[b]Actually, no view of consciousness necessarily follows from the above, but a certain view of consciousness does, nevertheless, follow from a disbelief in the existence of a God or gods. As I stated in the main article above, atheism does not, in the real world, exist in a vacuum, as an atheist’s belief concerning the existence of consciousness (i.e. eternal oblivion failing reconstruction of the brain of a deceased individual, facsimile realism, etc.) logically follows from an atheist’s consideration of the existence of consciousness in a world in which God does not exist.
That is, it is not inaccurate to say that a certain view of consciousness follows from a view of atheism, as long as the concept (the view of consciousness) comes to mind and is seriously considered in the context of atheism. Whatever view (of consciousness) that arises certainly follows—in the sense that the view exists in the form that it does (despite the fact that an atheist can have an alternative view of consciousness from than the common view) due to the godless belief.[/b]
Ahem…(clears throat) …I think saying “the atheist” is appropriate, due to the fact that a theist will generally have different beliefs concerning the existence and fate of consciousness after death than that addressed by the article above (however, it is noted that most theists are Facsimile Realists). And it is not a matter of inference that an atheist will necessarily have a certain view of consciousness;rather, it is an a posteriori fact that a certain popular view of consciousness that typically accompanies godless belief exists. Given that the common atheistic view of consciousness is not unanimously held, it was necessary to refer to the common view as typical of “stereotypical atheism”.
You are correct. The above is the formal title of the thread as it is presented in the Essays and Theses forum of ILovePhilosophy. I felt that it was somewhat suited for the Religion Forum as the view of consciousness addressed is an underlying “descendent” belief accompanying atheism.
Exactly. Just because one view typically accompanies another view, you cannot generalize that it is a descendant view, that it necessarily accompanies the first view. Atheists are free to believe other things and I think it is very improper of you to pigeonhole atheists into having viewpoints they might not necessarily hold. There is no “ATHEISTIC VIEW OF CONSCIOUSNESS”
Why don’t you tell me what the “THEISTIC VIEW OF CONSCIOUSNESS IS”?
Is it not impossible for a “theist” to hold the view of consciousness you think is absurd? This is my point. You are trying to tie a certain view to atheism, but you’re fabricating the connection.
Stick to your argument against the view of consciousness, but do not imply that it is, in any way, an argument against atheism. It is not.
Also, believe it or not, theists and atheists can have similar beliefs. Neither the theist or the atheist has to have the same beliefs that other theists or atheists typically have.
I agree with this. To say that there is a set code of belief for theists/atheists is to say that all theists/atheists believe the same things.
This thread supposes that a “certain conception of consciousness” is married to atheism, as in necessarily follows from atheism. I don’t see it. What’s more, I don’t think there is an “ATHEISTIC VIEW OF CONSCIOUSNESS.”
[b]I can easily generalize that it is a “descendant view” in the sense that there is a causal connection between the first and the second (such that Facsimile Realism and the absence of an afterlife causally “descends” from some—if not all—atheistic beliefs). My generalization is not an a priori generalization—BUT AN A POSTERIORI one, given that Facsimile Realism and denial of an afterlife exists, and that it is typically married to atheism with such a commonality that it is virtually (if not completely) universal.
Atheists are free to believe other things, and that is why within the full and unabridged version of the article (which I could not include here due to size and space restriction) I concede that there exists “atypical atheism” holding views opposed to those of the “stereotypical atheism” featured above.
(But seriously: DO YOU PERSONALLY KNOW any atheists that are not Facsimile Realists? If there are, I’d love to hear from them )
The above, then, is not a matter of my pigeonholing every atheist walking upon the earth into holding a view of Facsimile Realism or denial of an afterlife; it is a matter of admitting to the existence of stereotypical atheism, it’s views of consciousness, and the fate of consciousness upon cessation of electrical activity within the cerebral cortex. This creates “an” ATHEISTIC VIEW OF CONSCIOUSNESS featured as the “star” of the article above (implied by my admission of the existence of an atypical atheism)—as opposed to a “the” ATHEISTIC VIEW OF CONSCIOUSNESS (in the sense of a pigeonholing all-inclusive nomenclature).
