I, Human: Part I – The Human Machine.

Preface.

Some time ago I was part of a discussion with my favorite adversary, Jeff. This discussion entailed love, and the chemical reactions thereof. In this I was reminded one of the great Myths of Modern Culture. That we are more than what our body is. The we are higher than the function that create us.

I had planned to create my arguments and have it out in a week, but because of how extensive of an activity this became, and several personal matters, I am finally posting this two months later.

This is the first of a series of arguments known as “I, Human.” Which is appropriate in two ways. One it probably could be posted as a series of short stories, and is about the size of the Asimovian classic, and for second, well I guess you have read I, Robot, you understand. (And so help me, the person who says they’ve “seen the movie”…)

The first article in this series is the Human Machine.

The Human Machine.

There is a common consensus that we are separate from the universe around us. This belief is the core of
human art, religion, and most philosophy. The idea that who we are is separate from our physical body, that we are more than just machines and computers. This is ingrained in every part of our culture, the religious man asks, “If we are just computers, why do we seek god?” The philosopher asks, “If we are computers, than why are we aware?” The artist asks, “How is it that I create, if I am a machine?” It seems that the common theme of these arguments is that neurons can’t understand the complexity that it is to be human.

Honestly, this is a fair assessment, a neuron on its own can’t understand the thought process that it is responsible for making this article any more than an electron surging through my computer can make this word display I am typing on. However, trillions of electrons surging through billions of transistors through the processor and coprocessors of my computer combined with some software information, viola! I have a word processor. The brain works in a strikingly similar way..

It is common knowledge by now that every thought, movement, function, is correlated with a neurological response. The data for this is so consistent that we are able to read minds using this data. Yet the debate still carries on. Boiled down the argument against the machine man goes as a follows:

1. Human beings don’t operate the same way machinery does
2. That there are certain traits and actions that are unexplainable through this world view.
3. Machines cannot be aware.

These arguments sound good at face value, however as much as we want to believe differently, the evidence seems suggest otherwise.

The Workings of the Human Machine.

All things considered, we do kind of work like machines. A machine is comprised of several moving and non-moving parts, generally has either a supply of power or an active force to perform its function, and most typically has some sort of user interface for operation. More advanced machines have cooling units, audio and video receptors and measuring devices to automatically update the machine on surrounding information. And this barely scratches the surface.

Through careful study of neurosciences and physiology we find that on all classifications of a machine, human beings match up.

Transistors and Binary Codes.

Have you ever wondered what those ones and zeros actually spell out to in the programming of your computer? If you are completely technologically lamen, binary code is a base two system spelled out in 1s and 0s (Though technically any code using any two responses or characters can be considered “binary”). In the case of your programming this means that a 1 looks like this:

0000 0001

And a letter as simple as “A” translates to this:

0100 0001

What this translates to is a series of Transistors in the processor or the coprocessors of on your motherboard. Each 0 in binary means off, and each one means on. So in the terms of A above, we have six transistors that remain off and 2 transistors that remains on. Shockingly enough, this very similar to the way our brain operates.
Every thought and action starts in the brain, not unlike a computers processor. Stimuli (outward or inward) begin a beautiful process. The transceiver (sending) end of a neuron (brain cells), called an axon, sends out a plasma membrane called a presynaptic neuron. This presynaptic neuron connects with a postsynaptic neuron (receiver) end of another neuron attached to a dendrite (The opposite of an axon). This process is called synapse.

This sends a signal to one of even one of the several dendrites in the neurofiber, in which the neuron will decide whether or not it has anything to do with what the other neuron is trying to do within its cell body. It then sends a signal to the other neuron in a binary system of Yes or No signals. More Yes signals than no signals, the neuron then transfers through its cell body (which acts like a capacitor in this way) and sends the signal on. More no signals the membrane detaches and attempts another neuron for the process. This is happening anywhere from 0.9 to 89.41 meters per seconds every seconds of the day. This repeated over and over again becomes a complete thought, processes, or actions in an individual.

Like transistors, neurons are either active or inactive in any thought process, depending on which ones are active, and which ones are inactive the thought or action is different. The major difference is the causation. In computers the code comes before the activation, whereas in the brain we can only garner a code afterwards. This is because the brains only user is itself, so the system must be more experimental than planned.

Several Moving and Nonmoving Parts.

