Do you believe there is some form of self-conscious life after death?

[skeptichaggis]

How is it impossible? Explain it like it really is.

Its clearly impossible for a soul to exist,your brain in you,when it goes you go. Nothing suggests otherwise.

 

[annnnoid]

More skeptic ideology. Y’see Thor…very easy to find.

Its clearly impossible for a soul to exist

Not even wrong. See post 131.

your brain in you,when it goes you go

Empirical definition for the word ‘you’ please.

Nothing suggests otherwise.

Lots suggests otherwise. You just ignore it all. It doesn’t not exist just cause you don’t want it to. That’s called ‘denial.’ Another very common feature of the wonderfully vibrant skeptic ideology.

 

[Steve001]

Well if you can give us an example of a conscious entity not attached to anything material I will modify my opinion. Can you give an example with proof? (One question mark is sufficient).

What is this stuff about skeptic ideology? Never heard of that one before.

Lurk for awhile at the Skeptiko forum and you'll find out.

 

[Dr.Sid]

It is trivially easy to demonstrate that there is purpose in this universe. You just asked me a question. You are a feature of ‘the universe.’ Your purpose (which, ultimately, is a creation of ‘the universe’) is, I suppose, to solicit an answer. Thus you yourself are evidence that there is purpose in the universe.

…but if you are stating that the universe in totality has no purpose, the claim is incoherent for three obvious reasons:

1) … nobody has come anywhere close to any kind of understanding of ‘the universe in total’ (so it is utterly impossible to determine [or make empirical claims about] what it is that may, or may not, have a ‘purpose’)
2) …we do not have anything remotely resembling an empirical understanding of the word ‘purpose’ (or if there even can be such a thing)
3) …we do not know how such an understanding (of the word ‘purpose’) might be applied to whatever a universe is

Thus your claim is nonsense.

I proclaim this a victory of yours, and I run away in disgrace. As fast as I can ..

 

[Steve001]

Its clearly impossible for a soul to exist,your brain in you,when it goes you go. Nothing suggests otherwise.

Anyone can have a highly confident opinion something is very unlikely with significant data, but to say something is impossible goes too far. While I think you may be right I can't say it is impossible, because there may be some data that is just too ephemeral to examine with any precision and consistent repeatability. An example is megacryometeors and ball lightning. In essence what can't be done is proving a negative.

 

[bruto]

One might, if one cared to, consider that if the universe is everything that there ever is, was, or will be, and if the universe is inherently the most grandiose and wonderful and complete thing that ever is, was, or could be, then just existing is the most complete purpose there ever could be. There is, after all, nothing beyond it, greater than it, outside it, before or after it. If the universe is everything, what could possibly be more important than being the universe? If a theist does not require a point to his god other than the inherent one, why should an atheist require a point to the universe?

 

[Jodie]

Its clearly impossible for a soul to exist,your brain in you,when it goes you go. Nothing suggests otherwise.

Not if the soul ( as a part of you that survives after death) isn't part of your consciousness ( defined as your identity here on earth).

Let me caveat what I'm about to say in that I don't claim to be a Christian, however, I am a spiritual person so I am biased towards the concept of survival after death.

I also have a theoretical understanding of physics, however, some of the concepts in physics don't relate well to what we observe in time and space i.e. where are you going to find vectors in outer space? That's only a construct we use to describe a concept.

That leads me to information. What is information? I think of it as anything that makes up the universe such as matter, time, space all rolled into one. Can something like a soul be considered information and can that information ever be destroyed or lost?

We simply don't know.

 

[Thor 2]

Not if the soul ( as a part of you that survives after death) isn't part of your consciousness ( defined as your identity here on earth).

Let me caveat what I'm about to say in that I don't claim to be a Christian, however, I am a spiritual person so I am biased towards the concept of survival after death.

I also have a theoretical understanding of physics, however, some of the concepts in physics don't relate well to what we observe in time and space i.e. where are you going to find vectors in outer space? That's only a construct we use to describe a concept.

