Skeptic admiting his level of evidence

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'm sorry, but after all these years (admittedly less than those of some of you) but I cannot accept vagueries and conditional evidences as proof of life after death or mediumship. Hints and shadows don't constitute evidence for something as monumental as survival after death. I really need clear, obvious photos of ghosts, ectoplasm or manifestations. I need clear, obvious indications that an actual soul is communicating with a spirit medium, not an vague "A" or "Alex."

It's just crap, all crap.

So, my fellow skeptics and believers, please forgive me for not digging into the minutae of John Edward's "process" or the results of PEAR or dissecting Zammit's wildly divergent "evidences." I want evidence that constitutes something more convincing than a loose interpretation of a daily horoscope.

Inviegh away...

[Clancie]

How about the 27 year study of Mrs. Piper, then? (Yes, by scientists; no, not in a laboratory).

[Ed]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
I'm sorry, but after all these years (admittedly less than those of some of you) but I cannot accept vagueries and conditional evidences as proof of life after death or mediumship. Hints and shadows don't constitute evidence for something as monumental as survival after death. I really need clear, obvious photos of ghosts, ectoplasm or manifestations. I need clear, obvious indications that an actual soul is communicating with a spirit medium, not an vague "A" or "Alex."

It's just crap, all crap.

So, my fellow skeptics and believers, please forgive me for not digging into the minutae of John Edward's "process" or the results of PEAR or dissecting Zammit's wildly divergent "evidences." I want evidence that constitutes something more convincing than a loose interpretation of a daily horoscope.

Inviegh away...

Pretty much my feelings too. In spite of "Mrs. Piper" and the thousands of mediums that Steve refers to something as BIG as survival has rather cruddy evidence. You get to a point where whatever comes up seems to be more of the same. When something comes up that is clear and unequivical (and not reported by one of the usual gang of woo-woos) I'll take a look.

Edit to add: You know, it strikes me as odd that the BIGness of the idea of survival is not harped on by the woo's. This is the basis of many religions, the "promise" that you don't really die. If it could be demonstrated think of the reprecussions. But there are no reprecussions cuz it's crapola.

[robbersdog]

I find just the very idea of life after death to be bizarre! It's really really strange. I don't see how anyone can think it possible.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Clancie
How about the 27 year study of Mrs. Piper, then? (Yes, by scientists; no, not in a laboratory).

Does this "study" amount to more than a collection of anecdotes? Controlled?

Because, seriously, scientists are just as vulnerable as everyone else when it comes to being deceived.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
I'm sorry, but after all these years (admittedly less than those of some of you) but I cannot accept vagueries and conditional evidences as proof of life after death or mediumship. Hints and shadows don't constitute evidence for something as monumental as survival after death. I really need clear, obvious photos of ghosts, ectoplasm or manifestations. I need clear, obvious indications that an actual soul is communicating with a spirit medium, not an vague "A" or "Alex."

It's just crap, all crap.




So all skeptics say, but they never give any reasons why they think this. Why are you so absolutely certain that we cease to exist when we die? What is it that makes you so certain? What is it you know that I don't? What do you think you understand which I'm unable to understand?

[Zaphod]

I will give my reason.

I accept that I am a product of natural selection, and I cannot see how we could have evolved to survive death. Where did the selective pressure come from to make this jump, even assuming that there was any kind of habitat into which we could jump upon death (for which there is no evidence either)? Our brains evolved to develop our personality, memories, consciousness - no other vessel for these attributes is apparent to me. When my brain dies, I therefore cease to exist.

Zaphod

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Zaphod
I will give my reason.

I accept that I am a product of natural selection,



Your physical body is, not you.



and I cannot see how we could have evolved to survive death.



Personnally I don't believe we did. I am disposed to feel that all conscious beings survive death.


Our brains evolved to develop our personality, memories, consciousness - no other vessel for these attributes is apparent to me. When my brain dies, I therefore cease to exist.



Our brains developed to allow us to successfully negotiate and manipulate our environment.

[tim]

Nice avatar, Ian! :D

When it comes down to it, none of us can know whether we live on after death or not. I cannot prove we don't, nor can you prove we do.
However, if you are making the claim we do it's a very big claim to make and don't be surprised when you are asked for some evidence.
I do not believe we survive and have never seen or heard any evidence to the contrary. I would like the afterlife to be true, I assure you - but I don't believe that it is.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by tim
Nice avatar, Ian! :D



Indeed, gorgeous isn't she? Mind you no-one seems to have the same taste as me in woman LOL



When it comes down to it, none of us can know whether we live on after death or not. I cannot prove we don't, nor can you prove we do.
However, if you are making the claim we do it's a very big claim to make and don't be surprised when you are asked for some evidence.



What I say is that reason and evidence compel me to subscribe to the survival hypothesis. Does that equate to a claim on my part?


I do not believe we survive and have never seen or heard any evidence to the contrary. I would like the afterlife to be true, I assure you - but I don't believe that it is.

Plenty of evidence. Read this (http://www.noetic.org/Ions/publications/review_archives/32/issue32_12.html) for a flavour of it.

[Corey]

While I don't think you need direct physical or observable evidence to believe in some sort of existence after death (from the Agnostic point of view, or how Athiests can be Buddhists, etc) in some form...I think you DO need it to prove that the dead can communicate with the living.

The majority of mediums, primarily the ones who are entertainers (what other classification you can give these people, I don't know), seem to be blatant frauds at worst and optimistically self deluded at best. The factor that shifts the balance is when they start taking money from people for doing this, with the implication or direct assertion that they can indeed communicate with the dead directly and that it is because of some special power that is unique to them and those like them. That's the point at which I stop saying "believe whatever you want, I don't buy it" and say these people are frauds that rely on vague leading questions to produce little of substance.

Show me a medium who gives some concrete answers, without asking questions of the subject, in a controlled environment. Something along the lines of "Your father passed on ____ years ago of ____, he was ___ years old. He used to take you to the ____ on sundays and buy you ____. He called you ____. "

If a medium could provide some solid, verifiable info under controlled circumstances beyond the statistical curve then I would have something to think about.


Until then "I'm getting an older presence...your father is passed, or no? Yes, I'm getting a J, his name was Tom?...well it's a father like figure, an uncle an older brother, maybe an older male friend of the family. I'm getting a j or a g...your dad's friend was Gary? He's passed? Yes...he has something to say...about Tom...you had some problems? Yes...I'm getting another energy, your dad is here, he says he loves you very much and he wishes you could have been closer" and that sort of thing...IS NOT evidence of life after death or the power of mediums. It's a really weak con based on the willingness of the mark to offer up information to facilitate the medium's con and make themselves feel better.

If they did it for free, I'd still gripe about it, but I'd call it sad self delusion and not a con.

[voidx]

Posted by Interesting Ian
Plenty of evidence. Read this for a flavour of it.
I quickly read over this summary and I have to say, its plenty of at best, slight data. Even the article itself says of each individial arguement for life after death, that the evidence for each arguement is wanting when it comes to proving the afterlife. It then basically tries to say, well while we have lots of these un-proven theories, they as a whole would seem to suggest life after death. Except for one problem, none of them individually are proven. I'm not impressed very much by this compilation of evidence I'm afraid. Plus another interesting bit is that the article states some 67% of Americans believe in life after death, most of them for just as blind a faith as many people accuse skeptics of disbelieving it. How can one fully take out the wish-fulfillment factor here. We have so many different theories that on their own are poor to at best subjective proof of life after death exactly because so many people want to believe its true, and therefore pursue any means which might make it possible.

I agree some things do seem odd compared to our current knowledge of how things work, but for me, its too far of a leap, and too sparsely filled with "good" evidence for me to accept the paranormal explanations, or life after death.

[Corey]

I think you can sum up that study, others like it, and belief in an afterlife pretty simply. No concrete proof either way, and a desire to believe there is one out of fear of death. It's a common fear, it's an understandable fear. I think though that it is for the most part based on the idea that if we die and nothing happens, we cease to exist and our consciousness stops, life has meant nothing. Others may disagree and have other reasons, but I think that's a pretty accurate generalization. Extensions of it being a fear of hell or exclusion from some sort of reward or paradise for those who believe in (whatever you fill in the blank with). They live life...they die, and everything they did has no meaning and it's all over.

For some reason, from what I've experienced, a lot of people fear not existing more than existing for eternity in extreme punishment or anguish of some sort, which I find odd. My response to that is generally "Do you remember anything around or before your birth?" To which, obviously (excluding past life regression people, but I wouldn't refer to that as "remembering", let's stick to garden variety, practical memory here) they say "No". So then why are they concerned about not existing after their life is over? If it is so, they won't exist, they won't have any feelings at all. Nothing to fear...nothing, period. Take a deep breath and try not to think of an eternity of nothing, because it's a contradiction, heh.


So anyway, I digress a bit, but my general point is that most reasonable people will admit that there is no proof of life after death or lack of it either way but that their wish for it to be so of fear of some unpleasant (in their mind) alternative is enough to make them believe... "just in case".


Personally, I don't want to do ANYTHING in life "just in case". I find it a rather weak and distastefull argument for believing in anything. It's often used by people to justify practicing christianity and other religions even though they don't completely believe it..and they try to pass it off as "logic". "Hey, if there is a God and you don't believe in him, you'll go to hell. If you believe in him and he isn't real, you don't lose anything. So if you believe either you get heaven or you lose nothing, it's only logical!". Hmm...logical isn't the word I'd use personally.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by voidx

I quickly read over this summary and I have to say, its plenty of at best, slight data.



It's just an adumbration of the main types of evidence. I provided the link to rebut the assertion there is no evidence.



Even the article itself says of each individial arguement for life after death, that the evidence for each arguement is wanting when it comes to proving the afterlife.



As I keep saying, the evidence does not constitute proof. Taken as a whole it is "merely" highly suggestive.



It then basically tries to say, well while we have lots of these un-proven theories, they as a whole would seem to suggest life after death.



What unproven theories?



Except for one problem, none of them individually are proven.



Why do skeptics keep harping on about proof? Do you not understand that simply because one cannot prove "X" this does not imply "not X"? I should point out here that we cannot prove that we cease to exist when we die. Don't you think it would be rather peculiar for me to conclude that therefore it is highly likely that there is a life after death? This is exactly the type of reasoning that you and the skeptics are doing. Do you not understand the logical fallacy you are committing here? It is sufficient that the evidence is highly suggestive of survival, and that there is no particularly compelling evidence for extinction.


I'm not impressed very much by this compilation of evidence I'm afraid.


And I'm afraid I don't understand why.



Plus another interesting bit is that the article states some 67% of Americans believe in life after death, most of them for just as blind a faith as many people accuse skeptics of disbelieving it. How can one fully take out the wish-fulfillment factor here.



We can't. But there again the author is not using this statistic as constituting evidence for survival.


We have so many different theories that on their own are poor to at best subjective proof of life after death exactly because so many people want to believe its true, and therefore pursue any means which might make it possible.



The fact that someone desires X to be true doesn't necessitate that X is false. This is another logical fallacy continually being committed by skeptics. Nor am I convinced that a lot of skeptics don't wish that there isn't a life after death. I get the impression that a lot of skeptics are terrified by the prospect and will go to any lengths to denounce the evidence and will cling onto philosophical materialism despite its evident incoherency.

[tim]

Thank you for the link Ian.
Whilst I accept there may be anecdotal evidence, I cannot accept this as proof of an afterlife. As I say, nor can I prove there is not. I therefore put this question to the back of my mind in a seperate box to be opened on my death. I will then find out (or not, as the case may be) the truth. If I'm wrong, that's great; If I'm right, well then it won't matter, will it?
In the meantime the concept of death does not terrify me. I do not look forward to it, because I enjoy living, but neither does the concept of death occupy my mind unduly. When I am dying, I expect I will be scared. As you may know, I nearly died from a burst aneurysm in my brain some seven years ago. I was told by the surgeon that I stood about a 40% chance of not surviving the operation and that if I did I would almost certainly be badly brain damaged. I was very frightened, I assure you, but even then the concept of a continued existence being severely handicapped, unable to speak or look after myself, scared me more.
In the interim, however, I see little point in worrying about something in an unknown future over which I probably will have no control.

[T'ai Chi]

Perhaps the state after we die is the same as the state of before we were born?