One can think of the “the” as the topic of this thread as a featured view of consciousness that typically accompanies a posteriori “everyman” atheistic belief rather than an all-inclusive designation of a particular view of consciousness. Think of the “the” in the title of this topic to be an undercover “an” disguised as the featured “the” if that helps. (heh) [/b]
[b]No, it is not impossible for a “theist” to hold the view of consciousness presented above (in terms of Facsimile Realism; it would be odd for a theist to deny the existence of an afterlife), but my point is the the view presented above is an a posteriori fact typically tied to atheism, thus the connection follows from an “after the fact” observation. While it is not meant to be all-inclusive of every atheistic belief, it’s a posteriori status qualifies it to be “An Atheistic View of Consciousness” (You know why? BECAUSE IT IS). For God’s sake, stop denying that atheism (to an extent) implies (beyond it’s simple definition of the nonexistence of a God or gods) that which it so obviously seems to imply (i.e. nonexistence of an afterlife, Facsimile Realism, etc.) whenever it opens it’s mouth.
P.S. While the above argument against Facsimile Realism and a logical necessity (independent of coincidence) of the existence of the psychophysical partnerships is not necessarily an argument against atheism, there is, if one looks closer, an “eye-winking” logic to the arguments that can be applied against atheism itself.[/b]
graffiti, you say it is not a matter of pigeonholing, but the title of your thread indicates otherwise. How is this particular view of consciousness, as you say, “logically implied” from being an atheist? Just because it is consistent with atheism does not make it somehow “THE ATHEISTIC VIEW OF CONSCIOUSNESS”. It may HAPPEN to be a typical view of consciousness that atheists take, but you cannot say that it is “THE ATHEISTIC VIEW OF CONSCIOUSNESS.”
You are currently arguing that this view MUST accompany atheism. If it indeed is not necessarily married to atheism, then it is misleading to say that it is “THE ATHEISTIC VIEW OF CONSCIOUSNESS.”
You’ve have said it yourself. You are stereotyping atheists. Of what pertinence is it to your argument that many atheists MIGHT take this view? I don’t understand why you don’t just argue against the specific belief, why you keep trying to attach it to atheism. Where is the usefulness in that?
Of course it is “a” view of consciousness that atheists often hold. But you are talking about a certain conception of consciousness, that includes many specific parts and sub-parts it seems. You are not merely saying that atheists do not believe in an afterlife. You are trying to assign a complicated set of beliefs to atheists in general. I guess I’m just here to say “watch your generalizations, carefully.”
Also, it’s not very promising for your case that when I entered “Facsimile Realism” into Google, our thread was the first page, indeed one of the only pages to come up on the subject. It’s my admission that I have not read everything you’ve written about the “absurd” view of consciousness. But that is not my main concern.
My concern is that a particular belief is being attached to atheism, when the word “atheist” is a very useless descriptive term. Too much have I heard one person describe another as an “atheist,” as if that summed up the collection of his/her views and beliefs about the world. For many people I know, atheism is more of a practical, logical choice than a belief. Atheism is NOT a world view. It is not necessarily married to other beliefs about the world. If we can agree on these points then maybe we just had a misunderstanding.
Sometimes I can get worked up but – no hard feelings at all!
b In retrospect, perhaps I should have titled the above: “An Atheistic View of Consciousness”. I hold that Facsimile Realism is “logically implied” from (or a logical implication of) atheism in the sense that in concert with a belief that a God or gods do not exist, it is held to be a logical possibility (or an a priori fact to some) that the contents of human consciousness (more or less accurately) mimic or represent the appearance and behavior of the external world (Facsimile Realism).
