A More Accurate Categorization of Religion

[Ryadn]

I believe weakly in QFT actions--I simply don't know enough to take a strong position. With more reading, though, I believe that belief (heh) would strengthen.

I'm still unclear about epiphenomena... although I've been typing, deleting and re-typing for the past five minutes as I work through it, so I guess I'm less confused now but still uncertain. I keep returning to the reality of "thoughts", which I believe are the product of the physical brain, but can also change the physical brain... it doesn't seem like anything one could declare belief or disbelief in, does it? See, this is why I couldn't sleep all night after reading about neuroscience for four hours.

I suppose I'd tentatively say I'm a strong agnostic naturalist.

Basically, if you take apart the brain, it's all neurons, glial cells, and chemistry. The difference between the naturalist and the materialist would be over whether the fact of hierarchical reductionism makes higher levels of abstraction real or not. The naturalist would say that even though you can ultimately pull things apart to a more basic level, the higher level of abstraction still exists. The materialist would say that the higher level of abstraction is simply a convenient model, and doesn't technically exist.

Yeah. I guess, more than anything, I find the existence of such things (or lack thereof) as meaningless as the existence or non-existence of god. I mean, it's an interesting mental exercise---I feel like I'm constantly chasing the tale of some animal that is snapping at my heels---but eventually it just leaves me apathetic. It's unknowable, and if I "knew" that mental phenomena did not technically exist, it would have no bearing whatsoever on my perception of myself, my mind, and the world around me. I have equally strong impulses pulling me in each direction---no, 'thought' is simply a name given to trillions of electrical impulses; yes, 'free will' is a technical reality, and consciousness is more than the sum of the brain's parts---apparently intellectual laziness is a stronger impulse than either of them.

What's funny is that I can remember very clearly a time when I was about seven, when I used to stay up all night WORRYING about these exact questions, to the point where I was afraid to sleep and... I don't know, stop imagining the universe into existence? It went on for weeks... I just remember being so deeply troubled that I couldn't prove or rely on my own experiences or thoughts, my own existence... I don't know what the hell my parents were letting me read before bed!

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Yeah. I guess, more than anything, I find the existence of such things (or lack thereof) as meaningless as the existence or non-existence of god. I mean, it's an interesting mental exercise---I feel like I'm constantly chasing the tale of some animal that is snapping at my heels---but eventually it just leaves me apathetic. It's unknowable, and if I "knew" that mental phenomena did not technically exist, it would have no bearing whatsoever on my perception of myself, my mind, and the world around me. I have equally strong impulses pulling me in each direction---no, 'thought' is simply a name given to trillions of electrical impulses; yes, 'free will' is a technical reality, and consciousness is more than the sum of the brain's parts---apparently intellectual laziness is a stronger impulse than either of them.

What's funny is that I can remember very clearly a time when I was about seven, when I used to stay up all night WORRYING about these exact questions, to the point where I was afraid to sleep and... I don't know, stop imagining the universe into existence? It went on for weeks... I just remember being so deeply troubled that I couldn't prove or rely on my own experiences or thoughts, my own existence... I don't know what the hell my parents were letting me read before bed!

It is a very interesting ontological question. However, it ultimately has no practical consequences, only philosophical ones. This is the only thing that really separates the naturalist from the materialist. I still haven't settled on an answer to the question.

[Straughn]

I *used to* think my record speaks for itself.

Confidence =/= militance

[Meridiani Planum]

Naturalist: Not only rejects gods but also rejects any and all supernatural/paranormal claims. Considers epiphenomena to really exist.

I have to quibble here. Naturalists may believe in emergent phenomena, but do not necessarily accept epiphenomenalism in the philosophy of mind. I'm certainly a naturalist, not a materialist (IMV, mental phenomena exist), but I take a dual-aspect view of the mind-body distinction.

My view is similar to Roger Bissell's:

http://www.rogerbissell.com/id11aaa.html

[United Technocrats]

Scales are not linear or non-linear. Linearity is a property of relationships like functions, functionals, relations, and equations.

What about the decibel scale?