[jj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


So all skeptics say, but they never give any reasons why they think this. Why are you so absolutely certain that we cease to exist when we die? What is it that makes you so certain? What is it you know that I don't? What do you think you understand which I'm unable to understand?

"all skeptics say"... "... absolutely certain..."

Ian, please, in the future, do not misrepresent my position.

There is NO "absolutely certain".

There is just no, zero, zip, not a bit of evidence. Not one solitary, single whit of evidence.

And it's not nice to lie about my position. I'm a skeptic, and I don't hold the position above, so that's what you did.

You constantly resort to misrepresentations of what "all skeptics" think, in ways that show that you are fully and completely claiming omniscience when you make such claims, because it's the ONLY way you could say "all skeptics".

So just stop it. When you have real evidence, not ancient anecdotes, or even current ones that can't be verified or repeated, come back and talk.

[jj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Your physical body is, not you.


So you say, repeatedly, with no proof.

NOW PROVE IT, or stop saying it like it's a fact.


Personnally I don't believe we did. I am disposed to feel that all conscious beings survive death.



PROVE IT and we can talk.



Our brains developed to allow us to successfully negotiate and manipulate our environment.

Yep, and that's why we're concious. It's chemistry, no more and no less. There isn't a single, solitary bit of evidence otherwise. WHEN YOU HAVE SOME GET BACK TO US!

[epepke]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
So all skeptics say, but they never give any reasons why they think this. Why are you so absolutely certain that we cease to exist when we die? What is it that makes you so certain? What is it you know that I don't? What do you think you understand which I'm unable to understand?

I have a question right back. Why is it that people with a philosophical bent such as yourself assert that skeptics are "absolutely certain" of something, no matter how many times skeptics point out that they are hard pressed to be certain about anything, nor how simply and clearly this is phrased?

I have only a few working hypotheses:


The philosophical tradition is so heavily influenced by Aristotelian two-valued logic that it's automatic to snap ideas to 1 or 0 without even thinking much about it.
The philosophical tradition is also heavily influenced by sophistry, and it's easier to knock down a straw man, and sometimes you can manage to pull a fast one on an audience.
The philosophical tradition also seems to have a lot of anger in it, and perhaps there is perceived value in trying to annoy skeptics by not listening to them in the hopes they will become stupefied by anger.
Something like the episode of The Young Ones where Neil gets a skewer through his head.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It's just an adumbration of the main types of evidence. I provided the link to rebut the assertion there is no evidence.
Fair enough. However, the site itself even seems to suggest that the evidence is poor, but that there are enough different theories that could prove promising in their mind, that its perhaps suggestive of something.

As I keep saying, the evidence does not constitute proof. Taken as a whole it is "merely" highly suggestive.
And I was just re-iterating that the article itself reinforces this idea, that the evidence taken for each theory is poor, and not very good proof of the afterlife. As to how suggestive it is, well, thats debateable.

What unproven theories?
err, telepathy, psi, esp, physical manifestations, a "soul" seperate from the physical body, just to name a few.

Why do skeptics keep harping on about proof? Do you not understand that simply because one cannot prove "X" this does not imply "not X"? I should point out here that we cannot prove that we cease to exist when we die. Don't you think it would be rather peculiar for me to conclude that therefore it is highly likely that there is a life after death? This is exactly the type of reasoning that you and the skeptics are doing. Do you not understand the logical fallacy you are committing here? It is sufficient that the evidence is highly suggestive of survival, and that there is no particularly compelling evidence for extinction.
I never implied that since you cannot prove X, that it therefore does not exist, so please apply that label to someone else. I merely stated that I do not find all these theories concrete enough to buy into the existence of X, or the afterlife, in this instance. I could be wrong, you could be wrong, or it could be some mishmash in the middle, time may tell. And how exactly would you have anyone go about proving extinction to your satisfaction, or complete death with no afterlife? If you believe in the physical, biological form of the body, and then posit that when it dies, the brain and its physical "mind" dies with it is pretty logical from our viewpoint. What would convince you that there is nothing after we die, how should we go about proving this negative to you? You have simply assumed I discount the possibility of the afterlife entirely so you could slap your logical fallacy sticker on me. I only ever implied that I thought it was unlikely given the "evidences" we currently have.

And I'm afraid I don't understand why.
Because you don't put any stake in my worldview and do not seem to choose to even want to understand it.

We can't. But there again the author is not using this statistic as constituting evidence for survival.
Perhaps true, but then why include it at all? One could argue that he implies one of the 2 sides is seriously deluded in there belief, then states the statistic and goes on to support his view. While he doesn't count it as evidence, he does use it to his advantage, or tries too.

The fact that someone desires X to be true doesn't necessitate that X is false. This is another logical fallacy continually being committed by skeptics. Nor am I convinced that a lot of skeptics don't wish that there isn't a life after death. I get the impression that a lot of skeptics are terrified by the prospect and will go to any lengths to denounce the evidence and will cling onto philosophical materialism despite its evident incoherency.
Of course it doesn't, it does however often make people less than objective about how they view evidences and other such things. Again since no one has stated what you say we have there is no logical fallacy. You're impression isn't going to count for much on here either. See to me yah I do not want to die, who does, we want to continue living, for the most part. But to me, the lack of an afterlife is not terrifying, to me it gives me conviction. It gives me conviction to live my life as best as I can since I only have one shot at it, and I think its more likely that I will not receive the convinient "talk to people I know after I'm dead to reconcile my mistakes" option. To me if everyone believed there was no afterlife, and were objective about it, they would live their life more fully, free of the temptation of a, "here's another chance at life in the afterlife" scenario. To me it makes it more clear that, yes, life has consequences, and there is no convinient movie ending out that makes any decisions, and their consequences irrelevant.

[jj]

Originally posted by epepke


I have a question right back. Why is it that people with a philosophical bent such as yourself assert that skeptics are "absolutely certain" of something, no matter how many times skeptics point out that they are hard pressed to be certain about anything, nor how simply and clearly this is phrased?


Eric, allow me to introduce you to "Interesting Ian". He claims that there is enormous evidence for various kinds of psychic performances, but hasn't provided any. He's insisted that anyone who doesn't accept his evidence is "thick as (deleted)". He's been known to missumarize others' arguments.

Etc.

Interesting Ian is a troll, a troll who has nothing INTERESTING to say, except that anyone who doesn't accept his assertions (in order for a skeptic to accept what he says, we'd have to have him granted omniscience somehow outside the system) is "thick as ...".

So, Ian, meet Eric. Eric, meet Ian, if you want.

Ian, I know Eric from way back. If I were you, I'd be good, now. Eric and I both survived nutnoise way back in the day when it was still the old west ...:j2:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by robbersdog
I find just the very idea of life after death to be bizarre! It's really really strange. I don't see how anyone can think it possible.

Well absolutely! If people, especially skeptics, could just bring themselves to admit this!

You see it seems clear to me that what determines our belief in this matter has precious little to do with rationality. Rather it has to do with what we feel. To us, of the modern western way of thinking, the idea of "life after death" seems really really strange to us. And it's so easy to imagine we just cease to exist. After all, don't we very nearly do this every night during "deep sleep"?

On the other hand we have this contrary feeling that there really must be some ultimate point and purpose to our lives and the Universe. Just thinking that our few short years on Earth is absolutely all there is to our existence seems so weird. Just thinking that the Universe has no purpose, and that, in a sense, the Universe might as well never have existed in the first place, is so mind-numbingly weird!. Speaking personally, I sometimes seem to grasp, for a very brief second, what this means. And this is literally for a fraction of a second. But it's so incredibly weird that the thought eludes me; it slips away.

What determines whether we believe in life after death or extinction? I submit it is not our rational thought processes which dictates our beliefs! Rather, for each of us, the 2 intuitive feelings I have outlined compete with each other and try to gain ascendancy. The respective force of these 2 intuitions will vary from individual to individual. What an individual believes will totally depend on which of the 2 intuitions is the more powerful for the individual concerned. It is only then rationality comes into play where we then attempt to intellectually justify that which was arrived at by our feelings.

So whether we believe in "life after death" has very little to do with rationality! :) We can argue all day, but it is unlikely to make any difference to our respective positions. This is because the position we adopt on this issue is largely dictated by feeling, emotion, intuition, not rationality and logic :)

I am very much aware of the foregoing. I personally try as much as I am able, to think about this question rationally. I do not completely succeed. But I have to state that I am as sure as I can be, that anyone, proceeding entirely through rational considerations, are bound to conclude that survival is the more reasonable hypothesis.

[Corey]

Ian ... I don't expect a rational debate from someone that says that rational thought doesn't enter into their formation of a belief, however...


Why does a lack of any sort of conscious life after death for humans eliminate a meaning for an individual's life or the existence of the universe? Regardless of the state of being of the person who's died, the people who still live and will be born are affected by that person. Can life itself not be the reason for living? We're a species that DOES exist, therefore each person within our species has a potential for impact in a productive or counterproductive way in various capacities. From comfort of living, advancements in health and science to the small things like loving a child, being a friend or romance to someone, down to the purely selfish sensual things like eating something that tastes good, creating or looking at a beautiful painting, etc.

That's just humanity. We're more than sustaining our population on earth, it's continually expanding. So for every person that dies, experiencing life and contributing something to the people around them and humanity as a whole, more are born and can benefit from their experiences, knowledge and contributions.

I don't think it's worth debating the meaningfullness of the universe existing if people don't keep living after they die because that assumes that the universe has only existed in order to prepare for the existence of man (a lot of room going to waste there)...and that's an argument that in my experience is completely fruitless to debate with someone who believes it, because it's such an extreme egotistical belief.

If the only purpose of life is to facilitate moving on to the afterlife...in the words of a not great comic in a moment of brilliance...why do you wear a seatbelt?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Corey
[B]Ian ... I don't expect a rational debate from someone that says that rational thought doesn't enter into their formation of a belief, however...



Our particular belief in this matter, and perhaps more generally our other metaphysical beliefs. Not all beliefs.




Why does a lack of any sort of conscious life after death for humans eliminate a meaning for an individual's life or the existence of the universe?



It negates any ultimate purpose to our existence and to the Universe. I am not denying that we can enjoy ourselves in our very brief existence and find some sort of satisfaction.



Regardless of the state of being of the person who's died, the people who still live and will be born are affected by that person. Can life itself not be the reason for living? We're a species that DOES exist, therefore each person within our species has a potential for impact in a productive or counterproductive way in various capacities. From comfort of living, advancements in health and science to the small things like loving a child, being a friend or romance to someone, down to the purely selfish sensual things like eating something that tastes good, creating or looking at a beautiful painting, etc.



Yes this is all fine. As I say, enjoy yourself while you can before you cease to exist for the whole of eternity. I simply state that your existence and the existence of the Universe is absurd, gratuitous.


I don't think it's worth debating the meaningfullness of the universe existing if people don't keep living after they die because that assumes that the universe has only existed in order to prepare for the existence of man (a lot of room going to waste there)...


No, not for man. Not even for sentient beings. This is to misunderstand. The Universe has no meaning in abstraction from consciousness.


If the only purpose of life is to facilitate moving on to the afterlife...in the words of a not great comic in a moment of brilliance...why do you wear a seatbelt?

No, if anything a more appropriate question would be why does the atheist/skeptic wear a seatbelt. But if I were a skeptic/atheist I would still want to live. For me, my life and the Universe have an ultimate purpose. And I damn well like to live in this empirical reality anyway until it is time to depart from it. Besides which we each have some purpose to fulfill whilst on this earthly plane. This is suggested by those who have undergone NDE's.

[T'ai Chi]

Just a quick note jj,

How can you say "There is NO "absolutely certain" on one hand, and then say "PROVE IT" on the other hand?

Shouldn't you be asking one to 'provide evidence' instead of to 'prove' ?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


No, if anything a more appropriate question would be why does the atheist/skeptic wear a seatbelt. But if I were a skeptic/atheist I would still want to live. For me, my life and the Universe have an ultimate purpose. And I damn well like to live in this empirical reality anyway until it is time to depart from it. Besides which we each have some purpose to fulfill whilst on this earthly plane. This is suggested by those who have undergone NDE's.

If it is an E it is not a D. Dead is dead, unless you want to define dead as almost dead.

[Corey]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Our particular belief in this matter, and perhaps more generally our other metaphysical beliefs. Not all beliefs.