This is not to say that an atheist MUST be a Facsimile Realist (Nick Bostrom is an excellent exception to the “rule”); atheism logically implies Facsimile Realism (as well as “logically implying” anti-Facsimile Realism) when one observes that a “belief in the nonexistence of a God or gods” also happens to exist, not in a vacuum, but in a world where there is the sensory experience of a type of conscious world. The nature of that conscious world, if cognitively placed in the context of “an absence of a belief in the existence of a God or gods” will likely yield logical hypotheses about the possible nature of a world in which a God or gods does/do not exist. This is a “logical implication” of atheism, not from the blanket stare of the definition of atheism itself, but the definition as it is set in the center of a certain type of experienced world.
This “logical implication” is not synonymous with “logical necessity” (as a “logically necessary implication” would hold that ALL atheists MUST be Facsimile Realists): to state that atheism logically (yet not necessarily) implies FR is to say that it happens to be a matter of logic that an atheist would come up with or hold to FR, as FR is one of the many logical choices for the nature of the world that “fits nicely” with atheism----like a certain color shirt that seems a nice accessory with a certain pair of pants.
The term: “stereotypical atheism” implies that there are certain beliefs accompanying a disbelief in the existence of a God or gods that are typical views that atheists have been observed to take. The regularity and popularity of the views creates, therefore, a “stereotype” of the atheist (regardless of how unjust the stereotype may be in it’s “generalizing” prejudice) that forms an “off-the-cuff” picture or perception of one who professes to be atheist to those that do not embrace atheism.[/b]
Facsimile Realism (and tying Facsimile Realism to atheism) is pertinent due to the fact that science—particularly scientific discovery that supports or lends credence to the “practical, logical choice” that is atheism, loses credibility as grounded in hard, objective reality if Facsimile Realism and it’s logical necessity is called into question.
The overall conception of consciousness that I tie to atheism is not really that complicated. It reduces only to what I call the “Three Tenets Of The Stereotypically Atheistic View Of Consciousness” (as a view of consciousness decomposed into three views that atheists have been observed to propose and seem to almost unanimously hold):
b The view that consciousness arises from physical brains, and ceases to exist upon cessation of function of the physical brain;
(2) The view that the physical brain somehow creates consciousness from a previous nonexistence of consciousness without the aid of pre-existent material;
(3) Facsimile Realism (the view that the contents of consciousness more or less accurately mimics the appearance and behavior of the external world believed to exist beyond conscious perception)[/b]
[b]It is my contention that atheists in general believe (1)-(3), and that the three views are so popular that, while I can easily concede that it is not the case that atheism is married to the three views, it may as well be—due to their overwhelming and almost universal popularity. I think when it comes to (1)-(3), my generalization is justified.
(A “quasi-marriage”, then, between Facsimile Realism and Atheism? Anyone?)
Note: You were not going to get far with Googling “Facsimile Realism” anyway. It’s a term[/b] I made upto describe the phenomenon that is the belief that the contents of our consciousness is somehow a representation or mirror of the appearance and behavior of the external world beyond conscious experience. Why should the rarity of the term make it " not very promising for my case"? It’s only my term for a common and practically universal belief concerning the relationship between consciousness and “that which is believed would continue to exist should all consciousness cease to be”.
[b]Seriously, my intent is not to make light of your concern. If I attach a particular belief to atheism, the appendage of a certain belief to atheism is merely the association of a belief with atheism (one is known—regardless of whether or not that knowledge is just----by the company one keeps, that sort of thing). It is not an attempt to somehow “morph” something into atheism to make it (atheism) something that it is not (that is, to attempt to change the definition of atheism qua the definition of atheism by the insertion of an “associate” belief).
On that note, let’s clear the air once and for all and settle upon a unifying[/b] definition of atheismthat the entire cast and crew of ILovePhilosophy can regard as “canon” (if we can unanimously agree with the following). Ready? Here goes…
WHAT IS ATHEISM? HOW IS ATHEISM DEFINED?
"The more common understanding of atheism among atheists is “not believing in any gods.†No claims or denials are made — an atheist is a person who is not a theist. Atheism, broadly defined, is the absence of belief in the existence of any gods. Christians insist that atheism means the denial of the existence of any gods; the absence of belief in any gods is, for some strange reason, often ignored."
WHO ARE ATHEISTS? WHAT DO ATHEISTS BELIEVE?
