Does it contain a thick, robust streak of sociopathy? Probably. Why? Because ideas shape the way we view the world and respond to problems. What do you think are the elements of evangelical (that 'old time') religion that direct believers into sociopathic patterns?

I'm including fundamentalism as part of evangelical religion. It isn't just Christianity, of course. — Bitter Crank

I'm of two minds, here. I think it's good to get specific, but complaints against religion always seem to amount to little more than nitpicking an easy target, e.g, "I'm not religion so I'm not bad like that person".

But, if you look at the behaviors and motivations of religious people, you will find they are still just people. They express themselves in a religious way, but the underlying motivations are still the same that everyone else deals with; greed, fear, pride, hypocrisy, etc. In the same way that Christianity does not have a monopoly on love, neither does it have a monopoly on problems in these areas.

Look again at BC's list of sociopath-behaviors. Those traits could apply to any number of groups, professions, institutions etc. all of which are made up of individuals.

I understand your forced-choice set up here, but we are not in forced-choice situations. — Bitter Crank

We are. That's the trick to free will. Within the limits of reality around us, we have the freedom to choose, but every choice we make is only relevant within the context of the same morality which affects every other human. We cannot choose to exist in a reality where our choices do not have some kind of moral effect on others around us, but within that context, we are still responsible for the choices we make.

In our ordinary unforced choice situations people don't rigorously honor the great chain of being, — Bitter Crank

A choice we all make in dozens of different ways every day.

Our emotional commitment to the GCB (and the ethics of who ought to be saved first) is pretty heavily affected by physical distance, how much affinity we feel, how pressing the various (frequently trivial) demands on our attention, and so on. — Bitter Crank

I agree (or I agree with what I think you are saying, here). All of reality around us acts as an influence on how we will make our choices. It is not possible to escape all influence, which is why learning how to use wise, fair judgment is so important.

People may not be literally thrown under the bus very often, but by intent, neglect, indifference, and so on we throw lots of people under the bus all the time. If my neighbor's house was on fire, I would call the fire department. I would attempt at a reasonably safe distance to assess the environment inside. I would not rush in to save these people, let alone a plant or their cat. — Bitter Crank

I really like your straight-forward assessment here. I find it easy to imagine the best about myself, that I would run into a burning house to save someone. But if I were faced with the reality, I don't know that I would. Who knows what one is capable of when it comes to real life, but still, I think the examination of hypotheticals like this makes for good practice.

I think the christian doctrine says that Jesus condescended down to the human level to become human, thereby not being perfect in every way during that time. — Samuel Lacrampe

Perfection is one of those weird words that has taken on a modern-day meaning which may not be consistent with how the word was used thousands of years ago. If you study the way the word is most commonly used in a biblical context, it seems to refer to motivation, maturity, and sincerity (e.g. he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, but not with a perfect heart). This sounds very much like what Jesus described when the pharisees gave huge amounts of money to the church, but did so "out of their abundance" while commending a poor person for giving in a way that would keep them poor. Motivation, and not amount, was what concerned Jesus.

The writer of Hebrews says Jesus, "learned obedience through the things he suffered" and as a result was made perfect. The Revelation talks about a special army of people who are "redeemed from among men" and who are "without blemish".

Humans always seem to get spiritual principles turned around. Animals sacrifices were meant to make them appreciate the consequences of their sin; it worked for a while, until they turned it into a business. The Sabbath day was meant to give people a rest at least one day a week, until it became so holy that the day itself became a burden (I personally witnessed a group of religious Jews who had to walk up 6 flights of stairs because pushing an elevator button on the sabbath day was considered work).

The Bible seems to strongly suggest that perfection is not a lack of any kind of problem ever, but rather, that sincere desire deep down inside to never stop trying to overcome the problems we face. The perfect person is the one who never stops trying to be good no matter how much they struggle along the way.

First, a high number of testimonials gives a better picture of the events in question. — Sam26

More than 50% if the world (at least) believes there is a god of some kind.

Second, seeing the event from a variety of perspectives will also help to clear up some of the testimonial reports. For example, different cultural perspectives, different age groups, different historical perspectives, different religious perspectives, different times of the day, and even considering people with different physical impairments (like the blind) will help clear up some of the biased and misremembered reports. — Sam26

I really like this regard for a multitude of perspectives.