What other belief are we currently discussing? I'm addressing the belief currently in discussion. That aside, if you use rational thought to determine your opinion on certain subjects and NOT others, I question your qualifications to carry on ANY sort of debate at all.



It negates any ultimate purpose to our existence and to the Universe. I am not denying that we can enjoy ourselves in our very brief existence and find some sort of satisfaction.

How? All you say is that it IS, it DOES...I've yet to see an explanation as to WHY. I'm asserting that life has meaning inherently to the one living. That's my explanation. Not simply enjoyment, but the experience of living. Knowledge gained from pleasure, pain and every variety of experience and the contribution to the betterment in quality of life and knowledge to the human race as a whole. What is your reason for an afterlife giving LIFE meaning? If the Afterlife is the reason for life...why the process of life at all? If we are a disembodied consciousness that lives on after physical life and presumably existed before, what is the purpose of living? Please give to me an explanation outside of telling me it just is, I'd like to hear your points

Yes this is all fine. As I say, enjoy yourself while you can before you cease to exist for the whole of eternity. I simply state that your existence and the existence of the Universe is absurd, gratuitous.

Again, if this is so, why the trouble of having a huge universe full of phenomenon that existed long before the creation of our species, much of which has no direct effect on us?


Gratiutous as compared to what? The experience of living life is gratuitous without a different form of life after it? What occurs in the second non-physical life that makes the physical life absurd and gratuitous? I've told you my reasons for what meaning I think life has, the experience of living and the multitude of things that occur within that time and the effect to other human being after our death and the furthering and betterment of our species as a whole. Does the afterlife occur outside our Universe? If so, and physical life is gratuitous, why does the Universe exist? To facilitate life so that it can end and we can experience an afterlife? Why not simply exist in the state of this afterlife? If the purpose of living, as some people claim, is to gain knowledge and experience and transcend to a higher consciousness in the afterlife, how is life and experiencing it gratuitous?


No, not for man. Not even for sentient beings. This is to misunderstand. The Universe has no meaning in abstraction from consciousness.

[B] What am I misunderstanding? Your opinion is that the Universe and life have no meaning outside of the existence of an afterlife for humans and human consciousness in general. I haven't misunderstood you, I've disagreed with you and asserted that your opinion is based completely on its own premise and not derived from observing and studying the nature of the universe and our place (physically) in it. If you mean that by having a different opinion that I fail to grasp it, you're implying that your opinion is formed from a higher form of intelligence, whereas my view would assert that yours is derived from a "feeling", as opposed to rational thinking, which you stated in two previous posts. I understand your point, I simply don't agree based on my observations.

No, if anything a more appropriate question would be why does the atheist/skeptic wear a seatbelt. But if I were a skeptic/atheist I would still want to live. For me, my life and the Universe have an ultimate purpose. And I damn well like to live in this empirical reality anyway until it is time to depart from it. Besides which we each have some purpose to fulfill whilst on this earthly plane. This is suggested by those who have undergone NDE's.

Why do I wear a seatbelt? Because I enjoy life and one of my primary objects is to sustain my own life so I can continue it. Why would lack of belief in an afterlife make me wish to die? Why is your question more appropriate? I embrace life, whereas you seem to believe the point of life is to die...why would I want to do something that increases my chances of dying? I fail to see any logic in this statement outside of malice or an attempt to be sarcastic. Why do you like to live in this "empirical reality" if it is gratuitous? If the only purpose of life is to die and move on to the afterlife why do you want to continue living? If you get sick, do you refuse to take medicine? If you got in a car crash would you not want to be saved or revived? I fail to see the consistency in your logic here. I'm not trying to humiliate or talk down to you, I simply haven't seen any justification or logical reason for why you assert that these beliefs are inherently true and obvious as you feel they are and I want to understand your points, even if I don't agree with them. Please don't bring up NDEs, we're not trying to prove or disprove life after death here, we're discussing our REASONS for WHY we believe one way or the other. I'm not so arrogant to say I KNOW...I don't know, these are my reasons why I don't see a necessity for an afterlife to give life meaning.

If you'd like to give me your reasoning as to why you feel these things are true, please do. I enjoy discussing and exploring things, but I'm not interested in simply trading "It's just true...it is, if you don't agree, you just don't understand. It's just the way things are" comments...because those aren't reasons, they're a mental defense to keep from exploring WHY you believe something. I'm not saying that if you do dig deeper into your reasons and emotions behind your beliefs that you'll naturally be changed to my point of view...I don't feel my point of you in inherent and obvious, it's the result of a lot of observation and internal debate over the merits to different reasonings and why I want to or don't want to believe them.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Corey

If the only purpose of life is to facilitate moving on to the afterlife...in the words of a not great comic in a moment of brilliance...why do you wear a seatbelt?


Because it's probably not the only purpose.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Here are some questions I would put to those who believe in an afterlife.

Why do only a percentage people have near-death experiences? (If there is an afterlife, wouldn't that percentage be very high? What is the percentage? 1/3? 1/2? Is it very small? 5%?)

Why do those who experience low-oxygen situations also have near-death experiences? (Fighter pilots have reported similar stories to NDEs)

Given our understanding of physics and the human body, why does a "soul" appear to be unmeasurable quantitatively?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
So all skeptics say, but they never give any reasons why they think this. Why are you so absolutely certain that we cease to exist when we die? What is it that makes you so certain? What is it you know that I don't? What do you think you understand which I'm unable to understand?

Let me clarify Ian. I'm not making a unilateral declaration of fact. I'm making a unilateral declaration of my conclusion based on the evdience I've seen. In face you seem to be purposefully distoring what I said. Half of what I wrote above is declaring my open-mindedness on the subject and what my standards of evidence are. I in no way said "never," I said, "this is what it will take."

[Johnny Pneumatic]

T'ai Chi and Interesting Ian, if you think a afterlife exists then kill yourself.

[Unas]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I am disposed to feel that all conscious beings survive death.
Why?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
So all skeptics say, but they never give any reasons why they think this. Why are you so absolutely certain that we cease to exist when we die?

Casual Observation:
I draw a circle, I put a whole apple in the circle, I put another whole apple in the circle. If I dont put in or take out any apples, I will never have any more or any less than 2 whole apples in the circle.

That is a description of Mathematical coherency (if someone wants to tell me I'm stating an axiom, you can just go to Hell), it is also logical coherent.


Another Casual Observation:
Perpetual energy machines are fictional.

This is a description of scientific accuracy, it is based on the Laws of Thermodynamics.

While I would certainly like to believe in an afterlife, its simply impossible.

What is it that makes you so certain?

Everything in science is demonstratably true. Its why I'm certain that perpetual energy machines are fictionals.

What is it you know that I don't?

I'm more concerned with how open you are to theories that come from the scientific point of view.

What do you think you understand which I'm unable to understand?

I understand the concept of "faith vs. accuracy".

[Unas]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The fact that someone desires X to be true doesn't necessitate that X is false. This is another logical fallacy continually being committed by skeptics.
Provide a citation of a "skeptic" who committed this alleged logical fallacy.

Would you agree that the fact that someone desires X to be true doesn't necessitate that X is true, as well? If so, then you can certainly appreciate that your position on this issue -- which you have stated "is largely dictated by feeling, emotion, intuition" -- cannot be taken seriously, since you base it on a logical fallacy.

[Unas]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But I have to state that I am as sure as I can be, that anyone, proceeding entirely through rational considerations, are bound to conclude that survival is the more reasonable hypothesis. [/color]
Given that you've just got done admitting that your choice to believe in the survival of the personality after death is not based on rationality, the diametrically opposed claim that said belief can be reached "entirely through rational considerations" is odd, to say the least.

Perhaps you can demonstrate. Please proceed entirely through rational considerations to the conclusion that the personality survives physical death.

[Unas]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It negates any ultimate purpose to our existence and to the Universe.
Why does "ultimate purpose to our existence" require conscious life after physical death? What would conscious life after physical death provide that conscious life before physical death does not?

Why is it required that the Universe have any purpose?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Well absolutely! If people, especially skeptics, could just bring themselves to admit this!

You see it seems clear to me that what determines our belief in this matter has precious little to do with rationality. Rather it has to do with what we feel. To us, of the modern western way of thinking, the idea of "life after death" seems really really strange to us. And it's so easy to imagine we just cease to exist. After all, don't we very nearly do this every night during "deep sleep"?

On the other hand we have this contrary feeling that there really must be some ultimate point and purpose to our lives and the Universe.

Yes, its true, many people do make judgements by the way they feel about a subject, these "feelings" are called "inner convictions" or "faith".

Of course, inner convictions are a perfectly terrible way to judgement. What is the primary error with faith: Plenty of other people have just as much faith in other beliefs, there is no reason why yours should be right and their's would be wrong.

I try to rid as much faith out of my judgment as I can.

Just thinking that our few short years on Earth is absolutely all there is to our existence seems so weird. Just thinking that the Universe has no purpose,

To believe the universe needs a purpose is just another side-effect of one's personal inner-convictions.

Does a sunny day at the beach need a purpose? No. Does it have a purpose? No.

Does a rock rolling down a hill need a purpose? No. Does it have a purpose? No. However the rock's movement can be explained and described...

and that, in a sense, the Universe might as well never have existed in the first place, is so mind-numbingly weird!.

It is only weird when you dont understand or dont know the science behind the claim.

Speaking personally, I sometimes seem to grasp, for a very brief second, what this means. And this is literally for a fraction of a second. But it's so incredibly weird that the thought eludes me; it slips away.

If I think for a while, I can grasp the existence of (the Christian) god, the existence of many gods, the existence of my own hypothetical gods, the existence of things beyond explanation of science, the idea of determinism, Psychic phenomena, especially Wiccan-related spirituality, etc.... I'm actually disappointed that those things (specifically the Wiccan spirituality) cant exist.

What determines whether we believe in life after death or extinction? I submit it is not our rational thought processes which dictates our beliefs!

Our inner-convictions force us to fill in the gaps of what we dont understand. However, like overcoming our fight or flight instincts, we are able to run into a burning house and save a child, it is perfectly possible to think past what our inner convictions tell us (I wouldnt know if all people possess the capacity to do so... much own inner convictions tell me they can however...).

Rather, for each of us, the 2 intuitive feelings I have outlined compete with each other and try to gain ascendancy. The respective force of these 2 intuitions will vary from individual to individual. What an individual believes will totally depend on which of the 2 intuitions is the more powerful for the individual concerned. It is only then rationality comes into play where we then attempt to intellectually justify that which was arrived at by our feelings.

So whether we believe in "life after death" has very little to do with rationality! :)

It depends on who you are talking to.

But I have to state that I am as sure as I can be, that anyone, proceeding entirely through rational considerations, are bound to conclude that survival is the more reasonable hypothesis.

I would beg the opposite :p.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
As I keep saying, the evidence does not constitute proof. Taken as a whole it is "merely" highly suggestive.

Is there anything wrong with this:

If something is demonstratably true, the mechanics described in detail by accepted science and scientific reasoning, and shown that the "something" cannot behave any other way described, does it constitute as proof (or is there still some unresolved convictions of uncertainty, perhaps "highly suggestive and supported by...")?

Why do skeptics keep harping on about proof? Do you not understand that simply because one cannot prove "X" this does not imply "not X"?

If there is nothing can be said to support Claim X or discount Claim X, it would be irresponsible reasoning to make a conclusion to the validity of Claim X. The Claim is simply left at "unknown" or "undecided". However, an unknown X cannot be used to justify a belief or support an arguement (supporting Y with unknown X would be another common logical fallacy that I see).

Of course, I'm not really sure what others accept as proof?


--------------------------------------------------
I'm not impressed very much by this compilation of evidence I'm afraid.
--------------------------------------------------
And I'm afraid I don't understand why.


(Note: The below paragraph is for paranormal claims)

The compilation of evidence that is presented is very questionable. The conclusions cannot be proven one way or the other (assuming you want proof in the form of empirical evidence - which is logically impossible to produce). Some of the evidence is strictly of the "this is only evidence is the conclusion is true" (otherwise called circumstantial evidence). The evidence provided contradicts scientific explanation, that does not prove science wrong but instead puts the integrity of the evidence on the chopping block.

The fact that someone desires X to be true doesn't necessitate that X is false. This is another logical fallacy continually being committed by skeptics.