Basically, if you take apart the brain, it's all neurons, glial cells, and chemistry. The difference between the naturalist and the materialist would be over whether the fact of hierarchical reductionism makes higher levels of abstraction real or not. The naturalist would say that even though you can ultimately pull things apart to a more basic level, the higher level of abstraction still exists. The materialist would say that the higher level of abstraction is simply a convenient model, and doesn't technically exist.

Does that imply the negation of emergent phenomena?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Scales are not linear or non-linear. Linearity is a property of relationships like functions, functionals, relations, and equations.

What about the decibel scale?

Basically, if you take apart the brain, it's all neurons, glial cells, and chemistry. The difference between the naturalist and the materialist would be over whether the fact of hierarchical reductionism makes higher levels of abstraction real or not. The naturalist would say that even though you can ultimately pull things apart to a more basic level, the higher level of abstraction still exists. The materialist would say that the higher level of abstraction is simply a convenient model, and doesn't technically exist.

Does that imply the negation of emergent phenomena?

The decibel scale is logarithmic with respect to sound intensity. However, in and of itself, it is not non-linear or linear. Linearity and non-linearity only make sense when more than one variable is available or when you are operating upon a function. Curvature cannot exist in a one-dimensional world. The same increase in decibels is reached when going from 20 to 30 as when going from 40 to 50. That the sound intensities are differently changed in both should matter no more than that 20 to 30 Joules and 40 to 50 Joules of kinetic energy causes a different level of change in velocity.

[United Technocrats]

The decibel scale is logarithmic with respect to sound intensity. However, in and of itself, it is not non-linear or linear. Linearity and non-linearity only make sense when more than one variable is available or when you are operating upon a function. Curvature cannot exist in a one-dimensional world. The same increase in decibels is reached when going from 20 to 30 as when going from 40 to 50. That the sound intensities are differently changed in both should matter no more than that 20 to 30 Joules and 40 to 50 Joules of kinetic energy causes a different level of change in velocity.

I was thinking of answering in detail, but I'm sure You know what I'd say. It is just a matter of recognizing that. Logarithmic scale is non-linear because logarithm is a non-linear function. Curvature is present in any logarithmic axis: if You'd take a look at almost any amplitude vs frequency plot, You'd find the x-axis (the freq. axis) to be logarithmic. Now, measuring the same "distance" between two points in two different places on that axis, You'd see it corresponds to different "distances" in the frequency metric (which implies curvature). Nobody implies a 1D world when he says "scale." Also, decibels are used in many other areas, apart from acoustics: to represent amplification or attenuation of signals of all sorts, to represent the power amplification (i.e. amplification of approx. 3 dB corresponds to doubling the power input) etc.

But, what about emergent phenomena?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I was thinking of answering in detail, but I'm sure You know what I'd say. It is just a matter of recognizing that. Logarithmic scale is non-linear because logarithm is a non-linear function. Curvature is present in any logarithmic axis: if You'd take a look at almost any amplitude vs frequency plot, You'd find the x-axis (the freq. axis) to be logarithmic. Now, measuring the same "distance" between two points in two different places on that axis, You'd see it corresponds to different "distances" in the frequency metric (which implies curvature). Nobody implies a 1D world when he says "scale." Also, decibels are used in many other areas, apart from acoustics: to represent amplification or attenuation of signals of all sorts, to represent the power amplification (i.e. amplification of approx. 3 dB corresponds to doubling the power input) etc.

But, what about emergent phenomena?

Logarithmic scales are logarithmic WITH RESPECT TO a particular variable, just like a graph of kinetic energy is quadratic WITH RESPECT TO velocity. Remove such dependent variables and there is no non-linearity in the scale. It is only when specific variables are present that we see any non-linearity. Kinetic energy is linear with respect to other variables. Does that make a kinetic energy scale linear or not? It makes it neither. Also, curvature is not present on a single axis. It never can be. A one dimensional space cannot have intrinsic curvature.

What do you mean what about emergent phenomena.