Out of all the possible arguments, this is the simplest to prove. It is generally accepted that there are several separate but dependant functions that comprise of our body. We have a heart and circulatory system to supply nourishment, water, and energy to different parts of the body, the digestive system which converts food into usable energy. The body in the end is a complex unit built for one goal, the very longevity of itself.

Fuel for the Human Machine.

Machines most generally require some sort of force for them to work. Simple machines require weight being pressed on them, manual machines require a person to actively move their various parts, electrical machines require a constant supply of electricity, and fuel powered machines need the energy garnered from fuel, thus you place weight on one side of a lever the other side goes up, you crank your jack and your car goes up, you plug in your computer and it powers on, and you put gas in your car and it is able to run.

Human beings in our power method are more like cars. We require constant carbon-based fuel in order to run our systems properly. The difference between us and cars I guess is we don’t use an explosion method in order to power us! Human beings are made of several complex chemicals, including amino acids, proteins, lipids, peptides, etc. And thus we require a fuel that is similar to those materials in order to convert them into usable energy.

The fuel I am of course referring to is food. And thus where our power supply is located is our digestive system. The digestive system works taking raw food and breaking it down and separating the processable chemicals. The usable chemicals (vitamins, proteins, acids etc.) and some of the useless or harmful chemicals (trans fatty acids, harmful bacteria) are converted in order to pass through the walls of the stomach and put through a filtering system, like the kidneys and the liver to ensure the fuel is clean before using it to power the body. This is not unlike how gasoline is made.

Our respiratory system also plays a factor in fueling our body, by absorbing oxygen, in which we require to power every cell in our body. All these fuels are taken to every part of our body via the circulatory system, powering the body, allowing it to go on to your day to day tasks.

User Friendly.

A machine is generally useless unless there is a method in which a user can operate the piece of machinery (any time this is impossible, we consider the machine broken). In more modern machines the more essential processes (such as measurement, pressure, regulations) is taken over by a computer, in which can perform the calculations without troubling the user. Human beings are no different.

Our brain is a cross between the user and the computer of the human machine. The lower parts of our brain (the “reptilian brain”) operates as a computer, performing all of the essential, yet mundane and repetitive processes, such as breathings and heartbeat (performed by the brainstem), The collection and compilation of sensory information (via the temporal and occipital lobes of the brain), and sending regulating and sending neural and hormonal informationthrough the system (via the hypothalamus and pituitary gland, respectively).

The user interface is located in the frontal and parential lobes of the brain, or the “mammalian brain”; this where our conscious judgments, reasoning, and motor functions take place. For all intents and purposes this is the region of the machine that controls the functions of the rest of the brain. It does this through a complex system of nerve fiber, which sends a complex array of positive and negative signals and feedback through a miraculous systems known as the nervous system.

Cooling Units.

Hear that humming from your computer as you are working on it? That’s not just the energy running through your mother board, nor is it little demons crawling in your computer. That is a fan that’s sole purpose in existence is to move the charged (heated) air away from the motherboard. It turns out that excess heat is pretty bad for the motherboard, and well most machinery for that matter. That is why most machinery, especially machinery that is electronic has cooling systems.

Well, our body doesn’t like heat more than any other machine. But we don’t have nifty fans, heat syncs, or air conditioning units. What we do have is a tolerance for water, and sweat. Sweat cools the body allowing it to work in harsh conditions, or continue to do strenuous work. But cooling isn’t the only thing our body does. It also protects from the cold.

When we are exposed to freezing temperatures our nerves send a signal to our brain that it is cold, this information is relayed through the thalamus to the hypothalamus of the brain. The hypothalamus then begins a process known as homeostasis. Homeostasis is the process in which the body regulates itself. In cold temperatures the body begins to shiver and increase its metabolism in order to generate heat. If this is not enough the body will begin to restrict the blood vessels in the arms and legs in order to draw more heat to the core of the body, trying to ensure the survival of the body.

Video and Audio.

You are chatting with a friend on the internet who lives hundreds of miles away, luckily you have installed on your computer a webcam and a microphone. These wondrous devices make face to face-to-face teleconferencing possible. Not only is it making the world into one giant neighborhood, but it is pushing business deals faster than ever possible. But how is it possible?
This all starts with a camcorder, which receives light through a lens, focuses it using an iris, and transmits the data in the form electric signals in order to be translated and saved to an onboard computer (or tape if you have an analog camcorder).