That is a very common logical fallacy, but it has nothing to do with the beliefs, rather the person's reasoning skills (both skeptics and "believers" commit the fallacy).

Nor am I convinced that a lot of skeptics don't wish that there isn't a life after death.

If it helps at all, I would love to know there is a life after death (I would like even more if the afterlife was something like the Buffyverse).

I get the impression that a lot of skeptics are terrified by the prospect and will go to any lengths to denounce the evidence and will cling onto philosophical materialism despite its evident incoherency.

Unless I'm calling myself the wrong word, I dont see any evident incoherency of Materialism.

Just a question...
What Philosophy would you attach to that of Science?

[jj]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Just a quick note jj,

How can you say "There is NO "absolutely certain" on one hand, and then say "PROVE IT" on the other hand?

Shouldn't you be asking one to 'provide evidence' instead of to 'prove' ?

Tsk, tsk, evidence is how you prove something. Proof, in the scientific sense, as you know, Whodini, means "to the best of our knowledge".

You have a nice day too, and don't stay out in the sun too long, or you'll turn to stone.

Watch out for billy goats, too.

[athon]

I would love there to be life after death. Who wouldn't? I mean, even better yet, I would love to meet God, look through His notes and know the answers to all questions I've ever wanted answers to.

Could that happen? Maybe. Do I plan my life around it? Hell, if I did that, I wouldn't be living the relatively crappy existance I am now.

If people were so damn certain of life after death, they'd be topping themselves all over the place. I'm glad we aren't certain of eternal reward (I wrote a short story once where everybody found out that they were going to heaven, and they all did nothing for their lives...just sat around, waiting to die, watching Oprah...).

To people like Ian, we don't know for certain. But that's not the point! We can only construct reality based on the weight of evidence, and for now we have little else but weak assumptions and question-marks above psychiatric charts. What good is that? When we can provide a model for spirits and ghosts, test it and reproduce those tests, I might give it some more thought. And I guess until I personally go there, I don't dare plan on there being an afterlife.

Maybe it'll be the ultimate 'pleasant surprise'.

Athon

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by jj
[B]

"all skeptics say"... "... absolutely certain..."



Yes jj, this is my experience to date.

[jj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Yes jj, this is my experience to date.

Ian, that is a misrepresentation, a gross and deceitful one, to boot.

Please let us know when you stop stating falsehoods and show remorse for your offensive portrayals.

[sophia8]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
So all skeptics say, but they never give any reasons why they think this. Why are you so absolutely certain that we cease to exist when we die? What is it that makes you so certain? What is it you know that I don't? What do you think you understand which I'm unable to understand?
In a recent similar discussion on another forum a poster there countered this same question with: "Having recently watched my beloved grandmother literally fade away with Alzheimers, losing all of her memories, personality and everything else that made her a person well before she actually died, I simply cannot believe any longer that anything of a person survives physical death."

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by jj

II
Your physical body is, not you.

jj
So you say, repeatedly, with no proof.



The proof has been provided on many many an occasion. It's simply showing that materialism is incoherent. This has been done by myself and Titus Rivas in the recent thread "Primary and secondary qualities: A question for scients" in the science forum for example.



NOW PROVE IT, or stop saying it like it's a fact.



{shrugs} Far as I'm concerned it is a fact. Materialism is logically incoherent. I suggest you deal with it.



II
Personnally I don't believe we did. I am disposed to feel that all conscious beings survive death.


jj
PROVE IT and we can talk.


First of all there is no point in talking about it if watertight proof were obtained. As it is I cannot prove it. As I keep saying over and over and over to people, the evidence is merely highly suggestive that there is a life after death.



Our brains developed to allow us to successfully negotiate and manipulate our environment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yep, and that's why we're concious. It's chemistry, no more and no less.



As I have explained on numerous occasions, it can't possibly be. But, I would be interested in any attempt at some sort of justification on your part.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by epepke

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
So all skeptics say, but they never give any reasons why they think this. Why are you so absolutely certain that we cease to exist when we die? What is it that makes you so certain? What is it you know that I don't? What do you think you understand which I'm unable to understand?

epepke
I have a question right back. Why is it that people with a philosophical bent such as yourself assert that skeptics are "absolutely certain" of something, no matter how many times skeptics point out that they are hard pressed to be certain about anything, nor how simply and clearly this is phrased?



Because this is the attitude they persistently convey. They are dogmatists who convey that they are absolutely certain that the particular modern western metaphysic is the correct one. They show scant regard for any evidence challenging their views.



I have only a few working hypotheses:


The philosophical tradition is so heavily influenced by Aristotelian two-valued logic that it's automatic to snap ideas to 1 or 0 without even thinking much about it.
The philosophical tradition is also heavily influenced by sophistry, and it's easier to knock down a straw man, and sometimes you can manage to pull a fast one on an audience.
The philosophical tradition also seems to have a lot of anger in it, and perhaps there is perceived value in trying to annoy skeptics by not listening to them in the hopes they will become stupefied by anger.
Something like the episode of The Young Ones where Neil gets a skewer through his head.


:rolleyes:

Come back to me when you have anything of the remotest sense to say. Otherwise please don't waste my time.

[sophia8]

OK - so why should it matter if there is - or is not - life after death?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by voidx

II
It's just an adumbration of the main types of evidence. I provided the link to rebut the assertion there is no evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

voidx
Fair enough. However, the site itself even seems to suggest that the evidence is poor,


Where does it suggest this?



but that there are enough different theories that could prove promising in their mind, that its perhaps suggestive of something.



Theories about what?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I keep saying, the evidence does not constitute proof. Taken as a whole it is "merely" highly suggestive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And I was just re-iterating that the article itself reinforces this idea, that the evidence taken for each theory is poor, and not very good proof of the afterlife. As to how suggestive it is, well, thats debateable.



Ummm . . .I don't know what you're talking about. They were no theories expressed. I don't think you understand what the word "theory" means. At the most there was this hypothesis suggested by Roll. Namely "theta consciousness".

And incidentally, some of the individual types of evidence are highly suggestive of survival in its own right. I would disagree with Grosso in that I would say that NDE's are one of these. Of course they do not constitute good scientific evidence which I think is what Grosso had in mind.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What unproven theories?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


err, telepathy, psi, esp, physical manifestations, a "soul" seperate from the physical body, just to name a few.



They are not theories.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do skeptics keep harping on about proof? Do you not understand that simply because one cannot prove "X" this does not imply "not X"? I should point out here that we cannot prove that we cease to exist when we die. Don't you think it would be rather peculiar for me to conclude that therefore it is highly likely that there is a life after death? This is exactly the type of reasoning that you and the skeptics are doing. Do you not understand the logical fallacy you are committing here? It is sufficient that the evidence is highly suggestive of survival, and that there is no particularly compelling evidence for extinction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I never implied that since you cannot prove X, that it therefore does not exist,



Yes you did. And in my experience skeptics tend to do this.



I merely stated that I do not find all these theories



They are not theories.



concrete enough to buy into the existence of X, or the afterlife, in this instance.



Why do you require proof in order to conclude survival occurs? Do you require proof of extinction before extinction occurs? The answer is obviously no. So why the inconsistency?



I could be wrong, you could be wrong, or it could be some mishmash in the middle, time may tell.



Why should time tell? Whether we actually survive our bodies or not doesn't alter the strength of our respective arguments (well, arguments on my side at least). It could be that rationally the more reasonable position is survival, but we cease to exist at death in any case. Or it could be the case that rationally speaking the more reasonable position is of extinction at death, but we survive in any case.



And how exactly would you have anyone go about proving extinction to your satisfaction, or complete death with no afterlife?



Just give some highly suggestive evidence that consciousness is generated by the brain and clear up the philosophical conundrums created by supposing this.



If you believe in the physical, biological form of the body, and then posit that when it dies, the brain and its physical "mind" dies with it is pretty logical from our viewpoint.



How is it logical?


What would convince you that there is nothing after we die, how should we go about proving this negative to you?



See above.



You have simply assumed I discount the possibility of the afterlife entirely so you could slap your logical fallacy sticker on me. I only ever implied that I thought it was unlikely given the "evidences" we currently have.



What ""evidences""?



II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We can't. But there again the author is not using this statistic as constituting evidence for survival.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Perhaps true, but then why include it at all?



Because it's interesting to contrast the average American belief in this matter to those with a scientific background education.



One could argue that he implies one of the 2 sides is seriously deluded in there belief, then states the statistic and goes on to support his view. While he doesn't count it as evidence, he does use it to his advantage, or tries too.



He does? How so?




II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that someone desires X to be true doesn't necessitate that X is false. This is another logical fallacy continually being committed by skeptics. Nor am I convinced that a lot of skeptics don't wish that there isn't a life after death. I get the impression that a lot of skeptics are terrified by the prospect and will go to any lengths to denounce the evidence and will cling onto philosophical materialism despite its evident incoherency.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Of course it doesn't, it does however often make people less than objective about how they view evidences and other such things.



Yes sure. No sensible person would deny this.


Again since no one has stated what you say we have there is no logical fallacy.



Skeptics always seem to insinuate that because people would like X to be true, therefore X doesn't exist. Why do they keep doing this when it is so obviously absurd?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by jj


Eric, allow me to introduce you to "Interesting Ian". He claims that there is enormous evidence for various kinds of psychic performances, but hasn't provided any. He's insisted that anyone who doesn't accept his evidence is "thick as (deleted)". He's been known to missumarize others' arguments.

Etc.

Interesting Ian is a troll, a troll who has nothing INTERESTING to say, except that anyone who doesn't accept his assertions (in order for a skeptic to accept what he says, we'd have to have him granted omniscience somehow outside the system) is "thick as ...".

So, Ian, meet Eric. Eric, meet Ian, if you want.

Ian, I know Eric from way back. If I were you, I'd be good, now. Eric and I both survived nutnoise way back in the day when it was still the old west ...:j2:

Well well, so you know each other. I guess it's not such a surprise since you both appear to be equally stupid.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ed
Originally posted by Interesting Ian


No, if anything a more appropriate question would be why does the atheist/skeptic wear a seatbelt. But if I were a skeptic/atheist I would still want to live. For me, my life and the Universe have an ultimate purpose. And I damn well like to live in this empirical reality anyway until it is time to depart from it. Besides which we each have some purpose to fulfill whilst on this earthly plane. This is suggested by those who have undergone NDE's.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If it is an E it is not a D. Dead is dead, unless you want to define dead as almost dead.

Huh?? What are you talking about?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Huh?? What are you talking about?

If you come back, you are not dead, if you are dead you don't come back. It is a step function dead, not dead. So the basic concept of an NDE is odd. A Very Sick Person Experience might be a better name.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Corey


Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Our particular belief in this matter, and perhaps more generally our other metaphysical beliefs. Not all beliefs.

Cor
What other belief are we currently discussing?



{Sighs}

I remind you of what you said:

Cor said:
{quote}
Ian ... I don't expect a rational debate from someone that says that rational thought doesn't enter into their formation of a belief, however...
{/quote}


I'm addressing the belief currently in discussion. That aside, if you use rational thought to determine your opinion on certain subjects and NOT others, I question your qualifications to carry on ANY sort of debate at all.


In which case you should necessarily question anyones qualifications to carry out ANY sort of debate. So you would have the whole human race never debating anything. Great :rolleyes:



II
It negates any ultimate purpose to our existence and to the Universe. I am not denying that we can enjoy ourselves in our very brief existence and find some sort of satisfaction.

Cor
How? All you say is that it IS, it DOES...I've yet to see an explanation as to WHY.



Compare a hammer and a stone. You can bash things with both of them. But the formers purpose is to bash things (ie it was designed for that purpose) where as the latter is not. The stone has not got a purpose, but we can still use it as if it were given a purpose. Likewise we can create our own meaning to our lives. But there is no purpose in the sense of some sort of teleological destiny. There is no entelechy.




I'm asserting that life has meaning inherently to the one living.



No, this is false. There is no inherent meaning. Just like there is no inherent purpose to the stone that it should be used to bash things. The stone can be assigned other uses. Or have no use for anything at all. Likewise the meaning of your life is given by you. It is those who think that there is more than this life who could perhaps subscribe to an inherent meaning to our lives. But your philosophy forbids it.


