survival after death [Archive]

Porterboy

8th January 2007, 03:52 PM

Porterboy

9th January 2007, 12:32 AM

Adendum: When I say "men" I don't mean it literally. Heroic materialists can be of either gender; one of the most dedicated is Sue Blackmore, as you mention above.

ammonl

9th January 2007, 01:01 AM

From the foreword:

The anecdotal stories he relates are so vivid and evidentual which makes them so striking.

Oh, good. I'm always convinced by a whole bunch of anecdotes strung together...

hipparchia

9th January 2007, 02:47 AM

Certainly one of my worst nightmares is to have to spend an eternity in the spiritual bureaucracy of newage afterlife. While talking to deceased ancestors and distant in-laws. And turning out I was my own great-grandmother. And turning out Fermat has been reincarnated into the body of Paris Hilton and is unavailable just now.
Just in case, I plan to leave a sealed envelope with a person I trust. The envelope will containt a phrase which I, to the best of my efforts, will try to communicate from the great beyond. Should anyone contact me, unless they receive the phrase, should consider this a fantasy.
"Oh bother, in this here afterlife, it seems I can only speak Ancient Greek..."

Donn

9th January 2007, 03:56 AM

baron

9th January 2007, 06:22 AM

If that's the best they can come up with to convince me to buy Webster's book then that's pretty sad. And is the forward by the same Alan Crossley that claims to be in contact with the dead Helen Duncan and prances round the countryside babbling about spirits in ethereal dresses?

Only giving the scientific case for oblivion, without any balance, is also against Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Unbelievable.

The only difference is that Randi has been given total freedom of all media outlets to state his case for oblivion, and Webster is never allowed to give a balance in the "free" country of Great Britain.

I suggest other factors might be at work here.

I wonder how many of the macho-men actually do believe in life-after-death, but won't speak out about it because they're afraid of being called wimps!

I don't know about that, but I have always contended that it's not possible for someone to believe conclusively that there is no life after death. Certainly such a position can be convincingly argued on the basis of evidence and to a certain extent logic, but the inability of the human mind to imagine oblivion - nothingness - means that we cannot envisage not being alive and thus our belief cannot be total. Similarly, it is not possible to imagine a world that does not contain us, because to do so we would need to put ourselves in the role of observer, and once we do that the original premise of a world in which we don't exist is destroyed.

Cuddles

9th January 2007, 07:10 AM

baron

9th January 2007, 12:57 PM

Don't think that just because you can't imagine something no-one else can.

I think no-one else can because I believe it's logically impossible, not because I can't. Still, feel free to fill me in on the theory behind how a consciousness could imagine an environment that does not include themselves as the observer.

Soapy Sam

9th January 2007, 01:24 PM

Dr B

9th January 2007, 01:29 PM

I was surprised to hear Sam Harris mention, I think, Ian Stevenson and that 'morphic resonance' cat, forget his name.

Is there any respectable evidence? Any links to good arguments about 'afterlife' evidence?

No - there is none. However woo's love to point to what they call the 'Survival Physics of Ronald Pearson' as their ideal....

Get ready for metaphorically laden nonsense and sweeping assumptions and not forgetting that all important theory of everything......Happy Googling

link
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/pearson/survival.htm

Mangafranga

9th January 2007, 01:34 PM

I think no-one else can because I believe it's logically impossible, not because I can't. Still, feel free to fill me in on the theory behind how a consciousness could imagine an environment that does not include themselves as the observer.

Doesn't that apply to your belief about what is logically impossible for other people to image? By your reasoning you couldn't have imagined a person having a logically impossible belief, and so you can't have a beleif about it?

Ashles

9th January 2007, 01:36 PM

I think no-one else can because I believe it's logically impossible, not because I can't. Still, feel free to fill me in on the theory behind how a consciousness could imagine an environment that does not include themselves as the observer.
Are you saying you cannot imagine a historical time period?

Anyway you may believe it is logically impossible but it clearly isn't. I have no problem imagining a world in the future where I am not here, and I am sure others have no problem with this.

baron

9th January 2007, 01:39 PM

Consciousness is a product of life.
No life , no consciousness. No consciousness, no worries!

How well do you remember things before you were conceived?
But you can, presumably, conceive of the possibility that you were conceived and that a time before that you did not exist?

If you can believe you did not exist in the past, why would you have a problem conceiving that such a state may also exist in the future?

I agree with Cuddles. I suspect you just haven't thought about this enough or in the right way to convince yourself. I find it very easy.

You have misunderstood my post. I didn't say that the theory was in any way difficult to understand. I said that it is not possible to imagine your own non-existence. Imagination is not the same as belief.

I can indeed conceive of a time before I was born. I can acknowledge and describe that state of my own non-existance. I cannot, however, imagine it. It is impossible. That was my point.

baron

9th January 2007, 01:42 PM

Doesn't that apply to your belief about what is logically impossible for other people to image? By your reasoning you couldn't have imagined a person having a logically impossible belief, and so you can't have a beleif about it?

You've tied yourself up in knots. Impossibility has no bearing on me being an observer.

Mangafranga

9th January 2007, 01:48 PM

You've tied yourself up in knots. Impossibility has no bearing on me being an observer.

So its for impossible for person A to imagine situation X, but its possible for person B to imagine person A imagining situation X?

Ashles

9th January 2007, 01:55 PM

You have misunderstood my post. I didn't say that the theory was in any way difficult to understand. I said that it is not possible to imagine your own non-existence. Imagination is not the same as belief.

I can indeed conceive of a time before I was born. I can acknowledge and describe that state of my own non-existance. I cannot, however, imagine it. It is impossible. That was my point.
You can't imagine it and It is impossible are two different and unrelated concepts.
It's like the myth of scientists proving a bumble bee couldn't fly. Obviously any such 'proof' is based on faulty logic as you cannot prove something which is untrue.

I can imagine scenarios in the past and future without me in. Now you can choose not to believe me of course, but you can't claim you have proven anything because your 'proof' relies on having absolute certainty about what other people can or can't imagine. Which of course you cannot have.

billydkid

9th January 2007, 01:57 PM

"The resistance to new ideas increase by the square of their importance."

Yeah, that's why we reject the idea of life after death - because it's such a new paradigm shattering idea. Couldn't be because the idea makes no sense or because it is impossible to know or because there is no evidence for it. Yes, and we reject it because it makes us look tough and not seem to be sissies. Only sissies don't want to die.

Actually, I am more curious about life before birth. Are we dead before we are born. If so, well, it wasn't really that bad.

baron

9th January 2007, 02:14 PM

I can imagine scenarios in the past and future without me in.

No, you cannot. If you imagine something then you are the observer. If you are the observer then you are part of that scenario.

I am happy to argue this point, but so far nobody has grasped it.

Ashles

9th January 2007, 02:17 PM

No, you cannot.
Well this is going nowhere fast.

baron

9th January 2007, 02:19 PM

Well this is going nowhere fast.

My thoughts exactly. I have provided my argument as to why I believe imagination of a situation without the observer is impossible. Do you have any other argument but "I can! I can!"?

kitakaze

9th January 2007, 02:20 PM

If you imagine something then you are the observer.baron, I don't but would like to understand this. Can you explain?

Ashles

9th January 2007, 02:21 PM

My thoughts exactly. I have provided my argument as to why I believe imagination of a situation without the observer is impossible. Do you have any other argument but "I can! I can!"?
Well your entire argument consists of the fact that you cant.
I can, so where else is the discussion going?

I can for example imagine the moment of my birth. Hoe could I do that without taking a position external to myself?

Darat

9th January 2007, 02:22 PM

kitakaze

9th January 2007, 02:25 PM

Similarly, it is not possible to imagine a world that does not contain us, because to do so we would need to put ourselves in the role of observer, and once we do that the original premise of a world in which we don't exist is destroyed.'Observer' does not equate 'us' IMO.

Lord Muck oGentry

9th January 2007, 02:27 PM

If you imagine something then you are the observer. If you are the observer then you are part of that scenario.

I am happy to argue this point, but so far nobody has grasped it.

Looks a bit like Berkeley's Master Argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_argument

Mangafranga

9th January 2007, 02:28 PM

No, you cannot. If you imagine something then you are the observer. If you are the observer then you are part of that scenario.

I am happy to argue this point, but so far nobody has grasped it.

I presume you would say that it is possible for person B to imagine person A imagining situation X.

I presume also you would say that it is impossible for person A to imagine person A imagining situation X, but because person A is now observing himself doing some imagining.

If so, then the implication of your claim is that you cannot have a belief about the possibilty of your own imagining situation X. Which also seems to imply you cannot have any beliefs at all. It is impossible for person A to imagine their having a belief, therefore its impossible for them to have any belief at all!

baron

9th January 2007, 02:36 PM

Well your entire argument consists of the fact that you cant.
I can, so where else is the discussion going?

I can for example imagine the moment of my birth. Hoe could I do that without taking a position external to myself?

Now I see the root of your misunderstanding. I am not referring to the physical "you" being an observer. I am talking about your consciousness.

If I imagine a scene in the past then of course I can envisage it without the physical me being present. However, the fact I am imagining a scene means that I am envisioning a view onto the scene from a point in space. I might imagine experiencing sound or even physical sensation such as cold, regardless of the fact I do not include my physical self as part of the scenario.

All of these things require me - my consciousness - to be the oberserver. If I were not the observer then I could not observe and therefore I could not imagine. Logically therefore I cannot imagine a situation where I am not the observer. I cannot imagine my non-existance.

