Topic: Arg 4 for Atheism: Brainless Thinkers (Read 9064 times)

Copernicus · « **on:** February 26, 2006, 01:29:48 PM »

For me, this argument is one of the strongest against belief in any gods. Gods are agents. They think, reason, plan, remember, and experience emotions just as humans do. The argument here is that neural science has shown virtually every cognitive ability to be rooted in the functioning of a physical brain. It is extremely unlikely that a mind could exist independently of its physical substrate. The mind evolves as the brain develops from infancy thru adulthood. Its ability to function depends completely on the health of the brain during the life of the organism. It ceases to exist when the brain dies. Gods do not have physical brains. Therefore, gods probably do not exist.

One further note to add here--why thinking behavior (and brains) evolved in animals. Animals, as opposed to most plants, move around in a territory. They compete with each other for resources. They need a sophisticated guidance system, and they need to be able to manipulate objects in their environments. In other words, brains are needed to operate bodies that move. The human mind is certainly the most sophisticated guidance and danger-avoidance system that we know of. It does not seem reasonable to believe that there would be bodiless, brainless beings that would evolve the same kind of goal-directed behavior. That is, human characteristics are a product of a long chain of evolutionary development that meet the survival needs of life forms on a planetary surface. There is no reason why a thinking being should exist without a body to nurture and protect.

Stathei · « **Reply #1 on:** March 09, 2006, 07:55:54 PM »

Cop, I agree with your points - but I see no reason to argue against the existence of God any more than I see a reason to argue against the existence of ghosts. The burden of proof is on the claimant if the claim is ridiculous. Even SJ can't prove it, except, apparently, to himself.

JustLiz · « **Reply #2 on:** March 10, 2006, 02:05:43 PM »

How do you explain plants turning to the sun? They don't have a brain, yet they respond to their environment.

Stathei · « **Reply #3 on:** March 10, 2006, 10:32:19 PM »

God tells them to move, CNM...

Copernicus · « **Reply #4 on:** March 11, 2006, 02:54:24 AM »

CNM, think about where animals and other non-plant organisms get their energy from and where most plants get theirs from. Wherever the sun shines, there is energy. So plants do not have the same requirements as organisms whose food moves around in a territory. I did not say that plants don't move. They just do not have the same territorial needs as organisms that have to move around to find nourishment. Brains are primarily guidance control systems, and minds are able to add predictive power to the guidance systems.

Zagzagel · « **Reply #5 on:** March 15, 2006, 03:40:02 PM »

Quote

For me, this argument is one of the strongest against belief in any gods. Gods are agents.

Probably secret agents...

Quote

Gods are agents. They think, reason, plan, remember, and experience emotions just as humans do.

Human secret agents...

The argument here is that neural science has shown virtually every cognitive ability to be rooted in the functioning of a physical brain.

*test*..*test*..we are now examining the brain of god.

Quote

It is extremely unlikely that a mind could exist independently of its physical substrate.

Hear ye...hear ye...the faith of Cop.

Quote

The mind evolves as the brain develops from infancy thru adulthood. Its ability to function depends completely on the health of the brain during the life of the organism.

Wow. Such wonderful revelations!

Quote

It ceases to exist when the brain dies.

Amazing. Where did you attain such knowledge?

Quote

Gods do not have physical brains.

Quote

Therefore, gods probably do not exist.

Dang it!! I was almost convinced until you added "probably".

Okay, me bad...just having some fun...fun...fun...

Ignore.

G.

JustLiz · « **Reply #6 on:** March 17, 2006, 10:31:58 AM »

Quote

Brains are primarily guidance control systems, and minds are able to add predictive power to the guidance systems.

What is the difference between a brain and a mind?

Our physical body moves because our brain sends signals to our central nervous system which in turn tells the muscles to contract or extend in order to move. In the absence of a brain and central nervous system, how do the cells of a plant communicate with each other so that they can all move simultaneously in response to external stimuli? A Venus Fly-Trap closes when touched. How did it know it was touched? That requires intelligence, thought, and a guidance control system. What is the plant's guidance control system?

Ragnar · « **Reply #7 on:** March 17, 2006, 10:58:01 AM »

Quote from: ChristianNoMore

Quote
Brains are primarily guidance control systems, and minds are able to add predictive power to the guidance systems.

What is the difference between a brain and a mind?

Our physical body moves because our brain sends signals to our central nervous system which in turn tells the muscles to contract or extend in order to move. In the absence of a brain and central nervous system, how do the cells of a plant communicate with each other so that they can all move simultaneously in response to external stimuli? A Venus Fly-Trap closes when touched. How did it know it was touched? That requires intelligence, thought, and a guidance control system. What is the plant's guidance control system?

