Belief in the Afterlife

[RobRoy]

I just watched it again. Harris didn't say that. How would he know, anyway?

He wouldn't, he'd be guessing. I suppose I can see that argument, but I'd have to think about it some. Removing the consciousness from the biological would definitely change the manner in which we perceived the world. I'm not certain I have the capacity to go much beyond that, though.

 

[George 152]

[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/FoloFriends.jpg[/qimg]​

I wonder why that is

 

[RobRoy]

I wonder why that is

At a guess:

1 - Insulting people
2 - Never admitting he's wrong, even after several people carefully and politely point it out over many posts
3 - Arguing his own point of view for arguments sake, rather than trying to have a discussion​

But that's just a guess. I assume in a computational model, he's already enjoying his afterlife and it's quite wonderful.

 

[Marduk]

At a guess:

1 - Insulting people
2 - Never admitting he's wrong, even after several people carefully and politely point it out over many posts
3 - Arguing his own point of view for arguments sake, rather than trying to have a discussion​

.

4 lying about evidence
5 debating dishonestly
6 pretending to be an authority
7 making crap up as he goes along


who's got the last 3

 

[RobRoy]

4 lying about evidence
5 debating dishonestly
6 pretending to be an authority
7 making crap up as he goes along


who's got the last 3

Aren't all of those pretty much the same thing?

 

[Marduk]

Aren't all of those pretty much the same thing?

well at least he's consistent

 

[RobRoy]

well at least he's consistent

There is that. I hate to be down on the guy, because up until he insulted me, and then started to patently ignore being obviously wrong, it was an interesting conversation. He seems to have dropped off here entirely, which is probably a good thing.

 

[AdMan]

There is that. I hate to be down on the guy, because up until he insulted me, and then started to patently ignore being obviously wrong, it was an interesting conversation. He seems to have dropped off here entirely, which is probably a good thing.

Oh, he'll be back...

 

[Resume]

4 lying about evidence
5 debating dishonestly
6 pretending to be an authority
7 making crap up as he goes along


who's got the last 3

8 Rredefinition
9 Retrofitting details

And?

 

[RobRoy]

Oh, he'll be back...

I won't hold my breath on the apology, though.

8 Rredefinition
9 Retrofitting details

And?

Hand-waving and foot-stomping?

 

[Krikkiter]

Apologies in advance for the rather long winded reply.

Sure, the question is related. Just not in the way you have interpreted as an appeal to authority ( which is what I presume is still the issue ). The entire issue is simply for the sake of participation in an informal discussion.¹ So I posed the question somewhat rhetorically² as an interpretation of Paul's implied dismissal on the grounds of a lack of evidence. In other words: So ... OK What information is out there that we might interpret as evidence ...³

¹ So you are saying that you're not trying to show evidence of anything, it's just an informal discussion where no-one is required to show evidence? If that's the case then you're at the wrong forum. You've stated that "Personally I believe the computational model is the best theory for explaining our reality ..." but you're not interested in presenting evidence in support of this view at a skeptics forum?

² If the question was rhetorical you'd either be using it as a lead into an exposition of evidence and/or we'd already know the answer. I'm not sure you understand what a rhetorical question is let alone the context in which it should be used.

³ There is no reason for you to use "other words." The question you posed is:

"... what evidence is there that we might be living in some form of generated construct?"

You changed that to:

"OK What information is out there that we might interpret as evidence."

Can someone help me out here? I'm not sure that it's the right idea to go looking for information that we might interpret as evidence. There seems to be something not quite right about this but I can't put my finger on it.

Either way, I can't see how either of those questions is rhetorical except in the sense that you're about to present evidence which would make a reply unnecessary.

Then you launch into exactly the fallacy I and others have shown you to be committing:

well if you look at at this way this seems to make some sense ... and so and so over there with some scientific credentials also thinks it does ... so maybe he has some reasons ...

and if you find this interesting you might want to check it out ... That's all I'm saying.