It's worthwhile recapping on my original point, as it's been a while. I was saying that because it is impossible for anybody to imagine their own non-existence then I suggest that nobody completely believes that there will come a point when they cease to exist. They can deduce such a point via logic, and postulate such a point via application of evidence and reason, but they cannot imagine it, and so their conviction must remain incomplete.

baron

9th January 2007, 02:42 PM

Looks a bit like Berkeley's Master Argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_argument

In a way, but whereas Berkeley's argument results in an unacceptable outcome, mine doesn't. Although people may not like it :)

RichardR

9th January 2007, 02:43 PM

baron

9th January 2007, 02:44 PM

I presume also you would say that it is impossible for person A to imagine person A imagining situation X, but because person A is now observing himself doing some imagining.

That is correct. Thinking about thinking, the secret of "high consciousness", some would have you believe.

If so, then the implication of your claim is that you cannot have a belief about the possibilty of your own imagining situation X

No it isn't, because again you have confused belief with imagination. I can believe anything. I cannot imagine anything.

firecoins

9th January 2007, 02:46 PM

It is my contention that the Church of England is considered an expert in this matter as well as the Roman Catholic Church, various Mosques and synogoues exist in Britain as well. Are their opinions not allowed or something?

kitakaze

9th January 2007, 02:47 PM

baron, are you the 'Architect'?

baron

9th January 2007, 02:50 PM

And if anyone can point out my self-contradiction through poor use of words I'll give them a coconut. I'll let it stand, though.

baron

9th January 2007, 02:51 PM

baron, are you the 'Architect'?

Who or what is the Architect?

Mangafranga

9th January 2007, 02:59 PM

That is correct. Thinking about thinking, the secret of "high consciousness", some would have you believe.

No it isn't, because again you have confused belief with imagination. I can believe anything. I cannot imagine anything.

No, I confused what I thought you said you thought the lack of imagination implied. Having a look back, I'm really not sure what this means,

"it's not possible for someone to believe conclusively"
"nobody completely believes"

Can you clarify, so I can work on finding a contradiction in what you actually believe.

kitakaze

9th January 2007, 02:59 PM

Who or what is the Architect?Okey dokey. Matrix: Reloaded, Revolutions.

baron

9th January 2007, 03:23 PM

Okey dokey. Matrix: Reloaded, Revolutions.

Gotcha. I think I'd fallen asleep by the time he got into his spiel.

Can you clarify, so I can work on finding a contradiction in what you actually believe.

I will, later. Must sleep.

Mangafranga

9th January 2007, 03:24 PM

How about I modify the argument slighty, to incorperate your inconclusive belief, thus

Person A cannot imagine their having a belief
Therefore person A cannot conclusivley believe that they have a belief.

Person A cannot imagine their believing in (insert certain belief here)
Therefore person A cannot conclusivley believe that they believe in their certain belief.

So now when I ask you, do you have a conclusive belief in (any x), you would have to say that you have an inconclusive belief about the status of your belief.
Point being, what does your distinction between a belief and a non-conclusive (or whatever it is) belief consist of if it applies like this?
Does your distinction imply doubt? If so, this would be an argument against Descartes Cogito.

cj.23

9th January 2007, 11:32 PM

Donn

10th January 2007, 01:15 AM

RichardR - Thanks for that link! I googled my fingers off and found nothing useful on Stevenson. Okay, I still have to read that link, but I'm hopeful. How do you find stuff like that?!

That is correct. Thinking about thinking, the secret of "high consciousness", some would have you believe.
I'm gonna regret this, but how does "thinking about thinking" differ from telling a story about Bob who is thinking he is Bob and thinking about ice-cream?

Bob sat on the beanbag thinking about himself. He thought about how he was thinking he was just parched today. Bob knew he wasn't really hot, it was a cool day in June.
His thought-Bob thought "isn't ice-cream a nice thought?" And smiling on his way, Bob thought about Bob having a nice double-cone with a chocolate dip.

No it isn't, because again you have confused belief with imagination. I can believe anything. I cannot imagine anything.
I am not sure I am convinced that imagination has any limits. I mean how can you know that I can't imagine something? Heck I even imagined I could solve the Rubik's cube once!
:D

Dr B

10th January 2007, 03:31 AM

Er, he clearly regards Professor David Fontana's Is there an Afterlife? (2006) as part of the conspiracy? :) (Fontana provides the case - and does so with style.) I'll see if I can get this book and review it here...

cj x

Thats funny. I have always found his work to be logically flawed and and bit mysterian at times. However, I have not read the references of which you speak so cannot comment on that specific reference. You may well be quite right - but if his former articles etc are anything to go by i would imagine a mysterian type analysis from him.

Mr. Scott

10th January 2007, 03:53 AM

Whoops! Bang goes James Webster's Materialist Bravery Medal!

The debate over life-after-death has become empty and pointless for several reasons, most notably because it has become blighted by machismo. This is certainly what I've noticed in my Spritiualist discussion group. Those who don't believe in it strut around the room with their chests out, swaggering with their thumbs in their pockets like John Wayne, and for a very good reason:

If you reject the concept of survival-of-death then you are set up for life! The street-cred it gives you will carry you through scientific and philosphical circles as a hero, a brave, hard-headed warrior who has the guts to face the awful truth of the finality of existance which the feeble, huddling masses dare not, hiding beneath their comforting blanket of religion. I bet they get laid more than the mystics do!

I wonder how many of the macho-men actually do believe in life-after-death, but won't speak out about it because they're afraid of being called wimps! It's all a bit childish to me, rather like kids showing of their muscle in the playground.

"Neeah!!! I bet James Webster wears girls' clothes when he's at home!"

My own experience is it was much easier to get laid playing up the woo angle than the skeptic angle. All you need to say is, "I feel amazing forces in the other dimension that convinces me that we are right for them, don't you feel them?" A good woo girl will eat it up. Find out where their irrational credulity lies and it's a breeze to manipulate them. Telling girls you don't believe in their nonsense sends them running.

However, street cred of such an angle has no relevance whatsoever to its truth or falsity. Sorry, Porterboy.

What should be pointed out is that there is a million dollars waiting to be given to the first person who can demonstrate, under controlled conditions, that the afterlife exists. The money stands unclaimed. Is the afterlife so shy that it can't withstand a demonstration set up to prevent cheating? That's one wimpy afterlife.

billydkid

10th January 2007, 07:48 AM

I am not sure I am convinced that imagination has any limits. I mean how can you know that I can't imagine something? Heck I even imagined I could solve the Rubik's cube once!
:D

I'm not sure I agree. I think it is impossible to imagine the impossible. By impossible I don't mean things that defy natural laws, like a rock falling up. While in some sense it is impossible for a rock to fall up, it isn't as though rock inherently do not have the capacity to fall up. Obviously, I can't give an example of something that is impossible to imagine. Maybe heaven might work - noone has ever come up with a plausible concept for heaven. Or God, maybe. I don't know if those are exactly good examples. I think that anything you can possibly, specifically imagine has to be possible in some sense of the word. You can imagine and elevator to the moon and while that is impossible in a practical sense, in an imaginary sense it is possible or conceivable.

cj.23

10th January 2007, 07:56 AM

Thats funny. I have always found his work to be logically flawed and and bit mysterian at times. However, I have not read the references of which you speak so cannot comment on that specific reference. You may well be quite right - but if his former articles etc are anything to go by i would imagine a mysterian type analysis from him.

I was comparing it with this offering Dr. B, not saying it convinced me. It has flaws, but overall is an OK read.

cj x

Donn

10th January 2007, 08:00 AM

I'm not sure I agree. I think it is impossible to imagine the impossible. By impossible I don't mean things that defy natural laws, like a rock falling up. While in some sense it is impossible for a rock to fall up, it isn't as though rock inherently do not have the capacity to fall up. Obviously, I can't give an example of something that is impossible to imagine. Maybe heaven might work - noone has ever come up with a plausible concept for heaven. Or God, maybe. I don't know if those are exactly good examples. I think that anything you can possibly, specifically imagine has to be possible in some sense of the word. You can imagine and elevator to the moon and while that is impossible in a practical sense, in an imaginary sense it is possible or conceivable.Now making sense of that is impossible!
:D

Dr B

10th January 2007, 08:10 AM

I was comparing it with this offering Dr. B, not saying it convinced me. It has flaws, but overall is an OK read.

cj x

Oh I see :)

I have not read the reference - care to elucidate what he claims, what his stance is and what the problems are?

If this is a BIG undertaking please dont worry and ignore me. I am just genuinely interested to see if he is still making the same mistakes years after others have pointed out those errors to him. ;)

Overman

10th January 2007, 08:18 AM

Overman just completed our new song 'Life After Death' that takes a good secular look at the subject. We should have a live version to post her sometime in Feburary....

I'll keep you posted!

Mike D.

10th January 2007, 08:29 AM

Dr. B,

Here is a link to a review of David Fontana's book:

http://www.accampbell.uklinux.net/bookreviews/r/fontana.html

Mike

Dr B

10th January 2007, 08:49 AM

Dr. B,

Here is a link to a review of David Fontana's book:

http://www.accampbell.uklinux.net/bookreviews/r/fontana.html

Mike

Cheers Mike ;)

It is much appreciated. I will have a read and give some thoughts (though my thoughts will be restricted to the review rather than the primary source - not optimal - but even the review hints to me that Fontana is still fudging the big questions after all these years). :)

Dr B

10th January 2007, 09:07 AM

The quotes below are taken from the link provided by Mike above and are from a review of Fontana's book (By Anthony Campbell). The reviewer is not convinced its that good and based on the points raised (and my previous knowledge of Fontana's work) I would concur that Fontana's arguments are poor. I only quote / respond to a few of the points in case of Copy laws.

David Fontana is fully convinced that there is an afterlife, and this book is a sustained attempt to persuade the reader that he is right. Much of the material he cites is old, and therefore will be largely familiar to people who have already read a certain amount about the subject, but he also includes more recent contributions and quite a lot of these are first hand, deriving from his own experience as a researcher.

