Happy Atheist Forum

I had started a new topic prior to reaching my 50 post quota regarding meaning systems and I wanted to get the temperature of the forum on this topic now that we can fully engage.

The basic idea comes from David Sloan Wilson. He is form the school of multi level evolution and looks at religion through an interesting lens. His lens is that of meaning systems.  He states that the genetic propensity to form meaning systems exist in everyone and from an evolutionary point of view the truth content in a meaning system is irrelevant. Essentially if the formation of a meaning system causes the people who subscribe to that meaning system to in any way have a social advantage over non believers then that meaning system just like an individual phenotype will persist in the gene pool (or I guess the meme pool?). In other words if I woke up to morrow and saw something that made me believe that the clouds were made of cotton candy. As long as me believing in that caused me to be even slightly more successful at propagating my genes then the propensity to believe things as silly as cotton candy clouds would be passed on. If I were to then pass on my belief of cotton candy clouds onto my children, and they to their children then what we would have is the birth of a meaning system, completely supported by evolutionary theory but completely absent of any rational truth to support it.

So I guess with that being said, wouldn’t atheism be a meaning system?
Does it do any good to argue the truth content of any meaning system?


Here is a link to his talk on Big Ideas

http://feeds.tvo.org/~r/tvobigideas/~3/ ... 34_48k.mp3 (http://feeds.tvo.org/~r/tvobigideas/~3/ZYD0fdgfLYw/007934_48k.mp3)

http://feeds.tvo.org/tvobigideas (http://feeds.tvo.org/tvobigideas)

Quote from: "TwentyThree"So I guess with that being said, wouldn’t atheism be a meaning system?

No. Neither is theism a meaning system. Both atheism and theism are not specific enough to be usefully considered meaning systems.

Quote from: "TwentyThree"Does it do any good to argue the truth content of any meaning system?

I don't know yet, I need more information. If it's falsifiable then it is good to argue about it.

Ok so there are levels to meaning systems? So what would theism and atheism be? Would they be more like macro systems because it seems like you would have to have the foundation of a theistic or atheistic viewpoint in order to whittle down the specifics of a meaning system. If that were the case would, let’s say, secularism and humanism be meaning systems contained within the larger definition of atheism in general?

I don't know if the concept of meaning systems have levels or not, I do not currently subscribe to it. I was merely mentioning the uselessness of defining such vague terms as meaning systems. Atheism and theism are nothing more than descriptors, an atheist doesn't believe in any god or gods and a theist believes in a god or gods. I would not label them as systems at all because system implies things that are not part of the scope of the words... and any attempt to apply that kind of scope will likely be met with great resistence from both atheists and theists. How many theists do you know of that accept the Egyptian system of religious beliefs? I think the terms atheism and theism are better left as just descriptors on whether one believes in a god or gods.

I don't think atheism needs to be the foundation of any viewpoint (niether does theism for that matter), atheism certaintly is not the foundation of my viewpoint and I know of at least a few atheists that post here that atheism is not the foundation of their viewpoints either. So I can't follow this either unless we're going into a completely unfounded hypothetical... which I sometimes do not mind doing.

I have to wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that theism, and atheism are not a foundations for viewpoints. In actuality I think that atheism and theism are the foundation for all viewpoints. It provides you with your framework for reality. Your very perception of self, self worth, purpose and cause all stem from weather you feel as though you were intentionally placed here supernaturally or if you just happen to be here as parts of a ceaseless chain reaction. These fundamental perceptions of reality are the backbone of all other beliefs, or truths that you will seek and or adopt throughout your lifetime. Doesn’t it seem impossible that someone could be neither atheistic, or theistic or conversely both atheistic and theistic. Is there a 3rd fundamental belief system?

We exist, that is a reasonable assumption as is that our perceptions are based on reality. Start there, work from there.

I do not see how atheism or theism must be the foundation of a person's viewpoint. Who are you to tell me what I use as the foundation of my viewpoint?

I can't answer your final question as I do not accept that atheism and theism are fundamental belief systems.

I don’t know, but it seems like you are missing my logic. Doesn’t your explanation of reality have to implicitly start with whether we are here by the cause of something supernatural or the cause of something natural. Everything else then is a product of your view of reality. Every truth that you assume has to be a function of perception and any new information you acquire. Essentially every new piece of information you acquire has to run through the filter of your perception of reality. I am not trying to tell you what to use for your foundation that was never the intent. I am simply saying that belief or disbelief in the supernatural will always be a factor in any new information that you process. Am I crazy in assuming this, logically it stands to be fairly fundamental. If you are not passing new information through the lens of your version of reality haw can you claim anything to be fact or fiction, real or imaginary?

Quote from: "Twentythree"I don’t know, but it seems like you are missing my logic.

I'm fairly certain that I'm not missing your logic, I just don't agree with it.

Quote from: "Twentythree"Doesn’t your explanation of reality have to implicitly start with whether we are here by the cause of something supernatural or the cause of something natural.

No, it doesn't. To do so would be making a baseless assumption, which is something my viewpoint will not allow (sans solipsism).

Quote from: "Twentythree"Everything else then is a product of your view of reality. Every truth that you assume has to be a function of perception and any new information you acquire. Essentially every new piece of information you acquire has to run through the filter of your perception of reality. I am not trying to tell you what to use for your foundation that was never the intent. I am simply saying that belief or disbelief in the supernatural will always be a factor in any new information that you process.

And I disagree. If you're going to just come out and tell me that the foundation to my viewpoint is based on atheism/theism when I've already told you it wasn't, then you're going to have to demonstrate why your claim must be true. So why must my viewpoint's foundation be based on atheism/theism?

Quote from: "Twentythree"Am I crazy in assuming this, logically it stands to be fairly fundamental. If you are not passing new information through the lens of your version of reality haw can you claim anything to be fact or fiction, real or imaginary?

I'm not arguing against this, I'm arguing against your claim that all viewpoints must be based on the atheism/theism dichotomy. While people may have their foundation for their viewpoint based on atheism/theism, I do not think it is necessary. My viewpoint is not based on, dependent on or has any thing at all to do with the atheism/theism dilemma. If a god popped out, danced a jig, turned me into a newt and cast California into the ocean, my viewpoint would remain intact and unchanged. If there were sufficient, reasonable evidence for a god, I would not be an atheist (unless you want to get all pedantic about it). This is because my viewpoint is not founded in atheism/theism, my being an atheist is a result of my viewpoint only accepting reasonable evidence before accepting something.

