Atheism, neurobiology, and pleasure

[Tank]

and the joy I'm describing is consciousness-based.

Again, how do you know?  Particularly is the interface is not clear?

Exactly. This sort of rubbish wouldn't stand up in a court of law, let alone to scientific scrutiny.

[Asmodean]

The interface between brain (physical-stuff) and consciousness (mind-stuff) is not clear, and the joy I'm describing is consciousness-based.

Uh...

Brain is the organ producing and maintaining your consciousness through electric impulses and chemical reactions. We may not understand many things about the workings of the brain, but that's no reason to attribute consciousness to something else.

To dumb it down a bit, the "mind stuff" is a direct product of the "physical stuff".

[xSilverPhinx]

Love this post.  Now you're thinking, gang!

However, I'm seeing the term "values" crop up again.  If, by this, you mean "that which is valuable" (objective) or "that which one considers valuable" (subjective), we can proceed.  Usually "values" is used to mean "maxims" or "principles", which would be something different.

Well then you're talking about the values which only a being that can rationalise things would be capable of...

You're making it sound as if how you experience your values is not biologically based. You might want to clarify that, it's causing confusion, for me at least.

The joy I experience is not biologically based--there is no dopamine production involved, no strictly physical "feeling" such as I get when I eat, have sex, or learn something cool.  It can only be described as a deep, profound connectedness, some sort of meta-feeling in the conscious self that is at once awe, peace, bliss... I know it sounds incredibly cooky, but words just aren't fit for purpose in this case.

A lot of heavy-weight scientists would disagree with you there, the experience of pleasure from everything from learning, to using drugs to eating is influenced by dopamine (it isn't called the reward neurotransmissor for nothing) and animals are reward seeking machines by nature (which doesn't mean that pleasure is all that we seek, there are survival necessities as well etc.

You are not conscious of your dopamine release during certain activities, so why do you say that it isn't biologically based when you don't even know? Because you don't like reductionism or neurochemistry just seems like it couldn't possibly generate experience?

Also, doing good because it makes one feel good is also a selfish act, but which has good demonstrable objective consequences. Give all your belongings to the poor, and work for your bare minimum so that you can help someone you don't even know and then we'll talk about it not being selfish or without any reward in mind...

Would you become a theist if I did?  If so, send me a personal message and we should talk.

No need, talk isn't exactly doing...

(I respect people who do, because they actually walk the walk...)

Answer honestly, if you knew (say the religious figure you emulate came down himself and told you) that you would go to hell, even after the life you've led thus far and that nothing you could do would change that, would you still value your values?

One of my favorite questions.  This is the case of Job, is it not?  In this ultimate experiment of theism, Job was put through hell to determine if belief in God and obedience to Him is mercenary.  I hope my response would be the same as his:

  At this, Job got up and tore his robe and shaved his head. Then he fell to the ground in worship and said:

  "Naked I came from my mother's womb,
  and naked I will depart.
  The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away;
  may the name of the LORD be praised."

  In all this, Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing.

I leave it to the better informed to pick apart that story and it's moral teaching.

[bandit4god]

and the joy I'm describing is consciousness-based.

Again, how do you know?  Particularly is the interface is not clear?

The interface is not clear, not even close.  I've worked through this problem, and it's nearly inexplicable to me how a brain set in its ways could make such a remarkable shift in how it derives pleasure and what the pleasure feels like.

My brain was quite set in its ways.  How does a Spanish person with no access to the English language teach himself English?  In the same way, how could a brain set in its ways learn an entirely different taxonomy of objective value (and joy derived therefrom) without having access to it?  I conclude that it must have been some beautiful intervention by God.  Again, difficult to describe here and I'm unable to show you how real this is through sincere acts of love I wasn't capable of beforehand.

The interface between brain (physical-stuff) and consciousness (mind-stuff) is not clear, and the joy I'm describing is consciousness-based.

To dumb it down a bit, the "mind stuff" is a direct product of the "physical stuff".

Sam Harris, and other notables, seem to disagree (special thanks to Ecurb for these).
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mystery-of-consciousness/
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mystery-of-consciousness-ii/

Is your conjecture a product of observable science or your philosophical filter?

[Sandra Craft]

I've worked through this problem, and it's nearly inexplicable to me how a brain set in its ways could make such a remarkable shift in how it derives pleasure and what the pleasure feels like.

I don't think "inexplicable to you" means "it can't happen without supernatural interference".

How does a Spanish person with no access to the English language teach himself English?  In the same way, how could a brain set in its ways learn an entirely different taxonomy of objective value (and joy derived therefrom) without having access to it?  I conclude that it must have been some beautiful intervention by God. 