[United Technocrats]

no, 'thought' is simply a name given to trillions of electrical impulses; yes, 'free will' is a technical reality, and consciousness is more than the sum of the brain's parts

'Thought' is an emergent phenomenon, thus being more than the sum of its parts. Any complex enough system is more than a sum of its parts, because of emergent phenomena. For example, hydrogen and oxygen form water, which has properties that neither hydrogen or oxygen alone has. If You try to study a complex system, such as a living cell, by studying its constituent parts, You'd have to dismantle it and interact with those parts with Your measurement devices. These devices interfere with the system, reducing the amount of information You can extract. In other words, the more detailed knowledge of a cell You want to obtain, the more interference You need to introduce with Your micro-needles, microscopes, chemicals and other instruments. Hence, the more information You gather about the constituent parts, the less information remains available about the emergent phenomenon of "life" of that cell. The phenomenon of "life," even if seen as a simplistic mechanistic sum of biofeedback self-equilibrizing subsystems, would lose much of its properties by such an interference. On the other hand, if You'd study only the phenomenon of "life," with the goal of maximizing the amount of information on it that You want to extract, You'd have to avoid any interference with the cell, thus You'd be restricted to treat it as a "black box" and study just the inputs and outputs (stimulus-responses). That way would deny You any access to a system's constituent parts. These are alike Heisenberg's uncertainty pairs: the more You know about the constituent parts, the less information remains available about the emergent phenomena (although the Heisenberg analogy is just qualitative, nothing else).

What's funny is that I can remember very clearly a time when I was about seven, when I used to stay up all night WORRYING about these exact questions, to the point where I was afraid to sleep and... I don't know, stop imagining the universe into existence? It went on for weeks... I just remember being so deeply troubled that I couldn't prove or rely on my own experiences or thoughts, my own existence... I don't know what the hell my parents were letting me read before bed!

Actually, that's good for You.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

no, 'thought' is simply a name given to trillions of electrical impulses; yes, 'free will' is a technical reality, and consciousness is more than the sum of the brain's parts

'Thought' is an emergent phenomenon, thus being more than the sum of its parts. Any complex enough system is more than a sum of its parts, because of emergent phenomena. For example, hydrogen and oxygen form water, which has properties that neither hydrogen or oxygen alone has. If You try to study a complex system, such as a living cell, by studying its constituent parts, You'd have to dismantle it and interact with those parts with Your measurement devices. These devices interfere with the system, reducing the amount of information You can extract. In other words, the more detailed knowledge of a cell You want to obtain, the more interference You need to introduce with Your micro-needles, microscopes, chemicals and other instruments. Hence, the more information You gather about the constituent parts, the less information remains available about the emergent phenomenon of "life" of that cell. The phenomenon of "life," even if seen as a simplistic mechanistic sum of biofeedback self-equilibrizing subsystems, would lose much of its properties by such an interference. On the other hand, if You'd study only the phenomenon of "life," with the goal of maximizing the amount of information on it that You want to extract, You'd have to avoid any interference with the cell, thus You'd be restricted to treat it as a "black box" and study just the inputs and outputs (stimulus-responses). That way would deny You any access to a system's constituent parts. These are alike Heisenberg's uncertainty pairs: the more You know about the constituent parts, the less information remains available about the emergent phenomena (although the Heisenberg analogy is just qualitative, nothing else).

What's funny is that I can remember very clearly a time when I was about seven, when I used to stay up all night WORRYING about these exact questions, to the point where I was afraid to sleep and... I don't know, stop imagining the universe into existence? It went on for weeks... I just remember being so deeply troubled that I couldn't prove or rely on my own experiences or thoughts, my own existence... I don't know what the hell my parents were letting me read before bed!

Actually, that's good for You.

So the whole and the parts don't commute and don't share eigenvalues?

[RoI2]

I can think of a better way to do it, but I won't post it for fear of being banned again.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I can think of a better way to do it, but I won't post it for fear of being banned again.

What is it like bullshit = religion and sanity = no religion?

[Parthenon]

Where do you get the nonsense that most moderate Christians tend not to believe in hell?