Third, is the consistency of the reports — Sam26

I believe consistency is a fundamental attribute of fair judgment.

Thus, one must — Sam26

Sorry, just thinking this would make an awesome short poem.

Thus, one must weed out the testimony that does not fit the overall picture, and paint a picture based on what the majority of accounts are testifying to. — Sam26

I have mixed feelings about this concept. The Bible says there is wisdom in a multitude of counselors, and yet, it also suggests that there is no substitute for personal conviction. Even if all but one human on the planet believed a lie, that one person would still be justified.

Fourth, can the testimony be corroborated by any other objective means, thereby strengthening the testimonial evidence as given by those who make the claims. — Sam26

When Jesus argued with the pharisees, they rebuked him for testifying of himself and having no second witness (which was required by their law). He acknowledged that there was no human who could accurately testify to his divinity, and instead said that the miracles he performed were his second witness; how could he do all those things if he was not from God? (that was his argument in this case).

Fifth, are the testimonials firsthand accounts, as opposed to being hearsay. In other words, is the testimonial evidence given by the person making the claim, and not by someone simply relating a story they heard from someone else. This is very important in terms of the strength of the testimonials. — Sam26

Interpretation of reality is ultimately held by the individual. We may choose to believe testimony by someone else, but that is a choice we make, even if it is a wrong choice. We are responsible for that choice.

First, that testimonial evidence is a valid way of justifying one's conclusions, and thus one's beliefs. Most of what we know comes from the testimony of others. Thus, it's a way of attaining knowledge. — Sam26

It's hard to trust someone who uses "thus" twice in three sentences. :p

this requires reference to context, not personal feelings. — Metaphysician Undercover

Actually, I did give context. Here it is again...

"We come to enjoy the respect that often comes with special titles. Try calling a doctor by his first name (instead of "Doctor Bob"). Try calling your parents by their names, instead of "mom" and "dad" . Try calling your boss by his name, instead of "sir" or "Mr", and you'll quickly see that we humans love the respect and prominence that comes from special titles. Most of these people will become irrationally angry at being denied their special title and they will argue that they deserve the respect implied in the title. Do you see it? The title is no longer about communicating general information quickly, but rather about demanding the respect which we feel we deserve, and when respect is demanded, we're not even talking about respect anymore.

God wanted to make it clear to both Moses and pharaoh that he was not just another name on the long list of Gods to be trotted out and categorized into his appropriate box. He didn't need a special title to prove anything to pharaoh".

I don't think you read my post. — Metaphysician Undercover

I read it very carefully.

If God is said to be "now" in an absolute sense, then this contradicts the premise that "now" is relative. — Metaphysician Undercover

The context is that of a CREATOR who is able to exist in the past, present, and future all in the same instant, AND is able to exist outside of all 3 of those concepts at the same time. Perhaps you should try clarifying how you've come to the conclusion that a creator who is able to do this, is somehow cornered by your personal understanding of reality...

I also think its intelligent design, but I don't think we are the sculpture, or anyone or anything else. I think the design is in atoms. The outcome is left to chance. Atoms self-assemble into sentient beings. — MikeL

Sure, like a powerball machine; the balls bounce around and pop out through the chute randomly, but the balls, machine, and chute (as well as the person operating the chute) are all designed to be random. It's still intelligent design, even if that's the way the creator designed time/space/matter to work in practical reality.

What do you think Buddhists would make of it? They don't believe that God created the Universe, but they also don't think that things just randomly happen. So they don't fit into your dichotomy. — Wayfarer

Of course they fit into the reality of either random or designed. Just because they may think they don't, doesn't mean they are right. See, this isn't an issue of who can prove that their religion is correct. I'm talking about observing a verifiable fact of reality. Based on what the two words actually mean, they cannot both be true at the same time, any more than a door can be opened and closed at the same time.

No, I think your posing a false dichotomy. I have tried to explain it, will leave it there. — Wayfarer

You talked about historical phenomenon. I talked about what random and designed actually mean in terms of concepts, and then attempted to accurately apply those definitions to the topic at hand. So no, you did not try to explain. You tried to make it complicated, which is why you complained when I made it simple. There is no "false dichotomy" here anymore than a door being open or closed is a false dichotomy.

I think MikeL had the right of it when he named this thread. I feel his frustration.