The microphone works by taking the vibration of a diaphragm in the receiver of the microphone, and then translated to electric signals. These electric signals in computers are stored so they can be reproduced. Certain machines not only have webcams and microphones, but facial and vocal recognition systems. These systems are based off of determining a pattern on a persons face and comparing them with previous patterns already entered into the machine.

Not only do we have this, we couldn’t imagine life without it. It turns out that the human eye, as well as sight works in the exact same way. Light transmits through the cornea, and then the inner lens of the eye. The optic nerves determine the intensity of the light and force the iris to focus or un-focus accordingly. The retina then converts the light into electric signals and sends it to your occipital lobe. Your occipital lobe translates this information into a picture that we see every conscious moments (and some unconscious ones). Without going into too much detail this information is then transferred to the parental lobe, which tells you where it is then to the frontal lobe to tell you what it is, then the temporal lobe which tells you what this means to you, as well as records the information in the hypothalamus, to be possibly later turned into long term memory.

One can point out that cameras do not perceive depth perception. Our body gets around this by the curvature of the lens, as well as having two different cameras. These the dual eye system allows for our brain to interpret the curvature and relative distance of an object or person. The other reason why a camera cannot interpret Three dimensional objects is a matter of both the projection technology on an interface you use (pictures, moniters), as well as inferior hardware and software to render this image. Luckily, the real world is a much better display than even the most advanced technology (as cool as holograms are) cannot match; it’s like living in perpetual HD.

The webcam metaphor has a second part which bears over viewing: the microphone that is installed in your computer, or the camcorder itself. This microphone works by vibrating a small metallic membrane at the resonance of your voice. This vibration is converted into electronic signals and sent to the computer (or an unfortunate karaoke machine). It turns out that our ear works in the exact same way. The only difference between my ear, and the microphone on your computer, is that I have better acoustics. This is given to us by our outer ear, which is perfectly designed to reflect vibrations into the ear canal, where it will build acoustics, and sound clearer.

Potentiometers, Accelerometers and Touch Screens.

Pick up your PS3 controller, move your left analog stick, and your character moves in relatively the same direction you moved your character sheet. How does the machine know the difference between up or down? Left or right? This is made possible by a Potentiometer. A potentiometer measures the resistance of a small piece (usually a coil) inside the switch that is having force pushed against it. Basically, as you are moving the analog stick, a small piece of metal inside is being pushed or pulled at a predictable rate. This resistance is transmitted to your PS3 and it correlates with that action.

In this way the tendon is the bodies version of the potentiometer. A tendon is a fibrous tissue that connects muscle to the bone. In the last twenty years we have found that tendons not only connect muscles to the bone, but they measure how much force is being applied to them, and when the muscle is fully extended. It sends this signal through the nervous system to the brain (the premotor cortex), which sends a signal back to the muscles (via the primary motor cortex) which tells the muscles how to react to this strain. Once again we have a measurement from extension to compression, that garners a reaction from a main computer.

Put down the controller, and pick up your iPod. Notice how, when on safari or watching a video, you can flip onto either side and the screen will turn. This is due to a device known as an accelerometer. The accelerometer is a small cylindrical device, with an even smaller cylindrical device within it, falling from one point to another; this essentially the pull of gravity, and the direction of gravity. When placed into your iPod, it turns the screen. When placed in our inner ear, it tells us where we are standing.

The Vestibular System is the system in our brain that tells our head what position it is in, and thus is able to tell the body if it is standing up, leaning side to side, or falling on our face. This function is mostly due to the stataconia and the otoliths inside of it. In lamens terms it’s a big sack with “stones” in it (it’s really just calcium). The position of these stones inside the gelatinous sack tells the brain what position the head is in, allowing it to adjust the body accordingly. It’s because of the constant vibration and shifting of the head in cars that we become carsick (it is vibrating the otoliths rapidly).

Now that we’ve had fun with the accelerometer, if you’re lucky enough to own an iPod touch, run your finger across the touch screen. Ever wondered what makes that technology possible? Basically a fine and thin mesh grid is plotted out on the top screen. This machine measures all electronic changes, a bit of light pressure, and temperature changes in each one of the squares on the grid. The amount of squares that have pressure applied to send an electronic signal to the processor, telling it what you are touching.