Ok, help me get on the same page. Say I'm a martian and I've never heard of humans before. How would you answer the following questions.

1. Where Do you com from?
2. What Makes you alive?
3. What is reality?

Also i just want to make clear that i'm not saying anythign about you definitively nor am i trying to say anything about what should or should not be. I'm just asking questions.

Quote from: "Twentythree"Ok, help me get on the same page. Say I'm a martian and I've never heard of humans before. How would you answer the following questions.

1. Where Do you com from?

America, my parents, Stokes, Earth, etc.

Quote from: "Twentythree"2. What Makes you alive?

I suppose if I stopped eating and drinking that would make me dead, so eating and drinking makes me alive.

Quote from: "Twentythree"3. What is reality?

Reality is what our perceptions are based off of.


Now, why must someone have an answer to these questions?
Do you consider it reasonable behavior to just accept something just because you think it must be accepted?

I see nothing wrong with not accepting things as true or not denying that things are true, I.E.: What is your position on subatomic robot creators of everything? Your viewpoint does not require a position on or even a consideration of subatomic robot creators of everything. And the bonus is that you can still be a rational person without taking a position on subatomic robot creators of everything or basing the foundation of your viewpoint on whether they exist or not. The same that is true for asubatomicrobotism/subatomicrobotism is true for atheism/theism. I hold that it is not a necessity that one make atheism or theism the foundation of their viewpoint for the same reason one doesn't need to make asubatomicrobotism or subatomicrobotism the foundation of their viewpoint.

Quote from: "Twentythree"Also i just want to make clear that i'm not saying anythign about you definitively nor am i trying to say anything about what should or should not be. I'm just asking questions.

You don't have to worry about offending me, I just don't see why you think a person must make their foundation for their viewpoint based on atheism or theism. I told you I do not, I told you my starting point, I've explained myself, and you told me that you "wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that theism, and atheism are not a foundations for viewpoints." Now I've not said they never are, I merely said they aren't for everyone and I'm one of those that do not have atheism or theism as my foundation for my viewpoint.

23 from a personal perspective atheism is an effect, not a cause. I'm an atheist because I'm a rational materialist not the other way around. Therefore atheism does not underpin my world view, it is a result of it. I was not brought up to believe in cotton candy clouds, so I don't and if somebody now tried to get me to believe in cotton candy clouds I would value evidence above assertion because in my experience an evidence based approach to living has always worked better than an assertion based approach.

I would contend that all humans are a unique combination of genes and memes shaped by experience. I would also contend that we change on a virtually minute-by-minute basis. Simply typing this reply is changing my neurological structures as I access memories and blend them into arguments. I will be a subtly different person by the time I press the submit button and you will be a subtly different person by the time you finish reading this post.

Because we are all unique and continually changing I'm not sure the term Meaning System is a useful term in understanding people and the way they behave. Academically it's an interesting concept but pragmatically I don't think it has any real explanatory power of human behaviour. I think it's an example of the human need to group, pattern match and classify at all costs. For example:-

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi216.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc254%2FTigger_the_Wing%2Fspot_the_dog1-1.gif&hash=9bc8d05616788b1b098c4103b6fe274129d740f0)

There is no dog in this picture, but once you have seen it you can't un-see it can you? Humans have evolved to see the dog, we instinctively see patterns, we can't help it any more than we can help breathing.

Ok I can defiantly see that. So I would imagine that as evidence mounted in favor of rationalism and against irrational faith that your belief in god was slowly eroded leaving you in the position you are in now. If you don’t mind me asking though how did you come to be a rational materialist? Were you brought up religious and discovered it later, on your own, or were you brought up in a household that didn’t promote a specific belief. Also, now that you have adopted an atheistic viewpoint are there any arguments that could convince you to believe in the supernatural. In other words could you “un-see” the dog?

I think I may beleaguering the point here though. The intent of my initial post was simply to try to develop a deeper understanding of the notion that meaning systems are culturally evolved, and that factual evidence or truth is not a necessary variable in the evolution of these meaning systems. In fact quite the opposite may be true, we may be more genetically predisposed to accept the unbelievable if our ancestors had been believers and prospered. It weighs on me that if faith is an adaptation, then the idea of truth itself becomes subjective.

Quote from: "Twentythree"The basic idea comes from David Sloan Wilson. He is form the school of multi level evolution and looks at religion through an interesting lens. His lens is that of meaning systems.  He states that the genetic propensity to form meaning systems exist in everyone and from an evolutionary point of view the truth content in a meaning system is irrelevant. Essentially if the formation of a meaning system causes the people who subscribe to that meaning system to in any way have a social advantage over non believers then that meaning system just like an individual phenotype will persist in the gene pool (or I guess the meme pool?). In other words if I woke up to morrow and saw something that made me believe that the clouds were made of cotton candy. As long as me believing in that caused me to be even slightly more successful at propagating my genes then the propensity to believe things as silly as cotton candy clouds would be passed on. If I were to then pass on my belief of cotton candy clouds onto my children, and they to their children then what we would have is the birth of a meaning system, completely supported by evolutionary theory but completely absent of any rational truth to support it.

So I guess with that being said, wouldn’t atheism be a meaning system?
Does it do any good to argue the truth content of any meaning system?

@ 23, really interesting OP.

Two things here.


First, I think we have good reason to doubt the hereditary 'meme' story. The theory of evolution by natural selection relies upon the fact that Genes are real measurable things which are completely necessary to a person's identity. If I have the genetic expression for blue eyes, my eyes will be blue, I cannot change that. A 'meme' (ie a belief) is, conversely, merely contingent to identity; just because I start life as a Christian it does not mean I will end my life as one. So just because my parents have certain beliefs there is nothing inevitable about my beliefs. Put it this way. If a person's father dies before birth and the mother during birth, then that person will necessarily still express their parents' genetic heritage, but are unlikely to express their parents' memetic heritage.

So while it is reasonable to say there is a hereditary aspect to the perpetuation of belief systems (ie I am more likely than not to share the beliefs of my family and community) there is no good reason for assuming this works in a way analogous to genetic hereditary. In fact, given the contingent nature of the former and the necessary nature of the latter, there is good reason for assuming that the hereditary mechanisms are fundamentally different.


Secondly I wanted to quickly address your final question "Does it do any good to argue the truth content of any meaning system?"

