Comments by Artifactorfiction

Comment #269931 by Artifactorfiction on October 23, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Best £20 I've spent in ages - under the nickname God (aka A de lusion)

Comment #240508 by Artifactorfiction on August 31, 2008 at 2:35 pm

I thought this was reasonably funny.
And its subtle enough that the odd rationally challenged faith head might actually pay attention long enough, without the usual hands over ears and speaking loudly defense mechanism, to get drawn in before it dawns on them that they are the butt of the joke.
People remember being laughed at with pain and some might just reflect upon the contradiction of the prose and images. It might just work at getting a few to question their blind faith.

3. New Zealand man sells his soul to 'Hell'

Comment #203750 by Artifactorfiction on July 3, 2008 at 1:37 pm

It would add a new dimension to identity theft - someone could steal your details and then sell your soul

You could build a fake identity (find someone who died young who was born at a similar time as yourself and start applying for birth certificates etc) - then you could sell their soul...?

This needs a regulatory body :-)

4. New Zealand man sells his soul to 'Hell'

Comment #203707 by Artifactorfiction on July 3, 2008 at 12:01 pm

If every atheist were to sell his soul , on whatever, it would certainly raise our profile somewhat - it would be bound to make the news etc.

Probably the market in souls would collapse - too much on the supply side

But a few questions seem obvious...

....does the concept of depreciation apply when the goods are immortal?

....for the buyer, can this be offset against their tax burden (like a pension investment for example)

(Remember, the value of your investments can go down as well as up)

....can you use such acquired souls to pay of the debt of any sin redeemable at an unspecified future time?

Third parties could 'add value' to their product portfolio by praying (for the sins of the vendors of aforementioned soul goods), hence raising there market value etc.

In these times of tight credit, this could be just the commodity we need to stave of recession. You could go as far as to say it is our economic duty to start buying and selling souls.

A middleman could make a fortune....

....soul'd to the highest bidder

Whoops, sorry I'm just rambling now.

Anyway, I'd be lucky to cover postage and packaging costs ...

5. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177625 by Artifactorfiction on May 9, 2008 at 11:37 am

Annoyingly I can't get the 3rd link to play but here's my thoughts for what its worth.

There is no reason in religion.

(First a non religious aside)
I watched the TV tonight in growing disbelief at the Burmese government's reaction to the foreign aid response from the world - someone (finally) mentioned that this could be viewed as genocide.

(the point)
Now compare this atrocity with the catholic church's insistence that condom use is sin

Just how many people have died in Africa for the want of a piece of latex rubber (no one calls this immoral)

There is no reason or reasonableness in religion.

(Of course RD pointed the contraceptive issue out in '76 in TSG in relation to population growth - astute as ever.)

6. The Encyclopedia of Life, No Bookshelf Required

Comment #133695 by Artifactorfiction on February 26, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Stunning

And as for bacteria - it seems that they thrive quite happily in deep rocks as well - a good candidate for life elsewhere in the universe

7. Physicist Neil Turok: Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning

Comment #132462 by Artifactorfiction on February 24, 2008 at 7:26 pm

Hi Brian 132282 and Bonzai 132307

I had a go at Penrose's 'The road to reality' and I found it really hard (a lot of math) however I found Brian Greene's The elegant Universe excellent (I particularly liked the metaphors used to explain General Relativity), and I found Brian Greene's 'The fabric of the Cosmos' best of all.

Maybe this is just a bias on my part against Penrose - I found his musing on consciousness was a waist of my money in his 'Emperor's new mind'.

Anyway - not trying to start a war - just my opinion for what its worth.

8. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105445 by Artifactorfiction on December 31, 2007 at 3:27 pm

Hi Sturmunddrang

Sorry for the delay in posting a reply - sleep etc got in the way.

I think we basically agree.

Dennett shows how a kind of free will (that is worth wanting - but that is not (yet) quite what Joe public would call Freewill) exists and has moral authority etc.

He's convinced me (honest - I'm no dualist).

When I first mentioned 'Free will' I was talking of the concept normally understood by most people by those words not Dennett's extension/redefinition and so perhaps I have misrepresented his viewpoint.