I think you're seriously under-rating the brain.  What would be wrong, or devalued, or whatever, if your religious experience were biologically based?  Do you interpret that as meaning it wouldn't be real?  Even the authors of Why God Won't Go Away, which did establish that these experiences are biologically based, didn't suggest that they weren't real.

Again, difficult to describe here and I'm unable to show you how real this is through sincere acts of love I wasn't capable of beforehand.

"Acts of love" dependent on the presence of a supernatural task master.  I prefer the kind that come from human nature.

[Tank]

and the joy I'm describing is consciousness-based.

Again, how do you know?  Particularly is the interface is not clear?

The interface is not clear, not even close.  I've worked through this problem, and it's nearly inexplicable to me how a brain set in its ways could make such a remarkable shift in how it derives pleasure and what the pleasure feels like.

My brain was quite set in its ways.  How does a Spanish person with no access to the English language teach himself English?  In the same way, how could a brain set in its ways learn an entirely different taxonomy of objective value (and joy derived therefrom) without having access to it?  I conclude that it must have been some beautiful intervention by God.  Again, difficult to describe here and I'm unable to show you how real this is through sincere acts of love I wasn't capable of beforehand.

The interface between brain (physical-stuff) and consciousness (mind-stuff) is not clear, and the joy I'm describing is consciousness-based.

To dumb it down a bit, the "mind stuff" is a direct product of the "physical stuff".

Sam Harris, and other notables, seem to disagree (special thanks to Ecurb for these).
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mystery-of-consciousness/
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mystery-of-consciousness-ii/

Is your conjecture a product of observable science or your philosophical filter?

b4g
Now we have witnessing. You really are pushing your luck.
Tank

[Asmodean]

Is your conjecture a product of observable science or your philosophical filter?

Quite observable science. I'll give you a small "for instance": damaging the areas of the brain also damages the parts of consciousness for which they are responsible, such as memory, senses and the like.

A human brain is good at rerouting, but it is still not hard to demonstrate and verify that relation, nor is it too hard to demonstrate and verify a whole mess of relations between the physical workings of the brain and what we percieve to be the mental workings of consciousness.

That said, I do not filter my inputs and outputs through philosophy unless it is required. In this case, it is not.

[Whitney]

I give up trying to understand where b4g is coming from....it's probably some jumbled up and failed attempt at converting us all.

[Asmodean]

I give up trying to understand where b4g is coming from....it's probably some jumbled up and failed attempt at converting us all.

So failed, in fact, that if it is such an attempt, I can not see it...  ???

[Crow]

I give up trying to understand where b4g is coming from....it's probably some jumbled up and failed attempt at converting us all.

I have never understood a single thing he/she has said since he/she joined. All posts made always seemed to come back to the same topic no matter what the OP was about.

[Too Few Lions]

I give up trying to understand where b4g is coming from....it's probably some jumbled up and failed attempt at converting us all.

I've been thinking exactly the same thing.

[Attila]

I give up trying to understand where b4g is coming from....it's probably some jumbled up and failed attempt at converting us all.

I have never understood a single thing he/she has said since he/she joined. All posts made always seemed to come back to the same topic no matter what the OP was about.

A lot of stuff about animals and values, whoops sorry, value defined in a way that my simple mind can't understand. I had the impression that our friend believes that we are not animals in the biological sense but belong to a different category of beings. I would have thought that strong similarities in DNA between us and, say, chimps (2,7% difference) would be suggestive of something but then the big guy says it don't work that way. I'm curious though if Homo (sapiens) neanderthalensis qualified as an animal. With at least a 99,5% similarity in genomes that seems pretty close but the big guy wiped them all out (did they even get onto the arc?). Big question then: animal or not-animal? We'll never know.

And value....  ??? Beyond having fun, nothing else matters but there are many ways of having fun.

[Velma]

The joy I experience is not biologically based--there is no dopamine production involved, no strictly physical "feeling" such as I get when I eat, have sex, or learn something cool.  It can only be described as a deep, profound connectedness, some sort of meta-feeling in the conscious self that is at once awe, peace, bliss... I know it sounds incredibly cooky, but words just aren't fit for purpose in this case.

Given a quiet place and a few minutes to meditate and this atheist can conjure up those same feelings - no deity required. It's all neurochemistry.

[Attila]

Given a quiet place and a few minutes to meditate and this atheist can conjure up those same feelings - no deity required. It's all neurochemistry.

Please Velma, neurochemistry and kittens
Nothing beats the lovingkindness of the people of fur.

[Tank]

Given a quiet place and a few minutes to meditate and this atheist can conjure up those same feelings - no deity required. It's all neurochemistry.

Please Velma, neurochemistry and kittens
Nothing beats the lovingkindness of the people of fur.

Velma is a cat owner (house maid), she knows the routine