That's my explanation. Not simply enjoyment, but the experience of living. Knowledge gained from pleasure, pain and every variety of experience and the contribution to the betterment in quality of life and knowledge to the human race as a whole.


As I say, that's all fine. But it doesn't alter the fact that there is no purpose or inherent meaning either to your individual life, to the human race as a whole, or to the Universe.



What is your reason for an afterlife giving LIFE meaning? If the Afterlife is the reason for life...why the process of life at all?



Huh? :eek: How can the afterlife be the reason for life?? That's like saying the reason for today is the existence of tomorrow! The reason for life is one of "soul making" or aspiring towards ones teleological destiny. See my sig at the bottom. The quote by John Hick.




If we are a disembodied consciousness that lives on after physical life and presumably existed before, what is the purpose of living? Please give to me an explanation outside of telling me it just is, I'd like to hear your points



If you require a detailed answer I can't provide it. How on earth should I know better than anyone else on the planet?


II
Yes this is all fine. As I say, enjoy yourself while you can before you cease to exist for the whole of eternity. I simply state that your existence and the existence of the Universe is absurd, gratuitous.

Cor
Again, if this is so, why the trouble of having a huge universe full of phenomenon that existed long before the creation of our species, much of which has no direct effect on us?



There is no trouble. The Universe just exists.



Gratiutous as compared to what?



Compared to nothing. It's an absolute term.



The experience of living life is gratuitous without a different form of life after it?



No, that would make no difference.


What occurs in the second non-physical life that makes the physical life absurd and gratuitous?



We're having communications problems here. Perhaps you should just read the responses I've made so far and get back to me about what you don't understand.


PS Just looked at the rest of your post. Yup, I'm afraid most definitely communication problems.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs
[B]Here are some questions I would put to those who believe in an afterlife.

Why do only a percentage people have near-death experiences? (If there is an afterlife, wouldn't that percentage be very high? What is the percentage? 1/3? 1/2? Is it very small? 5%?)



There is huge controversy over the percentage. Some studies show as high as 90%, some as low as 5%. On average I reckon something like 25%-30%.

Why don't all? Well perhaps all people do. Maybe it's just that people forget their experiences. We know that at least in some instances this is the case.

And remember that people tend to be extremely reluctant to recount their experiences even if they conform to the stereotypical NDE. One can imagine their reluctance will be much greater for NDE's which do not conform to the stereotypical norm, or if they have hell like experiences.

Also remember that it is just as much a problem for those who subscribe to extinction why everyone doesn't appear to have these experiences.



Why do those who experience low-oxygen situations also have near-death experiences? (Fighter pilots have reported similar stories to NDEs)



They are not similar as far as I understand. Just one or two common elements.



Given our understanding of physics and the human body, why does a "soul" appear to be unmeasurable quantitatively?

Because it's not physical.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
T'ai Chi and Interesting Ian, if you think a afterlife exists then kill yourself.

If you think it doesn't, you go kill yourself. People normally express the opinion that if there is no life after death, no God, then there is no inherent meaning to life, therefore we might as well kill ourselves. Not the other way round.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
So all skeptics say, but they never give any reasons why they think this. Why are you so absolutely certain that we cease to exist when we die?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Casual Observation:
I draw a circle, I put a whole apple in the circle, I put another whole apple in the circle. If I dont put in or take out any apples, I will never have any more or any less than 2 whole apples in the circle.

That is a description of Mathematical coherency (if someone wants to tell me I'm stating an axiom, you can just go to Hell), it is also logical coherent.


Another Casual Observation:
Perpetual energy machines are fictional.

This is a description of scientific accuracy, it is based on the Laws of Thermodynamics.

While I would certainly like to believe in an afterlife, its simply impossible.



It's impossible? How so?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is it that makes you so certain?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Everything in science is demonstratably true. Its why I'm certain that perpetual energy machines are fictionals.



No, go study some philosophy of science. And it's a non-sequitur in any case.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is it you know that I don't?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I'm more concerned with how open you are to theories that come from the scientific point of view.



Very open indeed. Again though, this is a non-sequitur.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Unas


Would you agree that the fact that someone desires X to be true doesn't necessitate that X is true, as well? If so, then you can certainly appreciate that your position on this issue -- which you have stated "is largely dictated by feeling, emotion, intuition" -- cannot be taken seriously, since you base it on a logical fallacy. [/B]

Did you not even attempt to understand my post? Our initial positions are thus dictated, this does not mean they are not afterwards intellectually defended.

I however do not believe that materialism and perhaps even epiphenomenalism can be intellectually defended against appropriate attacks.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Just a question...
What Philosophy would you attach to that of Science? [/B]

They ought not to be any. It's simply a fact that the physical Universe can be described via theories utilizing the language of mathematics. Why should there be a philosophy to underpin this?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by athon
I would love there to be life after death. Who wouldn't?



Plenty of people.



If people were so damn certain of life after death,



I highly suspect people, at least in the west, are extremely uncertain.



they'd be topping themselves all over the place.



Absolutely not. I feel that being certain of survival will not diminish peoples' fear. I feel it's a genetic thing. And of course we might feel we don't know the character of the afterlife.



I'm glad we aren't certain of eternal reward (I wrote a short story once where everybody found out that they were going to heaven, and they all did nothing for their lives...just sat around, waiting to die, watching Oprah...).



If one wants to watch Oprah, then one should do so. Whether or not there is an afterlife should play no part in our considerations here.


To people like Ian, we don't know for certain. But that's not the point! We can only construct reality based on the weight of evidence,


And the evidence favours the survival hypothesis.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by sophia8

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
So all skeptics say, but they never give any reasons why they think this. Why are you so absolutely certain that we cease to exist when we die? What is it that makes you so certain? What is it you know that I don't? What do you think you understand which I'm unable to understand?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In a recent similar discussion on another forum a poster there countered this same question with: "Having recently watched my beloved grandmother literally fade away with Alzheimers, losing all of her memories, personality and everything else that made her a person well before she actually died, I simply cannot believe any longer that anything of a person survives physical death."

Yes this is a very understandable emotional thing. We feel from wittnessing such tragic events that consciousness must have its origin in the brain. From an intel;lectual perspective however, correlation between brain states and mental states do not prove that mental states are generated by brain states. Might be a good idea to paste in what I said a couple of days ago in another thread.

The fact that states of "A" may be correlated with "particular states of "B", means neither that "A" and "B" are one and the same thing, nor does it entail that "B" originates from "A", or indeed "A" from "B". It could be that both "A" and "B" both independently are generated by "C". Or it could be the case that although states of "B" are modified by states of "A", "B" ultimately originates from "C".

Now even if we were to describe the mind as being caused by the brain (although I believe the use of "cause" here is technically inappropriate), this needn't have any implications that the mind has its origin in the brain. The picture on a television set is caused by its internal components. This of course doesn't mean to say that the origin of the storylines of the tv programmes being shown have their origin in the tv sets internal components! Indeed it would be preposterous to suppose they do! I believe a partial analogy can be drawn here in that it is equally ludicrous, if not more so, that the richness of our mental lives is somehow mysterious created ex nihilo by physical processes.

Imagine 2 people from the 17th century traveling to the 21st century and encountering a TV set showing some movie or other. After being suitably amazed, and after tinkering around with its internal components, you can imagine one of them claiming that not just the picture, but the storyline of the movie must be wholly generated by these internal components since tinkering with them affects the picture. He might claim there is overwhelming evidence that this must be so. The other person however will rightly point out that although he grants that the picture itself is generated by these internal components, it cannot be the case that the actual contents of the movie, the actual storyline with its depiction of various emotions etc can be generated by just these internal components. This is because there is nothing about the physical processes within the TV set which could conceivably lead to the generation of a storyline.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ed


If you come back, you are not dead, if you are dead you don't come back. It is a step function dead, not dead. So the basic concept of an NDE is odd. A Very Sick Person Experience might be a better name.

Sure, you can define "dead" in such a manner that NDE'ers are not dead by definition. It is not clear to me what this proves however.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Sure, you can define "dead" in such a manner that NDE'ers are not dead by definition. It is not clear to me what this proves however.

Well, it makes the notion of NDE sort of banal, no?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ed


Sure, you can define "dead" in such a manner that NDE'ers are not dead by definition. It is not clear to me what this proves however.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well, it makes the notion of NDE sort of banal, no?

Well no, it says absolutely nothing about the notion of NDEs, nor does it detract from their evidential value one iota.

[voidx]

I'm going to kick myself later for even bothering to continue, but here goes.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by voidx

II
It's just an adumbration of the main types of evidence. I provided the link to rebut the assertion there is no evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

voidx
Fair enough. However, the site itself even seems to suggest that the evidence is poor,

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

Where does it suggest this?
Did you even read the article all the way through? He prefaces many of the different convincing items that he says makes life afer death "highly suggestive" as rather poor or scant evidence for life after death on their own. Only collectively do they seem to become "highly suggestive". I'm obviously paraphrasing, but its there if you've read it at all.



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


but that there are enough different theories that could prove promising in their mind, that its perhaps suggestive of something.


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

Theories about what?

NDE's, OBE's, Telepathy, PSI



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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I keep saying, the evidence does not constitute proof. Taken as a whole it is "merely" highly suggestive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And I was just re-iterating that the article itself reinforces this idea, that the evidence taken for each theory is poor, and not very good proof of the afterlife. As to how suggestive it is, well, thats debateable.


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

Ummm . . .I don't know what you're talking about. They were no theories expressed. I don't think you understand what the word "theory" means. At the most there was this hypothesis suggested by Roll. Namely "theta consciousness".

And incidentally, some of the individual types of evidence are highly suggestive of survival in its own right. I would disagree with Grosso in that I would say that NDE's are one of these. Of course they do not constitute good scientific evidence which I think is what Grosso had in mind.

Nice, play the semantics game, you know what I'm talking about. He mentions the theories/concepts/ideas of NDE's, OBE's, telepathy, PSI. He implies that in many of these cases these concepts and their evidence on their own is not proof, or not very strong proof at all for life after death, but that all of them looked at as a whole start to become "highly suggestive". If you're still confused then we're done because I don't have that much patience.



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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What unproven theories?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


err, telepathy, psi, esp, physical manifestations, a "soul" seperate from the physical body, just to name a few.


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

They are not theories.

Whatever. You know what I'm getting at.



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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do skeptics keep harping on about proof? Do you not understand that simply because one cannot prove "X" this does not imply "not X"? I should point out here that we cannot prove that we cease to exist when we die. Don't you think it would be rather peculiar for me to conclude that therefore it is highly likely that there is a life after death? This is exactly the type of reasoning that you and the skeptics are doing. Do you not understand the logical fallacy you are committing here? It is sufficient that the evidence is highly suggestive of survival, and that there is no particularly compelling evidence for extinction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I never implied that since you cannot prove X, that it therefore does not exist,


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

Yes you did. And in my experience skeptics tend to do this.

Please show me where I did then. Its pretty obvious to everyone here this is just a general assumption you make about skeptics. Makes it easier to dismiss our comments/arguements perhaps?



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


I merely stated that I do not find all these theories


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

They are not theories.

Broken record time.



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

concrete enough to buy into the existence of X, or the afterlife, in this instance.

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

Why do you require proof in order to conclude survival occurs? Do you require proof of extinction before extinction occurs? The answer is obviously no. So why the inconsistency?

Why wouldn't I require proof? I understand the arguements people make in support of life after death, but I find them less convincing than (your term) extinction. So I suspend judgement until more convincing evidences and proofs can be provided. While yes being able to show concretely where the "mind" is tied to the physical brain would complete the extinction scenario its still more logical to me, and requires me to posit a lot less in order for it to logically work. Of course I still require proof for it, you stating you think its no is you making another assumption, handy for slapping on whatever label you want for us.



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

I could be wrong, you could be wrong, or it could be some mishmash in the middle, time may tell.

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

Why should time tell? Whether we actually survive our bodies or not doesn't alter the strength of our respective arguments (well, arguments on my side at least). It could be that rationally the more reasonable position is survival, but we cease to exist at death in any case. Or it could be the case that rationally speaking the more reasonable position is of extinction at death, but we survive in any case.

Time will tell because we will hopefully gain more knowledge and evidence about which of our two prospective arguments is right, or whether either is right. I would think this was obvious.