I think the answer to this has to be yes. However that is not to say I think meaning resides 'out there' independent of us. Put crudely all meaning is subjective (in that it requires a subject). This means that we cannot talk of absolute truth. However I do think we can maintain our talk of truth as meaningful. The system I would propose is a position first sketched by G.E.M. Anscombe in Modern Moral Philosophy (link here: http://www.philosophy.uncc.edu/mleldrid/cmt/mmp.html). Essentially it says this: The truth of a propositional statement depends upon certain agreed brute facts, and an assumption that 'the circumstances are normal'.

EG. "To knowingly punish an innocent man, in normal circumstances, is unjust." Now this sentence makes a moral claim, so the sceptical suspicion is that it is meaningless, because the very notion of 'unjust' as an absolute is meaningless; such a sceptic would say that to make this sentence meaningful we would have to say "I believe that ..." at the start.

What Anscombe says is that if we agree on the brute facts that (a)the man is innocent, (b) this is known, and circumstances are normal then it is true to say that to punish him is unjust. This argument is not trying to explain the why of "unjust". Rather gives an account of how it is we find "unjust" meaningful (and let's face it, we do).

So in that sense to say that "all discussion of meaning content is pointless" is overkill (plus a little self-contradictory - after all what does it mean to be sceptical of meaning!?!). We should not hope to explain why things mean what they do, but we can give an account of how our system of meaning content operates (at the very least, at the level of language).

I think that theism are meaning systems, but wouldn't label atheism as one because it's just one aspect (or manifestion as Tank pointed out) of meaning systems. People call themselves "atheists" to identify themselves as non theists, but atheism in itself is not a meaning system.

Sloan mentioned that culture is like a super organism and that memes and meme propagation are not linked to individual organism as genes are, at least as I understood it, and that memes are not fixed to individuals but are more like good/"true"/or pragmatical ideas floating around in a culture (meme pool, as you put it) susceptible to incorporating them, for whatever reason, and that the group that incorporates good ideas has a better chance of surviving.

Christianity was born of the minds of an oppressed people during Roman occupation and persecution, and there are still plenty of vestigial memes today that can be traced way back to that point. The idea that justice will prevail, though not always true, is a good one to believe in. Another is that only the meek will inherit heaven - so all your suffering will be worth something in the end, and any other that makes slaves out of people.

There were plenty of messiahs back then, why was Christianity selected?

One reason that I think that some form of organised religious philosophy will always exist is because such things are part of human nature. We're aware of the fact that we're going to die and we're existentially angsty creatures. Some memes are going to stick around until we've conquered death somehow. Theism is the easy and comfortable meaning system for most, and as Sloan pointed out, it isn't the truth value that matters, but it's practical value.  

Have you heard of the God Virus? (http://www.thegodvirus.net/) It's more on the parasitic view, but still a transmission of memes nonetheless.

If I were a social engineer, I would definitely prefer Calvinism (emphasis on works) over Catholicism...though a really good virus is one that doesn't kill its host. If through Calvinism people reach a point where they're existentially secure enough, what's the point of it?

Quote from: "penfold"First, I think we have good reason to doubt the hereditary 'meme' story. The theory of evolution by natural selection relies upon the fact that Genes are real measurable things which are completely necessary to a person's identity. If I have the genetic expression for blue eyes, my eyes will be blue, I cannot change that. A 'meme' (ie a belief) is, conversely, merely contingent to identity; just because I start life as a Christian it does not mean I will end my life as one. So just because my parents have certain beliefs there is nothing inevitable about my beliefs. Put it this way. If a person's father dies before birth and the mother during birth, then that person will necessarily still express their parents' genetic heritage, but are unlikely to express their parents' memetic heritage.

So while it is reasonable to say there is a hereditary aspect to the perpetuation of belief systems (ie I am more likely than not to share the beliefs of my family and community) there is no good reason for assuming this works in a way analogous to genetic hereditary. In fact, given the contingent nature of the former and the necessary nature of the latter, there is good reason for assuming that the hereditary mechanisms are fundamentally different.

That is correct when viewing it from the point of an individual, the individual acquires its expressed phenotypes from the gene pool and transmits these genes to new generations through sex. Memes on the other hand exists in the meme pool that is separate from the individual. I think heredity gives us the capacity to absorb and transmit memes, the memes that we transmit can come from anywhere. I guess we have to look at cultural ideas as almost living things in themselves as they are able to self replicate through cultural generations. I don’t know for sure but when looking at religion through the lens of meaning systems it becomes a lot less frustrating because you realize that their truth is different from my truth, at the very deepest level our ideas of reality don’t converge. That is why it seems to me to be a waste of resources to try to discuss faith or god concepts with people who are already entrenched in faith, at their core their reality is different than mine. right?

Edit. I am going to read the content of the link you sent in order to discuss your point about truth.

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"Sloan mentioned that culture is like a super organism and that memes and meme propagation are not linked to individual organism as genes are, at least as I understood it, and that memes are not fixed to individuals but are more like good/"true"/or pragmatical ideas floating around in a culture (meme pool, as you put it) susceptible to incorporating them, for whatever reason, and that the group that incorporates good ideas has a better chance of surviving.

Yes, sorry for making a redundant point in my last post as you had already touched on it above. That cultural evolution exists outside of individuals. It has become a living thing on its own, dependent on individual minds to replicate it but blind to its own influence on those minds with just as individual genes are blind to the affects it has on individual bodies. I would like more explanation on how in your view Atheism is not a meaning system though. We’ve established from the above posts that atheism is perhaps more likely the slow erosion of beliefs rather than the acquisition of belief, and although this is somewhat circular, can it not be stated that not believing is a belief in nothing? If so can we then look at atheism as part of a vast array of meaning systems in the human meme pool? Further, since we are able to acknowledge meaning systems and identify their effect on us, do we have to potential to control the evolution of meaning systems or any cultural memes in general?

Double post.  

Quote from: "Twentythree"Yes, sorry for making a redundant point in my last post as you had already touched on it above. That cultural evolution exists outside of individuals. It has become a living thing on its own, dependent on individual minds to replicate it but blind to its own influence on those minds with just as individual genes are blind to the affects it has on individual bodies.

An analogy he makes is with social insects such as ants which live mutualistically to form a colony capable of propagating itself, which compete with other colonies, as superorganism with superorganism. A better adapted ant can evolve genes within a colony which gives the group a competitive edge, but that advantage is not on the individual level.

QuoteI would like more explanation on how in your view Atheism is not a meaning system though.

