Belief in the Afterlife

[Akhenaten]

Appeal to authority.

Ironic ... the position of the scientific skeptic is an appeal to sceince as an authority ... so are you saying science doesn't count now either?

Science does. Sceince, not so much.

I think you're doing far too much sceince.

 

[Paul2]

Paul, if you want to backtrack, then backtrack all the way. This entire segment of discussion has everything to do with my first post positing the position that an afterlife is possible and your rebuttal with the skeptic in the video you posted. Based on his construct of an afterlife, he makes sense. However his rationale doesn't apply to my position and therefore does nothing to nullify it. Can we agree on that much at least?

Yes, tentatively. Let me think a little longer, I may be able to poke a hole in it. If I can't, then we're good.

 

[Paul2]

Ironic ... the position of the scientific skeptic is an appeal to sceince as an authority ... so are you saying science doesn't count now either?

Folo, this is a major misunderstanding of the appeal to authority. If you want more info about this, let me know.

 

[ufology]

Folo, this is a major misunderstanding of the appeal to authority. If you want more info about this, let me know.

I understand the so-called appeal to authority so-called fallacy just fine. I presented a viewpoint and found an independent source with scientific credentials who is studying the same viewpoint and I used it as a reference, not to prove the theory itself is correct, but to prove that some scientific minds take it seriously. Therefore no "appeal to authority" has taken place. The skeptics however constantly appeal to the "authority" of some scientific figure or another, incorrectly assuming that whatever they say must be correct simply because ... well ... it's "science" ... which was the point I was trying to make.

 

[Akhenaten]

Folo, this is a major misunderstanding of the appeal to authority. If you want more info about this, let me know.

I understand the so-called appeal to authority so-called fallacy just fine.

You should have stopped there and hoped for the best rather than blundering on into a perfect demonstration of the truth of Paul's words.

I presented a viewpoint and found an independent source with scientific credentials who is studying the same viewpoint and I used it as a reference, not to prove the theory itself is correct, but to prove that some scientific minds take it seriously. Therefore no "appeal to authority" has taken place.

Blah . . . blah . . . blah.

That is exactly what an Appeal to Authority is, but in any case you're not even talking about the same post to which Paul's comment was made in response, so you've got Buckley's of being right.

This is what you said:

Ironic ... the position of the scientific skeptic is an appeal to sceince as an authority ... so are you saying science doesn't count now either?

And it is, as Paul said, demonstrative of a major misunderstanding of the Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Invoking actual scientific explanations for things is not the same as invoking the name of a scientist.

And, as I've already mentioned, spelling 'science' wrong in the middle of an attempt to point out what you incorrectly identify as the irony of someone else's post is a deliciously epic fail.

Do you need help with installing a spell checker?

The skeptics however constantly appeal to the "authority" of some scientific figure or another, incorrectly assuming that whatever they say must be correct simply because ... well ... it's "science" ...

This is untrue. Your use of scare quotes indicates that you probably knew this when you were typing it.

As is your wont, you are conflating 'science' with 'scientist' and hoping that nobody notices.

As if.

. . . which was the point I was trying to make.

Even if you'd succeeded in making your point, which you haven't, you'd still be wrong.

 

[Resume]

... and as I've mentioned before, this would enable the possibility of an afterlife.

You can mention it all you like. That's a bit different from demonstrating it; so far all you've demonstrated is a weak supporting argument.

 

[EHocking]

I understand the so-called appeal to authority so-called fallacy just fine. I presented a viewpoint and found an independent source with scientific credentials who is studying the same viewpoint and I used it as a reference, not to prove the theory itself is correct, but to prove that some scientific minds take it seriously. Therefore no "appeal to authority" has taken place. The skeptics however constantly appeal to the "authority" of some scientific figure or another, incorrectly assuming that whatever they say must be correct simply because ... well ... it's "science" ... which was the point I was trying to make.

Rredefinition of science and/or appeal to authority in 5, 4, 3, 2....

 

[Stray Cat]

I understand the so-called appeal to authority so-called fallacy just fine.

I think you've (what I call) 'demonstrated' that your (so called) 'understanding' of the so-called appeal to authority so-called fallacy is not as (shall we call it) 'well rounded' as you think it is.

 

[Paul2]

Ironic ... the position of the scientific skeptic is an appeal to sceince as an authority

Evidence? I see skeptics

1. using the procedures and checks of science,
2. citing scientific studies, sometimes by name of author,
3. using a shorthand for the above ("Einstein showed that . . . .")
but no
4. saying a claim is demonstrated because a scientist says so.

If you can cite an example, I might actually agree with you that it is an appeal to authority. But then, you'd have to show that there are many more of those.

You've got a long way to go.