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

And how exactly would you have anyone go about proving extinction to your satisfaction, or complete death with no afterlife?

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

Just give some highly suggestive evidence that consciousness is generated by the brain and clear up the philosophical conundrums created by supposing this.

And our ever increasing knowledge of how different parts of the brain affect our consciousness isn't as suggestive as NDE's OBE's and the like? I'm by no means on expert on the field, but it seems the arguements could be just as strong either way. So why is life after death research so much more convincing than extinction research in your opinion?



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

If you believe in the physical, biological form of the body, and then posit that when it dies, the brain and its physical "mind" dies with it is pretty logical from our viewpoint.

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

How is it logical?

Again not an expert, but the simple concept of, my consciousness or mind is a physical aspect of my brain and it ceases its ability to exist as a mind or consciousness anymore after the brain dies seems pretty straight forward no?



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

What would convince you that there is nothing after we die, how should we go about proving this negative to you?

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

See above.

Ok. So then you see how its just as legitimate for me to ask for concrete evidences and proofs of the mind/consciousness as seperate from the physical brain before I believe you're, or rather the articles, point of view.



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

You have simply assumed I discount the possibility of the afterlife entirely so you could slap your logical fallacy sticker on me. I only ever implied that I thought it was unlikely given the "evidences" we currently have.

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

What ""evidences""?

Sigh. The theories/concepts/ideas/evidences for NDE's, OBE's, telepathy, PSI being proof of the afterlife. And whether telepathy and PSI and other such ablilities exist period.



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

II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We can't. But there again the author is not using this statistic as constituting evidence for survival.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps true, but then why include it at all?

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

Because it's interesting to contrast the average American belief in this matter to those with a scientific background education.

True. And then he follows that up by stating that obviously one of the two arguements must be seriously deluded and wrong because their so different, and then goes on to list how he thinks all the phenomena supporting life after death are suggestive. All I'm saying is he's using the statistic in a clever way here.



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

One could argue that he implies one of the 2 sides is seriously deluded in there belief, then states the statistic and goes on to support his view. While he doesn't count it as evidence, he does use it to his advantage, or tries too.

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

He does? How so?

Read above, and read the article.



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

II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that someone desires X to be true doesn't necessitate that X is false. This is another logical fallacy continually being committed by skeptics. Nor am I convinced that a lot of skeptics don't wish that there isn't a life after death. I get the impression that a lot of skeptics are terrified by the prospect and will go to any lengths to denounce the evidence and will cling onto philosophical materialism despite its evident incoherency.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course it doesn't, it does however often make people less than objective about how they view evidences and other such things.

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

Yes sure. No sensible person would deny this.

Quite right, but then no sensible person would also base his opinion of people on wrong and false impressions and accuse them of logical fallacies they did not commit.



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

Again since no one has stated what you say we have there is no logical fallacy.

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

Skeptics always seem to insinuate that because people would like X to be true, therefore X doesn't exist. Why do they keep doing this when it is so obviously absurd?

I've not met Skeptic, is he nice? Seriously, enough with the blanket group statements, name someone in this thread specifically who has done this, or rather show where I did this, or toss this arguement in the garbage where it belongs. Again, who is the "they" you keep referring to?

[Ed]

If they are part of a disease process it actually says a lot.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Well no, it says absolutely nothing about the notion of NDEs, nor does it detract from their evidential value one iota.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian Because this is the attitude they persistently convey. They are dogmatists who convey that they are absolutely certain that the particular modern western metaphysic is the correct one. They show scant regard for any evidence challenging their views.

Repeated assertion. Excellent!

:rolleyes: Come back to me when you have anything of the remotest sense to say. Otherwise please don't waste my time.

I would not dream of influencing you. You are perfect just the way you are. I daresay that even the great William Gaines never provided so fine a service.

[Corey]

Ian...


I don't have any problems understanding your assertions at all, I just don't agree with them. I'm not attempting to disprove your claims, because I can't. There's no evidence I can offer you to prove that there is no life after death, likewise there's not proof that you can offer me to prove there is. The only point I'm debating with you is that based on the premise that if there WERE no afterlife, life would have no meaning. I don't agree with that. Your analogy of a stone or a hammer having no value outside what's given to it. I have no problem with that analogy, but you're treating this idea like an abstract and it's not because we, two human beings with consciousness, are discussing it. The hammer may have no inherent value in and of itself because it has no consciousness. I do, you do. If I pick up the hammer, it does have an inherent value TO ME, upon the intellectual realization that it can be used for ANY purpose. The fact that the hammer was constructed by a human for a specific person I'll leave out of it, it could just as easily be a rock or a piece of metal for the purpose of my point. My point is this, I have consciousness...the subject in question is MY LIFE and life in general. I can't make a judgement concerning the value of my life, or life in general outside of the perspective of someone who is alive. While an afterlife MAY exist and may have its own importance in the scheme of existence, I have no knowledge of it, I DO have knowledge of this life. Therefore my life DOES have meaning, my life is me...my thoughts, my experiences including my interaction with other conscious living beings, such as you. That is the value of life, in my opinion, living.

I'm not asserting that there is no afterlife, I'm not asserting that if there is one it has no meaning. What I am and have been saying is that, in my opinion based upon the observations, thoughts and experiences I have had in my lifetime so far...the process of living and all that contains is meaningfull and has impact on my consciousness and that of those I interact with. If you chose to believe that someone with a different opinion than yours lacks proper communication, that's fine, but I'm not claiming that anything I say is fact or is an absolute, I'm only expressing my opinion and trying to understand why you think that certain things are absolute, when you've given me no other reason than they "just are". I think I've communicated my opinions and my reasons for them to you very clearly and simply, while you've only repeated what you consider to be facts with no evidence or even detailed opinion to support them, diverted the conversation away from answering direct questions to support your opinion, and called my opinions absurd, while I've been open to hearing what your opinions despite your efforts to avoid explaining them, so I don't think I'm the one with the communication problem.


You stated in your reply to my post that you cannot give me answers to my questioning of your statements because you just don't know, and no one does. I agree, I don't think there's a need to discuss a topic like this beyond that one point, yet you say that, then tell certain points of your opinion are just concrete universal truths and I don't understand them, but you do. I don't want to disprove your opinions Ian, I want for you what I want for myself and everyone else...to take a fair, reasonable look at your own beliefs and ask yourself why you believe them, what aspects of that belief are emotional and which are intellectual and what the root of both those types of reasons are. I hope you do that, and if you do with honesty to yourself and your own thoughts and keep your belief, good for you.

[jj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


The proof has been provided on many many an occasion. It's simply showing that materialism is incoherent. This has been done by myself and Titus Rivas in the recent thread "Primary and secondary qualities: A question for scients" in the science forum for example.



You haven't provided any proof, ever. You have provided empty, meaningless words based on hypotheses that you haven't provided any evidence to support.

Just like some others who recently emerged here (is that new guy who is going on about prime movers you, too?) you want to silently slide a bunch of unproven hypotheses past us and expect us to think that your "philosophy" means something besides "a lot of empty words".

Sorry, Ian, just like you haven't proven materialism is incoherent, you haven't shown a single bit of "proof" of any sort. You still insist on quite deceptively using a 200 year old definition of materialism when prodded, and trying to claim that QM and materialism are inconsistant, when anybody with a brain and a straight take on life knows that QM simply describes how material actually behaves.

So, Ian, either give us some proof, not more blowhard words, or just admit it, you haven't any.


{shrugs} Far as I'm concerned it is a fact. Materialism is logically incoherent. I suggest you deal with it.


You haven't shown that yet in any fashion wherin your hypotheses are even remotely valid. You'll have to live with the fact that telling me to "deal with it" is evading responsibility for your own claims.

Either put up or shut up, Ian.


First of all there is no point in talking about it if watertight proof were obtained.


Really? Do stones fall when you let them go out of your hand, assuming you're standing on the earth's surface (a risky consideration for your conciousness, yes, but I'm assuming it for the sake of that question)?

Yes or no?

The implication, of course, is that if the answer is "yes", then there is something close (as close as science gets) to "watertight proof". There IS no "watertight proof" as you well know, even though you dishonestly accuse skeptics of claiming some (which we don't, so don't lie about that any more), and you're using that to make a classic appeal to ignorance.

So either put up your evidence or shut up.

As it is I cannot prove it. As I keep saying over and over and over to people, the evidence is merely highly suggestive that there is a life after death.



Well, then you haven't any evidence?

If you have evidence you can offer "proof to a reasonable standard" (since there is no "absolute proof" and I'm not asking for that, and you know that). If you don't, you can't. If you can't offer any proof, that's the same as admitting you haven't any evidence.

And there is no evidence you've offered that suggests any such thing as life after death, yet. So, where is this mythical evidence? Out with it, Ian, out with it.


As I have explained on numerous occasions, it can't possibly be.


ENOCONTEXT! What's "it" here? (edited to add, oh, he means that he's "explained" that it can't all be chemistry)

You've offered empty, meaningless words on that subject, but you haven't a single telling argument that isn't either suborned or based on unsupported hypotheses. (plural intended)

So, no, you haven't explained anything, you've asserted the idea with absolutely no support whatsoever.

Philosophy doesn't mean anything without evidence. Remember?


But, I would be interested in any attempt at some sort of justification on your part.

I'm not the one making the extraordinary claim. You are.

You provide the clear, unmistakable, repeatable, verifiable, falsifiable evidence.

Let's see. Shifting the burden, appeal to ignorance, unsupported claims... That's you, Ian.

Put up or shut up.

[jj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Well well, so you know each other. I guess it's not such a surprise since you both appear to be equally stupid.

Provide testable, verifiable, falsifiable evidence or retract.

Since you can't, just do us all a favor and admit you've sunk now into utterly libellous ad-hominem, having once again been defeated by the actual reality of things, such as it may be.

Ian, you're a jerk.

[jj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


If you think it doesn't, you go kill yourself. People normally express the opinion that if there is no life after death, no God, then there is no inherent meaning to life, therefore we might as well kill ourselves. Not the other way round.

Oh, another one of those anti-atheist stereotypes.

A dishonest, insulting one at that.

Obviously, if there is no life after death, as all the evidence suggests, then life is much more valuable, because there's no "second chance".

So now you've sunk to the level of invoking dishonest, prejudicial anti-atheist stereotypes, Ian, or maybe you don't know that's the same thing that lying preachers in the USA say in their attempts to foment violence against atheists.

[jj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I however do not believe that materialism and perhaps even epiphenomenalism can be intellectually defended against appropriate attacks.

Then you admit your entire position is a religious belief? You did say "believe".

If that's the case, just like creationists, your belief is counter to simple scientific observations.

So, just like creationists, we can then conclude that you simply deny reality, such as it is?

[jj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Sure, you can define "dead" in such a manner that NDE'ers are not dead by definition. It is not clear to me what this proves however.

It simply points out that they aren't dead, they are near death.

So, it's not a mis-definition, it's simply pointing out what "near-death" means. It means NEAR, not DEAD.

Ian, you can't even accept the meaning of the lame excuses you produce for "evidence". Get with it!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by jj
If you have evidence you can offer "proof to a reasonable standard" (since there is no "absolute proof" and I'm not asking for that, and you know that). If you don't, you can't. If you can't offer any proof, that's the same as admitting you haven't any evidence.


Thanks jj for providing new material for a new sig.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by jj


It simply points out that they aren't dead, they are near death.

So, it's not a mis-definition, it's simply pointing out what "near-death" means. It means NEAR, not DEAD.

Ian, you can't even accept the meaning of the lame excuses you produce for "evidence". Get with it!

I really am impressed with how stupid you are.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
T'ai Chi and Interesting Ian, if you think a afterlife exists then kill yourself.

:cry:

Now that wasn't very nice. But alas, I suppose some people can't stay rational, despite their protests that they are. Beward of your own dogmas.

I never claimed there is an afterlife. However, if there is, then great. And if people think there is an afterlife, I don't see how it follows at all that they should leave the non-afterlife ASAP.

Doing that, in fact, is not rational, if there is or if there is not an afterlife.

[jj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Thanks jj for providing new material for a new sig.

Just be careful not to misrepresent the statement out of context, like you've already done, I see.

You, sir, are unethical and dishonest, and furthermore, your willful extraction from context appears deliberately malicious.

I advise you to withdraw your inappropriate, contextually extracted, misleading quote immediately.