Perhaps I am wrong but my reading of Dennett is that the Joe Public's view of Free Will doesn't exist (I'm sure Mr Joe public would insist that Free Will means a complete unrestricted choice of what to do next etc), but that there is a Kind of Free Will (worth wanting) that provides ethics and morality (and doesn't just fade to dust when examined in the light of scientific advances)

For example in 'Consciousness explained' - Chpt 14 Consciousness Imagined, he says ....

1. Imaging a Conscious robot
The phenomena of human consciousness have been explained in the preceding chapters in terms of the operations of a "Virtual Machine," a sort of evolved (and evolving) computer program that shapes the activities of the brain. There is no Cartesian Theatre; there are just Multiple Drafts composed by processes of content fixation playing various semi-independent roles in the brain's larger economy of controlling a human body's journey through life. The astonishingly persistent conviction that there is is a Cartesian Theatre is the result of a variety of cognitive illusions that have now been exposed and explained. 'Qualia' have been replaced by complex dispositional states of the brain, and the self (otherwise known as the Audience of the Cartesian Theatre, The Central Meaner, or the Witness) turns out to be a valuable abstraction, a theorist's fiction rather than an internal observer or boss.
If the self is "just" the Centre of Narrative Gravity, and if all the phenomena of human experience are explicable is 'just' the activity of a virtual machine realised in astronomically adjustable connections of a human brain, then, in principle, a suitably 'programmed' robot, with a silicon-based computer brain, would be conscious, would have a self. More aptly, there would be a conscious self whose body was the robot and whose brain was the computer. This implication of my theory strikes some people as obvious and unobjectionable. 'Of course we are machines! We are just very, very complicated, evolved machines made of organic molecules instead of metal and silicon, and we are conscious, so there can be conscious machines - us'.
-------

Clearly he has no problem in principle with the concept of a conscious robot. I think such a robot would have Dennett's 'Kind of Free Will' (if it killed a human or a similarly enabled Robot it would be a crime and should be punished by the legal system - as opposed to a toaster that electrocutes some unfortunate user ).

Still I think Joe Public would argue 'But look, I can step through the robots executing code, look at registers, view the state of flip flops, see the state of every single bit - in fact, in principle, determine the exact next state of the entire system (assuming all inputs at that point in time are known) - thus the robot has no Free Will'.

So I agree that Dennett has highlighted a kind of Free will worth having etc - I was using the term in the more widely understood sense - sorry for the confusion.

On a similar point - there's been a few references to the Mind's I (Dennett/Hofstadter) - bits of this are stunning - I'm particularly fond of 'A conversation with Einstien's brain' and 'Prelude....Ant Fugue' (both Hofstadter) but the book is riddled with gems (and only few dull bits).

9. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105128 by Artifactorfiction on December 30, 2007 at 4:31 pm

Hi Billy

Calm down :)

Read Mark post 73

mutation is random but selection is very much non-random.

10. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105126 by Artifactorfiction on December 30, 2007 at 4:15 pm

Hi Sturmunddrang

Post 75 of yours - very nicely put

11. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105123 by Artifactorfiction on December 30, 2007 at 4:09 pm

Hi Sturmunddrang

No that seems fine.

I was bringing in Wegner who argues successfully I believe that the Self is a fabrication that in general is kept informed of what is happening and takes authorship for decisions etc.

Dennett dislikes the centralised (Cartesian Theatre) view of consciousness and argues that it is a distributed process with no real centre (in time/space) - again this is argued brilliantly (In Consciousness Explained) and I feel that its basically correct.

I don't find them incompatible but you'll never get two folk to completely agree on anything.

A Dennett model in which, amongst everything else, a Self is fabricated to take authorship of things seems easy for me to accept.

I can see why you say Dennett believes in Free Will as the book sets out to show that a kind of free will exists (and has evolved) - but I don't think its what Joe public would call Free Will

Personally I'm happy with this also.

But I think they do share a lot of fundamentals - from Freedom Evolves Dennett says (Page 224) "I think Wegner's account of conscious will is the best I have seen. I agree with it in almost every regard. And I've discussed with him the awkwardness-from my point of view-of his title. I see him as a killjoy scientist who shows that cupid doesn't shoot arrows and then insists on entitling his book 'The Illusion of Romantic Love'. But I appreciate that there are people who will insist that Wegner's title is just right: He is showing that conscious will is an Illusion. Wegner eventually softens the blow by arguing that conscious will may be an illusion, but responsible, moral action is quite real. And that is the bottom line for both of us."

