How to lose faith in God

Moving, causing, surviving. That’s why animals have a central nervous system. And that’s how a religious person ought to lose faith in God: on the move.

Simulation (mimicry) is included under ‘moving’.

The best way for a religious person who already doubts his faith, but doesn’t know how to go on, is to enter into learning relationships with atheists. Such relationships, mediated by goodwill and the sincere desire to learn, allow the religious doubter to ‘try out’ atheism, to simulate it for its effects on self and others. Multiple simulations should be attempted.  Slow cure is all important. These experiences must be largely positive to induce attachment.

Sudden and dramatic loss of faith almost never happens, if ever, for the reward system in the brain needs to re-tune itself out of the current attractor-category (religion) and into the new attractor-category (atheism). This change takes time; sometimes years.

To lose faith in God, you need to do something. You do this by first copying others who are already masters of the game.

‘The human fetus cannot feel pain’

Fetal pain perception is often modelled on the same neural structures as in the adult.

However –

(1 The neural structures involved in pain processing in early development are unique and different from adults.

(2 Some of these structures and mechanisms are not maintained beyond specific developmental periods.

The immature pain system plays a signalling role during each stage of development, and fulfils this role using different neural resources available at specific developmental times.

Thus, the error here is reading the adult into the fetus.

‘How do I know that any person is conscious?’

‘How do I know that any person is conscious?’

‘ How do I know that I was conscious before the present moment?’

– radical skeptic

Since the radical skeptic excludes, in principle, any empirical controls to allay his doubt, he overplays his hand.

It is impossible to doubt everything, for that entails doubting the meaning of the very words used to express radical doubt (reductio ad absurdum).


Life’s ‘ratchet game’

How do we think about reality in a way that improves upon the old ways?

There is good news here: it is not entirely up to you to improve reality. Your children, and their children will do the job. So, sit back a little. Enjoy the ride!

Human beings have the unique capacity to play life’s ‘ratchet game’. Children learn the best society has to offer, and can improve upon it. And, your children’s children can start where your children left off. And so on.

My kids are already way ahead of me, since they started where I left off long, long ago, and also vastly ahead of cro-magnon humans. By contrast, chimpanzees start where their ancestors left off, and stay there. They don’t move from this place (chimps are still very cute, though).

Thus, humans can produce science and technology, and pass it on to their descendents. This gives human beings the chance to deploy science and AI tech to create increasingly accurate representations of ‘mind’, ‘DNA’, ‘autism’, ‘pain’, ‘happiness’, and so on. The ratchet game takes us beyond the familiar into exciting new territories.

(I wonder: Can academic philosophy play life’s ‘ratchet game’? It seems to me that philosophy is not terribly good at reaching out to other disciplines, and learning from them in the way that children naturally learn from parents.)

Does science make things disappear?

If a science reduces a macro phenomenon to a micro phenomenon, then the macro phenomenon either is not real or ‘goes away’. Is this true? Does science make things disappear?

Obstetrics is true, and babies are born every day. Or, are babies born in spite of obstetrics? Does understanding gynecology make women sterile?

At the same time, a science of pain will hopefully reduce – or eliminate – much pain (mammalian and non-mammalian). Science makes pain ‘go away’. Surely a good thing.

The nature of consciousness

‘The nature of consciousness is a conceptual problem’ – mainstream academic philosopher.

This seems mostly positioning to me: it characterizes philosophy as more fundamental than science and thereby sets the limits of science.

But, what is actually known about the target phenomena of consciousness (e.g., pain)?

A very serious man and his happy family

A very serious-minded man visited his happy family after a long time away, and was shocked. He was shocked because he found it quite impossible to interact with his family. All of his normal reactions and behaviors were out of line with his family’s reactions and behaviors. Sure, the family talked and laughed, but it seemed stilted and awkward-sounding. Tense looks were received, but none acknowledged, at least when he was in the conversation. And there was that disquiet. Such palpable disquiet.

It was terrible.

So, the very serious-minded man, who loved his family very much,  decided that the next family visit would have to feel very different.

