how many atheists don't think humans are just robots?

Author: n8nrgmi ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 252
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,090
    3
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    if you don't believe in god or a higher power, then you must think that this world and its creatures are just robots from cause and effect chemical reactions. i suppose this is another way of saying can atheists, and how many are there, believe in free will in a deeper sense than we are free to make choices that are based on cause and effect chemical reactions?

    it's not exhaustive proof of God, and is sort of like the complexity argument for God. but i dont know how you can look at humans and think we're just robots. it lacks common sense. 
  • janesix
    janesix avatar
    Debates: 9
    Forum posts: 1,812
    3
    3
    3
    janesix avatar
    janesix
    I don't know how many atheists belive that. None that I know do.
  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,289
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @n8nrgmi
    how many atheists don't think humans are just robots?

    I'd guess about 6.

    More seriously, n8 might want to consider the flip-side which implies that one day there will be robots with all the properties of a human, incluing consciousness and free will (whatever that is!)

    Which is harder, to imagine a human as a robot, or to imagine a robot as a human? 

    The sticking point is always 'can a robot be conscious?'  i think atheism implies 'yes', and i think I'm fairly typical.


  • janesix
    janesix avatar
    Debates: 9
    Forum posts: 1,812
    3
    3
    3
    janesix avatar
    janesix
    --> @keithprosser
    Robots are not imbued with a vital soul, and never will be. Therefore no consciousness or free will.
  • Ramshutu
    Ramshutu avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,725
    6
    8
    10
    Ramshutu avatar
    Ramshutu
    --> @n8nrgmi
    How could you tell the difference between your choices being down to the physical properties, complex iterative feedback and effects of incredibly complex chemical interactions in your brain, and the choices you make being spontaneously manufactured within your Brian with no prior interaction?

    How would they look different?




  • Ramshutu
    Ramshutu avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,725
    6
    8
    10
    Ramshutu avatar
    Ramshutu
    --> @janesix
    Robots are not imbued with a vital soul, and never will be. Therefore no consciousness or free will.
    What you’re doing here, is shutting down a legitimate avenue of enquirey, by asserting your own speculative, unsupported conjecture as if it’s somehow unchallengeable fact.
  • janesix
    janesix avatar
    Debates: 9
    Forum posts: 1,812
    3
    3
    3
    janesix avatar
    janesix
    --> @Ramshutu
    Because it is a fact.
  • Ramshutu
    Ramshutu avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,725
    6
    8
    10
    Ramshutu avatar
    Ramshutu
    --> @janesix
    There is no proof of a soul, and no proof that a consciousness is caused by a soul.

    While you may want to believe it - your desire to believe does not make your claims any more truthful.

    in reality, it is unsupported speculation that you cannot even show is possible, leave alone true: and is being used as an intellectually dishonest hammer to try and prevent reasonable intellectual discussion.

  • janesix
    janesix avatar
    Debates: 9
    Forum posts: 1,812
    3
    3
    3
    janesix avatar
    janesix
    --> @Ramshutu
    I am not trying to prevent you from having your "intellectual discussion". Discuss silliness with whomever you can get to join along with you.
  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,569
    3
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @Ramshutu
    There is no proof of a soul, and no proof that a consciousness is caused by a soul.

    Not proof that you would be content with, but certainly evidence. The nature of consciousness is verified and proven through experience which includes all of religions and spirituality and NDE's. Together the evidence is concrete. 

    While you may want to believe it - your desire to believe does not make your claims any more truthful.

    Desires and beliefs are irrelevant to the truth, to the evidence available that deals with the nature of the conscious soul. There is a science behind spirituality and creation. Exciting? yes it is...

    in reality, it is unsupported speculation that you cannot even show is possible, leave alone true: and is being used as an intellectually dishonest hammer to try and prevent reasonable intellectual discussion.

    Bull crap. Gert real Ram, you can label whatever you want speculation but spirituality and the nature of consciousness has been fully articulated. 

  • Ramshutu
    Ramshutu avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,725
    6
    8
    10
    Ramshutu avatar
    Ramshutu
    --> @janesix
    You are basically dismissing an avenue as irrelevant - based on two things that you state are true, you have no evidence for, and have as much inherent factual validity as something you just decided to make up.



  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,569
    3
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @Ramshutu
    You are basically dismissing an avenue as irrelevant - based on two things that you state are true, you have no evidence for, and have as much inherent factual validity as something you just decided to make up.

    When you make up what you believe someone else is "making up" that is intellectually dishonest. Try again by asking instead of telling. 
  • janesix
    janesix avatar
    Debates: 9
    Forum posts: 1,812
    3
    3
    3
    janesix avatar
    janesix
    --> @Ramshutu
    I didn't make up the idea of souls. How ridiculous. This idea goes back thousands of years-perhaps tens of thousands. You are dismissing thousands of years of spiritual understanding,
  • Ramshutu
    Ramshutu avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,725
    6
    8
    10
    Ramshutu avatar
    Ramshutu
    --> @EtrnlVw
    Erm no.