This is just a point of view - don't go talking it as a declaration of war - is it always this heated in here :)

12. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105111 by Artifactorfiction on December 30, 2007 at 3:27 pm

Wow - a heated debate indeed :)

13. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105095 by Artifactorfiction on December 30, 2007 at 2:50 pm

Hi Steve

I have to agree that Dawkins is superb at explaining anything.

I think the "traversable gradient of non-minds, protominds, hemi-demi-semi minds, magpie minds, copycat minds, aping minds, clever-pastiche minds" is referring to the evolution of the human mind from creatures that have no mind at all - amoeba to man - bee to Bach

I've had a quick re-read and I still think the essence is just that Natural Selection can create intelligent beings, but he is not an easy read and is much more ambiguous than Dawkins - he uses lots of phrases that could be misinterpreted if you hadn't already seen them in his books (with his definitions etc).

Dennett does reference lots of good science in developing his arguments in his books (sometimes in excruciating detail) but in an article this size I think he only really has space to give a flavour of his arguments..

But ultimately I think he sees creative thought as (Dam good) computation - I'm happy with that interpretation but I'm sure there's plenty who aren't :)

14. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105073 by Artifactorfiction on December 30, 2007 at 2:02 pm

Hi Steve

Hmmm - I'll re-read the article in case I have misunderstood, but as a quick comeback in lieu of this I think he is talking about Generate a test cycles of creative ideas, many of which are then dropped, spread over multiple agents/modules, a kind of pandemonium model (Dennett uses the term Multiple drafts), guided by past learning (mental labels high lightening mental paths that have lead down promising avenues in the past etc) - probably with censors/suppressors (Marvin Minsky concept) weeding out some embryonic 'bad' ideas as well etc - (below the conscious level) then I guess you could say that there is a kind of selection stage about which creative ideas win the competition to eventually seem to be part of the conscious stream. The selection isn't Natural Selection (no genes are passed on etc) but it is a bit like an artificial selection program but with proto ideas not, say, hunting dogs.

15. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105060 by Artifactorfiction on December 30, 2007 at 1:27 pm

Dennett is saying that Natural Selection can create a creative being

I think his point is some moderate religious folk don't believe in Darwinism over God as an explanation of life because they can't see how such a process can lead to creative beings. Dennett's just saying that this isn't so.

I could be wrong - this is just my interpretation

16. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105048 by Artifactorfiction on December 30, 2007 at 12:54 pm

Excellent riposte :)

Irrefutable in fact - but still I like to muse and read, and Dennett has me convinced - i.e. I believe qualia are imagined in my mind, but so is everything in my mind including me :)

17. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105037 by Artifactorfiction on December 30, 2007 at 12:40 pm

Hi Radesq

No you're right - I've digressed way of the point - Sorry - Originally I was just trying to agree with Post 24 by Timmeh [ 'Inspiration, genius, invention and creativity are the result of natural processes, not some form of "magic" internal or external to the brain. The structures in the brain that arrived at those natural processes were arrived at by natural selection.'] and also suggest that Dennett and Pinker's stuff generally was well worth the read.

18. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #105036 by Artifactorfiction on December 30, 2007 at 12:27 pm

Dam - it happened again

19. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #105034 by Artifactorfiction on December 30, 2007 at 12:23 pm

I thought this was great - Sure some nuts would take it seriously but they are lost souls(?) anyway to rationality - but I was hoping for the larger effect of millions of believers cringing to this madness and becoming just a little more realistic...

...then I read that the Vatican have denied the story

Dam.

Still, I'm sure organised religion's leaders have, and will, look at their losses to the new age spooky stuff and will, if they have not already, decide to include atheism in the fold of many things they will need to attack. Don't expect a clean fight (they wouldn't win one).

(Sorry if this posts twice - my posts don't seem to work sometimes and then I try again and suddenly there two)

20. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #105032 by Artifactorfiction on December 30, 2007 at 12:14 pm

21. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105024 by Artifactorfiction on December 30, 2007 at 11:19 am

Hi Steve - I am compelled to reply (Sorry - bad freewill joke)

From my view things only work if you assume that we have free will, but that doesn't mean its real.