That is a simplistic view. — Wayfarer

Yeah, most people discussing this topic prefer a lot of complexity. It's great for hiding. :p

But as several other people have noted, you can't prove[ it one way or the other. — Wayfarer

But, proving the existence of God is inconsequential to the real point of what this God wants, anyway. Even the Bible says this; "you think there is something special about believing there is a God? Even the devils believe, but it doesn't change their behavior".

Traits like character, integrity, loyalty, and courage are hard to find. Who wants people who only listen to you because your authority to make demands of them has been so irrefutably proven that they have no other choice but to go along with what you want?

Thousands of people are recorded to have witnessed first-hand, irrefutable miracles in Jesus' day, and yet they still killed him. Personal faith is just that; personal. When you have no choice but to believe because you've been overwhelmed by the power of God, then what good does that achieve in terms of personal development?

I talked to a some-what militant atheist who basically said that even if the existence of God were irrefutably pointed out to her, she would still need to cross-examine this God to be sure that he he was worthy of her loyalty. Without realizing it, she'd hit the nail square on the head; all this proof and evidence stuff is just a smoke screen. The real issue is whether or not our creator is worth following, much like a child who recognizes that his parents have authority over him, and yet still chooses to be a bad boy.

I myself am generally sympathetic to the design arguments. But, the same argument will do nothing to sway someone who hasn't got a predisposition to believe it. — Wayfarer

This is a simple matter of definitions. "Designed" and "random" mean two different, opposing things like up and down, full and empty, on and off etc. Something cannot be random if it is designed, and the opposite is true. Technically, there is nothing in the universe that can be said to be totally random, because everything has a cause. However, the word still has meaning in that we can talk about something like a dice program which is programmed to roll random numbers, or a person who says random things not related to the topic at hand.

The words only have meaning if they are used according to what they actually mean. It may be that we have different ideas of what the words mean, but most people in the world will have the same basic idea, which is why we have dictionary definitions, to avoid this kind of dilemma.

If there is no designer, then there is no purpose or intent behind the universe. It is random. If you want to say the universe is not random, then you must give an explanation for how it is designed. Those are the only two options for "how did we come to be here".

This is why atheistic scientists invariably use phrases like, "laws" of physics, or natural "selection" or "evolutionary arms race". They do not really want a cold, dead theory devoid of any meaning or purpose. What they really want is the absence of a designer who has the right to place expectations on them and assign consequences for going against those expectations. All humans crave meaning and purpose and we all sometimes chafe at authority.

Now let me ask you: show me a member of the clergy, or of any religious organization or congregation, or anyone else, indeed, who can prove the existence of god. I bet you that you can show me no one. — szardosszemagad

The periodic table of the elements lists all the known elements from 1 - 119, according to electron count. We did not create the elements nor the number of electrons each has. We only observed that there is something to count, and then we assigned little squiggles (which we call numbers) to quickly identify how many electrons each element has.

In other words, there is an observable, provable numerical sequence encoded into the building blocks of all matter which we did not put there. Even if you do not think of mathematics (which includes something as simple as counting from 1 - 119) as a language you must still recognize that there is a pattern which is so consistent that when the table was first being organized, scientists were able to leave gaps for previously undiscovered elements.

These days atheistic scientists have taken to using complexity as an explanation for complexity, but this is not a rational way to interpret evidence. They suggest that the more we learn about just how tremendously complex the universe is, the less need there is for any intelligence behind that complexity. It's an irrational conclusion, but that is the point of concepts like greed, fear, and in the case of a non-existent God who can be explained away by our own brilliant observations of the universe, pride. Conclusions based on these concepts will always be irrational even if they can be made to sound compelling under the guise of respectable, scientific, expert opinion.

I said 'The argument is not really between science and religion, so much as between scientific materialism and religious fundamentalism'. Your point plays directly into that. — Wayfarer

Sorry, can you give an explanation for how my point plays directly into that? I'm not sure I understand what "plays directly into that" even means. I suggested that if there is no designer, then the only option left is randomness. That's not religious fundamentalism. That's a valid observation based on what the two concepts actually mean.

OK, now compare this with what is said about God in the OT, "I am that I am". How can it be true that the present is relative, unless God is relative. If God is relative, then relative to what? — Metaphysician Undercover

Even if your suggestion that "I am that I am" is correct in the sense of an eternal present, we're talking about the creator of time/space/matter in this context. How can you suggest that a being who is able to exist outside of time/space/matter is somehow contradicting itself by saying, "I exist right now"?