The Nervous System has a very similar grid with a very similar function. The nerves in our skin are interweaved so we can sense all changes in temperature, all pressure and touch applied to it, and pain signals that may occur. It transmits this information to the Somatosensory area of our brain, which is responsible for knowing the parameters of our body, as well as interpreting the signals the nerve endings are sending. For this reason you can feel when it becomes chilly out, you can feel the hands as they touch you, and feel what your hands touch.

The Human Machine Conclusion.

It seems that we are much more like machines than we give credit. If we are to consider a machine as simply a series of moving and non-moving parts, that have power supply or an active force to utilize it, and generally has a form a user interface, than human beings fit the bill. The moving parts being our muscles and internal organs that allow for our greater survival, Our power coming from a consistent fuel we call food, Our brain acts as a user and a computer and operates in a binary system, we even have our own cooling system, write-back cache, RAM, and optical processors. The similarities between man and machine are far too great to ignore. So, all things considered… We do act like machines.

___________________________

[i] It should be noted that neurons actually can be activated several times in the same thought process.

[ii] We refer to this as <a href=”http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Organic+fuel”>organic compounds.</a>

[iii] This is not too terribly unlike how cache works.

Part II Coming….
Join me for Part II of I, Human, where I explore what cannot be recreated through our knowledge, and ask again, is there something more?

[1] It should be noted that neurons actually can be activated several times in the same thought process.

[1] We refer to this as <a href=”http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Organic+fuel”>organic compounds.</a>

[1] This is not too terribly unlike how cache works.

A.D.D.: Not So Bad.

This is a post forwarded from the Adult A.D.D/A.D.H.D. is NOT a Gift post from Jeff’s A.D.D. Mind Blog, directed to a gifted arguer by the name of Scott. If you wish to follow the first part of the argument go here. It is in the comments section near the bottom of the fourth page.  Read down through the comments and replies from my first “Paradigm Of Thought” Post. While there, check out Jeff’s Blog.

From Here on in, I will recite the intended post.

Scott,

Thank you very much for responding to my query. First I’d like to clear the air and say I apologize if I hinted toward you  being below my intellectual level. I did not mean to make such an assumption, I simply meant that sometimes my answers can come out convoluted at times, as you saw in the above statement “It may have been a lack of communication on my part.”

You had mentioned the abnormalities of the ADHD brain. While I’m not arguing that brain damage can’t effect a person’s ability to succeed, one has to measure what the intensity of the damage is and where the damage is.

According to the American Medical Association, ADHD has the following neurological traits:

- Reduced Size In The Basal Ganglia (Effecting base motor functions, making the person clumsy.)

- Abnormalities in the Reticular Activating System (Giving the person heightened awareness, sensory information, and in many cases insomnia)

-Minor Frontal Lobe Dysfunction (Giving the earmark traits, hyperactivity, inattention)

-And most compellingly a 7-repeat variance on the B4 Dopamine Receptor. (Causing the majority of innattention in ADHD, the addiction prone behavior, as well as a particularly cool trait called “Hyper-Focus.”)

So we have identified the Dysfunctions, so let’s study them .

Reduced Size in the Basal Ganglia will make the person with ADHD more clumsy, but this can be compensated by using the acute attention to detail caused by the Reticular Activating System Abnormality to remain aware of your surroundings. Even in worse case this will hardly effect a persons ability to function properly or succeed professionally.

Abnormalities in the Reticular Activating System  does cause the increased awareness of Sensory Information that plays no small part in  the distractiblity in the person with ADHD. This also gives an acute awareness of one’s surroundings, and the ability to easily identify subtle cues in behavior, both are keynote traits in success. With out this awareness a person may not be able to detect danger, or close an important deal.

Minor Frontal Lobe Dysfunction is the most disconcerting of them all, it is a key component in the distractibility and the process commonly called a “Cognitive Storm” in which a person may be thinking a “million thoughts at once.” But as I have mentioned before, the distractibility of the individual is more than made up by the ability to switch tasks fluently as well as track several projects at once (which is also caused by this dysfunction). A technique that in the real world is one of the most important traits in order to succeed (There are many times in business in which the person is required to step away from one task and focus on another for the stability of a business). Cognitive Storms can seem stressful, however it is, from personal experience, an effective method to identifying abstract patterns, which allows for structured reasoning and goal setting.