What happens (what you decide to do in any particular circumstance) is a ultimately a function of the physics and chemistry (taking place in structures 'designed' by billions of years of Natural selection and then modified through life by life's experiences). And great fun it is too.

But the 'as if' free will still has consequences - stealing an example from Pinker I think;

Scenario I
Assume there is no free will
Person A kills person B
Why blame B - he had no choice?

Scenario II
Assume there is no free will but that we have 'as if' free will and assume there are ethical/legal situations that we need to live by (or things just fall to bits)
Pass law that murder is illegal
Person A kills person B
Blame B because he knew the rules (and should have used this information to modify his behaviour)

B did the act but had no free will so why should he go to jail?
But blame still accrues as B knew the rules (for example C may have just as good a reason to kill A but realises that its deemed wrong by 'society' in general and feared the punishments (social and custodial))

All very grey area stuff

So where do the ethics actually come from?
God? (haha)
Society (I'll concede partially)
but I think we can thank our friend Natural Selection for instilling in us Good (and Bad).

Both helped our genes through evolutionary history - Kindness, empathy, compassion, understanding etc engender trust and reciprocal altruism and undoubtedly have helped humanity as a whole - Blood thirsty vindictive nastiness have had there place too through evolutionary history and we can be sure that dispositions relating to these behaviours have also been selected for. Assuming there is Free will (even if there isn't) and that we have laws and relevant fair punishments for breaking those laws is the only way to ensure that the Intelligent machines (such as humans) can decide not too do a particular behaviour (murder for example).

So in summary I think you have to work with the assumption that folks are free to decide their actions and thus liable for reward/punishment for their actions as this itself has a positive effect on the choice of those actions even if there isn't actually a real meaning to the term 'Free will'

I'm sure I've said this badly and will be misunderstood etc - I'm trying to condense thousands of pages of wisdom from smarter people than me in a few words.

22. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105009 by Artifactorfiction on December 30, 2007 at 10:27 am

I believe Post 24 by Timmeh summarises DD's position in this article best - 'Inspiration, genius, invention and creativity are the result of natural processes, not some form of "magic" internal or external to the brain. The structures in the brain that arrived at those natural processes were arrived at by natural selection.'

I've read a good deal of Pinker and Dennett and can thoroughly recommend both authors. Pinker is a much easier read but then he concentrates on the mechanics of thinking, (and refuses to go into consciousness and free will (surprisingly holding out for a skyhook in Dennett's view)), whereas Dennett is whole-heartily committed to explaining Consciousness itself and the associated free will issues.

Basically they both do a great job at what they have set out to do.

The realisation that there is no 'real' free will is even more profound than the realisation that there is no God (by some orders of magnitude) but equally enlightening when you get past the shock.

If you are into all the Consciousness stuff, Daniel M. Wegner's "The Illusion of Conscious Will" is an excellent read - much less philosophical than Dennett, but essentially covering similar ideas from the perspective of researched Psychology.

Anyway, I'm meandering off subject

(Apologies if this posts twice - I keep getting logged out when I post anything :)

23. Priest who committed suicide for rebirth cremated

Comment #104194 by Artifactorfiction on December 28, 2007 at 4:34 am

The power of faith in action

24. Highway to hysteria

Comment #103529 by Artifactorfiction on December 26, 2007 at 6:31 am

I took a drive on I-35
I watched folks with their heads in the sand
Give them a chance and they'll build a brave new future
where your free thoughts will be contraband

Watch them use their 'fire' power
to scorch their promised land
For some reason their superstitions
aren't just condemned out of hand

Blind acceptance by the broadcasters
of unsubstantiated myth
re-indoctrinate the gullible
irrationality again takes the fifth

I took a drive on I-35
Time travelled to the middle ages
If there was a god surely he would reward
these sinners with appropriate wages

25. Highway to hysteria

Comment #103490 by Artifactorfiction on December 25, 2007 at 8:33 pm

Very, very Sad - and just for a moment there, right at the end, I thought the male studio presenter was going to laugh at the obvious absurdity of this piece.

I guess he remembered to look after his career with the, "Wouldn't it be wonderful..." comment, just in time.

26. Highway to hysteria

Comment #103489 by Artifactorfiction on December 25, 2007 at 8:28 pm