 

[RobRoy]

Well ... being more than the sum of our individual parts is sort of a mystical belief.

It might be, but that’s not what I was trying to say. I'm not ascribing a mystical portion of "me" to the consciousness. Just stating what you haven't considered in your "computational model".

Not that I don't agree that the effect seems apparent. But in what way do we quantify it? In the computational model, your data set would still be unique to you, no matter where it was manifested. You would not lose your individual identity and you would be no more or less you than you are now.

Right, you hit the nail on the head. You can’t quantify “consciousness”. What you are proposing is that we make a copy of who I currently am, and place it into a storage unit that does not suffer the rigors of biological breakdown which my current body does. That’s all groovy. In fact, that’s damned, damned appealing (so appealing that it’s the basis of Joseph Smith’s LDS religion). To everyone around they will see no difference between RobRoy and RobRoy 2.0. Except RobRoy 2.0 doesn’t have my consciousness. He is his own entity, unique to himself, and separate from me. He starts out with all of my memories, experiences, interpretations, etc., but he is not me. RobRoy 2.0 is someone else entirely different.

So it’s not that I’m losing my individual identity, but rather that RobRoy 2.0 continues on, while RobRoy dies and does not. My conscious self cannot be transferred from my decaying biological shell into a new storage unit. Only the data.

As I said, the scifi show “Caprica” started to explore this same concept (and so have other), and the underlying issues of consciousness. I don’t know if you’ve watched that, so I won’t use the concepts from that show in a more rigorous discussion. Suffice to say that the creation of a new entity based on the original is certainly possible (and very appealing), but that is not the same as transferring my conscious self from one storage unit to another and still have it be me.

 

[ufology]

Evidence? I see skeptics

1. using the procedures and checks of science,
2. citing scientific studies, sometimes by name of author,
3. using a shorthand for the above ("Einstein showed that . . . .")
but no
4. saying a claim is demonstrated because a scientist says so.

If you can cite an example, I might actually agree with you that it is an appeal to authority. But then, you'd have to show that there are many more of those.

You've got a long way to go.

So skeptics don't appeal to to science ( via scientists ) as an authority?

 

[RobRoy]

So skeptics don't appeal to to science ( via scientists ) as an authority?

You're not using the terminology correctly. I'm not mocking you, just pointing it out.

In this case, the fallacy of appeal to authority is saying, "Einstein believed in God" during an argument regarding religion. Einstein was a smart man, but he was an expert in physics, not in theology. On the other hand, citing when Einstein says that he believes in the "God of Spinoza", he appeals to an authority, but he commits no fallacy, because he's clearly defined his terms.

Simply saying that an intelligent individual, Paul2, believes something to be true, without offering additional support for the claim is committing the fallacy of appeal to authority. Saying that Paul2 has shown in his peer reviewed, published research that something is true, is not a fallacy. Further support, such as linking to the article or providing the citation, would remove all doubt.

 

[Akhenaten]

So skeptics don't appeal to to science ( via scientists ) as an authority?

No. The post you're responding to told you as much and pretending that it said something else won't work for you any better than any of your other word twisting balderdash.

 

[ufology]

It might be, but that’s not what I was trying to say. I'm not ascribing a mystical portion of "me" to the consciousness. Just stating what you haven't considered in your "computational model".



Right, you hit the nail on the head. You can’t quantify “consciousness”. What you are proposing is that we make a copy of who I currently am, and place it into a storage unit that does not suffer the rigors of biological breakdown which my current body does. That’s all groovy. In fact, that’s damned, damned appealing (so appealing that it’s the basis of Joseph Smith’s LDS religion). To everyone around they will see no difference between RobRoy and RobRoy 2.0. Except RobRoy 2.0 doesn’t have my consciousness. He is his own entity, unique to himself, and separate from me. He starts out with all of my memories, experiences, interpretations, etc., but he is not me. RobRoy 2.0 is someone else entirely different.

So it’s not that I’m losing my individual identity, but rather that RobRoy 2.0 continues on, while RobRoy dies and does not. My conscious self cannot be transferred from my decaying biological shell into a new storage unit. Only the data.

As I said, the scifi show “Caprica” started to explore this same concept (and so have other), and the underlying issues of consciousness. I don’t know if you’ve watched that, so I won’t use the concepts from that show in a more rigorous discussion. Suffice to say that the creation of a new entity based on the original is certainly possible (and very appealing), but that is not the same as transferring my conscious self from one storage unit to another and still have it be me.

Not exactly. There is no copying involved in the sense you describe. In the computational model, everything ( the entire universe ) including you, your past and your present is already a complete data set of you. Therefore in the computational model, you aren't manifesting something that isn't already you. BTW: yes I watched some of Caprica. I love sci-fi. But again, in that model, you have personalities removed another level from the initial state ... ( from the current reaity into a VR world ). In that model you are absolutely correct about the copying issue.