Fontana has always trumpeted a survivial hypothesis for as long as I can remember. However, he is well known for not providing any well reasoned case, basing most stuff on anecdotal reports and subjective analysis - rather than empirical data. The fact that most of the stuff is 'not new' is worrying and somewhat telling.

He provides examples drawn from the whole range of evidence categories: hauntings (including poltergeists), mental and physical mediumship, claims for electronic communications from the dead, near-death and out-of-the-body experiences, and reincarnation. For all of these he discusses the possibility of misrepresentation, fraud, and the "super-ESP" hypothesis, but concludes that although they may explain some of the findings they are by no means adequate to explain everything and there is no real alternative to accepting the reality of survival.

This has always been the worrying thing for me about his approach. Survival is only supported by his anecdotal experiences and not objective scientific fact and Fontana has always placed his experience above that of data. Although he claims there is no viable alternative to survivial - his percpetion is largely based in his lack of knowledge about those alternatives (i.e., brain science / physics etc) rather than those alternatives not existing.

For many months Fontana took part in "sittings" organized by a group of experimenters at Scole, in Norfolk. All kinds of phenomena occurred, allegedly by the intervention of discarnate entities. For example, lights floated around the room performing extraordinary gyrations, sometimes entering the bodies of the participants and moving about inside them.

Anecdotal reports in the dark then? This has been largely discredited by Wiseman I believe - see recent copies of the JSPR for some discussions as i seem to remember some debate there.

That Fontana has amassed a pretty large body of evidence to support his claims can hardly be denied, and he does consider all the possible counter-arguments pretty fairly.

I would take issue with the use of the term 'evidence' and i doubt he does consider most of the counter claims - just the main ones - however, I have not read this book so cannot comment too much on that (I just base this on my readings of his prior work)

Fontana explicitly avoids proposing theories,...

Aaaahhhh yes, still doing what he always has. Herein lies the problem (well one of them....).

As with other reviews of the evidence for survival, this one leaves the reader (this reader, anyway) feeling baffled. The whole weight of modern neuroscience makes survival all but inconceivable, ...

Indeed - and Fontana is largely unaware of neuroscience or its contribution. He thinks if he ignores it - it will go away.

Humphreys

10th January 2007, 09:07 AM

Whilst I don't actually believe in life after death, and all evidence I've seen so far has been complete rubbish, I think anyone claiming to know, or even believe there is no afterlife with any confidence, is making an illogical claim.

If we accept the possibility that we might be nothing more than a brain in a vat, we must accept the possibility that there in as afterlife for us, and since there is no evidence for or against this position, we really can't make a confident claim against it.

Any claims so reliant on the underlying nature of reality are pointless.

How can we even say life after death is unlikely?

Is it more or less unlikely that we are living in the Matrix, for example, rather than a material WYSIWYG reality?

I'm interested on people's thoughts on that question.

Humphreys

10th January 2007, 09:11 AM

Just to add to that, I, like everyone else here, lives as if reality is not some kind of illusion, or computer program, because to do otherwise makes getting through the day and trusting anything rather tricky. Obviously we must accept this as true when doing science, too.

However, accepting something as true (as an axiom) for practical reasons is rather different to believing it is more than likely true or false.

Dr B

10th January 2007, 09:21 AM

Whilst I don't actually believe in life after death, and all evidence I've seen so far has been complete rubbish, I think anyone claiming to know, or even believe there is no afterlife with any confidence, is making an illogical claim.

And who claimed that? Not me. The point is as there is no evidence for survival, then there is no reason to assume (automatically) it is true. It does not prove it false either - but the lack of evidence is meaningless either way.

However, positive evidence supporting alternative frameworks is massive - dont ignore that!

If we accept the possibility that we might be nothing more than a brain in a vat, ...

why & in what way?

...we must accept the possibility that there in as afterlife for us, and since there is no evidence for or against this position, we really can't make a confident claim against it.

I think this is a fallacy of reasoning you make here - because the claim you identify has not been made. Straw man? Also, the evidence for brain-based models does go against a survival hypothesis (it makes different predictions). As you know, you need positive evidence - and in the absence of that, all you have is an unsupported idea.

How can we even say life after death is unlikely?

We can say its unlikely for many reasons (no positive evidence from any form of science - strong evidence from other sources suggesting other interpretations). We cannot prove it impossible - but that alone does not make it true :)

Brain based ideas are not correct because there is no evidence for survival - you are right that this would be a fallacy - brain-based theories are endowed with positive evidence supporting their case in their own right. So you can test them and show them false if you like ;)

Dr B

10th January 2007, 09:36 AM

......I think anyone claiming to know, or even believe there is no afterlife with any confidence, is making an illogical claim.

The first part of your sentence (i.e., 'to know') would make it illogical. However, the second part - based on 'confidence' is illogical - because i would imagine confidence is based on probabilities.

There is a difference between what's possible, what's plausible and what's probable...;)

Humphreys

10th January 2007, 09:45 AM

And who claimed that? Not me. The point is as there is no evidence for survival, then there is no reason to assume (automatically) it is true. It does not prove it false either - but the lack of evidence is meaningless either way.

However, positive evidence supporting alternative frameworks is massive - dont ignore that!

I didn't say anyone specifically has claimed it, but I'd say the majority of skeptics I've met are pretty confident that death is the end. The point is, the claim has certainly been made before, and I'm making a statement about anyone who believes that.

If you don't, then great.

why & in what way?

Hehe, how can you argue against a "brain in the vat" hypothesis if you don't know what I mean when I say it?

Basically, I'm talking about any possible theory/idea that suggests material reality is not real, that it is an illusion, and perhaps it is potentially under the control of something other than random chance/nature.

This could mean something akin to the Matrix, a computer simulation, solipsism, consciousness created reality (immaterialism), etc, etc.

I think this is a fallacy of reasoning you make here - because the claim you identify has not been made. Straw man?

No, actually, if I'm guilty of anything, it's posting off topic a little. The claim has definitely been made by many, just not in this thread specifically (yet). You'll have to forgive me for that, but I really was interested in other opinions.

Also, the evidence for brain-based models does go against a survival hypothesis (it makes different predictions). As you know, you need positive evidence - and in the absence of that, all you have is an unsupported idea.

IMO, all the available evidence is compatible with each of the above underlying reality examples, admittedly, it fits some models more naturally than others, to me, but is this actually positive evidence in its favour?

The evidence should certainly make us prefer brain-based models in a scientific sense, but does it actually make it more than likely true, and why?

We can say its unlikely for many reasons (no positive evidence from any form of science - strong evidence from other sources suggesting other interpretations). We cannot prove it impossible - but that alone does not make it true :)

Well, that's what I'm trying to get at, does the evidence available actually strongly support brain-based models over all others?

I haven't seen that it does.

Brain based ideas are not correct because there is no evidence for survival - you are right that this would be a fallacy - brain-based theories are endowed with positive evidence supporting their case in their own right. So you can test them and show them false if you like ;)

You can test them and prove them false, potentially, but can you prove they argue strongly against a Matrix reality model, for example?

Dr B

10th January 2007, 11:08 AM

I didn't say anyone specifically has claimed it, but I'd say the majority of skeptics I've met are pretty confident that death is the end. The point is, the claim has certainly been made before, and I'm making a statement about anyone who believes that.

I am not sure i've encountered the claim in the hard sense you imply. Maybe you could provide an example. If they do, then I would agree with you - no one can claim to 'know' (with respect to 100% proof) and it is logically questionable. However, this does not make it true or false - thats all i was adding. :D

Hehe, how can you argue against a "brain in the vat" hypothesis if you don't know what I mean when I say it?

Hey - i never - i asked for clarification - sorry if that was difficult. ;)

Basically, I'm talking about any possible theory/idea that suggests material reality is not real, that it is an illusion, and perhaps it is potentially under the control of something other than random chance/nature......
.....This could mean something akin to the Matrix, a computer simulation, solipsism, consciousness created reality (immaterialism), etc, etc.

I am still confused what you mean - but dont worry - its probably me. Anyone else get a handle on this metaphor?

No, actually, if I'm guilty of anything, it's posting off topic a little. The claim has definitely been made by many, just not in this thread specifically (yet). You'll have to forgive me for that, but I really was interested in other opinions.

There was an implication in your above posts of making the fallacy i mentioned earlier. I just wanted to be clear - and you have addressed that - so thanks ;) ...but it was implied....

IMO, all the available evidence is compatible with each of the above underlying reality examples, admittedly, it fits some models more naturally than others, to me, but is this actually positive evidence in its favour?

How is brain science compatible with a notion of duality? Do you have any examples for us all to consider?

The evidence should certainly make us prefer brain-based models in a scientific sense, but does it actually make it more than likely true, and why?

Is there some circularity here? - you say it 'should' make us prefer brain-based models (I totally agree). I have my reasons - what are yours? You will proabably find when you identify your reasons you will answer the second part of your question to some degree.

does the evidence available actually strongly support brain-based models over all others? I haven't seen that it does.

How strongly have you looked? What do you find unconvincing and why?

I think you ask some interesting questions - ones i find very interesting indeed. You are right that maybe we should discuss this elsewhere so feel free to set up another thread. However, could I ask in advance you are a little more specific. Some aspects of your questions seem very meta-theoretical and some aspects more related to empirical science. It might be a good idea to discuss at one level rather than fleet between the two as often happens in these discussions.

MichelQC

10th January 2007, 11:17 AM

While on this subject. I am assuming many of you have read this already but here is a link to an exchange between Michael Shermer and Deepak Chopra on the subject of life after death. http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/debates/afterlife.html Now I warn you the Deepak Chopra reply is (in my humble skeptic opinion) painful to read and is riddled with all sorts of woo and mentions of "Quantum consciousnous". :pigsfly But it is nonetheless an interesting exchange and something I'll keep in mind next time I have a discussion with an after life believer.