And if that's all you're saying what was the point of letting us know about scientific credentials? In a general interest sense (no evidence required) scientific credentials are superfluous.

I'm not making any claims for truth or certainty or belief of or in it⁴ or any of that. Most simply put, if you had asked me if I think that because the scientist I used as a reference says it seems like we're living in a simulated universe that it must be true ... I would have said, "Of course not, we don't have sufficient evidence, but it is pretty interesting."⁵

⁴ You did say this though:

Personally I believe the computational model is the best theory for explaining our reality ...

So what are we to think?

⁵ So in summary, you are saying that although you personally believe that the computational model is the best theory for explaining our reality, and that there is circumstantial evidence to support this view and that some scientists are interested in the idea and that the computational model enables an afterlife, you don't think there's any need to present any evidence to back up any of the above.

You've stated that you think an afterlife is possible given the existence of the computational model but you've not shown evidence and you think there's no need to. That is exactly the kind of reasoning I've had from these other people I've had conversations with. The reason they believe, I think, is because they're too proud to admit they haven't thought their ideas through.

 

[AdMan]

[...]The question you posed is:

"... what evidence is there that we might be living in some form of generated construct?"

You changed that to:

"OK What information is out there that we might interpret as evidence."

Can someone help me out here? I'm not sure that it's the right idea to go looking for information that we might interpret as evidence. There seems to be something not quite right about this but I can't put my finger on it.

Based on his history here, it's one of ufology's favorite tactics--start off with a predetermined conclusion and then pick and choose and twist the "evidence" to make it fit, while ignoring everything that conflicts with that conclusion. It's sometimes known as the slanting fallacy.

In the UFO threads it's been explained to him how and why this approach is incorrect, but he refuses to admit he does it or to stop doing it.

 

[ufology]

Apologies in advance for the rather long winded reply.



¹ So you are saying that you're not trying to show evidence of anything, it's just an informal discussion where no-one is required to show evidence? If that's the case then you're at the wrong forum. You've stated that "Personally I believe the computational model is the best theory for explaining our reality ..." but you're not interested in presenting evidence in support of this view at a skeptics forum?

² If the question was rhetorical you'd either be using it as a lead into an exposition of evidence and/or we'd already know the answer. I'm not sure you understand what a rhetorical question is let alone the context in which it should be used.

³ There is no reason for you to use "other words." The question you posed is:

"... what evidence is there that we might be living in some form of generated construct?"

You changed that to:

"OK What information is out there that we might interpret as evidence."

Can someone help me out here? I'm not sure that it's the right idea to go looking for information that we might interpret as evidence. There seems to be something not quite right about this but I can't put my finger on it.

Either way, I can't see how either of those questions is rhetorical except in the sense that you're about to present evidence which would make a reply unnecessary.

Then you launch into exactly the fallacy I and others have shown you to be committing:





And if that's all you're saying what was the point of letting us know about scientific credentials? In a general interest sense (no evidence required) scientific credentials are superfluous.



⁴ You did say this though:



So what are we to think?

⁵ So in summary, you are saying that although you personally believe that the computational model is the best theory for explaining our reality, and that there is circumstantial evidence to support this view and that some scientists are interested in the idea and that the computational model enables an afterlife, you don't think there's any need to present any evidence to back up any of the above.

You've stated that you think an afterlife is possible given the existence of the computational model but you've not shown evidence and you think there's no need to. That is exactly the kind of reasoning I've had from these other people I've had conversations with. The reason they believe, I think, is because they're too proud to admit they haven't thought their ideas through.