I think it's a problem of labels. The word 'atheism' to describe meaning systems is inadequate, because it's a characteristic or product of meaning systems (which are not homogeneous among people who call themselves atheists) and not a system of positive beliefs. Do people live their lives as "atheists" as "theists" might? The label is being used to identify as group which is starting to counter theists, and in that aspects it may look like a meaning system. But to me it's more like people with similar meaning systems coming together to fight off an common foe, and derive meaning from that.  

As nit-picky as this may sound, the issue I have is with the word.    

QuoteWe’ve established from the above posts that atheism is perhaps more likely the slow erosion of beliefs rather than the acquisition of belief, and although this is somewhat circular, can it not be stated that not believing is a belief in nothing?

I don't think so, not believing in something is more like beleiving in something else. "Nothing" makes it sound too nihilistic.  

QuoteIf so can we then look at atheism as part of a vast array of meaning systems in the human meme pool?

Atheism is a characteristic of a vast array of meaning systems.  

QuoteFurther, since we are able to acknowledge meaning systems and identify their effect on us, do we have to potential to control the evolution of meaning systems or any cultural memes in general?

Interesting question, I think it's down to circumstance and environment way more than we would like, but I think that putting out good and highly selectable memes out there could after some time cause a ripple.

Quote from: "Twentythree"That is correct when viewing it from the point of an individual, the individual acquires its expressed phenotypes from the gene pool and transmits these genes to new generations through sex. Memes on the other hand exists in the meme pool that is separate from the individual. I think heredity gives us the capacity to absorb and transmit memes, the memes that we transmit can come from anywhere. I guess we have to look at cultural ideas as almost living things in themselves as they are able to self replicate through cultural generations.

I find this kind of argument suspicious. What is meant by 'meme'? The answer must be that it is instantiated in thoughts of individuals. A meme does not exist as something extant from individuals. So given that a meme is a group term for many thoughts by many individuals, what do we mean by 'meme pool'? It seems to me that the only feasible candidate is languge, this being the primary mechinism by which we express our thoughts.

Bearing these definitions in mind, it becomes really quite unjustified to talk of them as analagous to genes. Genes are discrete and directly observable, they reproduce passing copies of themselves and (in the case of sexual reproduction) mix with the genes of another individual to create a new unique genetic individual. An individual who (a few mutations aside) is necessarily an expression of the parental genes.

That 'memes' do not fit this model can be shown not only in the dissimilarity of a meme and a gene (complex, composite of thoughts and languge vs discrete 'atomic' objects in the world) but also in the different relationship to reproduction. The gene reproduces in the creation of indivduals. The meme, on the other hand, does not create indivudals but shapes language. Moreover how memes shape language is complex and subtle. There is no neat mechanism (like sexual reproduction for genes) which explains how memes change and interact precisely because there is no discrete object called a meme (one might say that unlike genes the meme is not 'atomic').

By shifting the debate from 'meme' to 'thought' and 'meme pool' to 'language' we can look at these issues without presupposing anything. Moreover it may help clear up another point you made:

QuoteI don’t know for sure but when looking at religion through the lens of meaning systems it becomes a lot less frustrating because you realize that their truth is different from my truth, at the very deepest level our ideas of reality don’t converge. That is why it seems to me to be a waste of resources to try to discuss faith or god concepts with people who are already entrenched in faith, at their core their reality is different than mine. right?

What is happening here is that people are playing, what Wittgenstein would call, "different languge games". At the level of language the meaning of the word 'God' differs depending upon the speaker. So a theist means one thing by 'God' and the atheist another. For the theist talking about 'God' is primarily theology, for the atheist talking about 'God' is a mix of sociology, mythology, history and philosophy. But just because we play different languge games that does not mean we are incabable of understanding each other's games or even finding common games.

In fact reality shows us just a fluid the situation is with differening ideas popping up and mutating one converstaion to the next (once again unlike the genetic model that proceeds one individual at a time change happening at a particular time and via a particular mechanism - eg. sex). Not only can atheists and theists talk to each other about God (I can understand the cosmological argument and my theist friends can understand sceptical ones) and even change thier minds; but moreover we share most of our meaning; we may disagree on "God" but we agree on almost everything else. I don't need an interpreter to go shopping with a Christian.

Penfold, Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme) gives a basis. Meme's are not just thoughts, but anything that can be imitated (replicated), adapted (mutated) and passed on either horizontally (from person to person who are not parent and child) or vertically (from parent to child, grandparent to grandchild, etc) to newer generations. What constitutes a meme 'unit' can be disputed.

Quote from: "Twentythree"Ok I can defiantly see that. So I would imagine that as evidence mounted in favor of rationalism and against irrational faith that your belief in god was slowly eroded leaving you in the position you are in now. If you don’t mind me asking though how did you come to be a rational materialist? Were you brought up religious and discovered it later, on your own, or were you brought up in a household that didn’t promote a specific belief. Also, now that you have adopted an atheistic viewpoint are there any arguments that could convince you to believe in the supernatural. In other words could you “un-see” the dog?

I was brought up in a relatively 'belief neutral' household. My Mum was Church of England and my Dad was an atheist (although I don't recall him ever using the term). So I came through to adulthood not believing there was a God.

I could believe in the supernatural if there were rational arguments supported by solid research conducted by people who were sceptical of the existance of the supernatural. I have a secret vice, John Edwards.    I love his programs. I don't know how he does what he does but he does it so well it's like watching a virtuosos violinist, one may not appreciate the music but one can appreciate the skill. I wouldn't be very open minded if I could not say that I would consider evidence that the supernatural existed, it's just that to date I appear to set a higher bar for the evidence than some do.

Quote from: "Twentythree"I think I may beleaguering the point here though. The intent of my initial post was simply to try to develop a deeper understanding of the notion that meaning systems are culturally evolved, and that factual evidence or truth is not a necessary variable in the evolution of these meaning systems. In fact quite the opposite may be true, we may be more genetically predisposed to accept the unbelievable if our ancestors had been believers and prospered. It weighs on me that if faith is an adaptation, then the idea of truth itself becomes subjective.

I think we are most definitely genetically predisposed to accept what we are told by people we perceive as being in authority. Without this predisposition a tribe/culture would descend into anarchy. I think it comes from the fact that kids that don't do what they are told have a lower survival rate than those that do. Two kids are told by their respective mothers "Don't eat that!" one does and dies, the other doesn't and lives. Natural selection at its finest. If a tribe can not react to a situation because it's suffering from 'analysis paralysis' the tribe that invades will take their land and they will die. I think the 'Alpha Male' syndrome is entrenched in our genome. The problem occurs when the authority figure is talking inherited mythology. How can that cycle be broken?

