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

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 252
Topic's author
#1
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
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. 
#2
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
I don't know how many atheists belive that. None that I know do.
#3
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@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.


#4
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
Robots are not imbued with a vital soul, and never will be. Therefore no consciousness or free will.
#5
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@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?




#6
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@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.
#7
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@Ramshutu
Because it is a fact.
#8
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@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.

#9
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@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.
#10
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@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. 

#11
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@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.



#12
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@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. 
#13
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@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,
#14
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@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
#15
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@janesix
I didn’t say you invented the idea of souls. I said it has asuch validity as something you could have made up.

#16
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@Ramshutu
I apologize for my misunderstanding. 

Why is the idea of a soul not "valid", in your opinion?
#17
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@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.

#18
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@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. 
#19
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@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.
#20
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@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.






#21
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@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.
#22
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@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.
#23
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@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.



#24
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@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.

#25
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@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.
#26
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@janesix
On a more mundane level, we are very used to prosthetics these days - artificial limbs and many organs are no big deal - except obviously for the brain.
#27
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
LIke Ramshutu said, there's no proof of a soul, so I think opinion is the key character here in this interesting thread.

My opinion is that Jane is correct. A robot will never be in the same sentient category as a human. AI, and nothing more than AI.

I will say though, that there's an interesting correlation between robots and Adam and Eve of all people. One of the big arguments against the Biblical rendition of creation is the creation of 2 fully grown adults. Well, Adam and Eve weren't just created to occupy space and sort of act as helpless pet animals. Purpose was given to this couple. Responsibility. Ironically, we do the same with robots. They are made with a purpose. And.....they're always produced full grown. Even my Alexa always had an adult voice. I don't recall any baby talk, or adolescent voice changes.

Robots are made with a purpose, and it would be impractical to produce them as having to start out with a physical and mental growth process. So in like fashion, God created 2 fully grown humans to occupy and carry out an assignment.

I think God gave us the ability to produce robots as a means of getting a glimpse of creation. We can't (IMO) produce sentient life, but we have a small glimpse of creationism by producing them. The same goes for creating universes like metamaterial universes, and virtual universes. But nothing like our created universe teaming with life. Glimpses God gives us, that we tend to think are evidence of sole human acheivement.





#28
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
I am sure there are vital parts of the body that must be real in order to sustain a living sould. I don't know what those might constist of though.
#29
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@janesix
I think today there are lots of irreplaceable organs, but my pure guess is that in 200 years almost every non-brain organ will be replaceable.  Heart-lung transplants have been routine for ages.
#30
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
Do you really think this civilization will last that long? I don't know. But if it does, then I would have to agree with you it is likely the case.