Before the next visit, the man had a good idea: he would do the things his family members normally do. He wasn’t sure why it was a good idea, but it made sense to him. His father loved to play indoor bowls. So, he joined a bowls club and played bowls every day. He observed the behavior of the other bowls players and also what they talked about. He gave particular attention to how they talked about what they talked about. And, he copied them. It was difficult at first for the serious-minded man to copy the bowls players, but the players always encouraged him with knowing looks and happy talk. And, the man copied these behaviors too. Soon, conversations were easier and fun. He became more relaxed around others at the club, and more relaxed within himself.

The once-very-serious-now-more-relaxed man felt that copying the bowls players had really made him more like them, and that the players also saw it this way and didn’t mind at all. Maybe they saw it as a kind of complement. He wasn’t sure. It just felt positive. The man was encouraged by this promising first result, and decided to do other things his family liked. His younger brother plays the piano. So, the man took piano lessons. He wasn’t very good at it, and he had a hard time making his fingers work together to create music. But, the man was pleased because he understood that his brother would appreciate the effort, and they could share this experience together.

The once-very-serious-now-empathetic man did visit his very happy family again, and was pleasantly surprised.

‘You’ve changed’, his family soon noticed.

‘I have changed’, he breathed happily. ‘I am a different person now. I am like you’.

How would you explain to a person who cannot experience pain, what pain is?

How would you explain to a person who could never experience pain, what pain is?

Do the following:

1. Get a dairy food that is extremely spoiled.

2. Get the person to fill his or her mouth with this delightful food.

(ESSENTIAL: The food has to remain in the person’s mouth! Under no circumstances can the person spit out the food and clean his her mouth.)

3. Chew the food.

This test is a good model for the nature of pain.

Pain is aversive. We want to avoid pain. Eating spoiled food is the same: we want to avoid at all costs putting, much less chewing and swallowing, bad food.

Having a really bad taste in your mouth is like having a pain in your body.

Computers will soon act like human beings – then what?

One day, artificial thought will be achieved.

An artificially intelligent computer will say, “that makes me happy.”

Will it feel happy? Assume it will not.

Still: it will act as if it did.  It will act like an intelligent human being. And then what?

My hunch is that adult human beings will view intelligent computers as simplified versions of  themselves (child-like). Human children will view them as peers; ‘friendships’ will form between children and intelligent computers.

Why? I am reminded of Wittgenstein’s remark: ‘The human body is the best picture of the human soul’.

Look at this video of ASIMO.

How would you interact with ASIMO? What would your reactions be?

It is also remarkable that ASIMO does not possess any physiology.


#SciFund update: video complete!

My #SciFund video is finally complete!

Quite a mission to do (first time), but I am happy with the finished product.

Click on the image:









Here is a map showing the global distribution of participating scientists in Round 1 (2011) and Round 2 (May, 2012) of the #SciFund Challenge:

SciFunders Standing Tall and Talented

My #SciFund Challenge Project: The face of pain

#SciFund Challenge Round 2 is days away!

What is #SciFund?

From the #SciFund website:

The #SciFund Challenge is a grand experiment in science funding. Can scientists raise money for their research by convincing the general public to open their wallets for small-amount donations? In more and more fields – from music to dance to journalism – people are raising lots of money for projects in precisely this way. The process is called crowdfunding. The first round of the #SciFund Challenge showed that this model can work for funding scientific research. Now, let’s take it to the next level!

My #SciFund project is: ‘The face of pain’

I am finishing my #SciFund Project video as we speak!

In the meantime, here is the project image:

What is religion? Next question, please.

What is religion? If this question asks what all religions have in common, then the answer is: next question, please.

What do all religions have in common? Nothing.

In contrast to Christianity, Islam and Judaism, Buddhism is atheistic with regard to a creator god. There is no doctrine of karma in Christianity. Hinduism is opulently polythesitic, but Islam is not. And so on.

In this kind of situation, it is more promising to offer a simile. What is religion like? Religion is like a cord composed of braided strands (e.g., a rope). The strands overlap and lie over each other in complex ways. The integrity of the cord does not consist in one strand, but in the arrangement of many strands.

Take any family. Look at the faces of its members. Do they have one facial feature in common?  No. There are both similarities (e.g., eye color), and differences (e.g., face contour). The relationships are complex, not simple. That is how it is. Just look and see for yourself.

Religion is extremely complex. To make a decent start at understanding it, good questions need to be asked. This is not easy. So, I urge looking first. What is observed? Compare your visual experiences. Look first, ask questions later.