That leads me to information. What is information? I think of it as anything that makes up the universe such as matter, time, space all rolled into one. Can something like a soul be considered information and can that information ever be destroyed or lost?

We simply don't know.

It would be nice if we could have a theist, or spiritual person, give us a clear definition of what a soul is followed by some proof of it's existence.

We have posters like annnnoid throwing the question back at atheists wanting us to define something we don't believe in and prove it's non existence.

It's just the same old shifting the onus of proof strategy that theists persist with.

 

[Jodie]

The concept of a soul is just that, a concept, much like that of the mind. I remember reading Piaget in my child development classes and the discussion about how the mind matures.

If you miss critical periods of crucial exposure to language, you can never learn to speak. If you can't speak, you can't make connections with your physical environment to make sense of the world that you live in.

This is why I don't necessarily equate a soul with consciousness. I think when you look at how the mind works alone without considering the input from the environment that goes into developing that mind, the embodied agent that bases decisions on that input, in order to create a model of a world to work within then you've simply decided to look at a bucket without considering the potential contents of the bucket.

Also, you can't create sentient life by reanimating a body, at least not to my knowledge. Cryo is available for future improvements in medicine but I don't think anyone has been successfully reanimated. There is obviously some missing ingredient that we don't understand.

 

[Steve001]

Not if the soul ( as a part of you that survives after death) isn't part of your consciousness ( defined as your identity here on earth).

Let me caveat what I'm about to say in that I don't claim to be a Christian, however, I am a spiritual person so I am biased towards the concept of survival after death.

I also have a theoretical understanding of physics, however, some of the concepts in physics don't relate well to what we observe in time and space i.e. where are you going to find vectors in outer space? That's only a construct we use to describe a concept.

That leads me to information. What is information? I think of it as anything that makes up the universe such as matter, time, space all rolled into one. Can something like a soul be considered information and can that information ever be destroyed or lost?

We simply don't know.

Information can be lost certainly. Suppose I write information on a piece of paper then burn the paper then smear the ash. The information is irretrievably lost. As for the soul, what keeps it from following the law of increasing entropy?

 

[Myriad]

The concept of a soul is just that, a concept, much like that of the mind. I remember reading Piaget in my child development classes and the discussion about how the mind matures.

If you miss critical periods of crucial exposure to language, you can never learn to speak. If you can't speak, you can't make connections with your physical environment to make sense of the world that you live in.

This is why I don't necessarily equate a soul with consciousness. I think when you look at how the mind works alone without considering the input from the environment that goes into developing that mind, the embodied agent that bases decisions on that input, in order to create a model of a world to work within then you've simply decided to look at a bucket without considering the potential contents of the bucket.

When I look at myself, I recognize that everything in my "bucket" (memories, knowledge, experiences, vocabulary, skills) came directly or indirectly from the world or from the interactions of my brain and body with the world. Those interactions include tactile sensation, manipulation of things, the learning of narratives, acquiring images (whether directly seen, seen in print or on a screen, or imagined from e.g. text descriptions), schooling, conversation.

Is that what you mean by the soul? The world, or the parts thereof that contribute to filling the bucket? Because I'm pretty sure that the world does indeed continue on after our deaths and will continue on after mine. But calling that the soul seems rather at odds with most religious narratives both eastern and western, which seem to go the opposite way and consider the soul something completely individual and completely separate from the world.

Also, you can't create sentient life by reanimating a body, at least not to my knowledge. Cryo is available for future improvements in medicine but I don't think anyone has been successfully reanimated. There is obviously some missing ingredient that we don't understand.

I reanimate from a state of non-sentience and non-self-awareness pretty reliably each morning (and often several times during the night as well). I've also re-animated several times from states of completely suppressed responsiveness and complete non awareness induced by anesthesiologists.