Krikkiter,

I'll sure give you credit for tearing right into all the little details, but you're really over analyzing it. Yes I think the computational model is the best explanation for reality I've run across. But that's not the same as saying that I believe it is actually the case. I admit I haven't thought it all the way through, but that's only because fully understanding reality is a very complex issue and nobody has the answer. So I think anyone who says they have thought it all the way through would be being pretentious. However I do claim to have thought it through far enough to be able to compare it to the logic the skeptic used in the video Paul posted, which brings us to the idea of evidence being required. In the video, the skeptic made no effort to provide any evidence that ectoplasm and software run on the brain had any evidence either because it's simply illustrative of a particular hypothetical position. That is perfectly fair, and if it's fair for him to do it, then it's equally fair for me to do the same. Keep in mind that the context of this issue isn't about proving we are in a generated construct, only that if we suppose we were, then "x,y,z" ( x being an afterlife ) are possibilities. Now even though in this context no evidence is required, I posted some references anyway for anyone who might be interested in exploring the idea. We also touched on some issues that lend circumstantial evidence for it. Now I think that we might get further and learn more if we focus on those particular ideas, because for me, I haven't been able to get past them and so far as I know, nobody in the history of mankind has either. Who knows ... maybe if you apply that analytical mind of yours to the issues of the topic rather than my presentation style, some overlooked detail might pop out that can move the discussion forward.

 

[catsmate]

Kryten: But, sir, do you not believe that God exists in all things? Are you not a pantheist?
Lister: Sure, I just don't think it applies to kitchen utensils. I'm not a frying pantheist.

Kryten: Is it not written in the Electronic Bible that the iron shall lie down with the lamp?

Lister is also the god of the cats, as revealed in "Waiting For God". I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make by referencing the programme, though. It doesn't support anything you're saying in any way that I can see.

For cats to have gods they'd have to accept something in the universe is superior to them; I see no sign of this.

 

[catsmate]

Not really. What's silly is pretending to ones self that one does not have this kind of feeling at all and projecting it onto those that do. Saying for instance: "It's so comforting not (having this new discovery). But we can face the truth!"

This us a common problem with those suffering from religious belief,; they're incapable of accepting that other people don't have or need these delusions and can cope quite well with reality without them.

 

[Krikkiter]

Based on his history here, it's one of ufology's favorite tactics--start off with a predetermined conclusion and then pick and choose and twist the "evidence" to make it fit, while ignoring everything that conflicts with that conclusion. It's sometimes known as the slanting fallacy.

In the UFO threads it's been explained to him how and why this approach is incorrect, but he refuses to admit he does it or to stop doing it.

Thank AdMan. Business as usual for ufology then.

Thanks for the resource too. Very helpful.

 

[Krikkiter]

Krikkiter,

I'll sure give you credit for tearing right into all the little details, but you're really over analyzing it.

I don't think I am. I think I've just shown that you employ logical fallacies in an effort to support your preconceived position and that (with AdMan's help) you don't follow where the evidence leads, you instead try to find bits of "evidence" that fit your preconceived position. Pretty simple really. Though it does get a bit strange when you say you don't need to support a position you've already taken...

Yes I think the computational model is the best explanation for reality I've run across. But that's not the same as saying that I believe it is actually the case. I admit I haven't thought it all the way through, but that's only because fully understanding reality is a very complex issue and nobody has the answer.

I have an answer and so does Sam Harris: There is no evidence of an afterlife. Simple yes?

So I think anyone who says they have thought it all the way through would be being pretentious.

In which case you'll think I'm pretentious. To be honest that doesn't really bother me.

However I do claim to have thought it through far enough to be able to compare it to the logic the skeptic used in the video Paul posted, which brings us to the idea of evidence being required.

I have to ask, did you actually watch the video the whole way through?

In the video, the skeptic made no effort to provide any evidence that ectoplasm and software run on the brain had any evidence either because it's simply illustrative of a particular hypothetical position.

Sam Harris' position isn't about ectoplasm and software run on the brain why would he need to provide evidence for it?

That is perfectly fair, and if it's fair for him to do it, then it's equally fair for me to do the same.

Sam Harris' position is that damaging part of the brain damages part of the mind. I'm not aware of any science that would dispute this. His logical conclusion is that if you destroy the brain you destroy the mind. Is there any evidence to the contrary or is there any evidence that would cast doubt on his conclusion?