[The Tofu Islands]

I can think of a better way to do it, but I won't post it for fear of being banned again.

If posting it would leave you in danger of being banned, I think it might not be a better way...

[EvilDarkMagicians]

Deist

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Ech. Labels. Yucky. I suppose I'm a Universalist christian. Kinda. Sorta. Mostly.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Where do you get the nonsense that most moderate Christians tend not to believe in hell?

A lot of the more liberal parts of Christianity don't accept hell. Also note that what you consider moderate and what I consider moderate are not the same, unless you are also a pro-rational, pro-science, anti-emotional individual.

[United Technocrats]

Logarithmic scales are logarithmic WITH RESPECT TO a particular variable, just like a graph of kinetic energy is quadratic WITH RESPECT TO velocity. Remove such dependent variables and there is no non-linearity in the scale. It is only when specific variables are present that we see any non-linearity. Kinetic energy is linear with respect to other variables. Does that make a kinetic energy scale linear or not? It makes it neither. Also, curvature is not present on a single axis. It never can be. A one dimensional space cannot have intrinsic curvature.

Stubborn as usual, are we? You said: "Scales are not linear or non-linear." This is simply not true. "Does that make a kinetic energy scale linear or not?" It is simply a matter of which scale I CHOOSE to represent it in. In the earlier A(f) example, some filter's characteristics need to be closely examined, so You would choose a lin-lin scale. On the other hand, in order to nicely represent the bandwidth of a system that spans over several decades, You need log-lin or log-log scales. Bottom line: there *are* nonlinear scales, and the one who uses them decides whether he'd use linear or non-linear ones.

By itself, the kinetic energy scale is neither linear or non-linear, but in order to present some results of some measurements somewhere, I need to choose a scale. And I can choose a linear or a non-linear one. In statistical physics, as I remember it, both the particle velocity distributions and energy distributions are used (and transformed one into another, as needed).

[EvilDarkMagicians]

Yeah. I guess, more than anything, I find the existence of such things (or lack thereof) as meaningless as the existence or non-existence of god. I mean, it's an interesting mental exercise---I feel like I'm constantly chasing the tale of some animal that is snapping at my heels---but eventually it just leaves me apathetic. It's unknowable, and if I "knew" that mental phenomena did not technically exist, it would have no bearing whatsoever on my perception of myself, my mind, and the world around me. I have equally strong impulses pulling me in each direction---no, 'thought' is simply a name given to trillions of electrical impulses; yes, 'free will' is a technical reality, and consciousness is more than the sum of the brain's parts---apparently intellectual laziness is a stronger impulse than either of them.

What's funny is that I can remember very clearly a time when I was about seven, when I used to stay up all night WORRYING about these exact questions, to the point where I was afraid to sleep and... I don't know, stop imagining the universe into existence? It went on for weeks... I just remember being so deeply troubled that I couldn't prove or rely on my own experiences or thoughts, my own existence... I don't know what the hell my parents were letting me read before bed!

It is a very interesting ontological question. However, it ultimately has no practical consequences, only philosophical ones. This is the only thing that really separates the naturalist from the materialist. I still haven't settled on an answer to the question.

The unfortunate thing is that I don't think anyone truly does. *Sighs*

[RoI2]

I can think of a better way to do it, but I won't post it for fear of being banned again.

What is it like bullshit = religion and sanity = no religion?

Maybe.

[RoI2]

I can think of a better way to do it, but I won't post it for fear of being banned again.

If posting it would leave you in danger of being banned, I think it might not be a better way...

It is... it's just not very... um, I can't even think of the word.

[United Technocrats]

So the whole and the parts don't commute and don't share eigenvalues?

You're well aware I could now enter a discussion on this topic, but to what end? Nobody would understand it, except the two of us, and perhaps a few browsing geeks. It would be an enormous investment of energy into something completely fruitless. Please keep the things simple enough to be understandable to most of the readers.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

I can think of a better way to do it, but I won't post it for fear of being banned again.

What is it like bullshit = religion and sanity = no religion?

Maybe.

Humans beleiving in 'gods' or higher powers is not insane, it's natrual for humans to do it.