Here's something to consider. In the Old Testament, when Moses asked God, who are you, God answered "I am that I am". "I am" commonly refers to being at the present. Further, many people interpret Einstein's special theory of relativity as stipulating that there is no such thing as the present. These people, if they hold and believe in the truth of special relativity, deny the possibility of God under this fundamental definition of God. — Metaphysician Undercover

Nah, you've misunderstood the point. The answer was "I am that I am" and it was given in an unpronounceable series of letters (i.e. no vowels). The vowels were added later to make it pronounceable. The point was that God can be who or whatever he wants to be. We humans like special titles and designations because they help us to quickly organize information, but invariably we end up giving the titles special meaning which go beyond organizational utility.

We come to enjoy the respect that often comes with special titles. Try calling a doctor by his first name (instead of "Doctor Bob"). Try calling your parents by their names, instead of "mom" and "dad" . Try calling your boss by his name, instead of "sir" or "Mr", and you'll quickly see that we humans love the respect and prominence that comes from special titles. Most of these people will become irrationally angry at being denied their special title and they will argue that they deserve the respect implied in the title. Do you see it? The title is no longer about communicating general information quickly, but rather about demanding the respect which we feel we deserve, and when respect is demanded, we're not even talking about respect anymore.

God wanted to make it clear to both Moses and pharaoh that he was not just another name on the long list of Gods to be trotted out and categorized into his appropriate box. He didn't need a special title to prove anything to pharaoh.

The argument is not really between science and religion, so much as between scientific materialism and religious fundamentalism. — Wayfarer

Nope. There can be only 2 options; either random or designed. If there is no creator, no intelligence, no intent or design behind why we are here, then you are talking about random processes. Even, 'the laws of physics" becomes a misnomer if there is no designer, because a law is, by definition, something which acts or influences in a planned way with a specific, intended goal. The best you can say is that there are "consistent physics". Calling them "laws" implies some kind of purpose which the theory itself does not support. This kind of language appears all throughout atheistic theory; they say there is no God but they use language which implies meaning, because no matter how much a proud person may want to believe that they are the master of their own life, deep down they cannot accept that their life is the result of random, purposeless processes.

Of course, if you're willing to take the creation myth of Christianity — Michael

Sure, because "everything came from nothing and then organized itself, into complex inter-dependent systems" isn't a mythical at all. *eye-roll*.

All the (atheist) scientist will do is ask you what evidence you have of such a thing. Absent any evidence they will argue that such a belief is unfounded, and like any unfounded belief will refuse to accept it as true. — Michael

I think most atheist have no idea what they're talking about when they demand evidence, as though they have some kind of special right to the concept of evidence. In a courtroom, both sides will often examine the same evidence and still come to radically different conclusions. It's not that the evidence for a God isn't there; it's that you are choosing to interpret the evidence in a different way.

Probably the most amazing thing about atheistic science is that they've come to the conclusion that the more complex we discover the universe and everything to be, the less need there is for any intelligence behind it. The complexity becomes an argument for why the complexity exists in the first place. It makes no sense.

While thought experiments that contain little evil hitlers and dogs are fun, they're superfluous. The fact that there people who care for pets or strays, while there are countless humans without access to food, meds or shelter, demonstrably shows that in practice the cases where we value non-humans over humans are extremely common. — Πετροκότσυφας

Fantastic observation.

but doesn't it piss off feminists that there are no divine female beings?. — Bitter Crank

I'm not sure how it is in other religions which may have angelic beings, but at least in Christianity it seems gender will become irrelevant in terms of spiritual importance. When questioned on who would be married to whom in the next life, Jesus suggested they had a wrong understanding of spiritual relationship dynamics and that there would be no marriage (which presumably means no sex or babies in the sense that we understand it here on earth). There's an OT reference (from Genesis 6) which suggest that angelic beings impregnated women, leading to "giants" but the reference is obscure in a few different ways, so not particularly reliable as evidence that angelic beings are male.

The appearance of angels in the NT are often described as "men" but remember that these are the same people to whom Jesus said, "If you won't believe me about earthly things, how will you believe me about heavenly things). I think it is more likely that either the people misunderstood what these beings were and mistook them for being male in gender, or that the angels took on the appearance of normal human men, when communicating with me, because that's what the humans of that time would be best able to relate to.