“There are a lot of misunderstandings about who atheists are, what they believe, and what they don’t believe. People become atheists for many different reasons. Being an atheist isn’t a choice or act of will — like theism, it’s a consequence of what one knows and how one reasons. Atheists are not all angry, they aren’t in denial about gods, and they aren’t atheists to avoid taking responsibility for their acts. It’s not necessary to be afraid of hell and there are advantages to being an atheist.”
(An aside: Isn’t atheism a belief—in the sense that it is abeliefthat a God or gods does not exist"? Isn’t this synonymous to the “absense of belief in the existence of gods”?).
[b]Now that the above definition is on the table, I agree that “the absence of belief in the existence of any gods” is not necessarily married (inextricably connected) to other beliefs about the world…but it is an a posteriori fact (i.e. “it happens that”) “the absence of belief in the existence of any gods” is associated (i.e. is “married” through “association”—not “married” through intrinsic [logically necessary] connection) with certain beliefs concerning the existence of consciousness and the fate of consciousness upon cessation of function of the brain. These “associate” beliefs collectively form “an” atheistic view of consciousness.
Tell you what. In the end, I will graciously concede that there is no such thing as a “the” atheistic view of consciousness[/b] only in the sense that there is no necessary “marriage through intrinsic (logically necessary) connection” [b](such that all atheists MUST hold a relevant belief beyond the simple definition of atheism given by Cline above) between a certain belief about consciousness and “the absence of belief in the existence of any gods”. I will, however, insist that there is an a posteriori “marriage through association” between “the absence of belief in the existence of any gods” and (1) Facsimile Realism, (2) The view that the physical brain creates consciousness and that consciousness ceases to exist upon cessation of function of the brain, and (3) The view that the brain creates consciousness from a previous nonexistence of consciousness without the aid of pre-existent phenomenal material.
Given this, one can now view the “The” in the topic thread title above as analogous to the “The” in the title of the movie: The Godfather—in the sense that the title does not reference each and every Mafia “Godfather” in (real or fictional) existence, but a particular “Godfather” out of the entire set of all real or fictional Mafia Godfathers, with the selected “Godfather” being the relevant protagonist of the story.
In the same way “The Atheistic View Of Consciousness”, like “The Godfather”, can now point to a particular set of beliefs about consciousness (out of the set of all possible beliefs about consciousness that may or may not associate with atheism) that, as it turns out, is so popular and seemingly universal (and so vital to science and scientific discovery) that it is pertinent to tie or “associate” the consciousness-beliefs with atheism for the point of a particular thread within ILovePhilosophy.[/b]
You know, graffiti, an atheist is perfectly within his/her agency not to claim any of those things. In fact, I would be willing to bet that most atheists just don’t know what the case is concerning consciousness.
Moreover, I would be willing to bet that most everyone would claim ignorance concerning consciousness. So why pick on atheists?
It sounds like your 3 tenets are a projection of what you think atheists would believe. I don’t think I’ve known any atheist to claim even one of your 3 tenets. Sorry.
On the one hand, I would certainly agree with you if I thought atheism “logically implied” these kinds of views. And see, you’re right, the views are absurd, at least considering what we know (rather, don’t know) about how consciousness works.
On the other hand, I have never known atheists or atheism in general to be, in any way, “quasi-married” to such ridiculous views. So we remain in a state of polite disagreement.
Let’s pretend ALL ATHEISTS did believe in your 3 tenets. Let’s suppose then, that in this scenario, ALL ATHEISTS ARE WRONG ABOUT CONSCIOUSNESS.
Well, we have already established that atheists are not limited to those 3 tenets and, in fact, do not have to believe even one of your tenets. Therefore, that all atheists are wrong about consciousness in no way invalidates atheism.
And this, graffiti, is why I don’t understand what atheism has to do with it.
Most atheists probably might claim “I don’t know” concerning consciousness, but I’ve never known all atheists to simply claim a lack of knowledge concerning consciousness and leave it at that. Usually, ontological assertions follow. If you doubt this, observe the assertions of Cyrene in the previous page of this topic, Bane, and many other ILovePhilosophy atheists.