Quote from: "penfold"By shifting the debate from 'meme' to 'thought' and 'meme pool' to 'language' we can look at these issues without presupposing anything.

What is happening here is that people are playing, what Wittgenstein would call, "different languge games". At the level of language the meaning of the word 'God' differs depending upon the speaker. So a theist means one thing by 'God' and the atheist another. For the theist talking about 'God' is primarily theology, for the atheist talking about 'God' is a mix of sociology, mythology, history and philosophy. But just because we play different languge games that does not mean we are incabable of understanding each other's games or even finding common games.

In fact reality shows us just a fluid the situation is with differening ideas popping up and mutating one converstaion to the next (once again unlike the genetic model that proceeds one individual at a time change happening at a particular time and via a particular mechanism - eg. sex). Not only can atheists and theists talk to each other about God (I can understand the cosmological argument and my theist friends can understand sceptical ones) and even change thier minds; but moreover we share most of our meaning; we may disagree on "God" but we agree on almost everything else. I don't need an interpreter to go shopping with a Christian.

I see what you mean, about language, but it looks to me like language is one method of transmission for memes, it is in this transmission from individual to individual that mutations occur. Also I think we have to be cautions of tying memes to tightly to language, as memes are really ideas, thoughts, beliefs and behaviors. The language of transmission can be verbal or written language but it can also be artistic expression, mathematical expression or just simple observation. For example if I just happen to see Fonzy on Happy Days comb his hair in a certain way, and I comb my hair that way and a certain percentage of the population combs it’s hair that way then we have essentially seen the transmission of a meme through observed behavior. We can then see that certain memes find deep comfy niches with little competition (God/science) because there are very few variants in the meme pool. Or we see the oscillation of slightly mutated memic expression as in music styles, fashion, political allegiances and so on.

I get caught up in language games all the time. If not language games then I do get stuck in the subjectivity of definitions. Things such as the definition of god, or the various definitions of reality are so subjective that my arguments often become muddled in definition or semantic context. So please forgive me as I use language to frame my argument here:

Although it may seem like you don’t need an interpreter, your points may be getting lost translation due to a fundamental difference in your definitions of reality. Language is flawed deeply in its subjectivity, and I think true understanding is vastly different than linguistic comprehension. I think that understanding between different individuals is possible on certain levels but on many levels, even very like minded people will be able to comprehend one another without obtaining a full understanding.

Quote from: "Tank"I think the 'Alpha Male' syndrome is entrenched in our genome. The problem occurs when the authority figure is talking inherited mythology. How can that cycle be broken?

I agree with your analysis of the potential genetic construction for the physical development of the propensity to form irrational beliefs. It certainly explains why there are so many people incapable of utilizing the full range of choices that free will gives them. It explains why so many people clamor for rules and easy ideology. That is why there are only 2 political parties in the US, fewer choices make for easier resolution. 1 choice will be subverted but 2 choices gives us just enough of the illusion of choice but does not frighten us with an abundance of choice. If we take a naturalist approach to our own patterns of choice and consumption there are almost always 2 primary choices with a plethora of less popular seemingly tertiary choices. Wal-Mart or Target, McDonalds or Burger King, Coke or Pepsi, team Edward or team Jacob…in each of these cases there is one dominant competitor that we have exalted, it’s rival is able to acquire equilibrium and there are a plethora of tertiary competitors but none that get the type of exaltation that we give the big 2.
I think it’s this innate need to align yourself with someone or something (meaning system?), instead of staying open to infinite possibilities, that drives markets (currency), that allows for a majority of the population to quietly accept their social class while building an elite class of over privileged people out of our adoration. Because of the imagined importance we put on these “elite” their particular memes have a higher transmission probability than other memes. We can see how all of this evolved simultaneously. Children adapt a “believe your elders” framework, this is extrapolated to adults who look to the eldest of their tribe and eventually make him chief (Alpha), the “chief” meme is then transmitted culturally primarily by chief (enter, blood line) and mutates to be the exaltation of people within certain social classes. So then we have in modern culture all sorts of different chiefs at different levels of society all with varying degrees of meme transmission influence. Of course the memes for greater influence at higher levels of affluence will be more likely to spread. It seems almost impossible to break the “cycle”. Essentially we have to evolve. I think that is the biggest question, can we evolve into a new direction where fact and information is exalted instead of wealth and affluence? Which, since I brought it up, is really just made up anyway, we imagined a made up value of a made up currency to pay for imaginary ownership of made up things which are only necessary so we can continue to pursue our own metal disks and sheets of paper with made up value.

Kind of got rantish there at the end…sorry.

Quote from: TwentythreeSo I guess with that being said, wouldn’t atheism be a meaning system?
Does it do any good to argue the truth content of any meaning system?

I don't think so, no.  I'll do my best to explain why.

In order to describe 'meaning' you need to refer to something else, external but related to the subject, which gives it that meaning. This, awkwardly, will always create an infinite regress of references. There is a commonly used illustration of this, at its most basic level: when you look up the meaning of a word in a dictionary, you will find a sentence or two, comprised of other words. If you look up the meaning of those words, you will get more of the same, and so on, forever. Since one definition depends on the others being solid, we end up in a situation where nothing can ever be truly verified, and the whole 'system' is in flux. Eventually, we have to fall back on one form or other of a 'transcendental signifier.' In other words, a sort of 'common sense' law that 'goes without saying,' held up as totally immune to scrutiny, in order to give a solid foundation to the rest. God is a crude example of a transcendental signifier:

"Why do we eat?"
"To live."
"Why do we live?"
"To worship God."
"Why does God need to be worshiped?"
"..."

I'd argue that without the last answer, the others are meaningless. But how do people get around this? Simple: by never asking the last question. Or better yet, by denying that the last question can even be asked. Thus the chain, coming from any angle, can always end with the mention of God, and our meaning system retains the illusion of stability.

An even more absolute example of a transcendental signifier would be 'logic,' of course. And I agree with Sloan; we have these things to survive, not because they contain any 'truth.'


In conclusion, I also second what a lot of people have said re atheism being an outcome, not a foundation, of one or other meaning systems (materialism, rationalism and so on) but I think things are getting a little side tracked there; I'm more interested in the meat of your OP than the way you've chosen to word it. As for whether atheism seriously affects one's outlook on life, maybe that's true for some. It isn't for me. If there really was a giant, corporeal, floating head, adrift in space, issuing commandments, I'd probably find it very curious and amusing for a while but it wouldn't change my philosophy much.