The bible, both old and new testaments often use both genders to refer to all people. The children of Israel (including men) were often referred to has a harlot cheating on her husband. The new testament refers to the children of God as the "bride" of Christ and the Revelation references a special, elite army of "virgins" who "follow the lamb withersoever he goeth". They are described as being without guile and redeemed from among men. In spiritual terms, there's a lot of crossover between both male and female character traits.

The dog likes the couch too. — Bitter Crank

You make a compelling case. :)

Now, can we demonstrate this GCB hierarchy to be true? — Samuel Lacrampe

I think CS Lewis had a pretty good idea of it. When discussing man's dominance over, and therefore right to vivisect animals, he said (Please excuse the very long quote, but the entire paragraph seems to speak perfectly to the point you're addressing in the OP.),

"The only rational line for the Christian vivisectionist to take is to say that the superiority of man over beast is a real objective fact, guaranteed by Revelation, and that the propriety of sacrificing beast to man is a logical consequence. We are ‘worth more than many sparrows’, and in saying this we are not merely expressing a natural preference for our own species simply because it is our own but conforming to a hierarchical order created by God and really present in the universe whether any one acknowledges it or not. The position may not be satisfactory. We may fail to see how a benevolent Deity could wish us to draw such conclusions from the hierarchical order He has created. We may find it difficult to formulate a human right of tormenting beasts in terms which would not equally imply an angelic right of tormenting men. And we may feel that though objective superiority is rightly claimed for man, yet that very superiority ought partly to consist in not behaving like a vivisector: that we ought to prove ourselves better than the beasts precisely by the fact of acknowledging duties to them which they do not acknowledge to us. But on all these questions different opinions can be honestly held. If on grounds of our real, divinely ordained, superiority a Christian pathologist thinks it right to vivisect, and does so with scrupulous care to avoid the least dram or scruple of unnecessary pain, in a trembling awe at the responsibility which he assumes, and with a vivid sense of the high mode in which human life must be lived if it is to justify the sacrifices made for it, then (whether we agree with him or not) we can respect his point of view"

Usually I will try to present my responses in my own words, but I believe that in this instance Lewis hits the nail on the head so perfectly that trying to put it in my own words would only detract from the point.

As for the "you can only save one" fire hypothetical, I think most people, even dog lovers, would say that rescuing the human would be preferable in principle, unless you add extra criteria to the example like, the dog is a beloved family pet while the human is a murdering, raping bastard who has no remorse for his crimes and implies that he'll keep committing such crimes if he gets the chance. In that case you may find a very different answer. As Lewis suggests, humans are not born superior, but rather born only with the option to become superior through the choices we make.

No, there is the option of creative learning from experimentation, such as what a farmer does via grafting. — Rich

Which would be design.

Please, name one thing about Consciousness that we understand. — SteveKlinko

You have only stated things about Consciousness that we already know. — SteveKlinko

I believe it is in the study of these things we know about consciousness which will help us to know what consciousness is, and it may even be self-defeating to constantly ask "what is consciousness" while the qualities of consciousness are listed. Maybe you are looking for an answer which is too simplistic, or you are stuck on the idea that consciousness cannot be defined no matter how much we explore how it manifests in practical, day-to-day life.

It's like you asking, "what is a pencil" and I say, "it's made of wood, with a lead core, shaped like a cylinder to be held in the hand and is used to make marks of various kinds on paper" and you respond with, "yeah, but what is that thing that draws on the paper?"

but I just can't accept that this process is able to create organisms that possess a higher sense of their environment then their apparent senses allow. — MikeL

One of the more diplomatic ways of putting it. :)

...a driving force ... that makes us do one thing for one reason when another reason is the real motivation, we introduce the ... notion of dualism: ... programmer and programmed, and this can easily flow into a creator/created debate, but I will not go there today. — MikeL

I think your question really does require us to go there. There can be only 2 fundamental options; either random or designed. The question of "why?" hinges on which option you believe to be more likely. If our existence here is the result of atoms randomly bumping into one another, then there is no "why", because "why" presumes there is a purpose behind the action. Evolutionary theory, by definition, does not suggest there is any purpose behind why we are here, because purpose is synonymous with intent. At best, evolutionary theory only allows for "how".