Scientists are only just beginning to understand how plants move. It appears to be purely genetics. Check out this fascinating article:
http://www.missouri.edu/~news/releases/febmar01/photoreceptors.html

This is from 2001, I have not yet tried to find anything more recent.

Heretic · « **Reply #8 on:** March 18, 2006, 08:37:45 AM »

CNM doesn't understand it so, to her, a God is required.

Such a primitive mind.

JustLiz · « **Reply #9 on:** March 18, 2006, 12:11:52 PM »

Quote from: Heretic

CNM doesn't understand it so, to her, a God is required.

Such a primitive mind.

Is that the best you can come up with? An insult? Wow. Such sophistication. I am truly underwhelmed.

Zagzagel · « **Reply #10 on:** March 18, 2006, 08:58:19 PM »

We will all probably be dead before they can even figure those questions out CMN..but they have as much faith as us at times..don't they? LOL

Copernicus · « **Reply #11 on:** March 18, 2006, 10:55:42 PM »

Quote from: geegee

Okay, me bad...just having some fun...fun...fun...

Ignore.

G.

Geegee, there was nothing of substance to ignore, as you admit. I take it as a compliment that you tried to respond at all. Clearly, my post moved you in some way.

Zagzagel · « **Reply #12 on:** March 18, 2006, 10:58:27 PM »

Cop. Every post with "substance" does move me. Sometimes I say things just to get more "substance"

Copernicus · « **Reply #13 on:** March 19, 2006, 12:06:49 AM »

Quote from: ChristianNoMore

What is the difference between a brain and a mind?

That's a great question. The brain is clearly the cause of a mind, since all mental faculties are rooted in the physical condition of a brain. The mind is the thought processes--reason, emotions, self-awareness, memories, etc.--that is the core being of an individual. Religious folks usually think of it as synonymous with the "soul", and they erroneously believe that it can exist independently of a functioning physical brain. This belief, more than anything, is at the foundation of the belief that gods, ghosts, spirits, and demons can exist. Without it, almost all religions collapse. So Christians and other people of faith must defend it at all costs.

Quote

Our physical body moves because our brain sends signals to our central nervous system which in turn tells the muscles to contract or extend in order to move. In the absence of a brain and central nervous system, how do the cells of a plant communicate with each other so that they can all move simultaneously in response to external stimuli? A Venus Fly-Trap closes when touched. How did it know it was touched? That requires intelligence, thought, and a guidance control system. What is the plant's guidance control system?

As I said in my previous post, I did not say that brains were necessary for movement. They are sophisticated guidance control systems for bodies that move around in a territory. Plants are rooted entities that derive their energy source from a relatively fixed location. If an organism doesn't need to move around, then it does not need a guidance system. That is not the same as saying that it doesn't need to move. My point is that brains and minds make mobile organisms more successful at survival in their environments. Spiritual beings, not having bodies, have no need of brains. So where do their minds come from? Ours derive from the requirements of survival in our environment.

Dicoll · « **Reply #14 on:** March 19, 2006, 10:48:17 AM »

Quote from: Ragnar

What is the difference between a brain and a mind?

Would you agree with the statement that the brain is the hardware and the mind is the software that operates within it?
Dan Roper

Copernicus · « **Reply #15 on:** March 19, 2006, 11:24:07 AM »

Quote from: Stathei

Cop, I agree with your points - but I see no reason to argue against the existence of God any more than I see a reason to argue against the existence of ghosts. The burden of proof is on the claimant if the claim is ridiculous. Even SJ can't prove it, except, apparently, to himself.

I didn't respond to this earlier, Stathei, but I should explain why I disagree mildly with you on this. It is true that the "burden of proof" defense of atheism is extremely powerful and that theists don't really have a good response to it. However, it is also true that this is the most common defense of atheism. Although it doesn't actually constitute a strong argument against the existence of gods as a phenomenon, most atheists find it an almost unassailable argument against any particular god. I don't think that many theists consider this argument very compelling at all, and I also think that it isn't the strongest argument that drives atheists to maintain their skepticism.

Christian theists have what they, too, consider their most defensible positions--the First Cause/Anthropic Principle/Intelligent Design argument. How could any of this exist at all if there were not some intelligent plan behind it? It doesn't get them to a Christian God, but it is probably the easiest one to defend against skeptics from their perspective. Like the "burden of proof" defense of atheism for atheists, this argument probably isn't what really motivates them to maintain their Christian belief.

You are absolutely right that the "brainless thinker" argument is no more powerful than an argument against the existence of ghosts, because that is precisely what it is about. Belief that the mind can survive the decay and destruction of the body is a powerful motivater in almost all religious faiths. Without it, one can still believe in gods, but what's the point? Religion is not about gods, but about our selves. This is why I consider the "brainless thinker" argument to be a better attack on religious faith than the "burden of proof" argument. Intellectually and logically, it isn't as powerful, but it attacks the emotional foundation of religious belief. Since the evidence is so strong that the mind is bound to a physical medium, I consider this one of the most powerful arguments against all religious faiths.