[jj]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


I never claimed there is an afterlife. However, if there is, then great. And if people think there is an afterlife, I don't see how it follows at all that they should leave the non-afterlife ASAP.



Actually, Whodini, I agree with that point. There's no relationship. Somebody's insistance that atheists should commit suicide is likewise inappropriate.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jj

Tsk, tsk, evidence is how you prove something. Proof, in the scientific sense, as you know, Whodini, means "to the best of our knowledge".

You have a nice day too, and don't stay out in the sun too long, or you'll turn to stone.

Watch out for billy goats, too.

Ok jj, I just wanted to verify that you weren't saying prove it in an absolute sense, but rather a scientific sense. I see that you are indeed talking about in a scientific sense. No problems, just double-checking.

The conversations fly so fast around here, it is hard to keep track.

I like that story. I try to make sure I'm not the troll, but rather the goats. I've enjoyed what 'longing to travel up to the mountain to eat the lush, sweet grass' symbolizes ever since I was little.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jj

Actually, Whodini, I agree with that point. There's no relationship. Somebody's insistance that atheists should commit suicide is likewise inappropriate.

I agree 100% jj.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Originally posted by jj

Actually, Whodini, I agree with that point. There's no relationship. Somebody's insistance that atheists should commit suicide is likewise inappropriate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I agree 100% jj.[/B]

Wow! And I also agree with you jj. Will wonders never cease?? :D

[Unas]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Our initial positions are thus dictated, this does not mean they are not afterwards intellectually defended.
No one's beliefs are "dictated by feeling, emotion, intuition". You may have chosen to allow your "feeling, emotion, intuition" to color your beliefs -- but you can also choose to do otherwise, and base your beliefs on reason and fact.

I have seen no evidence that you "intellectually defend" those beliefs. You state them as facts, and when challenged, you attack the intelligence and character of your challengers.

But you can still choose to abandon those tactics. Will you?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What I find interesting about this whole life after death thing is that folks who believe in it are going to die, their consciousnesses cease, their bodies rot in the ground, and they are never going to know that there was no life after death.

Doesn't that seem deliciously ironic, except that you can't have irony if you don't know about it? it's kind of meta-ironic. Of course, I could be wrong.

~~ Paul

[jj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Wow! And I also agree with you jj. Will wonders never cease?? :D

Now how about that contextually extracted quote in your sig, Ian?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
[B]What I find interesting about this whole life after death thing is that folks who believe in it are going to die, their consciousnesses cease, their bodies rot in the ground, and they are never going to know that there was no life after death.



What a shame. Oh well. :(

[Aussie Thinker]

Ian,

Everything KNOWN has been shown to have a natural materialistic origin.

Therefore it is logical to assume everything unknown will be found to have natural materialistic origin.

You can assume otherwise but that just flies in the face of logic.

Consciousness requires the material of a brain to exist. NOTHING has EVER shown it to exist outside of the material constraint of a brain.

Now you expostulate that it does exist outside a brain and give the example of a TV (being the Brain) and the Storylines of a show on it being the consciousness.

Quite a good example btw.. and while it explains your concept does not necessarily support it. It does not support it because even in that example MATERIAL is still required to produce the TV show (Actors, camera, film etc etc). So if the people from the middle ages decide that material is required for the “consciousness” of the TV they are right even though they are wrong about it being the TV itself.

Do you get that the only logical default situation is MATERIAL based and therefore until absolutely proven otherwise there is no continuation of consciousness ?

I wanted to add in that NDE’s have been found to have happened worldwide and there is a curious problem with them.

They are Culturally and Religiously oriented. Is this a clue for you ???

People see what they expect to see ? This implies it is the work of the humans own mind and has NOTHING to do with any external supernatural world !

[Aussie Thinker]

Just another thing about NDE’s.

A human is not dead until their brain has died (ie as an organ has been starved of oxygen long enough that it no longer lives).

Until the brain is dead human thought exists.

NO case of NDE has been reported from someone whose brain has died (its impossible to revive someone from that) therefore any report of NDE is subject to normal human fantasy/dream/etc.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker

Everything KNOWN has been shown to have a natural materialistic origin.



I think you mean natural origin. Let's leave materialistic out of it shall we.



Therefore it is logical to assume everything unknown will be found to have natural materialistic origin.



Conflates the experienced with the experiencer. I hold that science deals with the patterns of phenomenological experience ie the patterns in our sensory perceptions. It does not deal with the self that has these sensory perceptions. In short consciousness is utterly different from the so called "physical" world ie the external world. It is therefore not at all illogical to suppose that the self or experiencer cannot be treated in the same way as the perceptually experienced.



You can assume otherwise but that just flies in the face of logic.



I'm afraid not.



Consciousness requires the material of a brain to exist. NOTHING has EVER shown it to exist outside of the material constraint of a brain.



Given that we can only show the physical, and a disembodied consciousness is non-physical, it is not at all clear to me that this should be surprising.


Now you expostulate that it does exist outside a brain and give the example of a TV (being the Brain) and the Storylines of a show on it being the consciousness.

Quite a good example btw.. and while it explains your concept does not necessarily support it. It does not support it because even in that example MATERIAL is still required to produce the TV show (Actors, camera, film etc etc). So if the people from the middle ages decide that material is required for the “consciousness” of the TV they are right even though they are wrong about it being the TV itself.



This is all completely irrelevant. If you're unhappy about the example of the TV set then look at the more abstract argument which preceded it ie the one regarding A's B's and C's. The self, mind and the brain is not supposed to be exactly like a TV set and TV signals, rather I mentioned this example in order to facilitate the understanding as skeptics never seem to understand what I'm talking about.



Do you get that the only logical default situation is MATERIAL based and therefore until absolutely proven otherwise there is no continuation of consciousness ?



Allow me to be quite explicit. I do not believe in the existence of a material world. There is neither any evidence for the existence of the material, nor any reason to believe in it. So the answer to your question is an emphatic no.



I wanted to add in that NDE’s have been found to have happened worldwide and there is a curious problem with them.

They are Culturally and Religiously oriented. Is this a clue for you ???



Well, it should be what one would expect. Even in our empirical reality everything we perceive is a result of low level theory. We see through the lens of theory, that is an implicit theory about the world. Perceptual illusions illustrate this nicely. Why do you think that our perceptions of an otherworldly reality would be any different? Our understanding molds what we see.



People see what they expect to see ? This implies it is the work of the humans own mind and has NOTHING to do with any external supernatural world !

It implies nothing of the sort. We cannot see anything that we want to see. Rather there is something external to you, but your mind or self interprets this external world accordingly. This applies both to our empirical reality or any otherworldly reality.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Just another thing about NDE’s.

A human is not dead until their brain has died (ie as an organ has been starved of oxygen long enough that it no longer lives).

Until the brain is dead human thought exists.

NO case of NDE has been reported from someone whose brain has died (its impossible to revive someone from that) therefore any report of NDE is subject to normal human fantasy/dream/etc.

Your claim that "Until the brain is dead human thought exists" is obviously false. Just think about meditation or deep sleep.

But anyway, I don't deny your conclusion. Same for everything we ever experience. Should we suppose what you're experiencing right now is an illusion?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by jj


Now how about that contextually extracted quote in your sig, Ian?

It was not taken out of context. It is unambiguously clear what you mean. You believe that the words "evidence" and "proof" are synonyms. It appears that a very large percentage of skeptics also believe this.

Allow me to enlighten you all. Evidence simply means that which makes something more likely than it would otherwise be. Maybe the original likelihood for, say, some event occurring was 1%, but that evidence increases this likelihood of the event occurring to 2%. Note that it is still extremely unlikely that the event will occur! Proof on the other hand means at the very minimum something that cannot be reasonably challenged.

I think it's about time I took a stand on this.

[Aussie Thinker]

Ian,

I don’t think you understood what I mean.

If in your experience you cannot point to ONE thing with a cause that is not natural then you cannot form an opinion that the supernatural exists.

It like you are saying “I believe man can fly unassisted .. just because we have never seen it happen is not enough to sway me from my opinion”

What sort of evidence has convinced you that consciousness exists outside of the physical housing of the brain ? Surely not the few HUMAN testimonials to “weird” things happening ?

Your claim that "Until the brain is dead human thought exists" is obviously false. Just think about meditation or deep sleep.

Uhh.. mediation or deep sleep does not involve your brain DYING ! If it is dead there is NO coming back.

NO NDE’s have EVER been reported from someone who was braindead so therefore the experience is just part of normal human thought and imagination!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Ian,

I don’t think you understood what I mean.

If in your experience you cannot point to ONE thing with a cause that is not natural then you cannot form an opinion that the supernatural exists.

It like you are saying “I believe man can fly unassisted .. just because we have never seen it happen is not enough to sway me from my opinion”

What sort of evidence has convinced you that consciousness exists outside of the physical housing of the brain ? Surely not the few HUMAN testimonials to “weird” things happening ?



Uhh.. mediation or deep sleep does not involve your brain DYING ! If it is dead there is NO coming back.

NO NDE’s have EVER been reported from someone who was braindead so therefore the experience is just part of normal human thought and imagination!

Don't get so excited and calm down. I did understand what you meant, and you're wrong.

[jj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


It was not taken out of context. It is unambiguously clear what you mean.

A lie, Ian, a simple lie.

Either include the context or remove it.

Now.

[Unas]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Originally posted by epepke
I have a question right back. Why is it that people with a philosophical bent such as yourself assert that skeptics are "absolutely certain" of something, no matter how many times skeptics point out that they are hard pressed to be certain about anything, nor how simply and clearly this is phrased?
Because this is the attitude they persistently convey.
Cite examples -- your unsupported claims are worthless.
They are dogmatists who convey that they are absolutely certain that the particular modern western metaphysic is the correct one.
Cite examples -- your unsupported claims are worthless.
They show scant regard for any evidence challenging their views.
Cite examples -- your unsupported claims are worthless.
Come back to me when you have anything of the remotest sense to say. Otherwise please don't waste my time.
Your time doesn't seem to be worth much to you, given that you seem to spend so much of it making personal attacks and fact-free claims.

[Unas]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Your claim that "Until the brain is dead human thought exists" is obviously false. Just think about meditation or deep sleep.
Are you claiming that thought does not exist during states of meditation or deep sleep? If so, cite the evidence for that claim. If not, please clarify.

[Unas]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I did understand what you meant, and you're wrong.
Because! Ian! Says! So!

But not because he has any evidence for his claim, obviously...

[Aussie Thinker]

Ian

Don't get so excited and calm down. I did understand what you meant, and you're wrong.

What on Earth makes you think I am excited and not calm ???

Thanks for pointing out that I am wrong…

I have established an opinion with the weight of scientific fact, reason and probability behind it..

You have established an opinion based on fairy floss… backed up by confirmed woo woo’s..

I think your OPINION is wrong.

[thaiboxerken]

Yet again, Ian gives no real evidence, just "metaphysical" reasons for believing in afterlife.

The reality is that he fears nonexistence. I don't blame him, so do I. However, unlike Ian, I simply can't start believing in nonsense just because I'm scared of reality. I wish I would live on after this life, but there is simply NO evidence that it happens. Ian lets fear rule his beliefs, that's what it comes down to. That's ok though, there isn't anything wrong with being a coward.

Why even try to debate a person that places subjective belief over scientific evidence?

[Aussie Thinker]

Heres a fantastic article on why “Bad Belief is hard to kill off”

Please take note Ian..

http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-11/beliefs.html

I especially like this bit.. (pompous Sceptic that I am)

Finally, it should be comforting to all skeptics to remember that the truly amazing part of all of this is not that so few beliefs change or that people can be so irrational, but that anyone's beliefs ever change at all. Skeptics' ability to alter their own beliefs in response to data is a true gift; a unique, powerful, and precious ability. It is genuinely a "higher brain function" in that it goes against some of the most natural and fundamental biological urges. Skeptics must appreciate the power and, truly, the dangerousness that this ability bestows upon them. They have in their possession a skill that can be frightening, life-changing, and capable of inducing pain. In turning this ability on others it should be used carefully and wisely. Challenging beliefs must always be done with care and compassion.

[thaiboxerken]

Nice article, but I don't agree with this bit:

Challenging beliefs must always be done with care and compassion.