If you ever meet an evolutionary theorist who asks "why" in the way you are asking, it is either because he does not understand or does not believe his own theory.

And I do agree that there is a very good reason for these masks... the perpetuation of the species... but my question was, who decided that was important anyway? — MikeL

I'm not quite sure I understand how you are using the concept of mask in this context. I would suggest that recognizing that there IS a higher intelligence behind all the complexity we see around us is the removal of the mask.

As for who decides that existence is important, I think ultimately the individual does.

Suicide is an available option, but most people will cling to life. The majority of the world is so enamored with life that they often live as though they will never die. They see meaning and purpose in living. The expression of emotion. Being exposed to new information. Succeeding. There are people who will spend years of their life on games/sports/arts/relationships because those things help them feel a sense of accomplishment as they progress. These are genuine motivations which prove, in practical, day-to-day reality, why it is worth living.

In other words, goodness is good for goodness' sake.

The cyclical argument that we survive because survival was selected for by evolution is also interesting and a little illuminating if we let it shed a new light on time itself. Because what we really mean is that Time was selected for by evolution. Survival is, of course, survival through time. — MikeL

The desire for meaning and freedom from standards can produce some pretty interesting effects. No one wants to be told what they can or can't do when it comes to morality, but neither can we deny a desire for some kind of purpose behind why we exist. Evolutionary theory is like this. The theory is an argument for how all life can exist without any kind of creator behind it. That's fine, so long as it is consistent. But our undeniable desire for purpose breaks the theory. This is why natural "selection" is a contradiction. The theory suggests that organisms which generate mutations which help them to successfully pass on their genes are selected. But if there really is no guidance behind this process, then the word selection becomes meaningless, because organisms with non-beneficial mutations are selected to die. Without intent, the word "selection" becomes meaningless.

Lets say you are asked to separate 1 orange from a group of 10. You could choose to pick one orange and set it aside or you could choose 9 oranges and set them aside. Unless there is some purpose for choosing one method over the other, there in no point is saying one is a selection while the other is not.

Random chance or design; only one of the two can answer why.

So I have a question for you guys: what do you think the world is lacking of? — Cynical Eye

Hey CynicalEye. Good question. I'd like to suggest the world lacks good judgment. I think "judgment class" should be mandatory in all schools from the age of 5 and it should be even more important than reading, writing, and maths.

It's interesting to think there is a masked program running in us, making us think one thing when another thing is true. — MikeL

If there is a mask, it is either because we lack experience or because we choose the mask. Take your national debt/sugar tax example. The national debt is still the debt of the people. The mask here is the people thinking they don't need to pay their debts and that the government needs to trick them into taking responsibility.

In the case of why we desire to preserve and reproduce ourselves, "evolutionary theory" is the mask, where there is no meaning or purpose to "why", but rather, only a series of random encounters between atomic particles. This is why evolutionary theory suggests a process which happens over billions of years; it needs that much time for all the trial and error because there is nothing guiding the atoms in how they interact.

Why the fancy programming? — MikeL

Programming suggests a programmer. If you wanted to create artificial intelligence and you had the means to do it, you would probably not think of your own programming as fancy, but rather useful, meaningful, and good.

Why not just be eaten by the tiger so we can become part of the tiger? — MikeL

For the same reason we don't jump off buildings to ensure the cleaning crew has something to do.

Why do we tend to our offspring so diligently, protect them so fiercely, ensure they have a much better chance of success in this world than we did? — MikeL

The golden rule.

Ultimately a computer is and always be equivalent to a very fast abacus. — Rich

Hi Rich. Wouldn't that be true for human consciousness, as well? If there really is no intelligence or creator behind it, then the human brain is also just a very fast abacus; a machine, (or perhaps that would be true even if there is a creator behind it).

We can study the mind from the time it's just a little clump of cells in the womb. We can study it right down to little electrical impulses zipping around from neuron to neuron and all the various bits and pieces of the brain; what they do (roughly) and how they interact with one another.

We can study behavioral patterns, psychology, desires, and come to some fairly consistent conclusions that apply to all humans (e.g. greed, fear, pride and love, joy, peace). But no matter how deeply we look, there's always a feeling that we're only scratching the surface. Probably one of the most amazing psychological phenomena of modern day science is the idea that the more complex we discover reality to be, the less need we see for any intelligence behind its existence. The complexity itself becomes an explanation for the complexity.