Cogito · « **Reply #16 on:** March 20, 2006, 12:43:22 AM »

I was just about to post the following:

Quote

Quote from: Copernicus
Although [the "burden of proof" argument] doesn't actually constitute a strong argument against the existence of gods as a phenomenon, most atheists find it an almost unassailable argument against any particular god. I don't think that many theists consider this argument very compelling at all, and I also think that it isn't the strongest argument that drives atheists to maintain their skepticism.

I have to "mildly" () agree with Stathei about this. IMO the burden of proof argument is the strongest argument against the existence of gods just as it is the strongest argument the existence all other undetectable putative entities. [see: the luminous ether; the tachyon; the Loch Ness monster; etc.]

Theists (many of them, at any rate) want to believe that the burden of proof either lies with the nonbeliever to disprove the existence of gods or lies equally with both sides, nonbeliever and believer. They seem largely to be unaware that this particular interpretation of the burden of proof is unique to their claims about the existences of their various gods. When the discussion turns to the existence of any other putative entity (including the existences of other folks' gods) they hold the identical view that the rest of us hold about the burden of proof; i.e., that it lies with the person making the nonintuitive claim.

One other quick point. There is a misconception in these kinds of discussions about the nature of evidence. Evidence is usually interpreted to be either "for" or "against" certain propositions. This, however, is incorrect. Evidence is only a fact about the world as we observe that fact to be. Evidence can only be evidence for itself and is never "for" nor "against" anything. To determine whether any proposition is accurate we discover as much relevant evidence as we can find and then examine the compatibility between that evidence and the various propositions put forth to explain the evidence.

To be rational, we must then accept the proposition that best explains that evidence as long as that proposition also coheres with other beliefs about the world that we hold to be true and is itself internally consistent. [Note: We accept this proposition as true. We don't choose it, as cimics may have convinced you in another thread that we do.]

. . . when I reread this:

Quote from: Copernicus

"This is why I consider the "brainless thinker" argument to be a better attack on religious faith than the "burden of proof" argument. Intellectually and logically, it isn't as powerful, but it attacks the emotional foundation of religious belief. Since the evidence is so strong that the mind is bound to a physical medium, I consider this one of the most powerful arguments against all religious faiths.

I agree with this. A belief in theism generally isn't "intellectually and logically" driven. It's emotionally driven. Nowhere is that claim more in evidence that in various threads scattered around this board. sntjohnny, cimics, et. al., are about as logical and as rational as they come in regard to the propositions that they hold to be true about the world until it comes to their belief in Christianity. But at that point, emotion takes over and logic and rationality go out the window.

Heretic · « **Reply #17 on:** March 20, 2006, 06:10:00 AM »

That wasn't an insult CNM, it was a statement of fact. To assign the need for a god when one doesn't understand something or has no answer for a query is a primitive line of reasoning. I would venture to say when the causes of storms, lightening and thunder were unknown primitive man would attribute such things to a God or gods.

No insult was intended. However I can see how it could be easily interpreted as one. I often craft my posts in such a way when directed at such primitive thinkers/bull$#itters as yourself.

Now before you get all defensive I ain't singling you out, I equate all preaching/theological types as bull$#itters. You know, like in that Mel Brooks movie where there is a Roman unemployment office;

"Occupation?"
"Philosopher"
"Ahh... a bull$#itter! Have you bull$#itted today? Have you attempted to bull$#it this week?"

Copernicus · « **Reply #18 on:** March 20, 2006, 02:53:24 PM »

Quote from: Cogito

...A belief in theism generally isn't "intellectually and logically" driven. It's emotionally driven. Nowhere is that claim more in evidence that in various threads scattered around this board. sntjohnny, cimics, et. al., are about as logical and as rational as they come in regard to the propositions that they hold to be true about the world until it comes to their belief in Christianity. But at that point, emotion takes over and logic and rationality go out the window.

Right, and the only issue here is whether minds can exist independently of brains. If memory, consciousness, reasoning, language, mood, and emotion are all deeply rooted in the physical condition on a fragile central nervous system, then how is the mind to continue to function when that crucial structure is inevitably destroyed? And, if the mind cannot survive, then neither can any religion that sees the "spirit" or "soul" existing without a physical body to sustain it.

JustLiz · « **Reply #19 on:** March 21, 2006, 09:23:40 AM »

Quote

Since the evidence is so strong that the mind is bound to a physical medium, I consider this one of the most powerful arguments against all religious faiths.

What evidence?

Author Topic: Arg 4 for Atheism: Brainless Thinkers (Read 9064 times)

Stathei

Stathei