Compassion is a trait of the weak.;)

What is best in life: To crush your enemy, see them driven before you and hear the lamentations of the women. -- Conan

Ok, maybe not, but I could care less about being compassionate to the likes of the believers on this board.

[Aussie Thinker]

He he Thai…

I am with you on that “compassion” bit.. I don’t think I have ever used the words “idiot” and “moron” so much as when talking with Young Earth Creationists !

I think the guys point was.. we should go easy “cause the poor widdle fings can’t help themselves”

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Yet again, Ian gives no real evidence, just "metaphysical" reasons for believing in afterlife.

The reality is that he fears nonexistence. I don't blame him, so do I.

Remember that we all very nearly experience non-existence every night in deep sleep. And supposedly we were eternally non-existent before we were born, and we will be eternally non-existent after we die. No difference. Absolutely nothing to fear if you look at it rationally.

Now let me ask you a question. If hypothetically we absolute knew that there was a "life after death", do you honestly think you would have no fear at all at the prospect of death?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
[B]Heres a fantastic article on why “Bad Belief is hard to kill off”

Please take note Ian..

http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-11/beliefs.html

I especially like this bit.. (pompous Sceptic that I am)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, it should be comforting to all skeptics to remember that the truly amazing part of all of this is not that so few beliefs change or that people can be so irrational, but that anyone's beliefs ever change at all. Skeptics' ability to alter their own beliefs in response to data is a true gift; a unique, powerful, and precious ability. It is genuinely a "higher brain function" in that it goes against some of the most natural and fundamental biological urges. Skeptics must appreciate the power and, truly, the dangerousness that this ability bestows upon them. They have in their possession a skill that can be frightening, life-changing, and capable of inducing pain. In turning this ability on others it should be used carefully and wisely. Challenging beliefs must always be done with care and compassion.


I ask myself whether they can really truly believe this. In my experience it seems to me that skeptics are the very last people to change their mind about anything. They seem to be pretty well completely immune to any sort of reasoning.

Seriously though, it really is implausible to pick out a whole group of people, "skeptics", and claim that they are more amenable to changing their mind than anyone else. We are all human beings and we are all driven my emotions in our beliefs about the world. Certainly skeptics are at least no less emotional, and in my experience actually appear to be more emotional in this respect. They tenaciously cling onto their beliefs regardless of reason or evidence. Indeed this is why I find them so frustrating. At least I attempt to be objective in considering the issues which skeptics unthinkingly deny. This is why I condemn them because they are so different from scepticism in the original meaning of this term.


Aussie thinker, CSICOP are notorious for giving misleading distorted information out, if not outright lies. It seems nothing has changed. Wake up to yourself.

[Garrette]

Ian,

I have for a very long time avoided involvement in discussions with you, mainly because the subject is not an abiding interest for me but partly because I admit to myself that your education in these matters exceeds mine. Your intelligence may exceed mine, too.

No, matter.

Until very recently I have held to the opinion that, while your conclusions do not seem supported to me they are at least honestly arrived at by something with a bent toward logic and reason.

I must now, however, change my mind. This statement:

Interesting Ian:

Allow me to be quite explicit. I do not believe in the existence of a material world. There is neither any evidence for the existence of the material, nor any reason to believe in it.

is ludicrous. Either you recognize it is ludicrous and are therefore simply yanking chains, or you are seriously deluded.

Cleverness with words is not the same as deep insight. A facility for understanding difficult terms does not necessarily lead to their fruitful application.

The emperor may have been a genius, but he was still without clothes, and you, sir, are naked as a jaybird.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Now let me ask you a question. If hypothetically we absolute knew that there was a "life after death", do you honestly think you would have no fear at all at the prospect of death?

Nope, it would be more of an anxiety associated with visiting a foreign country for the first time.

[The Don]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Nope, it would be more of an anxiety associated with visiting a foreign country for the first time.

What about the pain and/or suffering involved in getting to this "foreign country"

What about the frisson of worry about not arriving ?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Garrette
Ian,

I have for a very long time avoided involvement in discussions with you, mainly because the subject is not an abiding interest for me but partly because I admit to myself that your education in these matters exceeds mine. Your intelligence may exceed mine, too.

No, matter.

Until very recently I have held to the opinion that, while your conclusions do not seem supported to me they are at least honestly arrived at by something with a bent toward logic and reason.

I must now, however, change my mind. This statement:


Interesting Ian:

Allow me to be quite explicit. I do not believe in the existence of a material world. There is neither any evidence for the existence of the material, nor any reason to believe in it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





is ludicrous. Either you recognize it is ludicrous and are therefore simply yanking chains, or you are seriously deluded.

Cleverness with words is not the same as deep insight. A facility for understanding difficult terms does not necessarily lead to their fruitful application.

The emperor may have been a genius, but he was still without clothes, and you, sir, are naked as a jaybird.

Read this (http://www.eskimo.com/~msharlow/idealism.htm)

[The Don]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Remember that we all very nearly experience non-existence every night in deep sleep. And supposedly we were eternally non-existent before we were born, and we will be eternally non-existent after we die. No difference. Absolutely nothing to fear if you look at it rationally.

I fear the process of transitioning from existence to non-existence.

Ageing
Pain
Seeing the people I care about being upset by my pending non-existence
Not having the opportunity to exist any more

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Read this (http://www.eskimo.com/~msharlow/idealism.htm)
I did. The very first sentence is an assumption that "people have both minds and bodies."
Not necessarily true.
It's a valid position to assert that "mind" is a fictional entity and that we only have bodies.
So some screed that starts out with an invalid premise is, in toto, invalid.

[thaiboxerken]

What about the pain and/or suffering involved in getting to this "foreign country"

Dying doesn't necessarily have to involve pain or suffering.


What about the frisson of worry about not arriving ?

If this place called "afterlife" exists, how could one not go? Would there be other countries?

[Garrette]

Interesting Ian:

Read this

Done. And it was not beyond my abilities to grasp.

The author's own position of recursive idealism is non-falsifiable. She has posited an idea that she claims is correct regardless of what science finds. I could do the same with something totally at odds.

Read this:

Garrette:

Cleverness with words is not the same as deep insight. A facility for understanding difficult terms does not necessarily lead to their fruitful application.


Your statement was that there is no evidence for the existence of the material. The link not only does not support your statement, it refutes it. The author believes that the material exists; she only argues about its origin.

[The Don]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
[
Dying doesn't necessarily have to involve pain or suffering.


If this place called "afterlife" exists, how could one not go? Would there be other countries?

I agree it doesn't have to, I'm just worried that it might.

The only way you could be absolutely sure that it exists (even if you had all the evidence in the world) is to have faith. In the same way that I have faith that force known as gravity will continu to act upon me. Apart from this faith, admittedly based on a long history of past observation I have no evidence that it will act in the future

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Garrette


Your statement was that there is no evidence for the existence of the material. The link not only does not support your statement, it refutes it. The author believes that the material exists; she only argues about its origin. [/B]

I should be clear that when I say the material does not exist, I am denying the existence of matter. I certainly am not denying the existence of an external world. The author may well disagree with me, but my intension of providing you the link was to try to get you to understand where I'm coming from.

Just imagine reality as being akin to a computer game. When you move your chartacter around the computer game environment, this environment and all it contains is not composed of matter is it? What the character experiences will depend upon rules generated by the computer program, just like what we experience depend upon rules, or physical laws, generated by the universal awareness or beingness.

[The Don]

That's one of the annoying things, Ian's philisophy is internally consistent and as a result it's impossible to pick holes in it.

Try not to share a house with people like Ian tho', they never do the washing up on the grounds that it doesn't exist :D

[Garrette]

Fair enough. The link was an excellent and concise summary of the basis of your position, so thanks for that.

I understand the computer analogy, the previous television analogy, and the ideas in the article and your previous discussions.

I am simply among those who see these arguments as, while interesting, devoid of foundation.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by The Don
That's one of the annoying things, Ian's philisophy is internally consistent and as a result it's impossible to pick holes in it.

Try not to share a house with people like Ian tho', they never do the washing up on the grounds that it doesn't exist :D

Nah, I never do the washing up on the grounds that I'm lazy :)

[jj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I should be clear that when I say the material does not exist, I am denying the existence of matter. I certainly am not denying the existence of an external world. The author may well disagree with me, but my intension of providing you the link was to try to get you to understand where I'm coming from.

Just imagine reality as being akin to a computer game. When you move your chartacter around the computer game environment, this environment and all it contains is not composed of matter is it? What the character experiences will depend upon rules generated by the computer program, just like what we experience depend upon rules, or physical laws, generated by the universal awareness or beingness.

Wow, now we have it, Ian, you're arguing for the ultimate, insane solipcism, then?

Oh, and yes, there is material moving around when you play a computer game.

But I'll leave that be, it's much less of a whopper than your implicit statement that we're all parts of your insane superconciousness.

[thaiboxerken]

While I enjoyed watching "The Matrix", I understand the difference between fiction and reality. The world is not a big computer game, Ian. There really is a spoon.

[Aussie Thinker]

Ian,

3 Main Points for you to attend to.

1. In a computer game there is PLENTY of material moving around. Electrons by the million for one ! Lets not even start with all the humans who designed the game using material and the hardware that runs it.

2. If it is true we are in a Matrix type situation (an NO-ONE can dispute that may be true) it is pointless to continue any other argument. The “we are in the matrix” argument defeats all others.. but it is also pointless. For the sake of any discussion it MUST be assumed we are not in the Matrix.

3. You have absolutely NO proof for a matrix style existence.. no “glitches” found or shown, no breakouts like Mr Anderson, No Zion or real existence somewhere else.. etc etc. The default situation has to be physical reality.

I often wonder why people want to go with a weird, illogical supernatural world ?

Your point about sceptics was surprising. EVERY sceptic I have ever met was very open to new ideas as long as they had a scientific basis.

I will admit we do tend to become a bit close minded about irrational supernatural stuff that is CONSTANTLY debunked and has not EVER been shown to exist. To us it is like someone every now and then comes up with “NEW” proof for Santa and the Tooth Fairy.. would you really want to listen to it.

It is a testament to Sceptics worldwide that we DO keep listening to this crap. We always give the looneys enough rope.. (and they keep hanging themselves by the truckload).

In a strange way we would LOVE to finally see some proof of just ONE supernatural event.. experience tells us we aint ever going to !

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker

...someone every now and then comes up with “NEW” proof for Santa and the Tooth Fairy.. would you really want to listen to it.


Can you provide evidence that the universe is 11 dimensional?

[Aussie Thinker]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Can you provide evidence that the universe is 11 dimensional? [/B]

T'ai,

OK you got me.. I have tried to understand the science around the number of possible dimensions and it is a bit too deep for me…

I think I miss your point though ?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
[B]Ian,

3 Main Points for you to attend to.

1. In a computer game there is PLENTY of material moving around. Electrons by the million for one ! Lets not even start with all the humans who designed the game using material and the hardware that runs it.



Does anyone ever get a tad tired of making completely irrelevant points?

Apparently not :(



2. If it is true we are in a Matrix type situation (an NO-ONE can dispute that may be true)



Are we?


it is pointless to continue any other argument. The “we are in the matrix” argument defeats all others.. but it is also pointless. For the sake of any discussion it MUST be assumed we are not in the Matrix.



I guess you might say that mental monism is like "the matrix" in a very loose sense {sighs}

Right, no point in further discussion. Good.

[Aussie Thinker]

Ian,

You are starting to sound more and more like a YE Creationist everyday.

You get materialism proven time and time again (or at least shown it is the only thing that does have any proof) and you put your fingers in your ears and say nya nya nay.. can’t hear you.

The Electrons are not irrelevant ! Every time YOU give an example of non-material happening I show its basis to be MATERIAL !

I was only reiterating that if you stick with a “martix” argument then further argument is pointless with you. You NEVER offer an argument of substance or even any good “gut” feeling reasons for why you think like you do…

“I JUST DO” is a very lame argument around here !

[egslim]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Can you provide evidence that the universe is 11 dimensional? [/B]

We don't have to. This is something coming form String-theory, but that's nothing more than an interesting hypothesis at this point.
People are still working to extract a falsifiable claim from it. No scientist has claimed to have proven it.

However, QM sounds pretty counter-intuitive as well, but there is plenty of evidence for that. Which means it is at least a good description for our world.