Death After Life vs Death Before Life

[MarkCorrigan]

Again:

But "you" is not a thing, it's a process. You cannot conflate the two.

You're claiming a paradox where none exists. There is no difference between the two periods of non existence in the same way that there is "no difference" between two examples of a car going 40 miles per hour. You wouldn't clam that "40 miles per hour" is a thing, it's a function of the thing. Equally you can't differentiate between "two non existences". They're not distinct objects. You're equivocating by mangling language.

A person is born, the chemical-electrical processes in the brain create a consciousness as an emergent property of the function of the body. Then the person dies and that emergent property stops.

A car is started and drives at 40 miles per hour as an emergent property of the chemical-mechanical process of the engine running, then the engine is cut out and the emergent property stops. You wouldn't say that there was a "not going 40 miles per hour 1" for the car before it was started and a "not going 40 miles per hour 2" for after it was stopped. It's either going 40 miles per hour or it isn't. A person is either alive, and conscious, or they're not.

There is an answer to dualism. Dualism is wrong.

 

[theprestige]

Again:




There is an answer to dualism. Dualism is wrong.

But what about the possibility that dualism isn't wrong? Have you considered that? Have you considered that no lesser authorities than Arthur Schopenhauer and Samuel Clemens have introduced some ambiguity on this point? Have you considered that? Have you considered that?

/s

 

[Thermal]

Again:
There is an answer to dualism. Dualism is wrong.

While that's a good illustration, it wouldn't be persuasive to a dualist. The dualist just says "but you go 40mph in another car, or motorcycle (40 mph being the "frequency" of your particular self; you might be 44mph and another guy is 51mph).

The problem with a dualist/Soul advocate is that their starting assumptions are different from yours. You can't effectively hop that road block with a good illustration of your starting assumptions on the hoof. His are different.

 

[Mojo]

The reason we do not remember past lives is because human memory starts with birth and the limitations of the physical brain. In my philosophy we have always existed as non physical spirits, and we incarnate in a physical body for experience sake.

According to theosophy we have a number of non physical bodies which interpenetrate one another. There is the etheric body which is a shell that channels consciousness down into the brain from the higher bodies, such as the astral and mental body. But the spirit is contained in the causal body, and all memory of past lives is contained in the causal body.

What would William of Ockham do?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

While that's a good illustration, it wouldn't be persuasive to a dualist. The dualist just says "but you go 40mph in another car, or motorcycle (40 mph being the "frequency" of your particular self; you might be 44mph and another guy is 51mph).

The problem with a dualist/Soul advocate is that their starting assumptions are different from yours. You can't effectively hop that road block with a good illustration of your starting assumptions on the hoof. His are different.

Yes, but at that point I'd ask "Ok, provide evidence for a soul, while you're doing that, why does all of neuroscience suggest there isn't one?"

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I didn't exist long before I was born and similarly I will not exist after I die...

So if they are 100% identical it seems that nonexistence 2 can be followed by life (consciousness) like nonexistence 1. So in some sense life after death is possible.

Theoretically it is, but in practice it isn't... yet.


Death

...is the irreversible cessation of all biological functions that sustain an organism. For organisms with a brain, death can also be defined as the irreversible cessation of functioning of the whole brain, including the brainstem... The remains of a former organism normally begin to decompose shortly after death.

Imagine a machine like an MRI or CAT scanner that not only detected the states of atoms in the brain, but also made a copy of them in another brain. Not necessarily an identical copy, but close enough that the person's memory and personality are preserved. It wouldn't even have to be that close. People who suffer brain damage due to injury or disease often have memory loss and/or personality changes, but we still recognize them as the same person.

It's not inconceivable that a machine like that could be built. It could also store the data so that multiple later copies could be made (like modern photocopiers do), or transmitted via radio (transporter!), or put on a portable storage medium like a USB stick. You could also have a system that continuously recorded your current brain state, to be used as a backup in case you died suddenly.

But right now none of that is technically possible, so once you die that's it - no resurrection!