    Nothing you just said about the “nature of consciousness and spirituality” is factually true or valid.

    There is no compelling evidence for the existence of a soul, or that there is a deeper truth to spirituality. In fact, the evidence appears to suggest otherwise given the studies into just those things.

    Now, you may not understand how evidence works; and are simply pointing to facts or examples that are not uniquely indicative of deeper meaningfulness, as is pretty common in forums like this - but that is your lack of understanding rather than any particular proof
  • Ramshutu
    Ramshutu avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,725
    6
    8
    10
    Ramshutu avatar
    Ramshutu
    --> @janesix
    I didn’t say you invented the idea of souls. I said it has asuch validity as something you could have made up.

  • janesix
    janesix avatar
    Debates: 9
    Forum posts: 1,812
    3
    3
    3
    janesix avatar
    janesix
    --> @Ramshutu
    I apologize for my misunderstanding. 

    Why is the idea of a soul not "valid", in your opinion?
  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,569
    3
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @Ramshutu
    Erm no.
    Lol
    Nothing you just said about the “nature of consciousness and spirituality” is factually true or valid.
    According to who or what??
    There is no compelling evidence for the existence of a soul, or that there is a deeper truth to spirituality. In fact, the evidence appears to suggest otherwise given the studies into just those things.
    Thanks for the opinion, but it's ignorant and dismissing probably because you label everything in spirituality pseudoscience and mental illness not because there is no truth behind it. That is sad, but not surprising.
    Now, you may not understand how evidence works; and are simply pointing to facts or examples that are not uniquely indicative of deeper meaningfulness, as is pretty common in forums like this - but that is your lack of understanding rather than any particular proof
    Oh shut up and look up the definition of evidence or I can do it for you. It's very simple Ram.

  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,569
    3
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @Ramshutu
    I didn’t say you invented the idea of souls. I said it has asuch validity as something you could have made up.

    That depends on what emphasis you put on which sources. But if you want to correlate with something you need to look at the correlating evidence and sources that deal with that nature and experience. 
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 8,050
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @Ramshutu
    There is no compelling evidence for the existence of a soul, or that there is a deeper truth to spirituality. In fact, the evidence appears to suggest otherwise given the studies into just those things

    If this was actually the case, cybernetics wouldn't be considered a legitimate area of research.
  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,289
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @Ramshutu
    I think you could say the soul is not the immortal ghostly wotsit of certain religions, but is the 'I' in 'I think therefore I am'. 

    Of course that means 'soul' is very close to 'mind', and/or 'Self.'  Whether I use 'soul' that way will depend on whether it annoys any theists-  I am that petty.






  • janesix
    janesix avatar
    Debates: 9
    Forum posts: 1,812
    3
    3
    3
    janesix avatar
    janesix
    --> @keithprosser
    Besides being the "I" or consiousness, the soul is also the vitality of a living being. No soul, no vitality, no living being. That is not to say a soul must inhabit a body.
  • Ramshutu
    Ramshutu avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,725
    6
    8
    10
    Ramshutu avatar
    Ramshutu
    --> @Mopac
    That is a bit of a nonsequitor.

    Why on earth would the field of study related to technology augmenting and interacting with the human mind be somehow denigrated or non serious if the human mind is just a physical interaction of chemicals and cells. 

    Nothing about cybernetics relies on any supernatural claims; so denying those same claims does not change the field of cybernetics one bit.
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 8,050
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @Ramshutu
    I think that is an opinion that comes from both a narrow understanding of what cybernetics actually is along with superstitious ideas about what soul means. What spirituality is.

    But let me correct your misconception. The soul is the nous or intellect. 

    Spirituality to us Orthodox is the purifying of the intellect through the examining of the influences, tugs, pulls, motivations on our intellect that keep us from loving The Truth purely. It is the cleansing of the tool we are using to measure so to speak.

    So of a surety, we are speaking of that which is real.



  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,289
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @janesix
    Besides being the "I" or consiousness, the soul is also the vitality of a living being. No soul, no vitality, no living being. That is not to say a soul must inhabit a body.
    I'd say that view was more popular 200 years ago than it is now!  The very words  'anima' (soul) and 'animate' show how the link between soul and the differnce between animate (life)and inanimate(death) is linguistically ancient.  But these days I'd say not many people think of life as a 'vital spark' animating dead matter.  Most people now seem ok with the body being a mechanism, but not the mind.

  • janesix
    janesix avatar
    Debates: 9
    Forum posts: 1,812
    3
    3
    3
    janesix avatar
    janesix
    --> @keithprosser
    Yes, I agree that is the case(of what people tend to think these days). I think this is because we are now entering the age of aquarius, which is the age of man.