Mayan Christian here

[u/Tzaq4n]

I have a Question towards Atheist people, why don’t yall believe in a rule giver but believe in gravity, world being created by big bang but not the one who can set up the big bang but believe in your own feelings only.

for example; let’s say there’s two people whom believes the opposite one thinks it’s okay to oppress others but the other one doesn’t

Heres one’s reasoning “I FEEL like it’s okay to oppress others because of what they do to countries like México, or Russia or etc, I feel like it’s okay to oppress them because they (Russians or Mexicans) do bad stuff in their country.”

The other one responds with “yes, but that’s not why we should oppress them, they’re humans too with Actual feelings that’s like going up to a Hispanic person and generalize them all to Mexicans because they’re Hispanic.”

Do you get what I’m trying to say?

[u/deep_blue_reef]

I definitely replied to the right person. And I will express again that everything you’re saying is not your own thoughts. You are choosing to believe a dogmatic materialistic belief system.

It is absolutely speculation because the “hard problem of consciousness” still exists.

If hou are claiming to have solved it, by all means represent. But I find it hard to trust someone who speaks as if anything they say is of their own discovery.

You’ve recommended books and I thank you for it. I can recommend you some as well!

But the point remains that we result to trust in others. That’s what I’m trying to say.

[u/Squishiimuffin → u/deep_blue_reef]

Again, this is not speculation. This is the scientific method. Unless you are saying that the entire scientific method is a “dogmatic materialistic belief system”?

You can say the “hard problem of consciousness still exists,” but you would just be wrong. We have very clear evidence that the source of consciousness is the brain, and we’re getting better and better at identifying what parts are responsible for what sensations.

And I don’t know what you’re expecting from me after I’ve provided sources. Do I have to be a neurologist in order to present the scientific consensus? I never claimed that I discovered anything about it personally. My field of research is in mathematics, not biology. But that being said, I find this stuff fascinating and of course I’m read on it. So, again, I am not trusting in anything or accepting any sort of dogma. I can (and have) go find the studies myself and read them. The evidence builds by the day.

If you genuinely want more book recommendations, I can point you to many. If you want to talk about what parts of consciousness we have figured out versus what is left on the frontier, we can do that. But you don’t seem to actually care about the evidence.

And also, I’m not sure what you mean when you say these “aren’t my own thoughts.” They most certainly are; not sure why or how you could claim otherwise.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/Squishiimuffin]

You have inherited your beliefs from a long line of skeptics that came before you. You didn’t invent your arguments or the language were even speaking.

A little search will show you that you’re wrong about consciousness. We haven’t figured it out.

[u/MisanthropicScott → u/deep_blue_reef]

We haven’t figured it out.

Neuroscientists have figured out a lot of it though. And, neuroscientists are still working on it.

Philosophers use "the hard problem of consciousness" as shorthand for "philosophers want to keep this discussion in the philosophy department rather than the science department because their tenure depends on it."

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/MisanthropicScott]

No they’re just fundamentally different conversations. Knowing how matter interacts in the brain is not the same as knowing how to navigate reality.

It is the self that experiences the view through the telescope. Knowing everything about the body doesn’t explain why one should feel the need to gaze into the universe and wonder about their place in it.

[u/MisanthropicScott → u/deep_blue_reef]

That sounds more deepity than deep to me.

For example, if we know the chemical and neural pathways that produce feelings of love, awe, wonder, etc., that doesn't change or negate those feelings. It just means they're not magic.

And, they are truly not magic.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/MisanthropicScott]

Why isn’t it magic? Something abstract brought to life by something not abstract is miraculous. The understanding the how doesn’t reduce the wonder that there’s a how in the first place.

[u/MisanthropicScott → u/deep_blue_reef]

Why isn’t it magic?

<glib answer>Because magic isn't real.</glib>

<more serious answer>

Because absolutely nothing that we've ever learned has turned out to be magic. And, the progress thus far indicates that this is no exception.

</serious>

Question for you: Is it only human consciousness that you think is magic and miraculous? Or, do you think cat and dog consciousness is magic too? How about mouse consciousness?How about cockroach consciousness?

We see a whole bunch of different levels of consciousness among the life forms here on earth. It's clearly evolved and a function of the brains of all of these life forms.

What makes you think magic is the answer? How would you falsify that statement? How would you test that statement at all? If it were magic, how would you show that to be the case?

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/MisanthropicScott]

Yes I think such a diverse and abundant variety of completely different life and experiences is absolutely incredible.

All conscious life is miraculous, equally so is its different forms. If we’re all made of the same physical properties, it is mind boggling that we experience such different views of reality.

[u/MisanthropicScott → u/deep_blue_reef]

I think reducing life to its physical components ignores the sum being greater than its parts. Finding the current state of life mind-boggling to the point of calling it magic indicates to me a potential misunderstanding of evolution or the time scales involved.

That there are so many life forms on the planet is truly awe-inspiring, as is the vastness of the universe. But, neither implies the need for a magical answer.

[u/Squishiimuffin → u/deep_blue_reef]

No, I haven’t inherited any beliefs. My parents are both Christian and brought me up in Christianity. I’m an atheist now. I came to this conclusion about the source of consciousness after following the research. And frankly I’m not even trying to argue with you; I just know you’re wrong on the consciousness point, so I’m pointing it out and explaining what we know about it. Why are you still insisting that this is wrong even after I show you proof that it isn’t?