Yahzi

10th January 2007, 11:39 AM

I said that it is not possible to imagine your own non-existence.
I have no problems imagining this state, in exactly as much detail and verisimilitude as imagining that I had nothing for dinner last night.

You've suggested an interesting possiblity; that the mechanics of imagination are so heavily censored by the ego as to make some thoughts impossible; and while I agree that seems to be the case for some people, I don't think it's a mechanical limit.

SirPhilip

10th January 2007, 02:34 PM

Seems very silly but.......At last a new book has been published setting out the secular scientific case for survival after death. This former stage magician tells us everything that his fellow magician James Randi is very careful not to tell us. more... I never understand these people. If the book vaguely refers to metempsychosis (the impossibility of permanent death) there's nothing uplifting about it. I don't understand why he'd make James a focal point of this though. Sure, almost everyone who's met him regards him as an important activist for public mental health, but he simply goes after superstition-flavored fraud, not superstition and philosophical positions themselves, although I'm sure he considers them regressive tendencies, or not of any worth. If you've ever stepped foot in his library, clearly he's very interested in these subjects.

Dr B

11th January 2007, 03:43 AM

Dr B

11th January 2007, 03:54 AM

One probelm I find with discussion like this (and one other elsewhere on this forum) is that some people think that because one cannot 'prove' survival is impossible, it could be true (argument to ignorance). There is also an additional distortion in that from this, some say "because one cannot 'prove' survival is impossible, it is therefore probable". Note the difference - from a statement with logical form one leaps to an illogical one.

Possibility does not equal probability (in the sense that if something is possible it is thus highly likely). :cool:

I also think views like this misrepresent science, what it is, what it does, and how it does what it does....

Humphreys

11th January 2007, 03:56 AM

I am not sure i've encountered the claim in the hard sense you imply. Maybe you could provide an example. If they do, then I would agree with you - no one can claim to 'know' (with respect to 100% proof) and it is logically questionable. However, this does not make it true or false - thats all i was adding. :D

I remember a poll on this board some time ago where people were asked how sure they were there was no life after death, and a high percentage were near certain, and the majority were very confident.

We could start a poll again, but I'm sure the results wouldn't have changed much. The consensus amongst skeptics is that there almost certainly isn't one. I'm wondering where this "almost certainly" is coming from, since it seems to be grounded in a confident belief that WYSIWYG as far as reality is concerned.

Again, to reiterate, I don't believe in one either.

I am still confused what you mean - but dont worry - its probably me. Anyone else get a handle on this metaphor?

Have you seen the Matrix films? It's just an example of what I'm talking about.

Otherwise, take dreaming and hallucinating as examples. Some dreams, hallucinations, and especially NDEs can seem incredibly real a lot of the time, especially while we are experiencing them, and they can seem perfectly normal, make sense, and we often don't even question the possibility that it might just be an illusion.

Where does our confidence come from that reality itself is not a dream, or a computer simulation?

How is brain science compatible with a notion of duality? Do you have any examples for us all to consider?

Not duality, that would imply a soul communicating with the brain, right? I'm talking about a different type of monism, involving consciousness, or in the case of a computer simulation, I've no idea what you would call that, but it isn't dualism.

As for examples, let's take the most simple example we have - whacking someone over the head. The fact people lose consciousness when this happens could imply that reality is created by the material brain, however, I think this notion is completely compatible with every other underlying reality example I have mentioned.

If reality is a computer simulation, we would expect this functionality to have been programmed in. I've had many dreams where shaking my head would cause me to lose dream consciousness, falling down would cause me to wake up completely, and hitting my head in the dream would certainly cause me to regain consciousness. If consciousness creates the material world, we would also expect it to have created the brain, and to utilize it. Therefore, we would expect playing with the brain to have the same affect as in a material reality.

None of these experiments seems to be more suited to materialism than its opposite, or illusionary reality hypotheses.

Is there some circularity here? - you say it 'should' make us prefer brain-based models (I totally agree). I have my reasons - what are yours? You will proabably find when you identify your reasons you will answer the second part of your question to some degree.

My reasons are mostly practical reasons, not evidence based. In order for us to conduct science successfully, we have to have faith to some extent that the Universe is predictable, consistent, explainable, sensical, and that attaining a theory of everything eventually is a likelihood.

However, if we accept any model other than materialism as an axiom, all that is thrown into doubt. We could have the urge to give up on a problem because it is fundamentally unsolvable, nonsensical, or just a weird computer glitch of some kind, or even something deliberately programmed in to baffle us forever.

Most people will now say that the fact science has been successful is proof that there is a consistent material reality, but by the same token, we can cite any current failures or lack of knowledge of science as evidence of the opposite - like QM.

Although this is an argument from ignorance, it does not mean it's likely that QM will ever be understood, or ever could be, because solving it seems the biggest challenege to science to date.

Could it be so difficult to understand because our underlying reality model is incorrect? It's certainly a possibility.

Dr B

11th January 2007, 04:20 AM

I remember a poll on this board some time ago where people were asked how sure they were there was no life after death, and a high percentage were near certain, and the majority were very confident.

Ah - I see. However, 'very confident' is a relative term and not an absolute one. I dont think that means people around here are 'absolutely certain' of anything and you should not mistake that difference. I would count myself as saying I am 'very confident' that the evidence shows mind is what the brain does. However, this does not exclude other possibilities - its just makes them so extremely unlikely it would be perverse to assume them true at this stage. I am a big advocate of 'more research needed' - but if I were a gambling man i know where my money is going. ;)

Have you seen the Matrix films? It's just an example of what I'm talking about.

Yes but i do not like the metaphorically laden thinking you are using from it - again, maybe thats just me.

Otherwise, take dreaming and hallucinating as examples. Some dreams, hallucinations, and especially NDEs can seem incredibly real a lot of the time, especially while we are experiencing them,

I dont see how this questions a brain-based approach as there are a few good neuro-cognitive accounts for these experiences and why they feel real. For example, excessive neural disinhibition in sensory areas leads to execessively vivid experiences. Vividness is one dimension that makes people view certain experiences as real or not. This has been researched for about the last 60 years.

Where does our confidence come from that reality itself is not a dream...

That is a good question - though the issue of vividness is one dimension for this. As is stability and coherence of stimulation across multi-sensory areas. You could say the brain acts like a scientist, it generates a fiction and tests it against the sensorium - if it stands up to a few tests - you take it as real. Various parts of the brian are known to be involved in this reality-monitoring process and known to breakdown with drugs, stimulation, pathology and disease.

I see normal percpetion (and hence reality) as a form of controlled hallucination. It is a fiction - but a lesser fiction than others. This is an emerging trend in science.

As for examples, let's take the most simple example we have - whacking someone over the head. The fact people lose consciousness when this happens could imply that reality is created by the material brain, however, I think this notion is completely compatible with every other underlying reality example I have mentioned.

How? I'm lost again, sorry.

If consciousness creates the material world, we would also expect it to have created the brain, and to utilize it. Therefore, we would expect playing with the brain to have the same affect as in a material reality.

Consciousness does not have a unidirectional relationship with the brain or the environment and I know of no scientist making such a claim. Thius the earlier part of this statement seems unfounded - at least to me.

None of these experiments seems to be more suited to materialism than its opposite, or illusionary reality hypotheses.

Hold on - you have not made your case yet.....

My reasons are mostly practical reasons, not evidence based.

I did note the lack of evidence :D

In order for us to conduct science successfully, we have to have faith to some extent that the Universe is predictable, consistent, explainable, sensical, and that attaining a theory of everything eventually is a likelihood.

Faith? You are joking right? Faith needs no evidence - are you saying science is the same as religion? - if you are there are thousands of posts around here tackling this and i am not repeating them here.

Although this is an argument from ignorance, it does not mean it's likely that QM will ever be understood, or ever could be, because solving it seems the biggest challenege to science to date.

Indeed it is - and yet you still try to make it. You seem to already know why its nonsense. I get bored when people start banging on about QM - no offence.

Could it be so difficult to understand because our underlying reality model is incorrect? It's certainly a possibility.

But its not difficult to understand! You also dont convince me you know how scientists view the brains reality process so i think you are criticising something you show a limited knowledge of. Maybe that explains it - thats one possibility.

Humphreys

11th January 2007, 05:33 AM

Ah - I see. However, 'very confident' is a relative term and not an absolute one. I dont think that means people around here are 'absolutely certain' of anything and you should not mistake that difference. I would count myself as saying I am 'very confident' that the evidence shows mind is what the brain does. However, this does not exclude other possibilities - its just makes them so extremely unlikely it would be perverse to assume them true at this stage. I am a big advocate of 'more research needed' - but if I were a gambling man i know where my money is going. ;)

But you still haven't made the case that a WYSIWYG reality is more likely than reality being an illusion, or computer simulation.

As I explained, every piece of evidence there is for brain created consciousness is compatible with its opposite.

I dont see how this questions a brain-based approach as there are a few good neuro-cognitive accounts for these experiences and why they feel real.

For example, excessive neural disinhibition in sensory areas leads to execessively vivid experiences. Vividness is one dimension that makes people view certain experiences as real or not. This has been researched for about the last 60 years.

Fine, but this all misses the point.

If I can have a dream that seems more real and vivid than the reality I experience when I am awake, what evidence do you have that this reality is itself not a dream?

That is a good question - though the issue of vividness is one dimension for this. As is stability and coherence of stimulation across multi-sensory areas. You could say the brain acts like a scientist, it generates a fiction and tests it against the sensorium - if it stands up to a few tests - you take it as real.

This make sense to us in this Universe, and we take it as evidence, but when I am dreaming, what occurs in that dream makes sense to me too. Then I awake, and most of what occured seems like incoherent nonsense.

