"Intellectuals are people who believe that ideas are of more importance than values. That is to say, their own ideas and other people's values."
Gerald Brenan

I've recently, once again, been engaged in conversations with people who espouse as fact, beliefs (and I call them that purposely) gleaned from a reading of Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" and possibly some of his other works, or suggested references. This most recent conversation had a very disturbing aspect for me, in that the primary point of contention was Dawkins' belief that religion is a form of mental illness, and that teaching your children about your religion constitutes child abuse, as based on the previous claim. The conversation occurred via a forum, so I had plenty of opportunity to research my counterpoints before I replied each time. In the second last message I posted, I spent hours researching and quoting/citing references regarding the demonstrated medical advantages of having some form of religious/spiritual belief system. From my perspective, this demonstrated that Dawkins' view could be considered to be (purposefully) ignorant of the commonly accepted research on this topic. [see references 1, 2, 3]

However, the person I was having this argument with completely ignored all references I'd made in his reply, and simply restated his belief. He presented no evidence to support his point of view, other then vague generalisations, and a summary of Google search evidence. For example: "I Googled 'religion child abuse', and got over 2 million hits, many of the first few pages from science journals." These rather vague claims I disputed- most of the results I saw for this search were opinion pieces regarding Dawkins' book, and I think number of hits is fairly non indicative of common viewpoints. Especially when your search term would match an article containing the sentence "Therefore, religion should certainly not be considered child abuse."

So why is this disturbing? This person, although he'd completely deny it I'm sure, is one of the New Atheist faithful. Seizing on teachings from Dawkins and his ilk, they will defend their viewpoint with great zeal without actually knowing any of the reasons why they believe it. Ultimately the reason they defend it because of the underlying belief behind the whole movement - that "brights" are somehow of greater value then the rest of us. The following quote is by Dawkins from the Wired article linked from the title of this post:

"Highly intelligent people are mostly atheists," he says. "Not a single member of either house of Congress admits to being an atheist. It just doesn't add up. Either they're stupid, or they're lying. ..."

He seems to have covered the only two options off fairly well, hasn't he? (note: sarcasm)
To suggest that most intelligent people are atheists is certainly not something I'm aware has been qualified by research. What is the metric? The number of students in evolutionary biology courses that would call themselves atheists? I certainly wouldn't qualify under that banner, but my IQ of 136, university degree, and job designing software would suggest that I have at least some kind of intelligence wouldn't it? Or is that immediately disqualified by the fact that I also believe that our presently observable reality is not all there is?

I call your attention to the quote from Richard Feynmen at the start of this post. The existence of God immediately dispels all arguments that have been presented, because all arguments I have seen presented are based on the presupposition that God is not real. This presupposition comes from holding the existence of God up against the scientific method, which is the most stupid idea I personally have ever heard. As stated, on non-science issues, scientists are just as dumb as the next guy. And yet, Dawkins makes brash statements about God being "unlikely" and people believe him because he's a scientist. I'm qualified as a scientist - Computer scientist, that is. If I mix some chemicals together in a lab and tell you that drinking them will cure you from cancer, would you trust me? If so, I suggest you seek help. Your life may be in danger. However, this is what people are doing. Basing their beliefs about the supernatural on the opinions of someone who specialises in one aspect of the natural, and seems to suggest that anything that doesn't fit within his particular model of the universe must be fiction.

My purpose in talking about this is primarily because when I read Dawkins' and others arguments about this issue, I start from the viewpoint of them having some basis in fact, and so have to spend a great deal of time finding the necessary evidence to demonstrate that, particularly in the case of Dawkins, they are driven by misplaced bitterness and/or political agendas which overpower their sense of logic and reason and instead provoke them to present small, subjective, hand-picked subsets of data to support claims that further their cause. I would be far better served to acknowledge the truth: that these people are not interested in the truth. They present themselves as men of science in order to be heard, and then do things that are entirely unscientific to try and establish their case. What physicist when faced with an issue of biology would not ask a biologist? Why then does an evolutionary biologist speak on issues of theology? Of psychology? Surely claims about psychological effects of religion on children would be better authored by someone who had some degree of expertise in the subject matter? And yet, instead we get another "Da Vinci Code" - a work of fiction that the public chooses to believe as fact, in order that they might continue to justify ignoring the true questions of their own existence.

The following is a quote from Albert Mohler. I don't even know who this guy is, but he did a write up[4] on the Wired article I've linked, and I found his assessment below to be rather insightful:

The very fact that Wolf remains unconvinced by the arguments promoted by the New Atheists is itself significant. What Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett--along with the other New Atheists--really demand is that society must place itself in the hands of a new and militant atheistic priesthood. Science as defined by these new priests, would serve as the new sacrament and as the means of salvation.

