survival after death

[Mangafranga]

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]

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

 

[Donn]

Post delayed due to JREF databse errors.

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!

 

[Dr B]

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]

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]

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!

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]

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]

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!

 

[Dr B]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

......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]

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]

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.

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]

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". 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.