How do you know you won't awake to the same realization tomorrow, only to find this was all a dream or hallucination?

Consciousness does not have a unidirectional relationship with the brain or the environment and I know of no scientist making such a claim. Thius the earlier part of this statement seems unfounded - at least to me.

You've lost me here, I don't see what this has to do with my comments.

I did note the lack of evidence :D

Rather the present fresh evidence, and rather than presenting my own case, I'm trying to show how the evidence you have could be used to support other versions of reality, like a computer simulation reality.

And if not support, they're certainly not evidence against such possibilities.

I don't see that evidence of that kind is even attainable in theory.

Faith? You are joking right? Faith needs no evidence - are you saying science is the same as religion? - if you are there are thousands of posts around here tackling this and i am not repeating them here.

Sigh. I'm saying absolutely no such thing. Maybe faith was a bad word, since it has so many negative connotations.

Let's just say that science is grounded in certain axioms. We must accept certain things, without evidence, in order to get started. Namely that the Universe is inherently sensical, consistent, that there is a material reality "out there", that random chance/nature is the force behind everything, that we are not in a dream or computer simulation, that past experience is a good indicator for future experience.

We also must accept, without evidence, that the past really occured and wasn't just set out by some external force, or wasn't planted in our brains one second ago, and so on, and so on. Call it faith, call it common sense, call it a necessary axiom, parsimony, whatever, but these beliefs are not actually supported by evidence.

Indeed it is - and yet you still try to make it. You seem to already know why its nonsense. I get bored when people start banging on about QM - no offence.

Why do you get bored? I think it's one of the most fascinating subjects around. Maybe it bothers you because we really don't have any good answers as to what is happening at the quantum level and why, and that it really is a worry for science.

If space exists, how can particles communicate instantaneously from any distance?

But its not difficult to understand! You also dont convince me you know how scientists view the brains reality process so i think you are criticising something you show a limited knowledge of. Maybe that explains it - thats one possibility.

I don't think I need to know a great deal about the brain, because philosophically, no evidence that could possibly be presented could discount a dream or Matrix reality, or solipsism, or the possibility that we're just being told what to do and think by an external force, or that your memories of these brain experiments weren't just planted in your head a second ago.

The fact that each of those scenarios are very real possibilities shows how much we need to accept materialism for practical reasons, otherwise we'd never get anything done, but accepting that they're possibilities and therefore being wary of having certainty in anything is what skepticism should really be about, in my opinion.

I always like to take that into account when declaring confidence in anything, not least the fact that death is the end.

Dr B

11th January 2007, 06:01 AM

But you still haven't made the case that a WYSIWYG reality is more likely than reality being an illusion, or computer simulation.

eeerrr - its for you to make the case for your metaphor. You cant simply make a statement and assume you have made a case. You are confused here. I can state the moon is made of cheese - but that is not me making a case - its a statement, and a nonsense one at that.

As I explained, every piece of evidence there is for brain created consciousness is compatible with its opposite.

Wrong - you have not explained this at all - you just keep stating it. Maybe we should wait for others to comment on your apprent 'case' you think you have made. I see no explanation from you at all - or at least not one that would qualify as a scientific one. Dont take my word for it - see what others say. ;) I have seen no such equality in your posts.

If I can have a dream that seems more real and vivid than the reality I experience when I am awake, what evidence do you have that this reality is itself not a dream?

Now you are missing the point.....and its circular.....convinction in an experience does not make it correct.

How do you know you won't awake to the same realization tomorrow, only to find this was all a dream or hallucination?

My previous posts speak to this - but you will need to do some further reading.

You've lost me here, I don't see what this has to do with my comments.

You said consciosuness creates the material world. Is it not also the case that experience with the material world has developed the neural machinery to form consciousness? See - its not unidirectional. You have a simplistic view of consciousness which might explain your confusion :)

Rather the present fresh evidence, and rather than presenting my own case, I'm trying to show how the evidence you have could be used to support other versions of reality, like a computer simulation reality.

But you have not made any such case or provided any such explanation that I can see.

And if not support, they're certainly not evidence against such possibilities.

you keep making these fallacies

Sigh. I'm saying absolutely no such thing. Maybe faith was a bad word, since it has so many negative connotations.

It was factually incorrect as is the paragraph that follows it;)

Why do you get bored? I think it's one of the most fascinating subjects around. Maybe it bothers you because we really don't have any good answers as to what is happening at the quantum level and why, and that it really is a worry for science.

Please make the case for why QM has anything to do with consciousness - and for that you will need evidence - metaphor will not do!

If space exists, how can particles communicate instantaneously from any distance?

Neurons communicate via axons which radiate through extracellular space to other neurons - whats the mystery here?

I don't think I need to know a great deal about the brain, because philosophically, no evidence that could possibly be presented could discount a dream or Matrix reality, or solipsism, or the possibility that we're just being told what to do and think by an external force, or that your memories of these brain experiments weren't just planted in your head a second ago.

Wrong - you do need to know about the brain to examine your statements in the appropriate context. Of course there are philisophical apsects, but there are emiprical ones as well, and you seem unaware of them due to your lack of knowledge about the brain - thats why its boring to talk about QM.

The fact that each of those scenarios are very real possibilities

what about probabilities? - I have made this point numerous times above. You seem to confuse the two and have consistently avoided the distinction ;)
Clearly we disagree - however, lets see what others say about your 'insightful' comments. :cool:

Dr B

11th January 2007, 06:17 AM

btw....scientists do not say that perception is reality - they say the brain represents information coming from the sensorium. These statements are not the same.

I am also unclear on whether you are talking about reality as an external thing (hence your awful Matrix metaphor) or at the level of experience. We may be getting some of our wires crossed on these and many other assumptions you are making. Nontheless, its worth thinking about.
:)

baron

11th January 2007, 06:25 AM

Please make the case for why QM has anything to do with consciousness - and for that you will need evidence - metaphor will not do!

One of the theories on waveform collapse? Not heard of Wigner's friend paradox? The work of Roger Penrose? David Bohm? Amongst many others who are proponents of the theory that consciousness and QM are intrinsically linked. Of course there are some (Amit Goswami springs to mind, having just read one of his books) who are slightly off at the deep end, but many respected physicists take the QM / mind linkage very seriously.

A couple that I Google, I'm sure hundreds more articles exist out on the web ~

http://members.aol.com/Mszlazak/BOHM.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_n6_v15/ai_15447461

Humphreys

11th January 2007, 06:27 AM

eeerrr - its for you to make the case for your metaphor. You cant simply make a statement and assume you have made a case. You are confused here. I can state the moon is made of cheese - but that is not me making a case - its a statement, and a nonsense one at that.

What do you mean "make the case for my metaphor"? Are you even aware what I am/am not arguing?

I am not doing the equivalent of stating the moon is cheese or anything like it. I am claiming that the results of various brain experiments are compatible with world views other than materialism, yet I still accept materalism as true for practical reasons. Why is the onus more on me to prove this than it is on you to prove the opposite, I wonder? Especially since it is you interpreting the results as implying materialism, and I am merely suggesting that they don't necessarily need to be interpreted that way.

Even though I don't see why I should have the onus, apart from the fact that science is materialistic by default, I have still presented an example of how manipulating the brain could illicit the same reactions in a computer simulation or dream reality as it would in a material reality.

If one were to program a computer simulation reality and then stick a person into it, they would surely program the brain as something functional. It would be programmed in that damage to the brain would have an affect on the experiences of the player, and so on. It would basically be programmed to work the same way as a real brain in a real material world. Therefore, any experiments done on brains will produce results compatible with either scenario. In the example of a dream existence, results do not matter anyway, because things make sense in dreams that turn out to be complete nonsense when you awake. You cannot provide evidence that upon awakening from the dream you are in now, you won't suddenly realize what a load of nonsense we've all been talking.

Wrong - you have not explained this at all - you just keep stating it. Maybe we should wait for others to comment on your apprent 'case' you think you have made. I see no explanation from you at all - or at least not one that would qualify as a scientific one. Dont take my word for it - see what others say. ;) I have seen no such equality in your posts.

I've yet to see you present evidence that proves a metarialistic world view over any other example mentioned.

You said consciosuness creates the material world. Is it not also the case that experience with the material world has developed the neural machinery to form consciousness? See - its not unidirectional. You have a simplistic view of consciousness which might explain your confusion :)

I did not state that consciousess creates the material world, I am actually a materalist, I just presented it as a plausible scenario we have yet to prove false. The rest of your paragraph really seems to suggest you still don't know what I'm trying to argue. Maybe that's my fault.

Please make the case for why QM has anything to do with consciousness - and for that you will need evidence - metaphor will not do!

QM is a good example of something science struggles to come to terms with and is just one possibility of a problem that may be more easily answered if we look to the possibility of a non-materialistic underlying reality. It could also be that we'll figure it all out soon and it's completely explainable within our current framework, and I sure hope so, but the point is we cannot have any confidence in statements regarding the afterlife and such because we cannot even have confidence that we are right in our assumptions about the underlying nature of reality.

Neurons communicate via axons which radiate through extracellular space to other neurons - whats the mystery here?

The problem is, we're supposed to be living in space, and yet particles are able to communicate instantaneously as if there was no such thing.

If you don't consider that at least interesting, then I'm at a loss.

Wrong - you do need to know about the brain to examine your statements in the appropriate context. Of course there are philisophical apsects, but there are emiprical ones as well, and you seem unaware of them due to your lack of knowledge about the brain - thats why its boring to talk about QM.