Quote from: Melmoth on April 30, 2011, 09:04:27 AM

An even more absolute example of a transcendental signifier would be 'logic,' of course. And I agree with Sloan; we have these things to survive, not because they contain any 'truth.'

While I agree with much of your articulate and incisive reply here, I'm confused by this last piece.  While I believe I understand the argument that evolution has selected modes of thought and perception on which survival is contingent, rather than "truth," I always have an instinct that we may be ignoring the obvious when seeking to anchor things like logic.  Surely, the principles of logic do not require "trancendental" existence to be valid.  The language and symbols of logic merely require relationships to one another that mirror the relationships among the objects to which they refer.  Logic is merely a descriptor of relationships and states that contingently exist.  So why do we even expect logic to be "trancendental"?

Tank writes in reply #20,

I wouldn't be very open minded if I could not say that I would consider evidence that the supernatural existed, it's just that to date I appear to set a higher bar for the evidence than some do.

This statement has always [well, at least over the last 20 years in which I've thought about it] ended for me in a sort of irreconcilable conundrum.

I asked myself; What would constitute evidence in this case and what would be the consequences for the supernatural?

However I reason it, I arrive at the conclusion that the supernatural can have no separate existence outside the human mind. This reasoning assisted my passage to positive atheism, the positive understanding, the conviction, that no gods exist outside the human mind.

They are, to a greater or lesser degree, supernatural and therefore figments of human imagination.

Extropian

Quote from: The Black Jester

Quote from: MelmothAn even more absolute example of a transcendental signifier would be 'logic,' of course. And I agree with Sloan; we have these things to survive, not because they contain any 'truth.'

[...]  The language and symbols of logic merely require relationships to one another that mirror the relationships among the objects to which they refer.  Logic is merely a descriptor of relationships and states that contingently exist.  So why do we even expect logic to be "trancendental"?

Much trickier to go into, but I'll have a go!

Just to be sure: by transcendental I don't mean supernatural. You probably got that, but I just read over my last post and realised that the two were open to confusion.

As you say, when we're dealing with logic we are dealing with language and symbols, not the actual objects themselves. So the percieved relationships between these objects can only really exist in that same abstract, metaphysical plane of meaningful cues. Without one object (and the subsequent set of relationships around it) being 'set in stone,' this network of relations has nothing to anchor it. That's all I meant.

The 'language' of logic is loose and flexible, essentially, unless we contrive a dictionary for it, and agree that some or all of its terms can 'go without saying', ie. they don't need any other basis than themselves to be valid. Even such pragmatic and handy devices as the scientific method require a few of these. That truth exists, albeit as a sort of unattainable asymptote, being the main one. Without that, you can deconstruct any logical position just by asking the question "why?" over and over again, like an unconditioned child.

Quote from: ExtropianHowever I reason it, I arrive at the conclusion that the supernatural can have no separate existence outside the human mind. This reasoning assisted my passage to positive atheism, the positive understanding, the conviction, that no gods exist outside the human mind.

Since we can only look to the natural world for our evidence, finding any for a magical claim would automatically debunk its 'supernatural' status. So in a way, 'supernatural' might as well be a synonym of 'imaginary.' ;D

EDIT: got the quote source the wrong way round. Ditsy me.

Quote from: Melmoth on May 05, 2011, 03:25:46 AM

Quote from: The Black Jester

Quote from: MelmothAn even more absolute example of a transcendental signifier would be 'logic,' of course. And I agree with Sloan; we have these things to survive, not because they contain any 'truth.'

[...]  The language and symbols of logic merely require relationships to one another that mirror the relationships among the objects to which they refer.  Logic is merely a descriptor of relationships and states that contingently exist.  So why do we even expect logic to be "trancendental"?

Much trickier to go into, but I'll have a go!

Just to be sure: by transcendental I don't mean supernatural. You probably got that, but I just read over my last post and realised that the two were open to confusion.

I suppose I meant the sort of metaphysical 'existence' or 'objective' ontology that is posited by philosophers.  I've never honestly been clear on whether this sort of existence is really separate from the supernatural.

QuoteAs you say, when we're dealing with logic we are dealing with language and symbols, not the actual objects themselves. So the percieved relationships between these objects can only really exist in that same abstract, metaphysical plane of meaningful cues. Without one object (and the subsequent set of relationships around it) being 'set in stone,' this network of relations has nothing to anchor it. That's all I meant.

It may be that I am out of my depth here, pretentions to the contrary, and my thoughts are still a little confused on this topic, so I will have to ask for your patience.  I believe I see what you're saying, and I have seen similar things argued often.  Indeed, the argument is usually taken for granted as 'true.' It has just always occurred to me that what we really mean by a logical relation is somehow based on relations we observe.  I suppose I am effectively denying the existence of the a priori, and the independence of the intellect.  If this is true, that means that our knowledge need only have a pragmatic significance to be "valid."  It is 'valid' ONLY because it serves us.  The regress of 'why' questions then ends not in a logical point, but in a point about our goals, which is another thing entirely.

Let me explain...I would claim that the following simple argument, and the logical rules underlying them, is only instinctively acknowledged by us as valid because our practical experience of the relations between real objects in the real world bear out those relations. 

All men are mortal
Quinn is a man
Therefore Quinn is mortal

You may say that this structure merely reflects our use of language and a set of arbitrary rules that relate members of one category (men) to another (things that have the property of being mortal).  My argument is that both the truth of the premise and the relation between the categories are based on our experience of both men and things that are mortal.  We define categories by our experience, however unconsciously, and by our negative experience: that is, experiences we never have.  If set A is a member of set B, we never experience a member of A that is not a member of B.  So we abstract these relations to form our logical rules.  An answer to "why is this relation true" could be that our experience bears it out.  A further "Why" question..."why does our experience bear it out" is answered by a list of our confirming experiences or non-experiences.  A question about why experiences have the property of being confirming can be answered by the fact that it is useful and a successful strategy to infer from experiences of a certain type to universal expectations, because doing so has furthered our success as a species.  Which might mean that the "unattainable asymptote" is a question of values, not of logic. 

Anyway, I'm just pulling this out of my ass, so feel free to ignore.

Sorry it's taken me a while to get back to you; this is likely to be a long post, and I haven't really had a solid stretch of time to write it until now.