Keep in mind that the context of this issue isn't about proving we are in a generated construct, only that if we suppose we were, then "x,y,z" ( x being an afterlife ) are possibilities.

I'm not sure this is the right forum to be supposing possibilities without evidence.

Now even though in this context no evidence is required, I posted some references anyway for anyone who might be interested in exploring the idea.

You mean to say you used a logical fallacy in an attempt to lend some kind of credence to your idea. I showed how you did this in my last post.

We also touched on some issues that lend circumstantial evidence for it. Now I think that we might get further and learn more if we focus on those particular ideas, because for me, I haven't been able to get past them and so far as I know, nobody in the history of mankind has either.

The only issues are the ones you've created yourself by positing a computational model without evidence.

Who knows ... maybe if you apply that analytical mind of yours to the issues of the topic rather than my presentation style, some overlooked detail might pop out that can move the discussion forward.

All I've done ufology is examine critically your reasoning and logic. Unlike that of Sam Harris, yours is confused and disjointed.

 

[Pixel42]

Can someone help me out here? I'm not sure that it's the right idea to go looking for information that we might interpret as evidence. There seems to be something not quite right about this but I can't put my finger on it.

Looking at all the available evidence, coming up with the simplest hypothesis that seems to fit it all, then testing it by looking for evidence that contradicts it and for additional evidence your hypothesis predicts should be there = science.

Deciding what you want to believe and then looking for anything you can interpret as evidence to support it = pseudoscience.

 

[dafydd]

This us a common problem with those suffering from religious belief,; they're incapable of accepting that other people don't have or need these delusions and can cope quite well with reality without them.

I suppose that believing in aliens can be classed as a religion.

 

[ufology]

I have an answer and so does Sam Harris: There is no evidence of an afterlife. Simple yes?

You should review my initial response because you will find that I don't disagree with his position at all in the context he has presented it and under the premise he uses. So we've become separated in our views with respect to the context of the conversation.

Sam Harris' position isn't about ectoplasm and software run on the brain why would he need to provide evidence for it?

This seems to be where we've become separated in our contexts. I do think that ectoplasm and software run on the brain are important parts of the problem because he says so. To Quote:

"If it's true that consciousness is being run like software on the brain ... and can ... by virtue of ectoplasm or something else we don't understand can be dissociated from the brain at death that would be part of our growing scientific understanding of the world if we could discover it ... now ... uh ... and there are ways that in fact we could discover that if it were true. The problem is, there are very good reasons to think it's not true."

​

So from my perspective, based on what he says, the entire "problem" is framed in the context of the premise of "ectoplasm" and "software run on the brain".

Sam Harris' position is that damaging part of the brain damages part of the mind. I'm not aware of any science that would dispute this. His logical conclusion is that if you destroy the brain you destroy the mind. Is there any evidence to the contrary or is there any evidence that would cast doubt on his conclusion?

Again you've left out the context as outlined in the opening premise ( as was quoted for your convenience ). Such a significant ommission changes the context of the discussion. If we leave it out, then what you are saying makes sense. However not only have I included it, I've gone another step further by introducing a possibility ( the computational model ) that the brain damage rationale doesn't apply to, and in doing so addressed this statement:

"What we're being asked to consider is that you damage one part of the brain ... ( and so on ) ... and yet if you damage the whole thing at death we can rise off the brain with all our faculties intact recognizing grandma and speaking English."
​

In the computational model, we would not "rise off the brain" there would be no "ectoplasm" or "software run on the brain", and so far as I know, there is no way to "discover it" yet either. So all these things that make up part of his premise ( as quoted for your convenience ) simply don't apply. He could destroy as many brains as he wanted and under the computational model never prove anything other than that he's destroying brains. Therefore as applied to the computational model, the brain damage rationale is completely illogical and consequently as far from a "good reason not to believe" as you could get.

Where do we go from here? Assuming we wanted to continue discussion on the topic, someone might suggest ways the computational model either would or would not be possible.