survival after death

[baron]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Humphreys]

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

 

[Dr B]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Humphreys]

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?

Yes, and they are all connected.

 

[Mike D.]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Dr B]

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

Ad-homs - the sign of a poor argument. My comments above were direcly at your argument - not you. I can see that this distinction - like so many others - is too subtle for you.

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.

Factually incorrect - because you have not made your case - i have made no direct argument against you (though I keep hinting at where the troublesome information is for you). You have yet to put together an argument. You just keep making statements. Please try harder

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.

You made the absurd claim occam is not important to your nonsense statements - it is. You make other mistakes in assuming how I am invoking Occam - but its clear from above that you have misunderstood the context of its relevance to you.

I have also asked, on numerous occasions for you to be more specific - you have not - to state whether by reality you mean 'out there' or what the brain takes as reality...you have not answered this.....the list goes on.

At no point have you made a case to answer.

btw - there is no logical connection between your two separate unsupported claims of a virtual reality world and survival - how one leads to another is beyond me and clearly beyond you. I hinted along time ago on this - and yet it remains another unanswered statement.

Occam shows - your idea is possible, though unecessary and very clearly unequal as you claimed (and did not back up). This, is the main (though not complete) thrust of my points.