I “pick on atheists” due to the fact that an “absence of belief in the existence of gods” does not, as stated in the feature article above, exist in a vacuum. It is accompanied by other beliefs concerning the world and how it works that enjoys a consensus. It is not as if every atheist in the world possesses beliefs that are sui generis from those of every other atheist in the world. There seems to exist a general consensus. The consensus, when it comes to consciousness, seems to manifest in the form of the three tenets given above.
To that end, I question your statement:“I don’t think I’ve known any atheists to claim even one of your 3 tenets.”
b Are you really telling me that you don’t know any atheist that claims that consciousness depends upon the physical brain in order to exist? That consciousness ceases to exist when the brain that supports consciousness no longer functions?[/b] (Tenet One)
b Are you really telling me that you don’t know any atheists that claim that the physical brain creates consciousness from a previous nonexistence of consciousness (without the aid of pre-existent phenomenal material)? What would these atheists say concerning death, in terms of what “occurs” to consciousness when a person dies? What would they say concerning consciousness in terms of it’s existence or nonexistence before the existence of brains or before the functioning of the brain of a particular organism? The answer, from my experience with atheists, is almost unanimously Tenet Two (with a few rare exceptions)[/b] (Tenet Two)
b Finally, are you telling me that you—Fuse—have never run into any atheists who claim that the external world believed to exist beyond consciousness is represented by the contents of conscious experience (such that our consciousness more or less accurately mimics the supposed appearance and behavior of the external world)? What might these atheists think of the external world and how it relates to consciousness itself? When scientist speak of DNA, RNA, or evolution, do you not suppose that they assume that there exists an external world counterpart to these entities and processes that is mimicked within the ‘virtual reality’ that is consciousness itself? [/b] (Tenet Three)
WOW! So atheists don’t believe that: (a)the brain creates consciousness ex nihilo, (b)that consciousness depends upon the brain and that it ceases to exist upon cessation of brain function, and that (c)our experiences more or less accurately mimics the appearance and behavior of the external world? What might they believe, then, in lieu of these Three Tenets? Good Lord, this…this is UNPRECEDENTED! If what you’ve stated above is true, then that means that NO OTHER ATHEIST in this forum (whom you “know” through observation of their views within these forums) believes in the Three Tenets! Why, this may call for a new topic in the form of a poll!
[b]That all atheists are wrong about consciousness (following the hypothetical “reductio ad absurdum” above) in no way invalidates atheism is true—yet the epistemic certainty of atheism can be called into question:
(1) in a greater sense, if an atheist holds to the three tenets and states that atheism is manifest :in the form of the truth of the three tenets (such that brains rather than God are responsible for consciousness, and that an external world acting upon itself and upon external world-brains, rather than God, is explicable to the nature of the ‘real world’), and;
(2) If one can call into question the logical necessity of the three tenets based upon the empirical-inaccessibility of the truth (if it is a truth) of the three tenets, one can call into question a claim (if a claim is made) of the logical necessity of atheism. The two stand in a “good for the goose, good for the gander” relation, showing the inherent weakness of empirically-inaccessible affairs and concepts that structure or make up beliefs.[/b]
You’re mis-characterizing what I said. I honestly haven’t known any atheists who’ve made such robust claims. And I don’t know what the majority of atheists believe. There may well be posters on this forum who believe in your tenets. I’m not such a regular poster, so I don’t know people here as well as you might think. In fact, I’m all for a poll – I’m interested in knowing, too. In lieu of your Three Tenets, however, atheists just might not know. Certainly it would seem that an atheist would not believe in a continuation of consciousness in the way that a theist might, but I still think you are limiting the atheist position.
Sure, if an atheist believes in your Three Tenets, then he/she is an atheist who also has what you would call “absurd” beliefs on consciousness (I’m assuming you’re right when you say that the beliefs are absurd. I haven’t been focusing on them too much.).
But atheism does not depend on your 3 tenets! Are you actually saying that atheism is suspect because your 3 tenets are suspect? The truth-value of atheism is unaffected by the truth-value of the 3 tenets.