The 7-repeat variance on the B4 Dopamine Receptor is the main causer for distactibility and increased addictive behavior for the person with ADHD. As I have mentioned before there are positive traits to distractibility, and addictive behavior can be managed in several ways, such as therapy, life style changes, and simple discipline. And even if not, the most successful stock brokers, celebrities,  businessmen, etc. have addictions. And considering that anything that releases dopamine is addictive, such things like exercise, romance, and yes, success can be addictive as well. All of this points that even addictive behavior is not necessarily (Though in some cases is) advantageous or disadvantageous for success.

I also mentioned a cool ability called “Hyper-Focus.” This is a psychological phenomenon found almost exclusively in people with ADHD. In this state a person with ADHD will temporarily “tunnel” their thoughts into one project, allowing them to double their work output, and completely  tune out all ancillary information that will distract them. With a task oriented goal setting system this can be utilized for any and all success.

Adding to all of this the fact that people with ADHD have an average IQ that is 5 points higher than the norm, score notoriously high in linguistics tests, and work well under pressure. I cannot imagine how ADHD can hinder a person’s ability to succeed. However you did make an interesting point: that success is contingent on a person’s goals. If a person with ADHD has the goal of not having ADHD anymore, he most likely will not succeed.

I have a problem with this argument for two reasons.

1) The original argument was that a person will not succeed if they have ADHD. With out the qualifier “in certain areas” I must assume the word “Succeed” refers to general professional or personal success. No specific successes.

2) Using the exact same logic, if person with ADHD has the goal to be easily distracted, then they most definitely are successes already and the argument is null and void.

The fact is that people with ADHD are by biology well equipped for success, and even their disadvantageous traits are quite manageable. The only thing that stops people with ADHD from succeeding is simply the “I can’t” syndrome, in which the person makes excuses to why they cannot perform a task, instead of finding reasons why they can. Success on any level is based solely on attitude. The most notably successful people in history and modern times have neurological disorders in every field, from Teaching and Philosophy (Socrates was believed to be an Advanced Schizophrenic, and illiterate), to Politics (Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson are believed to have had ADD) to Inventing and Mechanics (Thomas Edison is so strongly believed to have ADD that the term “The Edison Syndrome” was coined in the 1980s), To Business (Donald Trump is known to have OCD), and even to the Sciences (Albert Einstein was Autistic, and had what is called Aspergers Syndrome; Stephen Hawking has MS). It seems that all things can be overcome, except for the words “I Can’t.”

Schrödinger Agnosticism

Schrödinger’s Cat.

You place a cat in a box. Inside the box you place a flask of hydrocyanic acid, that when broken, will release a gas killing the cat. (This flask would of course be protected from the cat breaking it, but not vice versa). Also with this flask is a device with a Geiger Counter hooked to a hammer. Inside the Geiger counter is an atom with an undetermined half life, which may or may not begin decaying in an hour. If the atom decays, it will set off the Geiger Counter and release a hammer that will shatter the flask, release the gas, and kill the cat. Now assume you leave for an hour. You come back. Before you open the box, is the cat alive or dead? (Schrödinger, 1935)

I would imagine that more than one person reading this thinks that this is a madman experiment. Now before you wonder what my problem is, and why I want to kill a poor kitty,

Help Me! (Wikimedia, 2005)

Understand that this is not a real experiment. It is simply a thought experiment proposed by Erwin Schrödinger to explain undeterminable variables in quantum physics (it should be noted that Erwin Schrödinger refers to this example as a “ridiculous case,” (Schrödinger, 1935) and only to be taken as a metaphor).

In this case, Schrödinger is attempting to explain that if the state of an atom is indeterminable, than all possible states must be correct. In the case of the cat, the cat is both alive and dead.  (Schrödinger, 1935) For those of you who, understandably, have issues understanding this experiment, I have drafted a simulation sketch to the experiment:

Yeah, that’s kind of what it’s like.

Now, for those of you who object to this result, I must explain that this does not necessarily mean that the cat is both alive and dead (though on a quantum physics scale, that is quite possible, but that’s another article), it simply means that both possibilities are just as likely. Because both possibilities are just as likely they can both be assumed as true, until we of course open the box. Before this point, the cat, for all intents and purposes must be assumed as alive and dead, and calculations must be made as such until we determine either.

The Agnostic Premise.

According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary Agnostic comes from the Greek words: A (Without) + Gn­ōstos (Knowledge). Agnosticism is described as an admission of ignorance; one who believes that the existence of God is unknowable (paraph.)(Merriam-Webster, 2010). This answer has been, thus far, the best answer I could come across for the God Question.