[Parthenon]

Where do you get the nonsense that most moderate Christians tend not to believe in hell?

A lot of the more liberal parts of Christianity don't accept hell. Also note that what you consider moderate and what I consider moderate are not the same, unless you are also a pro-rational, pro-science, anti-emotional individual.

I haven't been to church in around 11 years yet still identify as a Christian. When I look at biblical text I read it from a symbolism perspective, thus, I am a moderate. By definition, one can not believe in heaven and not believe in hell and call themselves a "christian". The ideas of heaven and hell are just not mutually exclusive. All "moderates" must in fact either subscribe to the notion that both exist or that neither exist. That being said, I have lived in numerous states, been to various churches, dealt with hundred os people on campaigns, etc... The notion of belief in hell being hard to find anymore among moderates is plain lunacy.

[Abdju]

There are two continua, one of certitude and the other of the boldness of the claims you are making. The first is the agnostic/gnostic axis, and the other is the theist/atheist axis.

Agnostic side (Strongest to weakest):

Radical agnosticism: Essentially solipsism or epistemic nihilism. Denies the possibility of knowing anything.

Strong agnosticism: Denies the possibility of ever knowing anything about god/the supernatural.

Weak agnosticism: Has theological positions but claims that too little is known at present in order to have any confidence.

Gnostic side (Weakest to strongest):

Weak gnosticism: Has theological positions and is open to the possibility of being wrong but still thinks there is enough evidence to have
confidence

(I would place Richard Dawkins here between the two).

Strong gnosticism: Is nearly 100% certain about currently held theological positions and thinks that considering the possibility of being wrong is a waste of time, because while the belief may technically be wrong the chances of it being so are to small to warrant consideration.

Radical gnosticism: Basically History Land or Bluth but with regards to theology rather than economics.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Theist side (Boldest to least bold)

Total anti-science/anti-rational: Flat Earthers, Answers in Genesis, Gorilla199 (batshit crazy Christian YouTuber and conspiracy theorist)

Militant Fundamentalist: Al Qaeda, the abortion clinic bombers and shooters, suicide bombers, etc.

Literalists/Fundamentalists: Reject large parts of modern science if it conflicts with their worldview. Believe their holy text is 100% literally true.

Biblical Seriousnessists (could not come up with a better word): Take the Bible (or the Koran or Torah or whatever) very seriously. May take large portions of it literally. Probably reject evolution and old Earth.

Catholic Church/Mainstream Protestant: Often not sola scriptura. Usually accepts evolutionary theory. Still takes most of the bible seriously.

Liberal/Moderate Christian: Accepts evolution and all of modern science (all of it they know of until neuroscience advances). Considers large parts of the bible to be symbolic or even errant word of man. Believes in modern sensibility trumping biblical law. Tends not to believe in hell.

Universalist: Believes that the given religion of choice is just one of many, apparently equally valid, paths to get to god. Does not consider any religion to be wrong.

Deist: Does not believe in a personal god, just a prime mover. May not even believe in an afterlife

Atheist side (Least to most bold):

Pantheism: Like Albert Einstein, Percy Byshe Shelley, and Baruch Spinoza. Calls god and nature the same thing. Has a religious belief or attitude toward nature.

Non-Theism: Does not accept that any gods exist. Does not believe in the gods of any given religion.

Naturalist: Not only rejects gods but also rejects any and all supernatural/paranormal claims. Considers epiphenomena to really exist.

Materialist: All that exists is physical phenomena. Considers both QFT actions and particles to really exist. Rejects that epiphenomena are anything more than a convenient abstraction.

Naive Materialist: Believes that only matter exists. Denies that energy or momentum are real.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's a more sophisticated picture of what's really going on.

I would place myself probably where Dawkins is. I think the probability that I am correct is rather high. I have yet to conclude whether or not epiphenomena are real, so I'm either a naturalist or a materialist depending.

A good idea, and a noble intent, but this really only works for Abrahamic religions. The categories fail totally when it comes to classifying beliefs not based around the Bible or equivalent text.