Re-animation from states in which brain cells have died due to oxygen deprivation or other metabolic disruption (a condition usually referred to as "dead") being impossible is no more evidence for a mysterious soul as the difficulty of starting a car that's been shredded for scrap is evidence of mysterious car spirits. Re-animation from temporary incapacitation of the brain in a state that preserves the brain cells' viability, such as severe hypothermia or the aforementioned anesthesia, is quite possible. Re-animation from freezing is so far a matter for speculative fiction or philosophical hypotheses, because we do not know how to freeze a brain in the first place without that resulting in massive damage to the membranes of the brain's component cells.

 

[C_Felix]

Just jumping into this thread now...

No, I don't believe there is some form of consciousness; but I sure hope so.

 

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Oh, if I may just add this other thing. Tell us about this skeptics ideology please annnnoid. I am interested to hear about it.

See above.

Naaa ........ you will have to do better than that. Point me in the direction of some writing by a learned skeptic of fame detailing skeptics ideology.

 

[Donn]

One might, if one cared to, consider that if the universe is everything that there ever is, was, or will be, and if the universe is inherently the most grandiose and wonderful and complete thing that ever is, was, or could be, then just existing is the most complete purpose there ever could be. There is, after all, nothing beyond it, greater than it, outside it, before or after it. If the universe is everything, what could possibly be more important than being the universe? If a theist does not require a point to his god other than the inherent one, why should an atheist require a point to the universe?

Very nicely put.

 

[Donn]

It would be nice if we could have a theist, or spiritual person, give us a clear definition of what a soul is followed by some proof of it's existence.

We have posters like annnnoid throwing the question back at atheists wanting us to define something we don't believe in and prove it's non existence.

It's just the same old shifting the onus of proof strategy that theists persist with.

Annnnnoid's is a strange case. If you get to him, he will obliterate you from his ken. If you engage him, you will gradually become a bot.

There is no third state.

 

[Donn]

That leads me to information. What is information? I think of it as anything that makes up the universe such as matter, time, space all rolled into one. Can something like a soul be considered information and can that information ever be destroyed or lost?

We simply don't know.

1. Assume a soul is real, by fiat: "something like a soul"
2. Apply it to questions about reality, to dust it with certitude.
3. Having rolled your giant hollow rabbit into place, retreat and await with a "simply don't know."

 

[abaddon]

You folks are so predictably incestuous. Good thing this isn’t the science section cause this is just about as unscientific as it gets!

Nope. It is the very same reason that ongoing research into the reality of unicorns is not happening. None have ever been observed and there is no reason to think they ever will be.

The very same applies reason applies to non-material consciousness not attached to material brains. None have ever been observed and there is no reason to think they might be in the future.

If you had actual counter examples of non-material consciousnesses without material brains, you would have already cited them, even if you had only a single, solitary one. That fact that you cannot demonstrates that you acknowledge none exist.

From a scientific perspective, one leaves the door open to the possibility that sometime in the future, such a discarnate entity might very well be discovered, but that is highly unlikely since none such has yet been observed.

Compare to the religious mindset, which insists that it knows for a fact that such discarnate entities exist beyond all doubt and the there is no possible evidence which will change their mind.

No empirical definition of ‘self.’
No empirical definition of ‘conscious.’

I would have thought that self evident, but if you want to go that basic...

"self" and "conciousness" are emergent properties of a functioning brain.

…and for those whose understanding of elementary logic has yet to progress beyond first grade…”I haven’t found one yet” is not equivalent to “none exist.”

Strawman.

While none have yet been found, that does not eliminate the possibility that one might be at some future point in time, although it is pretty unlikely at this point.

...but long before you can get to the logic, you have to actually define your terms. What are you even talking about? The ONLY way this claim can be valid is:

a) …if you have en empirical definition for the word ‘self’
b) …if you have an empirical definition for the word ‘conscious’
c) …if you have an empirical explanation for the relationship between the brain and a) and b)

See above. Emergent properties. Try to get your head around them.