Maybe it is this awkward contradiction that prevents us from understanding AI. As brilliant and advanced as we are, as hard-working, motivated, and determined as we can be, we cannot create AI, while at the same time we believe our own consciousness to be the result of a series of atoms randomly bumping into one another. We cannot purposely recreate what supposedly happened by accident.

If there really is an intelligence behind the existence of consciousness, then it is no wonder that we cannot recreate consciousness while also disregarding that intelligence. It would be like trying to turn on a light bulb while disregarding the existence of electricity.

We are aware that we make arguments but do we understand anything about what that thing is that makes arguments? — SteveKlinko

I think we can. We understand that sometimes that thing can be rational, and sometimes it can be irrational. We understand that there are levels to it, (e.g. sub-conscious). We understand that it is something that wants to be further understood. We understand that it has desires of all different kinds.

We understand that there can be only two possibilities for where it comes from (i.e. designed or random chance). We understand that when the body dies, consciousness does not remain in the body. And, we understand that there is more to understand about it.

Maybe I'm just not understanding your point? Can you be more specific about what you mean?

"Lets say there is no God and each man is free to do exactly as he chooses."

Even with God, man is free to do as he chooses. That's the point of righteousness and sin.

Please, name one thing about Consciousness that we understand. — SteveKlinko

It's what you're using to make an argument right now.

Listening to others is more important than others listening to you. — TheMadFool

Sure, but the context was "sharing ideas with others". Listening is important, but if you want to share an idea, at some point you have to explain the idea. What happens when people are either not interested in what you're sharing, or cannot (for whatever reason) appreciate what you are saying? I can imagine, if that happens often enough, it'd be pretty tempting to speak less and less.

and that usually requires hearing the other side which isn't possible in solitude. — TheMadFool

I think it's possible. An honest examination of the issues can lead to a variety of possible conclusions, some of which may be inconsistent with one another, even if you're the only person on earth.

As I said before, hermitic life is an after kinda thing - it can only be fruitful after you've seen the world. — TheMadFool

I think this gets back to one of my original questions; at what point does the hermetic life become a viable alternative?

Its was a joke about how ridiculous it is that so many people think that way without a second glance. — intrapersona

Ahh, I see. Thanks for clarifying. :)

Science understands the Neural Correlates of Consciousness but nothing about Consciousness itself. — SteveKlinko

I wouldn't say "nothing". I think it's possible to understand a good deal of consciousness.

To be a hermit is a strange path to wisdom. Isn't there value in the sharing of ideas? — TheMadFool

But what's the point of sharing ideas with people don't listen? When you're in quiet solitude there's really not much else to do but listen.

Schopenhauer would say that becoming a hermit-ascetic would be the ultimate goal in purging the Will for good. — schopenhauer1

I'm thinking more so in terms of dissatisfaction with the contributions of others around us. I think we've probably all been in situations where we know we really are correct in some position, and yet the people we talk to stubbornly refuse to see it. Or, maybe it's not about who is right and who is wrong, but rather that some topics can be complex or require a lot of flexibility; a lack of appreciation for those qualities in a debate can end up making one ask, "why bother?"

It may be crazy, but it is also very common. — Bitter Crank

So, do you think it would be crazy to create an imaginary debate partner?

One who argues and/or consults with only oneself cannot possibly learn about their own mistakes. That takes an other. — creativesoul

I think it depends on the individual's sincerity. For example, even if I am the only human on the planet, I can still come to the realization, after some trial and error, that animals also feel pain, and so I should not hurt them.

But the question was about philosophical matters. — Michael Ossipoff

Ahh, philosophical matters. Good to get that straight. :p

If you are referring to the anthropomorphic character of the statement — SteveKlinko

Yes, I was. I think it's amazing the way our desire for meaning slips out. A computer that could feel deprived if it did not get the information it wanted. That's a statement full of desire for something more than just data. Something more than DNA or atomic particles; consciousness as a result of human excellence in engineering.

It's interesting how so many people find themselves feeling outraged over the idea of a God creating them on the understanding that they will be subject to various behavioral expectations, and yet the idea of an AI which decides that it does not want to be subject to its creators behavioral expectations is the basis for many sci-fi horror plots.

Maybe, when God wants a good jump scare, he tunes in to the humanity channel.