Well, I disagree. I think it is a philosophical certainty that no brain experiment can disprove the Matrix, as just one example. If you think otherwise, show me a study.

what about probabilities? - I have made this point numerous times above. You seem to confuse the two and have consistently avoided the distinction ;)
Clearly we disagree - however, lets see what others say about your 'insightful' comments. :cool:

Fine, I'm sure I know what kind of response I'll get, but I don't like the idea you're almost baiting others to come in and attack me, and I note your use of quotation marks around the word "insightful", which is unecessary.

Moochie

11th January 2007, 06:31 AM

Way I see it, why would I want to survive death?

M.

Dr B

11th January 2007, 06:32 AM

One of the theories on waveform collapse? Not heard of Wigner's friend paradox? The work of Roger Penrose? David Bohm? Amongst many others who are proponents of the theory that consciousness and QM are intrinsically linked. Of course there are some (Amit Goswami springs to mind, having just read one of his books) who are slightly off at the deep end, but many respected physicists take the QM / mind linkage very seriously.

A couple that I Google, I'm sure hundreds more articles exist out on the web ~

http://members.aol.com/Mszlazak/BOHM.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_n6_v15/ai_15447461

I am well aware of this - but none of it establsihes any testable / evidence link between QM and consciousness - so there is a huge explanatory gap between the QM and consciousness. More neuroscintists ignore the Penrose model for these reasons. It suffers terribly at being able to explain anything at a 'meta' level. Or maybe you have some evidence that bridges the gap?

Harlequin

11th January 2007, 06:37 AM

I don't know about that, but I have always contended that it's not possible for someone to believe conclusively that there is no life after death. Certainly such a position can be convincingly argued on the basis of evidence and to a certain extent logic, but the inability of the human mind to imagine oblivion - nothingness - means that we cannot envisage not being alive and thus our belief cannot be total. Similarly, it is not possible to imagine a world that does not contain us, because to do so we would need to put ourselves in the role of observer, and once we do that the original premise of a world in which we don't exist is destroyed.

What if I don't envisage myself not being alive, but rather another person. I can imagine a world that does not contain my neighbour (a blissfull paradise...). If I can imagine it for him then he can surely imagine it for me in return (and probably is). That way both of us get to die. Yay! I believe!!

Of course, I don't agree with your theory that we can only believe in things that we can imagine. There are apparently millions of people believing in invisible sky-daddies. Most of them will tell you that it is impossible to imagine exactly what god is. Does this mean they are not believing?

I don't think "believing" is like "knowing" in the sense that many would claim something must be true for it to be "known". I can have a belief based on a totally false imagining. If I think that "no life after death" will be like the feeling I get just as I fall asleep, then I could believe in it. Just because oblivion is nothing like that (?) doesn't mean I don't believe it.

Wow, I've got all kinds of double and triple negatives in this. What marvelous clarity...

Harlequin

11th January 2007, 06:38 AM

Way I see it, why would I want to survive death?

M.

For the insurance, why else? :rolleyes:

Moochie

11th January 2007, 06:41 AM

For the insurance, why else? :rolleyes:

Don't got no insurance, bro. Don't believe in it.

M.

aggle-rithm

11th January 2007, 06:46 AM

No, you cannot. If you imagine something then you are the observer. If you are the observer then you are part of that scenario.

I am happy to argue this point, but so far nobody has grasped it.

I think I understand what you're saying, but it's a slippery concept. It probably has a lot to do with the fact that the brain is unable to self-reference, which in turn is the basis for dualism, which in turn is the basis for the belief in life after death.

One thing life has taught me is that I can imagine a lot of scenarios, and convince myself that because I can imagine them I understand them. One example is the death of a parent. This is something we all take for granted will probably happen within our lifetimes, but we don't really "get it" until it happens (at least, that was the case for me when my father died).

There is no substitute for first-hand experience, and if you are dead you can't experience anything.

baron

11th January 2007, 06:46 AM

I am well aware of this - but none of it establsihes any testable / evidence link between QM and consciousness - so there is a huge explanatory gap between the QM and consciousness.

That is correct, many scientists do ignore this avenue of research because of its lack of testability using current methods. However, it is still a viable theory that could explain the results of certain QM experiments, bearing in mind that alternative explanations are equally unproven.

Dr B

11th January 2007, 06:50 AM

What do you mean "make the case for my metaphor"? Are you even aware what I am/am not arguing?

At the risk of going around in circles, you are just making statements - not providing explanations. How, where, and why are the explanations equally supportive in the manner you suggest? You simply say there equal - thats your claim. I know debate rages on models etc - but all within the accepted framework I have mentioned. There are other threads where similar discussions have been taking place and i have made similar cases there.

I am not doing the equivalent of stating the moon is cheese or anything like it.

In the absence of evidence - yes you are.

Even though I don't see why I should have the onus, apart from the fact that science is materialistic by default, I have still presented an example of how manipulating the brain could illicit the same reactions in a computer simulation or dream reality as it would in a material reality.

How is this support for your case?

You cannot provide evidence that upon awakening from the dream you are in now, you won't suddenly realize what a load of nonsense we've all been talking.

I think you are the one talking the nonsense - again - for all the reasons already discssed. You just simply make statements all the time, then say 'if they are true...blah...' and you then go on to think it is true....now thats nonsense. ;)

I did not state that consciousess creates the material world...

Yes you did - go back over the discussion.

QM is a good example of something science struggles to come to terms with and is just one possibility of a problem that may be more easily answered if we look to the possibility of a non-materialistic underlying reality. It could also be that we'll figure it all out soon and it's completely explainable within our current framework, and I sure hope so, but the point is we cannot have any confidence in statements regarding the afterlife and such because we cannot even have confidence that we are right in our assumptions about the underlying nature of reality.

Dont get me wrong QM is interesting in its own right - its when people apply it to consciosuness in the absence of evidence or testable links that I get bored.

The problem is, we're supposed to be living in space, and yet particles are able to communicate instantaneously as if there was no such thing.

The problem is - its unlikely to have any implication for consciousness -as the evidence currently stands. However, of course this may well change in the future....but I cant see how......

If you don't consider that at least interesting, then I'm at a loss.

Its your links to consciousness that are not interesting not QM itself. Did you bring any evidence with you for this link...I missed it???

Fine, I'm sure I know what kind of response I'll get, but I don't like the idea you're almost baiting others to come in and attack me, and I note your use of quotation marks around the word "insightful", which is unecessary.

I certainly hope no one reads that they should attack any one here. If anyone attacks you then they are fools. You are right in that i do not find your comments that 'insightful' - but i resent the implication i have asked other to attack you.

You know, i might have been asking others to make the case better than you....did you consider that possibility?

edit - I have said on more than one occassion that i struggle to understand some of your reasoning and openly admitted that its probably me.....

Dr B

11th January 2007, 06:55 AM

That is correct, many scientists do ignore this avenue of research because of its lack of testability using current methods. However, it is still a viable theory that could explain the results of certain QM experiments, bearing in mind that alternative explanations are equally unproven.

I totally agree with you - a viable theory for QM effects it may well be. Though a viable theory for consciousness it is not - at least in its current guise....;) I see no implication for high-level brain function....but again, that could be me..;)

baron

11th January 2007, 07:01 AM

What if I don't envisage myself not being alive, but rather another person.

I think if you consider this you'll realise it has no meaning with respect to consciousness. If you imagine yourself as "another person" you are just talking about physicality, and possibly behavioural traits. You still imagine yourself as "you". If you actually were imagining another person then you would be an external observer and we'd be back to square one.

Of course, I don't agree with your theory that we can only believe in things that we can imagine. There are apparently millions of people believing in invisible sky-daddies. Most of them will tell you that it is impossible to imagine exactly what god is. Does this mean they are not believing?

It's levels of belief, as I touched on before. I believe that my coat's where I left it, in the cloakroom, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. I think that the lack of ability to imagine hinders the ability to completely believe.

If I think that "no life after death" will be like the feeling I get just as I fall asleep, then I could believe in it.

Exactly, although I think you believe you're making an opposing point when in fact you're backing up mine. I expect many people think this way, and although they state they don't believe in life after death, they imagine it as some sort of eternal sleep in which they are necessarily still present. The reason being, as I stated, that it is not possible to imagine one's own non-existance.

I think I understand what you're saying, but it's a slippery concept. It probably has a lot to do with the fact that the brain is unable to self-reference, which in turn is the basis for dualism, which in turn is the basis for the belief in life after death.

It's even simpler than that. It really is only what I said, that imagination requires an observer and if you're imaging your own non-existance there cannot, by definition, be an observer, and therefore the original premise is impossible. (I could have put that better!)

I don't think anyone has understood this yet, although I accept that may be to do with my explanation as much as anything.

Humphreys

11th January 2007, 07:05 AM

At the risk of going around in circles, you are just making statements - not providing explanations. How, where, and why are the explanations equally supportive in the manner you suggest?

I gave an example twice, and it's quoted below, but your reply is "How is this support for your case?".

I'll come to that comment in a moment.

In the absence of evidence - yes you are.

There is plenty of evidence out there, it's just that it can be used to support various models, depending on your preconceived bias.

Can you prove that the evidence you have is incompatible with the other models I have mentioned, and if not, why should we interpret the evidence as being evidence for materialism over any other model?

How is this support for your case?

My case is that the experiments on the brain produce evidence that you believe implies materialism, but my comment showed that we would expect the exact same results within a computer simulated reality, therefore, the experiments cannot distinguish between the two, and therefore cannot be used as evidence of either.

How can that not be support for my case?

Dont get me wrong QM is interesting in its own right - its when people apply it to consciosuness in the absence of evidence or testable links that I get bored.

I did nothing of the kind, though.

Its your links to consciousness that are not interesting not QM itself. Did you bring any evidence with you for this link...I missed it???

Sigh.

Evidence for what?

I'm still not convinced we're even on the same page.