This is how science currently describes c):

"We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain and we do not know whether consciousness can emerge from non-biological systems, such as computers.”

Partially true. Bear in mind that back in 1900 we had no complete model for sub-atomic physics. We have progressed on that topic in leaps and bounds yet still do not have a complete theory. The issue of "self" and "consciousness" is more complex still by orders of magnitude, nevertheless, progress os continuously happening.

As for a) and b)…there doesn’t even begin to exist anything remotely resembling an empirical resolution to either of those points…but I can unconditionally guarantee that if you could produce one you’d be a shoe-in for next years Nobel.

See above. Complex emergent properties are a viable explanation. Already, we a close to being able to read images directly from a living brain.

A Nobel is worth over a million bucks!

And you could win it yourself by demonstrating a non-corporeal consciousness. What are you waiting for?

…would sure be better than being an ignorant skeptic who can’t deal with the facts now wouldn’t it.

You seem a little short on facts.

According to the facts…there does not exist anything remotely resembling empirical definitions for the terms in your claim (unless you can produce some).

…therefore your claim is garbage!

Done. You will try to handwave them away, of course.

Actually…no, my apologies…it’s not garbage. This is, after all, a religion thread. As a religious claim, as a statement of faith (aka: ideology)…I guess it’s perfectly valid.

Nope. It is evidentially based. As you would know if you had the slightest knowledge of meural networks and emergent properties.

So quite alright Thor 2 (and friends)…you’re just exercising your right to religious freedom. Good on ya!

Nope. Science quite happily acknowledges those areas where there is insufficient knowledge to be definitive. Religion is precisely the opposite, insisting as it does that it possesses knowledge it cannot possibly have.

…but if you take it over to the science section…then it’s garbage.

See above.

I agree. You posted garbage.

 

[annnnoid]

It would be nice if we could have a theist, or spiritual person, give us a clear definition of what a soul is followed by some proof of it's existence.

There is no clear definition for the word ‘soul’…just like there is no clear definition for countless ‘things’ that you live with without the slightest protest every moment of your life (‘self’ and ‘consciousness’ are two examples that come to mind)!

We live with a vast number of ‘things’ for which we have no clear definition….as well as a vast number of ‘things’ for which we have no empirical proof. It is trivially easy to locate them.

We have posters like annnnoid throwing the question back at atheists wanting us to define something we don't believe in and prove it's non existence.

There are those who are making dumb claims. They are dumb because the primary features of those claims lack anything remotely resembling an explicit definition.

How is it possible to definitively claim something does not exist when neither you nor anyone else has any clear idea what this thing is that you are claiming does not exist????

These are YOUR claims. If you don’t want to be guilty of making dumb claims …then don’t make dumb claims!

It's just the same old shifting the onus of proof strategy that theists persist with.

S’cuse me…YOU were the one who made the claim. That means YOU are the one guilty of moving the goalposts.

Naaa ........ you will have to do better than that. Point me in the direction of some writing by a learned skeptic of fame detailing skeptics ideology.

Sure….if you can explain why only the ‘learned’ and or / ‘famous’ can possess an ideology.

(snip)

Since you obviously don’t have a clue what the word ‘empirical’ means, there is no point in continuing this discussion.

 

[Dr.Sid]

IMHO the whole idea of afterlife is based on our fear of death, period. We wish we wouldn't die, that's why we believe we wouldn't completely die.

 

[MikeG]

.............How is it possible to definitively claim something does not exist when neither you nor anyone else has any clear idea what this thing is that you are claiming does not exist????..........

We don't have to, of course. It is up to the people making the positive claim (that something exists) to support this with evidence. The null hypothesis is that it doesn't exist until it is shown that it does. So, if you've got evidence that there is such a thing as a soul, however you choose to define that, please, be my guest..............give us some evidence. Otherwise, the null hypothesis pertains. Onus.