Quote from: The Black JesterAnyway, I'm just pulling this out of my ass, so feel free to ignore.

You think I'm not talking out of my ass? Because I am, let's have no illusions about that. I might be able to craft my verbal diarrhea into pleasing shapes every now and again, but you needn't take this as anything more than a playful abstraction.

Come to think of it, if I were to claim any basis to my ideas beyond that of other people's, paradoxically, it would only undermine them. I tend to believe that everything that ever gets said by anyone can only come from one place, 'their ass' being as good a metaphor as any for it.

Quote from: The Black JesterIt may be that I am out of my depth here, pretentions to the contrary, and my thoughts are still a little confused on this topic, so I will have to ask for your patience.  I believe I see what you're saying, and I have seen similar things argued often.  Indeed, the argument is usually taken for granted as 'true.' It has just always occurred to me that what we really mean by a logical relation is somehow based on relations we observe.  I suppose I am effectively denying the existence of the a priori, and the independence of the intellect.  If this is true, that means that our knowledge need only have a pragmatic significance to be "valid."  It is 'valid' ONLY because it serves us.  The regress of 'why' questions then ends not in a logical point, but in a point about our goals, which is another thing entirely.

In that case, before we can come to determine what is and isn't 'valid,' we need to have at least one goal already set, a priori. To give something a pragmatic significance, it needs some agenda to have significance with, even if that's just to survive.

Now we get into metaphysics. I think we probably agree on a number of things here, so in places I'll be contradicting, in others only re-emphasising what you've said. First, I'll try to provide an illustration of how language is metaphysical, both in terms of what it is and what it refers to. I'll give a very basic piece of description, and you can try to build a detailed picture in your mind:

I'm sitting at the table in my kitchen. My laptop is in front of me. There is a spiral notepad next to it, with some scribbled notes for an essay on Don DeLillo that I'm currently putting off. On top of this rests a mug of tea (slightly too milky for my taste), an ashtray, a half-empty bag of tobacco, rolling papers and a lighter. As I type, the ash from my cigarette keeps falling down between the keys. The door to the kitchen is open and I can feel a slight breeze coming through. Now I can hear the neighbour's kids bickering outside.

As straight-forward as that seems, the sensory image that it produced in your 'mind's eye' will still look, smell and feel nothing like the one I have in mine. What angle did you view it all from? How big or small was the kitchen? What colour was the mug and how milky is "too milky," for tea? With the notes on the spiral pad, how was my handwriting? Neat or illegible, masculine, effeminate, large, small? Was my cigarette fat or thin, cylindrical or conical, filtered or roached? How old were the kids next door, and were they male or female voices? Was the open door plain, paneled, wooden, plastic and what was on the other side of it anyway? A corridor? Another room?

What you saw was not what I saw. In fact, it's impossible for there to be even a single material, physical match between your vision and mine. Yet I used simple language that we both understand. I doubt there was any confusion about what I meant by any of it. So where is the likeness between your perception and mine?

Here's what I think. We call these things 'kitchen', 'notepad', 'table', not because of what they physically are but because of what they mean to us. This is why two totally dissimilar shapes, made out of totally dissimilar materials, can both be called 'chairs' so long as they have the same key, metaphysical properties. Can I sit on it? Yes. Did the person who put it together intend it to be sat on? Yes. So the word 'chair' is really an observation about meaning and purpose - it isn't anchored to any particular physical thing. What you interpret it to mean physically is really down to you, your own experiences and our own aesthetic preference > yet more metaphysical definers!

I agree that pragmatism is very important here. It doesn't matter that when I say 'chair' we both picture completely different objects because, for the sake of getting by, they might as well be the same. The colour 'red' may be experienced differently by both of us - that seems to me as likely as not - but when we see it we both put on the breaks. That we react identically is enough to make the concept of 'red' the same for both of us - that our actual experience is different doesn't matter.

The trouble is, while the metaphysical plane of language provides a way for us to interact with the material world purposefully - making tools and so on - it remains totally divorced from it. At no point does the concept of a 'chair' actually link with the physical reality. It is only a concept, the boundaries of which are determined by ourselves, either by pragmatic necessity or arbitrarily. We need things to sit on, so we manifest a new idea that wasn't there before. We need to see the face of Jesus in a cloud, so we do. It's only a matter of mutual agreement. Which works, as we've seen, on a simplistic and practical level, for things that we all depend on, but that's about as far as two people can ever see eye to eye and there is no material truth in any of it.

I probably haven't answered everything that you've said but no doubt you'll remind me to, and this should be enough for now. If I write any more people will get bored reading it.

Good points, Melmoth.

Quote from: Melmoth on May 08, 2011, 06:39:37 PM
Sorry it's taken me a while to get back to you; this is likely to be a long post, and I haven't really had a solid stretch of time to write it until now.

Quote from: The Black JesterAnyway, I'm just pulling this out of my ass, so feel free to ignore.

You think I'm not talking out of my ass? Because I am, let's have no illusions about that. I might be able to craft my verbal diarrhea into pleasing shapes every now and again, but you needn't take this as anything more than a playful abstraction.

Come to think of it, if I were to claim any basis to my ideas beyond that of other people's, paradoxically, it would only undermine them. I tend to believe that everything that ever gets said by anyone can only come from one place, 'their ass' being as good a metaphor as any for it. 

I love it.  The "Ass" - the primary metaphorical origin of ideas.

Please don't bother to apologize, even for politeness sake.  However others might be bored to tears reading this interaction, I, for one, appreciate the time you have taken to respond.

First of all, I agree with xSilverPhinx: these are all excellent points, and I fear you may have gone beyond the range of my own ham-fisted attempts to become a philosophic autodidact.  I have done little study in either the philosophy of language or the philosophy of metaphysics.  I have a cursory understanding of certain metaphysical ideas, but my main training has been in the philosophy of mind and in epistemology.

Quote from: Melmoth on May 08, 2011, 06:39:37 PM
In that case, before we can come to determine what is and isn't 'valid,' we need to have at least one goal already set, a priori. To give something a pragmatic significance, it needs some agenda to have significance with, even if that's just to survive. 

It occurs to me now that I was attempting a cheap maneuver out of the infinite regress: trying to claim that any "why" question asked of a logical point could ultimately be answered until you arrived at the question of values.  I was, somewhat confusedly, trying to point out that the a priori asymptote came as a point of meaning and value, rather than as an unanswered logical premise, so that in some sense logic held together, and it's foundation was not itself, but another area of philosophy.  But that just vanishes the problem down another rabbit hole.