 

[bruto]

I didn't exist long before I was born and similarly I will not exist after I die. At least that's what many people on this forum think.

If so, does it mean that the nonexistence before I was born (let's name it nonexistence 1) the same thing as the nonexistence after my death (let's name it nonexistence 2)?

Even some famous people seems have claimed a similar thing:




So if they are 100% identical it seems that [B]nonexistence 2[/B] can be followed by life (consciousness) like nonexistence 1. So in some sense life after death is possible. Or perhaps there is no "self" or "consciousness". What are your thoughts about that?

Nonexistence has no properties, no seeds, no attributes. Our language is limited in how it can explain some things, and it's hard not to speak of nothing in a way that does not suggest it is a kind of something. But that is a property of language.

Imagine that I am a potter, and I take a bunch of clay and purify it and block it and throw a pot, which I then bake (changing its characteristics forever). The atoms involved are the same atoms, but in any way one would ordinarily speak of it, the pot did not exist as a pot until it was made. The pot was nonexistent, and then it was brought into existence. Now after a while, I take a hammer and smash the pot to smithereens, and scatter the remains of the smithereens. That pot forever ceases to exist. If I make another pot, even out of the restored smithereens, it is not the same pot reborn. The pot did not exist before it was made, and did not exist after it was destroyed. The nonexistence of the pot is absolute in both cases, and identical only in the colloquial sense. Even the seemingly fleeting property of identity is an illusion. Nothing has not even that property. Our language is handicapped here, such that when we say it has nothing we can state even that only in a manner that suggests that nothing is a thing you can have. Don't be fooled. Nothing has no future, no past, no nothing!

 

[psionl0]

But right now none of that is technically possible, so once you die that's it - no resurrection!

Absence of evidence is not proof of absence.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Yea, it is. Or rather, it's evidence that the null hypothesis should be stuck to.

Someone makes a claim, doesn't matter what the claim is. The Null is the negative of that claim. Moon is made of cheese? Null is moon is not made of cheese. Cars are sentient? Null is cars are not sentient. When you die you're resurrected? When you die you're not resurrected.

The null makes no claims of it's own, it is simply the negative of the specific positive claim being made. It is now up to the claimant of whatever the positive claim is to provide evidence, otherwise the null position is taken as correct.

Ergo, absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence. Why would anyone believe anything there's no evidence for?

 

[psionl0]

Yea, it is. Or rather, it's evidence that the null hypothesis should be stuck to.

That just means that there is a non-zero probability of a type II error (but there is no way to test this).

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Well, technically I guess but again, why on earth would you assume that rather than accepting the null?

I get that it isn't absolute proof, but you would be believing in something without any reason. You could do that with any old nonsense, including mutually contradictory nonsense.

 

[Thermal]

Yes, but at that point I'd ask "Ok, provide evidence for a soul, while you're doing that, why does all of neuroscience suggest there isn't one?"

"Beauty, truth, and feelings don't have mathematical proofs" is the +/- response I usually get. Or "if God wanted you to have evidence He would have left you some". Then we talk a little about circular reasoning and I get progressively more cranky.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

"Beauty, truth, and feelings don't have mathematical proofs" is the +/- response I usually get. Or "if God wanted you to have evidence He would have left you some". Then we talk a little about circular reasoning and I get progressively more cranky.

Well quite. They know they don't have any evidence. For some of them that's fine, and it's fine with me too. They can believe whatever they like if it harms no one. I won't change their mind because they are closed minded, and they won't change mine because they have no evidence.

But for some they get really pissy with this. When you point out that they have no reason to believe what they believe and you could substitute whatever fantasy you like for their own beliefs they start to throw a tantrum.

That's always fun to watch.

 

[Thermal]

Well quite. They know they don't have any evidence. For some of them that's fine, and it's fine with me too. They can believe whatever they like if it harms no one. I won't change their mind because they are closed minded, and they won't change mine because they have no evidence.