[b]Objectively, you are correct. And I suppose that your beef with this topic, at the end of the day, reduces to the last sentence of your last post.
That is, one can concede that the absence of a God or gods (if true) will remain a truth even if consciousness does not arise from physical brains, is not created ex nihilo from brains, or if the external world appears and behaves nothing like the contents of the consciousness of psychophysical (or purely phenomenal) creatures.
Let’s set this aside, as your central point is undeniable. Bada bing, bada boom. Done.
However…
My tying atheism to the 3 tenets can be done only if the connection is epistemological rather than ontological or objective----given the chasm between the truth-value of atheism and the truth-value of the 3 tenets in terms of the invulnerability of the objective truth of atheism (if it is an objectively truth) to the falsity of the 3 tenets (if they are false). In my last post, I mentioned the “logical necessity” of atheism and the “logical necessity” of the 3 tenets.
The notion of “logical necessity” is an epistemological issue, relying upon human knowledge (in terms of the comparison between what a person knows due to direct experience or what a person claims to know independent of experience) of that which is true and that which is false (regardless of the objective truth or falsity of the relevant situation). Consider:[/b]
"With this understanding of logical possibility in mind, other logical modalities may be defined in terms of it:a proposition is logically necessary if it is not logically possible for it to be false, logically impossible if it is not logically possible for it to be true, and logically contingent if it is logically possible for it to be true and also logically possible for it to be false."
It is pertinent to tie atheism epistemically to the “absurd” concepts of consciousness above if one wishes to glare threateningly at belief in the logical necessity of atheismi[/i]—by comparingi[/i] to a belief in the logical necessity of the 3 tenetsi[/i].
Thus, what I actually state is thati[/i] is suspect becausei[/i] [b] is suspect, due to the fact that both (regardless of whether or not one holds to one, the other, or both) involve the same cognitive abysses and empirical-inaccessibilty that make claims of the logical necessity of atheism and/or the logical necessity of the 3 tenets irrational.
So at the end of the day it comes down to this (I think):
are correct when you make this reductive observation against the central argument within the topic:
[b]However, the central argument of the topic argues against the logical necessity of psychophysicalism (Tenet One), neural incantationism (taking a slight jab at Chalmer’s panprotopsychism)(Tenet Two), and Facsimile Realism (Tenet Three). This allows an implicit argument against the logical necessity of atheism by induction through comparison with the irrationality of the logical necessity of the 3 tenets.
The argument, of course, falls in battle with an atheist who does not hold to the logical necessity (as opposed to the logical possibility) of atheism, as an atheist that is not devoted to the logical necessity of atheism can rest easily within the safety of the possible truth-value of atheism and the invulnerability of logical possibility to inductive comparison with the weak or irrational epistemological assumptions inherent within claims of the logical necessity of empirically-inaccessible states of affairs.[/b]
I kinda see what you’re saying, but I’d need you to explain it a bit more.
However, don’t worry about it as I wont be posting as much for a while so maybe it’s better if we leave it here for now. I’m sure we’ll run into each other at some point or other in the forums.
Anyways, it’s been a good conversation, graffiti. Keep it up.
…I think saying “the atheist” is appropriate, due to the fact that a theist will generally have different beliefs concerning the existence and fate of consciousness after death than that addressed by the article above (however, it is noted that most theists are Facsimile Realists). And it is not a matter of inference that an atheist will necessarily have a certain view of consciousness; rather, it is an a posteriori fact that a certain popular view of consciousness that typically accompanies godless belief exists. Given that the common atheistic view of consciousness is not unanimously held, it was necessary to refer to the common view as typical of “stereotypical atheism”.
)
[/b]
Note: You were not going to get far with Googling “Facsimile Realism” anyway. It’s a term[/b] 
Are you really telling me that you don’t know any atheist that claims that consciousness depends upon the physical brain in order to exist? That consciousness ceases to exist when the brain that supports consciousness no longer functions?[/b] 
](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
in nigh-defeat.