I certainly hope no one reads that they should attack any one here. If anyone attacks you then they are fools. You are right in that i do not find your comments that 'insightful' - but i resent the implication i have asked other to attack you.

You know, i might have been asking others to make the case better than you....did you consider that possibility?

edit - I have said on more than one occassion that i struggle to understand some of your reasoning and openly admitted that its probably me.....

I didn't mean a personal attack, it just seemed a bit like you were trying to pass the buck knowing I'd probably end up having to debate ten people instead of one in order to get my point across.

Never mind.

ETA: My comment on QM actually had nothing to do with consciousness, but was an example of something that could be more easily explainable using a model other than materialism.

Dr B

11th January 2007, 07:14 AM

If consciousness creates the material world, we would also expect it to have created the brain, and to utilize it. Therefore, we would expect playing with the brain to have the same affect as in a material reality.

You mentioned in an earlier post that you did not claim consciousness creates a material world. I must be hallucinating then. :D

Humphreys

11th January 2007, 07:20 AM

Dr_B, the above is NOT a claim, hence the "If".

Dr B

11th January 2007, 07:27 AM

I gave an example twice, and it's quoted below, but your reply is "How is this support for your case?".
I'll come to that comment in a moment.

Your examples are not explanations - that was the context of my points. Obviously if you take them out of context......;)

There is plenty of evidence out there, it's just that it can be used to support various models, depending on your preconceived bias.

and yet you still provide none! Ok, lets be fair. Let me re-phrase it this way. Could you give me a specific example where ideas are equal in the context of our debate. I dont mean go find a study / papers etc (though that would be nice) I mean a clear, specific (not mataphor) example.

Can you prove that the evidence you have is incompatible with the other models I have mentioned, and if not, why should we interpret the evidence as being evidence for materialism over any other model?

There you go again with that word 'proof' I have already explained why science does not deal with 'proof' per-se. It deals with probabilities. I am sure I have said that previously.

My case is that the experiments on the brain produce evidence that you believe implies materialism, but my comment showed that we would expect the exact same results within a computer simulated reality, therefore, the experiments cannot distinguish between the two, and therefore cannot be used as evidence of either.

Thats not a case and your comments have not shown anything...at least to me. Again, I think we are now at a stage we need some examples

I didn't mean a personal attack, it just seemed a bit like you were trying to pass the buck knowing I'd probably end up having to debate ten people instead of one in order to get my point across.

Does it look as if I have passed any buck. I am the only one talking to you at the moment! No, I was inviting others to make comments that might make us both think, and Baron made a good one. I think that helps discussion, dont you? It is a Forum after all.

ETA: My comment on QM actually had nothing to do with consciousness, but was an example of something that could be more easily explainable using a model other than materialism.

I agree with on that one - but this was not the context of the original comments you made. Anyway, in terms of your comment here - at last - something we agree on. ;)

Dr B

11th January 2007, 07:29 AM

Dr_B, the above is NOT a claim, hence the "If".

Thats exactly my point!!!!!!!! You make lots of 'if' statements then go on to assume them true.......you use them as arguments against evidence where the 'if' is considerably smaller...;)

Humphreys

11th January 2007, 07:44 AM

Could you give me a specific example where ideas are equal in the context of our debate. I dont mean go find a study / papers etc (though that would be nice) I mean a clear, specific (not mataphor) example.

Well, my comments on dreams making sense when we are in them is a good example of potential weakness in any theory, since you may wake tomorrow with the knowledge that everything you discussed in your dream world right now was nonsense.

I also stated that if reality was a computer simulation, as an example, we would expect the brain to have been programmed to function exactly the same way as a real material brain, so give me any brain study you have and I can refute your claim that it is evidence for materialism.

Why should I accept your brain studies as evidence for materialism over a computer simulated reality? You have yet to answer that question.

There you go again with that word 'proof' I have already explained why science does not deal with 'proof' per-se. It deals with probabilities. I am sure I have said that previously.

Fine, can you demonstrate that it is probabilistically more likely that materialism is true, over any other model? Can you show that existing brain studies make the case for materialism probabilistically more likely than all others?

Thats exactly my point!!!!!!!! You make lots of 'if' statements then go on to assume them true.......you use them as arguments against evidence where the 'if' is considerably smaller...

The reason I'm making a lot of 'if' statements is because I am trying to get you to think about a lot of other hypothetical questions based on our acceptence (for the sake of argument) of other reality models, like computer simulations, dream realties, consciousness created realities, and so on.

The misunderstanding seems to be your belief that I am trying to argue in favour of any particular model, rather than trying to show why we can't rationally choose one over the other, because all available evidence is compatible with all models, and can be interpreted in different ways.

You keep saying I have yet to prove that, well, you have yet to prove the converse, or since you don't like that word, you have yet to show why materialism is probabilistically likely to be true enough that we can declare that "death is the end" with any confidence.

Dr B

11th January 2007, 07:50 AM

Why should I accept your brain studies as evidence for materialism over a computer simulated reality? You have yet to answer that question.

Computer-simulated reality? Thats an oxymoron surely? What makes you think the computer simulation in any way simulates or is analogous to reality? Its based on the assumptions of the programmer (human) surely? Do you not have a homunculus here?

I have already dealth with most of your other comments already - but will return to some of the others you made above later, gotta dash for now......in the meantime you could look for some of that evidence instead of these circular metaphors....;)

Dr B

11th January 2007, 07:52 AM

Why should I accept your brain studies as evidence for materialism over a computer simulated reality? You have yet to answer that question.

Computer-simulated reality? Thats an oxymoron surely? What makes you think the computer simulation in any way simulates or is analogous to reality? Its based on the assumptions of the programmer (human) surely? Do you not have a homunculus here?

I have already dealt with most of your other comments already - but will return to some of the others you made above later, gotta dash for now......in the meantime you could look for some of that evidence instead of these circular metaphors....;)

Humphreys

11th January 2007, 08:03 AM

Computer-simulated reality? Thats an oxymoron surely? What makes you think the computer simulation in any way simulates or is analogous to reality? Its based on the assumptions of the programmer (human) surely? Do you not have a homunculus here?

I have already dealth with most of your other comments already - but will return to some of the others you made above later, gotta dash for now......in the meantime you could look for some of that evidence instead of these circular metaphors....;)

Computer-simulated reality is not an oxymoron, it is a reality that appears real but is actually a simulation - an illusion. A computer-simulated reality would not be anagolous to reality (that's meaningless), it would BE reality as far as we're concerned, because it would be the only thing we know or have ever experienced, just that it isn't actually real. The point is, there would be another reality one level down from this one controlling it (the computer, or something anagolous to it), meaning at death we would go back into that other reality.

I think, if you understood and read carefully what was being written, you would not ask these questions, and you would not keep requesting evidence for these other models I'm commenting on because I don't claim to have any, in fact, I made it clear I was a materialist.

Whoever is at fault, we seem to have hit a wall where we're not understanding each other and further discussion seems pointless.

Dr B

11th January 2007, 10:11 AM

Computer-simulated reality is not an oxymoron, it is a reality that appears real but is actually a simulation - an illusion. A computer-simulated reality would not be anagolous to reality (that's meaningless), it would BE reality as far as we're concerned, because it would be the only thing we know or have ever experienced, just that it isn't actually real. The point is, there would be another reality one level down from this one controlling it (the computer, or something anagolous to it), meaning at death we would go back into that other reality.

I think, if you understood and read carefully what was being written, you would not ask these questions, and you would not keep requesting evidence for these other models I'm commenting on because I don't claim to have any, in fact, I made it clear I was a materialist.

I dont think I claimed it was your theory per-se. You mentioned a discussion on the fact that the evidence was equally supportive - I asked you on what grounds do you make such a statement - and you have not convinced me of a reason for it. Thats all. No one else looks particularly convinced either......

Whoever is at fault, we seem to have hit a wall where we're not understanding each other and further discussion seems pointless.

One problem is, and this is just one (see earlier for all the others), you have to assume it in the first place to make it work.

I agree we are going around in circles, partly because over the space of one or two posts earlier on you went from survival, to consciousness, to QM, etc. I think juggling too many ill thought out metaphors will always be problematic for debate. Its difficult for me to try to get a handle on your perspective and framework of your questions.

However, I suggest a resolution. I would be delighted to continue our discussion in another, more focussed thread - but please try to stick to the issue when you start it. Articulate exactly the issue you want to discuss within what framework. I promise to pop over there at some point and take part ;) Alternatively we can chat in private (pm) - though I think a Forum discussion might be more rewarding. ;)

Take it easy ;)

Dr B

11th January 2007, 10:48 AM

Why should I accept your brain studies as evidence for materialism over a computer simulated reality? You have yet to answer that question.

I have answered this, but in addition, why are you comparing empirical brain studies to your non-established metaphor, when there is no evidence for your metaphor being true? You acknowledged and admitted your 'argument to ignorance' fallacy a long time ago and have persisted with it. Why?

You seem to be trying to construct a hypothectical metaphor, in the absence of evidence and reason.

Why does the computer-simulated realty compete as an explanation for you? An untestable idea is no more true than it is completely false. As such it is meaningless in the context of this debate.

If you shift the context then maybe we can find a way forward - but are we now talking about survival, brain-science, consciousness, QM, all of the above? :boggled:

Humphreys

11th January 2007, 11:46 AM

I have answered this, but in addition, why are you comparing empirical brain studies to your non-established metaphor, when there is no evidence for your metaphor being true?

In that case, there is no evidence for materialism being true either, as I have explained, because the evidence for materialism is compatible with other models. At least, you've yet to show how it isn't.

You acknowledged and admitted your 'argument to ignorance' fallacy a long time ago and have persisted with it. Why?