 

[Stray Cat]

So skeptics don't appeal to to science ( via scientists ) as an authority?

'Science' is not "an authority" it is a methodology and to date, the best methodology for reaching reliable conclusions about the physical world.

It is not a fallacy to appeal to science.

As science is done by scientists, it's not uncommon to cite the work of a particular scientist by name, but it is his work that is being cited as supporting evidence and not his name.

 

[Akhenaten]

In the computational model, everything ( the entire universe ) including you, your past and your present is already a complete data set of you. Therefore in the computational model, you aren't manifesting something that isn't already you.

Well it's not an afterlife then, is it?

 

[ufology]

You can mention it all you like. That's a bit different from demonstrating it; so far all you've demonstrated is a weak supporting argument.

You are misrepresenting my position. You've implied that I need to demonstrate that the computational model is the way things are, but that would only apply if I were making that claim. I am not doing that. I'm only claiming that if it were true, and there seems to be no logical reason why it couldn't be, that it would allow for the possibility of an afterlife.

 

[RobRoy]

Not exactly. There is no copying involved in the sense you describe. In the computational model, everything ( the entire universe ) including you, your past and your present is already a complete data set of you. Therefore in the computational model, you aren't manifesting something that isn't already you.

Great. Then you should see that within the confines and reality of the "computational model" there is no way to transfer my consciousness to another storage unit.

BTW: yes I watched some of Caprica. I love sci-fi. But again, in that model, you have personalities removed another level from the initial state ... ( from the current reaity into a VR world ). In that model you are absolutely correct about the copying issue.

That's not what I'm referencing from the show. As you're familiar, I'm citing the difference between the original Zoe and her Zoe avatar. Those were two completely different beings of consciousness. The original Zoe, Zoe 1.0 became a Soldier of the One and was killed when her boyfriend bombed the train. Zoe 2.0 was a simulacrum, and in almost every way the exact duplicate of Zoe, right down to believing she was the original. But she wasn't. Zoe 1.0 didn't transfer her consciousness into the avatar. She created the avatar from an extensive list of data points that gave the avatar Zoe 1.0's personality and which acted in almost every way like the original.

But the original was dead, and there was no transfer of consciousness. She ceased to exist, and Zoe 2.0 was not an afterlife for the original.

Well it's not an afterlife then, is it?

Exactly. By almost any definition, what ufology is describing, even if the science fiction portion were possible, isn't afterlife. It's just life, a continuation in a different storage unit.

 

[ufology]

'Science' is not "an authority" it is a methodology and to date, the best methodology for reaching reliable conclusions about the physical world.

It is not a fallacy to appeal to science.

As science is done by scientists, it's not uncommon to cite the work of a particular scientist by name, but it is his work that is being cited as supporting evidence and not his name.

That's just the same as saying, "Because some scientist or another says so then it lends credibility to my case". So what? It's still an appeal to authority, however you're missing my initial point. Appeals to authority can be perfectly valid, but not simply because they come from a scientist or other expert, but because they have some objective basis that stands on its own regardless. Science tends to emulate this but it doesn't always get it right.

 

[ufology]

Great. Then you should see that within the confines and reality of the "computational model" there is no way to transfer my consciousness to another storage unit.



That's not what I'm referencing from the show. As you're familiar, I'm citing the difference between the original Zoe and her Zoe avatar. Those were two completely different beings of consciousness. The original Zoe, Zoe 1.0 became a Soldier of the One and was killed when her boyfriend bombed the train. Zoe 2.0 was a simulacrum, and in almost every way the exact duplicate of Zoe, right down to believing she was the original. But she wasn't. Zoe 1.0 didn't transfer her consciousness into the avatar. She created the avatar from an extensive list of data points that gave the avatar Zoe 1.0's personality and which acted in almost every way like the original.

But the original was dead, and there was no transfer of consciousness. She ceased to exist, and Zoe 2.0 was not an afterlife for the original.



Exactly. By almost any definition, what ufology is describing, even if the science fiction portion were possible, isn't afterlife. It's just life, a continuation in a different storage unit.

Actually I was referencing exactly what you mention in the sense of there was the original Zoe and then there was the Zoe in the VR realm, one being original and the other being a copy ( or more accurately as you point out a reconstruction ). However we seem to still be having an issue on the difference between that and our existence within the computational model ( of the universe ). Continuing in another realm beyond this one after we complete our cycle here doesn't require being transferred into another storage unit. But even if it did, provided all the data that makes up you was moved ( not copied ), it wouldn't make any difference anyway. You would still be you no matter where it was moved to.