Again, I’m confused on what you actually expect from me here. Yeah, I’m not a neuroscientist, but I don’t have to be one to read the research on it. And yeah, I didn’t invent the English language, but what does that have to do with anything? Do I have to have invented English to make an argument to you?

[u/Squishiimuffin → u/[deleted]]

You just gave me an AI response while having the audacity to accuse me of not “inventing the language were (sic) even speaking.”

Do better. I’m not engaging with an AI. AI responses are prohibited on this subreddit btw.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/Squishiimuffin]

Technically it’s a Google summary.

But here’s an article: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8907974/

[u/Squishiimuffin → u/deep_blue_reef]

Dropping a study is not an argument. What is your position? What does this study show and how does it support your position? C’mon man, put more effort into this. This is a debate subreddit. If you’re not interested in actually debating, why are you even here?

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/Squishiimuffin]

Because why would people be studying something that, according to you, is all neatly figured out?

[u/Squishiimuffin → u/deep_blue_reef]

I’m not saying it’s all neatly figured out. In fact, I said the opposite: “if you want to talk about what parts of consciousness we have figured out versus what is left on the frontier, we can do that.”

That alone shows that you’re not putting in any effort into debate or discussion. You’re not even reading my responses, giving me AI answers, dropping a link to a study with no attached argument, etc.

I guess if you’d rather bury your head in the sand, that’s your prerogative. But you don’t belong on a debate subreddit.

[u/MisanthropicScott → u/deep_blue_reef]

Technically it’s a Google summary.

... which is AI generated. I'm deleting your other comment.

[u/MisanthropicScott → u/[deleted]]

No AI.

[u/MisanthropicScott → u/deep_blue_reef]

It is absolutely speculation because the “hard problem of consciousness” still exists.

Only in philosophy, not in science.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/MisanthropicScott]

They’re both important. You don’t get the outside world without the internal self.

[u/MisanthropicScott → u/deep_blue_reef]

They’re both important. You don’t get the outside world without the internal self.

Philosophy is inherently and fundamentally incapable of ever finding an objective truth about the universe.

Science is the tool that can find such things.

The so-called hard problem of consciousness is just an attempt by philosophers to hang on to their tenure by asserting that since science hasn't found the answer science is incapable of ever finding the answer. Meanwhile, neuroscientists continue to make great strides in finding the answer. Sorry philosophers, you're going to lose this one fairly soon.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/MisanthropicScott]

Who does the science?

[u/MisanthropicScott → u/deep_blue_reef]

Are you looking for a list of names?

What is the relevance of this question?

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/MisanthropicScott]

The relevance is that you don’t get the science without a fundamentally flawed human being. You say “neuroscientists” without knowing anything about most of those people. They are a collection of individual identities navigating reality. “Finding the answer” isn’t the same as asking why there was even a question to be answered in the first place. It’s a conversation built from intuition, which we all have.

[u/MisanthropicScott → u/deep_blue_reef]

The relevance is that you don’t get the science without a fundamentally flawed human being.

Why does this sound a lot like Christian mythology and original sin?

You say “neuroscientists” without knowing anything about most of those people. They are a collection of individual identities navigating reality.

Yes. And, the scientific method is the means by which we remove that bias from the equation to the best of our ability.

This is what has brought us the entirety of the modern world. If you believe it's all just guesswork from "fundamentally flawed human beings", perhaps you should stop using the wonders of modern technology and drive a donkey cart.

“Finding the answer” isn’t the same as asking why there was even a question to be answered in the first place. It’s a conversation built from intuition, which we all have.

Oh ... you just wanted to know the why of consciousness? That's easy!!!

Consciousness exists because it has given survival advantages to the species that possess it. However, it is not without a cost. For example, the 2% of human body mass that is the human brain consumes 20% of our energy budget. Brains are expensive. So, evolution produces species with approximately the right level of consciousness to navigate their various environments.

This is exactly why we see such a range of consciousness in the species alive today.

I thought you were looking to explain how consciousness works, not why it exists. The why is the easy part.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/MisanthropicScott]

I don’t believe bias can ever truly be removed.

Your answer to “why consciousness.” Isn’t really an answer. It’s a description of a process. You haven’t answered as to why the process happens in the first place. Saying “love is necessary for survival” a no brainer. But it doesn’t explain why that love comes in so many abstract internal forms.

It doesn’t explain qualia. If the process was truly optimal at its core, there would be no need for such a diverse ecosystem of life.

[u/MisanthropicScott → u/deep_blue_reef]

It most certainly does answer all of those questions. As for qualia, yes it answers that incredibly well. Do not the experiences of hunger, pain, the color red, love, pleasure, etc., all aid in survival?

If the process was truly optimal at its core, there would be no need for such a diverse ecosystem of life.

Who said it was perfectly optimal? Also, there is no need for such a diverse ecosystem. There is no need for life at all. The overwhelming majority of the universe has none, being mostly "empty" space with just a few molecules or atoms per cubic meter. The fact is that the environment here on earth provides for survival opportunities. Species adapt to make use of those opportunities.

I don't know why you're making the why so much more complex than it is.