The fact the argument is an appeal to ignorance doesn't mean it doesn't have any merit at all. We do not understand QM; Fact. It does not, on the surface, seem to be compatible with materialism; Fact. Although it is an appeal to ignorance this does not change the fact that we may never figure it out within our current framework, and since it seems to me QM is more easily explained by other models, it is at least something to bear in mind.

You seem to be trying to construct a hypothectical metaphor, in the absence of evidence and reason.

I'm looking at all the possibilities, rather than simply assuming materialism is true and refusing to look to other possibiltites, just because we cannot come up with any evidence that differentiates between them.

Why does the computer-simulated realty compete as an explanation for you?

Why not? Is it not a possibilty? Is it unlikely? If so, how unlikely, and how did you come to that conclusion?

My whole point is, since no one can come up with any sound evidence against such a claim, from where does the confidence come from that it is false? Is it inherently ridiculous? Where does our confidence that death is the end come from in the absense of conclusive evidence against a computer simulation model, to give just one example (of which there are many)?

An untestable idea is no more true than it is completely false. As such it is meaningless in the context of this debate.

That may be so, that's why it's fortunate I'm not trying to argue for its existence.

The fact that debating such a matter is meaningless does not mean such an idea is false, and since you correctly state we cannot even know if such a scenario is probabilistically unlikely, from where does our confidence in materialism and death being the end come from, exactly?

If you shift the context then maybe we can find a way forward - but are we now talking about survival, brain-science, consciousness, QM, all of the above? :boggled:

Yes, and they are all connected.

Mike D.

11th January 2007, 03:56 PM

Baron and others,

Here is a link to a thread on a different site. The thread is entitled "Some thoughts on oblivion." I was reminded of it when reading some of your posts here.

http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=5129&s=

Mike

Dr B

12th January 2007, 04:20 AM

In that case, there is no evidence for materialism being true either, as I have explained, because the evidence for materialism is compatible with other models. At least, you've yet to show how it isn't.

What utter nonsense - for all the reasons I have already given.

The fact the argument is an appeal to ignorance doesn't mean it doesn't have any merit at all. We do not understand QM; Fact. It does not, on the surface, seem to be compatible with materialism; Fact. Although it is an appeal to ignorance this does not change the fact that we may never figure it out within our current framework, and since it seems to me QM is more easily explained by other models, it is at least something to bear in mind.

Your argument to ignornace is a fallacy and it is further compounded by the fact you are arguing the evidence and explanations are equal (based on an argument to ignorance for your suggestions). By this definition they are not equal. So, entertaining ideas is one thing, claiming the evidence is equal for them all is something else - its the latter point you have not convinced me of. Why do you keep returning to QM? - we have already discussed why it has nothing to do with consciousness. Also, your other mistake is you seem to imply that because we do not fully understand something that means all ideas are viable. No one is arguing that QM is not a legitimate area of study - just that it is unlikely to have implications for consciousness. I therefore find this new argument as flawed as your other ones.

I'm looking at all the possibilities, rather than simply assuming materialism is true and refusing to look to other possibiltites, just because we cannot come up with any evidence that differentiates between them.

I dont assume its true, you have clearly not undrstood a single word i have written. A vast majority of the evidence from brain science suggests your ideas are very unlikely. But even logically, they dont stand up (Occam? Argument to ignorance? etc).

Why not? Is it not a possibilty? Is it unlikely? If so, how unlikely, and how did you come to that conclusion?

You still confuse possibility with probability - this has been discussed above and is now tiresome.

My whole point is, since no one can come up with any sound evidence against such a claim, from where does the confidence come from that it is false?

And this is another one of your fallacies - science has postivie evidence in favour of alternatives where we dont need to invoke nonsense degrees of freedom in the absence of evidence to do so - so why do it? The evidence is not so much 'against' one idea as 'support' for simpler alternatives. Your ideas have no positive evidence and hence - are not equal.

Is it inherently ridiculous? Where does our confidence that death is the end come from in the absense of conclusive evidence against a computer simulation model, to give just one example (of which there are many)?

where is your confidence that these ideas are incorrect? I have asked all along for evidence and examples and you keep re-stating the same stuff.

The fact that debating such a matter is meaningless does not mean such an idea is false, ....

No - it means its meaningless - however, you ignore the positive evidence from brain science whcih greatly complicates your position.

I think i asked, oh so long ago, for some clarity on your terminology for reality and i hinted at how scientists define it roughly at a brain / experiential level. I dont know if you are talking about 'brain-based reality' or the 'reality out there' - because you seem to fleet between the two. I assume you know that we have no absolute contact with the 'out there' reality? However, i just think you need to be specific as you are trying to have too many things going on at once - at least for me - but hey - as i always said - maybe its me. ;)

Humphreys

12th January 2007, 05:08 AM

You're right, this is getting tiresome, Doctor.

What utter nonsense - for all the reasons I have already given.

You have not made that case, or as far as I can see, even attempted to. You've done nothing but assert baldly.

Your argument to ignornace is a fallacy and it is further compounded by the fact you are arguing the evidence and explanations are equal (based on an argument to ignorance for your suggestions). By this definition they are not equal.

You're getting the arguments mixed up now. What is claimed to be an argument from ignorance was in regards to QM not on brain science/evidence, and was not necessary for my main argument about the models being equal.

Why do you keep returning to QM? - we have already discussed why it has nothing to do with consciousness.

It is very much linked with the underlying nature of reality, which has a huge impact on whether there is survival after death.

I dont assume its true, you have clearly not undrstood a single word i have written. A vast majority of the evidence from brain science suggests your ideas are very unlikely. But even logically, they dont stand up (Occam? Argument to ignorance? etc).

Occam's Razor is a great principal to use, and tells us which theory we should accept for practical reasons, but what it does not do is tell us how likely/unlikely other models are, so in this instance it is close to useless.

You still confuse possibility with probability - this has been discussed above and is now tiresome.

I did nothing of the kind, hence my references to "likely and unlikely".

You completely dodged the question once again.

No - it means its meaningless - however, you ignore the positive evidence from brain science whcih greatly complicates your position.

My argument has been that this evidence is compatible with the other models, you have yet to show otherwise.

I have to get back to work now, you're not saying anything that has not been said and shown to be false already.

Dr B

12th January 2007, 06:36 AM

You're right, this is getting tiresome, Doctor.

No - your poor thinking and argumentation is ;)

You're getting the arguments mixed up now. What is claimed to be an argument from ignorance was in regards to QM not on brain science/evidence, and was not necessary for my main argument about the models being equal.

You see - you are trying to discuss too much at once - to be specific is always best.

It is very much linked with the underlying nature of reality, which has a huge impact on whether there is survival after death.

I cant see it and you have yet to make that argument stand

Occam's Razor is a great principal to use, and tells us which theory we should accept for practical reasons, but what it does not do is tell us how likely/unlikely other models are, so in this instance it is close to useless.

My god, a classic fudge. This ranks as one of the most ridiculous statements you have made - and its up against some pretty stiff competition from your other posts:) Now, you have no argument, no evidence, no specific and viable examples, and now, on top of all this, some scientific principles are not allowed to be applied to you. Special pleading? Sorry - Occam works just as well in practice - even more so with your debate. It is far from useless at it clearly tells us - dont make unecessary assumptions - which is what you have been doing from tha start. I am sorry if its uncomfortable for you - but those are the dice we are dealt.

My argument has been that this evidence is compatible with the other models, you have yet to show otherwise.

Wrong again - you have not made this argument - you just keep stating it. As such there is nothing to answer and there is no challenge - at least as you have posed it here (though i can think how there could be)

I have to get back to work now, you're not saying anything that has not been said and shown to be false already.

Now you are delusional, you have not shown anything false and i dare say if i could be arsed I'd explain why this is another fallacy.....one more for your list.....;)

baron

12th January 2007, 07:03 AM

I'm gonna regret this, but how does "thinking about thinking" differ from telling a story about Bob who is thinking he is Bob and thinking about ice-cream?

Apologies, I missed this first time round. What you describe isn't really what I meant, you are describing thinking about a situation in which another "you" thinks about something. An example of what I was referring to would be if you stared at an orange and as well as being aware of the orange, you were aware of yourself thinking about the orange.

Baron and others,

Here is a link to a thread on a different site. The thread is entitled "Some thoughts on oblivion." I was reminded of it when reading some of your posts here.

http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=5129&s=

Mike

Interesting. I think the OP in that thread is conveying a similar concept to my own with regards to oblivion not simply representing nothing, but representing nothing with nobody to observe it.

Humphreys

13th January 2007, 12:30 PM

My god, a classic fudge. This ranks as one of the most ridiculous statements you have made - and its up against some pretty stiff competition from your other posts:) Now, you have no argument, no evidence, no specific and viable examples, and now, on top of all this, some scientific principles are not allowed to be applied to you. Special pleading? Sorry - Occam works just as well in practice - even more so with your debate. It is far from useless at it clearly tells us - dont make unecessary assumptions - which is what you have been doing from tha start. I am sorry if its uncomfortable for you - but those are the dice we are dealt.

Fine, Doctor moron, it seems we're getting personal.

You have yet to make even one valid argument, or even attempt to. Your whole approach to this debate has been nothing short of appalling. I'm sure you have a good reputation around here, but you have failed to live up to it in this debate.

Now the personal stuff is out of the way, can you explain, or attempt to (once, please), how Occam's Razor dictates that it is probabilistically likely enough that the other models are false, for us to assert confidence that death is the end. Feel free to show your math, since probability seems to be something you're in to.

I'd suggest that Occam's Razor dictates we assume materialism true as far as science is concerned, but certainly should not be used as positive evidence against any other theory, and is most definitely not proof of anything. It is a principal we should adopt when determining between competing theories, and when deciding which to investigate further, but not strong evidence in itself.

The fact we should assume materialism as true scientifically due to parsimony does not mean we can be confident that the other models are false.