While New Atheism will invoke science to create a false sense of objectivism, it is ultimately interested in becoming the "religion" of choice. That people will get a sense of value by adhering to its precepts. Ultimately though, science has nothing of permanent value to offer on its own. Knowledge is interesting and valuable, but if this is all there is, you might as well die a ignoramus as a genius. You're still dead. New Atheism is ultimately just a campaign for a new aristocracy of self-proclaimed "brights" with a policy of government-instituted atheism. Absurd? I'd say yes. And it seems that religiosity is not a prerequisite for identifying the absurdity of their claims.

Even those of us who sympathize intellectually have good reasons to wish that the New Atheists continue to seem absurd. If we reject their polemics, if we continue to have respectful conversations even about things we find ridiculous, this doesn't necessarily mean we've lost our convictions or our sanity. It simply reflects our deepest, democratic values. Or, you might say, our bedrock faith: the faith that no matter how confident we are in our beliefs, there's always a chance we could turn out to be wrong.
[from the linked article]

The suggestion that religion is mental illness is not only opposed by a large body of evidence, but it is also popularly unpopular. Adherence to a set of religious beliefs produces people who are healthier, happier[1], more generous with their money and their time[3], and generally of greater good to society as a whole then their atheist/agnostic counterparts.

[references]

[1] http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/186_10_210507/koe10330_fm.html
Medical Journal of Australia summary of the importance of religion/spirituality in health and well being. Links numerous other articles and studies supporting it's stance.

[2] http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt07/haidt07_index.html
Criticism of the New Atheist ideas from an acknowledged atheist, and associate professor of psychology at the University of Virginia. He argues that regardless of the existence of God, religion has been demonstrated to be of positive social value.

[3] http://www.arthurbrooks.net/statistics.html
"People who are religious give more across the board to all causes than
their non-religious counterparts"
"There is a huge “charity gap” that follows religion: On average, religious people are far more generous than secularists with their time and money. This is not just because of giving to
churches—religious people are more generous than secularists towards explicitly non-religious charities as well. They are also more generous in informal ways, such as giving money to family members, and behaving honestly."
See the link for citations supporting this claim.

[4] http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2006-11-21

The Church of Faith-Based Science

I've been struggling lately with the emergence of science as a substitute for a belief in God, and the promotion of said belief system. While adherents will deny it adamantly, the belief that humans have the capasity and facility to understand the universe from an external perspective I believe requires as much faith as a belief in God, as if you follow the logic of that idea through, it very quickly becomes infinitely recursive, as it would require us to have a capasity to fully understand ourselves and all our understanding, which in turn would require us to have the capasity to understand ourselves and all our understanding, etc. etc. Presently, the issue of this recursion is resolved with a simple "it just is", which people choose to believe. The same result is used to explain away the advent of life, and the understanding of what it means to be concious, as well as my personal favorite, where did the empty space come from? Whenever something is finite, it must be contained by something else yes? So what contains the now-believed-to-be-finite universe? Ah, we don't know - but obviously something does.

The argument against the existance of God is that his existance can't be proved using experiments which produce consistant results. Possible results are all-encompasing, and therefore aren't real experiments, which leads scientists to believe God to be "made up" as his nature isn't testable. However, that doesn't prove God doesn't exist.
In a recent video I watched of a Q&A with Richard Dawkins, someone said to him:
"The problem is that you're applying natural laws to God, when He claims to exist outside of them."
Dawkins' response was: "Well that's awfully convenient, isn't it?"
While Dawkins is suggesting that the inability to apply natural laws to God's existance is ultimately evidence of his non-existance, that is not necissarily the case. It's just a fairly typical humanistic stance to take when faced with questions that don't fit in with our current understanding. It's just as convenient to ridicule an avenue of possibility simply because you find another more appealing (and in Dawkin's case, I'd suggest "comforting", but that's another discussion...).
Here's an example:

The rules of this universe are as follows: There are three school boys - Billy, Timmy and Freddy. Billy's mum and dad work overseas, and so Billy has to talk to them on the phone. Timmy and Freddy have never seen Billy's mum and dad, and so don't believe he has parents. Billy can talk to his mum and dad on the phone, but they screen their calls and will only answer phone calls from his home phone. Timmy and Freddy can't go to Billy's house, because they told their parents that Billy lives on his own, and thus are not allowed. Obviously Timmy and Freddy are school children, and can't travel overseas to verify Billy's parents existance. For the purpose of this experiment, the boys' universe is their town.