Considering that the idea of God has no concrete evidence (despite what ardent Theists would say), and the fact that it is impossible to prove a negative, it seems easy to assume that God is unknowable. However, what good scientist stops there?

So how do we solve this? Well my solution is to make it into a math problem of course. Below, I have included a formula for probability:

Pr(f)=f(Favorable Outcome)/p (Possible Outcomes)

(Galvin, 2004)

In the example of Schrödinger’s cat we have two possible variables, alive or dead. That gives us a favorable outcome of 1 and possible outcomes of 2. That would mean:

Pr(Cat Alive)=1/2=.5=50%

Which yields us a result of chances of the cat being alive or dead are equal, 50%, therefore it is impossible to determine accurately (though one has a good chance of guessing right). Now, considering that the parameters of God remain unknown, and therefore could be anything, we can (and must) consider all possible ideas of God in a probability equation. Considering that there are a possible infinite amount of ideas about god, that makes our Favorable outcomes ∞ (infinity). And then we must consider that if the idea of God has infinite amount of possibilities than the possible outcome must be ∞ as well. This makes our equation:

if Pr(God) → ∞ than Pr(God) = ∞/∞ ≠ 1 = Undetermined

Schrodinger Agnosticism

We have officially placed God in the box. My probability equation has shown, if Pr(God) → ∞ than Pr(God)= Undetermined. Considering this information, the probability (the state) of God is mathematically (and logically), indeterminable. Applying the Thought Experiment, Schrodinger’s Cat, to the results of the equation, we find that God both Exists and Does Not Exist. Using mathematics and quantum physics as an explanation to the Universe, the choice of Agnosticism is the only method in which one can perceive God.

You place God in a box, inside the box is a paradox in which God both exists and does not exist. With out opening the box (or having the ability to open said box), does God exist?

______________________

Works Cited
Galvin, A. (2004, Nov. 04). probability equations. Retrieved Jan. 04, 2010, from Connexions: http://cnx.org/content/m10244/latest/

Merriam-Webster. (2010). Merriam Webster Dictionary. Springfield, Massachusetts : Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Schrödinger, E. (1935). The Present Situation in Quantum Mechanics. Die Naturwissenschaften , 124, 323-38.

Wikimedia. (2005, Oct. 17). File:Schrödinger cat.png. Retrieved Jan. 04, 2010, from Wikimedia Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schr%C3%B6dinger_cat.png

Ask An Atheist

There Is No God.

That’s a pretty powerful statement. To most people this evokes emotions deep to our core. We are so entangled in our beliefs that the idea that a person can live a happy, healthy life with out the need of religion or faith is somehow wrong to us. This is so alien to us that people (in extreme cases) will alienate others for even thinking it. Why? Because the idea of God is very much ingrained in culture. It is taught to us as absolute truth, and those who deviate from that “truth” are deviating from us (ie bad).

Now am I asserting that the statement above is absolute truth? No, I can’t know that, that is beyond my reasonable capabilities as a human, and I accept that. I simply make the statement to illustrate a point. Be honest, did you have an emotional reaction? (defensive if any?) It’s nature, don’t be ashamed. We want to believe in God. It gives us hope, it gives us answers where there are none. And to many it gives peace. But just because we want to believe in God… Doesn’t mean he exists. This is a path of questioning many people now are going to.

I first started seriously questioning the idea of God about a decade ago. Since then I have received a lot of questions about what I believe in, how I could believe in it, where my morals are,ect . There seems to be a trend… Most people do not know what it means to be an atheist. This is a problem, because if we are to cooperate as human beings, we must understand each other, learn from each other, and be willing to challenge our idea against each other with no spite or anger. I present this to you. I will give you commonly asked questions and misconceptions about Atheism and Agnosticism, and reasonable, logical answers in hopes that if you do read this, you will walk away with some better understand of what we believe. Please, feel free to make your own blog, explaining what you believe, I would be more than happy to read it.

First, a background. I am a strong agnostic. I believe that the possibility of the existence a Deity, and the possibility of the the universe working on it’s own according to no intelligent force are equal and valid principles.  In short, I believe that God both exists and does not exist (Or at least I am open to either possibility). I have spent years in informal theological debate, and have seen almost every argument that theists and atheists currently have in their arsenal. I fervently argue either side in the attempts to try to level the issue, and force others to explain their position.

Please remember, as you are reading this, that I (personally) take no sides in this issue. That for sake of argument I assume an atheistic position to explain, to the best of my abilities, the beliefs, the values, and the understanding of a responsible atheist.