Quote from: Melmoth on May 08, 2011, 06:39:37 PM
Now we get into metaphysics.

I must admit that I am still grappling with understanding precisely what is meant by saying something has a "metaphysical" existence.  Is it spiritual?  Is it merely the non-physical realm of ideas, similar to the Forms?  To me, when we notice relations in the world, we abstract those relations and form language games to mirror those relations, but those language games are instantiated, at least to my way of thinking, in the physical brain - they are not "non-stuff."

But that is another argument  ;). 

Actually, now that I think of it, I found myself agreeing with much of what you wrote, and wondering, further, what your thoughts on philosophy of mind might be?  Interested in another thread, or perhaps even a one on one debate on the matter?

Quote from: The Black Jester on May 08, 2011, 09:34:09 PM
Actually, now that I think of it, I found myself agreeing with much of what you wrote, and wondering, further, what your thoughts on philosophy of mind might be?  Interested in another thread, or perhaps even a one on one debate on the matter?

:old popcorn icon:

That should be interesting, it almost always is.  ;D

Quote from: The Black JesterI must admit that I am still grappling with understanding precisely what is meant by saying something has a "metaphysical" existence.  Is it spiritual?  Is it merely the non-physical realm of ideas, similar to the Forms?  To me, when we notice relations in the world, we abstract those relations and form language games to mirror those relations, but those language games are instantiated, at least to my way of thinking, in the physical brain - they are not "non-stuff."

But that is another argument  ;)

Actually, now that I think of it, I found myself agreeing with much of what you wrote, and wondering, further, what your thoughts on philosophy of mind might be?  Interested in another thread, or perhaps even a one on one debate on the matter?

The areas of philosophy that I probably have the most 'learning' in, if you could call it that, are language (so metaphysics is pretty much a given) and aesthetics. I'd say these compliment the philosophy of mind pretty nicely.

So yes, that would probably be very eye-opening for me, if you want to start off a new thread. I'd also be interested in a one on one debate, though I'm not sure what, specifically, we'd want to talk about within the subject. I like the angle of approach that this discussion seems to have taken into it, from one of understanding language and meaning, so perhaps we might want to take advantage of that somehow. I'll leave it up to you. You can set the parameters.

One thing I should say though: if it gets too 'sciency' then I'm afraid I'll be flying blind. I'm an art and literature buff, but not a science person. What little I do know has been picked up from popular science books that have been incidental to my interest in langauge, or as background research for my writing hobbies. For instance, I wrote a short story recently in which one of the characters comes home from a long trip to find her husband has committed suicide, so for authenticity's sake I wanted a sense of what happens to the body after it dies. Cue a very good book by Mary Roach called Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavars. :D Fiction writing can lead you down some very strange avenues.

Quote from: xSilverPhinx:old popcorn icon:

That should be interesting, it almost always is. ;D

It's nice to know you're appreciated. :)

Quote from: Melmoth on May 09, 2011, 03:50:09 AM
The areas of philosophy that I probably have the most 'learning' in, if you could call it that, are language (so metaphysics is pretty much a given) and aesthetics. I'd say these compliment the philosophy of mind pretty nicely.

I would agree.  It actually gives me a few ideas on where to begin and with what questions.

My "training" consists of a collection of various philosophy classes taken at the university level, combined with my own reading over the years, but I never had a major or structured, formal track in the subject.  So this could turn out to be amusing.  A little like those toughman competitions, where any random asshole can get in the ring, as long as he can get the gloves on, and still has teeth to lose.  ;D

Quote from: Melmoth on May 09, 2011, 03:50:09 AM
So yes, that would probably be very eye-opening for me, if you want to start off a new thread. I'd also be interested in a one on one debate, though I'm not sure what, specifically, we'd want to talk about within the subject. I like the angle of approach that this discussion seems to have taken into it, from one of understanding language and meaning, so perhaps we might want to take advantage of that somehow. I'll leave it up to you. You can set the parameters.

I think it would be similarly eye-opening for me, particularly since your areas of interest are different to mine. Although we could just end up talking past one another. There are a number of avenues we can explore.  Both a formalized debate and an open thread have their advantages, and disadvantages.  With a formal debate, you have a rather constraining structure, and the question under discussion must be precisely defined for the debate to be of any use.  So we'd have to pick a topic, and one on which we disagree.  But that focus can also be an advantage: no one else can interject, and we have less ability to get off-track.  Which leads me to my next question: do you have a position on Phil of Mind?  Is the mind different to the brain, in your opinion?  Do you feel strongly enough about that to defend a position?

A new thread would allow input from anyone else with an interest or an opinion, which could get chaotic, and we'd have no control over the direction of the discussion, but it could allow for a richer debate, and could easily segue from the topics discussed previously in this thread.

I'm leaning to just creating a new thread, unless you disagree.

Quote from: Melmoth on May 09, 2011, 03:50:09 AM
One thing I should say though: if it gets too 'sciency' then I'm afraid I'll be flying blind. I'm an art and literature buff, but not a science person. What little I do know has been picked up from popular science books that have been incidental to my interest in langauge, or as background research for my writing hobbies. For instance, I wrote a short story recently in which one of the characters comes home from a long trip to find her husband has committed suicide, so for authenticity's sake I wanted a sense of what happens to the body after it dies. Cue a very good book by Mary Roach called Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavars. :D Fiction writing can lead you down some very strange avenues.

I'm a science buff, but hardly an expert: but yes, neuroscience does tend to inform my opinion quite a bit.  However, we can stay strictly logical, there's plenty of positions to discuss having either nothing to do with the science, or for which the particular details of the science are irrelevant.  But it could also be enlightening, in that we'd both have to read up a bit to keep up with the discussion. 

The broadest and most obvious questions have to do with the mind/brain problem:

Is the mind the brain, or is the mind a separate thing, and if so, how is it related to the brain?
What is consciousness and how is it created?
Is there a self?
Do Qualia exist, and if so, how are they accounted for?
Can subjective experience be accounted for by a 3rd person physicalist science?
What is the nature of intentionality?
Does the mind require input from the body (in addition to the brain) to function (the embodiment issue)?

Or we can just focus on the various positions that have been taken to account for the mind/body problem: the various strains of dualism, behavioralism, token Identity theories, functionalism, etc. 

The question of intentionality might interest you the most, given your appreciation for the phil of language.

I bet the Cadavar book is interesting!

Your thoughts?

I've just sent you a PM (I hope).