Timmy says to Billy: "You don't have parents Billy. I've never seen them."
Billy: "Yes I do. I talk to them every night, and they talk to me. Just only on the phone. But they send me presents and stuff."
Timmy: OK then, ask them to send you a scooter. Then I'll know that they're real.

Billy goes home, asks his parents for a scooter. They send one.

Billy: See, I have a scooter. My parents are real.
Timmy: No, see, that could have been a coincidence. You might have already had a scooter, or maybe you went out and bought one, or maybe another one of our friends sent it to you. Hang on a sec. (turns to Freddy) Freddy! Come here!
Freddy: What?
Timmy: Billy says he has parents, but I don't believe him. I got him to ask them for a scooter, and he got one, but now I need you to verify my findings. Get him to ask for something.
Freddy: OK... Um... Billy - ask your parents for a soccer ball.

Billy goes home, asks his parents for a soccer ball. His parents say no, as sometimes parents do.

Billy: My parents said no.
Timmy: No they didn't. They don't exist. You're just pretending they're real. You didn't get a soccer ball, so they're not real.

Timmy doesn't believe Billy, because Billy's parents exist outside of the confines of Timmy's explainable universe. This is a simplified analogy of why the science vs. religion argument will never be resolved. Science likes problems with mutually exclusive answers. You have to find an experiment that will either come back positive or negative. This doesn't work with God, as he doesn't necissarily choose to respond the way we want him to, and in particular he's not so big on being tested. Imagine if Billy's parents were getting calls from Billy every night asking them to provide evidence of their existance? What's important to Billy's parents here? Meaningful conversation with their son, or the belief of his friends? I'm going with option one. God isn't really into satisfying sceptics, and while sceptics will say that's evidence of his non-existance, logically that doesn't work. If I choose not to answer a question for you, that doesn't mean I don't have an answer.

I'm going to take this one step further - I don't think it's the place of science to be suggesting that it can answer these kind of questions. Science might be able to tell me that sometimes my wife acts in a way I find irrational because of her hormones, it can't tell me the right thing to say to make her feel better every time. It's just not a "science" question. In the same way, science can make observations about the laws the govern the universe, but it can't answer the question of why they did, do, and will behave that way. It's just the way it is, and that's as far as it can go.

This is why I think it's important to recognise the growing number of faith-based science adherents who believe that ultimately, science holds all the answers. That our current scientific understanding shows the existance of God to be false. And most scarily of all, that steps should be taken to stop people being allowed to think, speak and act based on a belief in God, as they're "obviously deluded/irrational/unintelligent". The general consensus from the reading I've been doing seems to be that these faith-based science adherents (who would cry out in disgust at being called that, by the way) see people's right to hold a religious belief as a right to believe in something imaginary if that's what you want, but ultimately it IS imaginary, and the law, education, etc. should treat it as such. Well, I'm not up for that. I believe that God is real. Not just in my head, but that he's real in your world, even if you don't believe it. And believe me, I'm starting to get fired up about this. A short read of the forums on www.richarddawkins.com will show there's plenty of support for this idea, and as a Christian, I can see this as a possible threat to my freedom to continue to be a Christian in the way I can today.

Having just watched some short video on the above mentioned site, I'd like to prove the existance of what I describe as faith-based science adherants with the following quote from Richard Dawkins himself:

It is, of course, a very difficult question to ask how things began at the very beginning of the universe. It's very difficult to even know what the word 'beginning' even means with respect to the universe, that any scientist, any biologist, any reasonable person would accept. However, when you ask what is the
alternative - if the alternative that's being offered to what physists now talk about; a big bang, a spontaneous singularity which gave rise to the origin of the universe - if the alternative to that is a divine intelligence; a creator that would have to have been complicated, statistically improbable, the very kind of thing which scientific theory such as Darwin's exists to explain, then immediately we see that however difficult and apparently inadequate the theory of the physist is, the theory of the theologians; that the first cause was a complicated intelligence, is even more difficult to accept. They're both difficult. But the theory of the cosmic intelligence is even worse.

Well, Dick, that's your opinion. And that's just the thing - it's just opinion. Not science. But because it's a scientist's opinion, that makes it gospel in the church of faith-based science. Believing in the unprovable option you find most easy to rationalise is as much faith as believing in the one that you persieve offers the least rationalisation, but is the most universally applicable solution (which is why it's seen as being "convenient"). You want to believe that something sprang from nothing, even though it flies in the face of the rest of accepted scientific theory? Go ahead. I guess we'll all either see for ourselves or not exist in the end.