So onto the questions.

Why Don’t You Believe In My God? How Can You Not Believe In Any God? Do You Hate God?

1. For the same reason I don’t believe in Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy. I see religion as another story, one that may help people, may give morals, but still, when the message digested, the need for the story is over. I ask you, why don’t believe in any other God than yours? When you answer that question, you might be closer to understanding how I feel.
2. The reason I assume there is no higher power is because I don’t see the necessity for a higher power. Ockham’s Razor states, “entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem” (entities must not be multiplied unnecessarily)(Wikipedia, Occam’s Razor). Paraphrased: “In any given situation, the simplest answer is most often the correct one.” Now it may be easier cognitively to assume that there was a designer, instead of the universe forming out of probability. But logically it becomes difficult. In order to test logic one must assign numbers and equations to certain phenomenon. We can give a number to the likelihood of any event. But you can’t give an equation for God. And to put God into any equation would not simplify it, it would complicate the equation needlessly. It is just simpler to assume that the universe formed on it’s own, instead of being formed by a being we cannot cognitively conceive, reasonably prove, or measure it’s parameter’s.
3. Do you hate Ganesha? Do you hate the Buddha? No, you don’t believe in them, what is the reason to hate them? Same principle with use, we aren’t rebelling, we don’t hate God, we don’t believe in him.

How do you have morals outside of God? How do you reference your morals without the bible (or some other holy script)?

1. Essentially the same place you get your morals. The majority of people do not recieve morals from God, rather from their raising. If your parents were very moral people, and it was essential to them that you were moral than it is likely that you would be raised with a certain set of morals and ethics. My morals were taught outside of God (even though I was raised Catholic). They were simply a set of basic human ethics that interweaves to encompass every conceivable moral situation.
2. Most atheists will account The Golden Rule which states “Do unto others, as you would have others do unto you.” This is a good rule to live by, but it doesn’t account for all situations. So I present a model of morals that I call “The Choice and Justice Model” of Moral Behavior. This simply is the idea that one is allowed to choose freely what they do, however one’s freedom to choose ends where another’s begins. Meaning I can choose to do anything as long as my choice does not encroach on another’s choice. The second part of this model is referred to justice. If a person decides to encroach on another person’s choice they should be punished. A man rapes a woman, which is encroaching on her ability to choose who she decides to have sexual relations with. Therefor that man should be punished to discourage the action, or prevent him from performing the action again (like jail time, or salt peter).

What is the need for morals without Heaven or Hell?

• Survival of societal structures, thus the survival of the species hinges on keeping order in society. A common sense of morals insures this structure of order. This tells people what they should accept, and what they shouldn’t. What to do, and what not to do. This moral system will eventually become laws, insuring further that the morals of that society  remain in tact. We need morals in order to prevent chaos. With out these essential morals, people would be permitted to doing anything they please with out consequence. And thus they would, spreading chaos through the system and toppling it.

This sounds like moral relativism. Doesn’t that mean that there is no right or wrong?

• You are correct, this is Moral Relativism. But no, what you are referring to is Moral Nihilism. This is a common mistake. Moral Relativism simply means that moral judgments are situational. There typically is a Right and Wrong choice in any moral situation. Moral Relativism simply sustains what may be the right course of action in one situation, but not in another. For example: We can all agree that killing is essentially wrong. However if you were in a situation in which it was either to kill a man, or let him kill you or others, than it is the morally correct decision to kill him.

If there is no God, Is life just purposeless? If not, what is the purpose?

1. Objectively, yes. There is not objective purpose for life. We just live. We aren’t here for any particular reason, we aren’t here to do anything particular, we are just here to live.
2. Purpose is purpose. In other words, the meaning of life is to live, and to effect the others around you. If you effect the world around you in a positive way, than it can be reasonably determined that you have been a success in your life. Your reward? Simply leaving the world a little bit better than you found it. That should be enough.

How can something come from nothing? What caused the Big Bang?

1. Simple answer? It can’t. Something cannot come from nothing, and cannot appear in a vacuum. That is why most scientists agree that the big bang came from a singularity. Now where did that singularity come from? Depends on who you ask. M-Theory states that it was just the effect of two dimensional membranes clashing and separating from each other. Bubble theory supposes the collision and merge of two universes. And Classic Theory supposes that the singularity was just there.
2. This assumes that outside of time, cause precedes effect. But if there is no time, than an effect can happen before or outside of a cause. We determine that before the singularity expanded (“banged”) there was no time. (According to the Classic Big Bang Theory.) Therefor there was no cause and effect. So nothing caused the big bang.