But for some they get really pissy with this. When you point out that they have no reason to believe what they believe and you could substitute whatever fantasy you like for their own beliefs they start to throw a tantrum.

That's always fun to watch.

You should see the meltdown my sister in law has when you point out she is not actually a witch with incredible psychic powers.

 

[suren]

Theoretically it is, but in practice it isn't... yet.


Death

Imagine a machine like an MRI or CAT scanner that not only detected the states of atoms in the brain, but also made a copy of them in another brain. Not necessarily an identical copy, but close enough that the person's memory and personality are preserved. It wouldn't even have to be that close. People who suffer brain damage due to injury or disease often have memory loss and/or personality changes, but we still recognize them as the same person.

It's not inconceivable that a machine like that could be built. It could also store the data so that multiple later copies could be made (like modern photocopiers do), or transmitted via radio (transporter!), or put on a portable storage medium like a USB stick. You could also have a system that continuously recorded your current brain state, to be used as a backup in case you died suddenly.

But right now none of that is technically possible, so once you die that's it - no resurrection!

If this backup was used while I was alive, I think most people would claim that the backup actually was another person, even if it was a 100% accurate snapshot of the state of my brain.

 

[steenkh]

If this backup was used while I was alive, I think most people would claim that the backup actually was another person, even if it was a 100% accurate snapshot of the state of my brain.

It could be a bit of a problem if both of you tried to claim your property. You may be right that most people would side with the person that looked like you. What about if your original body has got a brain damage, and the reloaded copy did not. Who would be you?

Anyway, I am unsure if any of this would qualify for resurrection.

 

[psionl0]

Well, technically I guess but again, why on earth would you assume that rather than accepting the null?

I get that it isn't absolute proof, but you would be believing in something without any reason. You could do that with any old nonsense, including mutually contradictory nonsense.

I am not making any recommendations here. I am just pointing out that we have absolutely zero information * on which to test the null hypothesis against any alternative hypothesis. We can't even guess the probability that the null hypothesis applies.

* Actually we have one piece of information: In spite of all of the claims otherwise, we have no credible reports of reincarnation or contact with the "spirit world". So you could argue that this tips the balance of probabilities in favour of the null hypothesis.

 

[suren]

What about if your original body has got a brain damage, and the reloaded copy did not. Who would be you?

You mean the case where my original damaged brain is replaced with the backup copy, right?

If so, my gut feeling would be that it's not the "real me" despite being functionally indistinguishable.

I guess unless we get rid of things like "self" / "identity" and "consciousness" (or perhaps scientifically define them wit a rigor) we will continue to have unsolved philosophical issues related to the identity with no final answers.

Some of them are the "Teleportation paradox","Brain transplant paradox" and "Split brain paradox". There are many of them.

 

[steenkh]

You mean the case where my original damaged brain is replaced with the backup copy, right?

No, I was thinking of two brains being “you” simultaneously, but only one of them actually functioning.

And I was thinking of the consequences for your invalid concept of existence - nonexistence. But I retract the argument, because now I think it brings nothing valuable, and only leads to off-topic discussions.

 

[autumn1971]

Theoretically it is, but in practice it isn't... yet.


Death

Imagine a machine like an MRI or CAT scanner that not only detected the states of atoms in the brain, but also made a copy of them in another brain. Not necessarily an identical copy, but close enough that the person's memory and personality are preserved. It wouldn't even have to be that close. People who suffer brain damage due to injury or disease often have memory loss and/or personality changes, but we still recognize them as the same person.

It's not inconceivable that a machine like that could be built. It could also store the data so that multiple later copies could be made (like modern photocopiers do), or transmitted via radio (transporter!), or put on a portable storage medium like a USB stick. You could also have a system that continuously recorded your current brain state, to be used as a backup in case you died suddenly.

But right now none of that is technically possible, so once you die that's it - no resurrection!

The copies would be occasionally slightly different from the original. So a non ribonucleic-acid-based evolution driven by an algorithm that’s completely different.

Neato!

Not that this is a continuation of consciousness, but cool idea.