Are you blind? Can’t you see all the evidence of God around you?

• What evidence? Give me one piece of evidence that God exists that I can test according to the scientific method, that is falsifiable and empirical, and maybe I will consider this evidence. But it stands today there is no evidence to sustain that God exists, therefor I must assume that the possible existence of God is less substantial than the idea that god (in any form) does not exist.

Does absence of evidence imply evidence of absence?

• Certainly not. There have been many things that we could not detect, but later found out were there (case and point neutrinos). But a reasonable person must not make conjectures with out sufficient evidence. Meaning we must assume the negative (God does not exist) is true until we attain evidence of the positive (God does exist). As I have mentioned before there is no evidence sustaining the existence of God. Since theburden of proof is on the side of the Positive in any logical situation, the Negative can be assumed in lieu of the evidence of Positive. Given that it is impossible to prove a negative.

Isn’t Atheism a cowardice belief, just unable to accept God?

• Actually, Atheism is a very difficult emotionally speaking. Many people who begin to lose faith in God will account hopeless depression, anxiety, and loss of identity. Losing faith to many people is losing the foundation in which much of their life is based on. So the initial steps of Non-Belief is often times very disparaging. And it doesn’t get better from there. Then you have to accept your own mortality without the idea of the afterlife (which is very frightening), confront anybody who believes that atheism is wrong, deal with your family, the list goes on. After experiencing many of these things, I cannot imagine how being an atheist is cowardice belief. I think quite the opposite actually. Being an atheist requires a certain amount of bravery. It is much more difficult than many people imagine to be an atheist.

Why is it important to you that everyone is atheist?

• It’s not. I simply ask people to question what they believe because unquestioned belief is inherently dangerous. It can lead to atrocities, and worse yet retardation of knowledge. It matters not to me whether a person is Christian, or Hindu, or Atheist, or what have you. As long as that belief does not disallow knowledge, and does not make general assumptions that allows a person to reject information because it does not follow in their beliefs.

Doesn’t it require faith to assert that God does not exist?

• Certainly. I sustain it requires just as much (if not more) faith to assert 100% that God does not exist (Yes, I know I will get crucified by atheists for mentioning this). Conversely one must understand it is unreasonable to assume he does exist with out evidence. This is why I remain Agnostic. Faith is a logical fallacy, and therefor any assumption of faith is unreasonable and should be cast out. My disbelief is based on materialism. And thus I demand if I am to believe in a positive, than that positive must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Is it possible to prove a negative? If it is impossible, how do logically believe in a negative if it is unprovable?

1. Yes, it is impossible to prove a negative event. While I’m not saying you can’t prove that there isn’t a spare tire on your car. I am saying that you can’t prove I didn’t go to the movies last night. You can however prove a positive that makes the negative unlikely. Like saying “You were over a a friends house all night, you couldn’t go to the movies.” This is not proving a negative, this is proving a contradicting positive, which in turn makes the negative more likely than the positive. The idea that God does not exist is a universal negative. Meaning that there is no logical way to give a  contradicting positive that makes the negative more likely.
2. This is much simpler than the former question. The negative is the base assumption in all forms of logic. (The Adversary court system can be used as an example. Assumption of innocence until proof of guilt). We assume the negative (something is not true) until we can receive evidence of the positive (something is true). In lamen’s terms, we don’t believe in fairies because we must logically prove fairies for us to believe they exist. Until proof of fairies comes around, we assume that fairies do not exist.

————————————————————

Understand, this is not a conversion mechanism. None of this is proof of the non-existence of God. Nor intended as an argument towards God. Rather it is a way to help the logical theist to understand our point of view, just as the logical atheist must attempt to understand the logical theist point of view. As well to quell many myths and misconceptions theists have about atheists. I do this so we may understand each other and accept each other, with out the need to convert, or demean each other. The more we understand, the easier it becomes to coexist

I welcome any theist to give me an “Ask a Theist” blog in the same spirit in which I present this. Not as an argument, just as a way to understand each other. Hopefully we can quell all these myths and stick to the actual argument, with out ad hominems or basic conceptions about each other.

- Paradigm Of Thought.