Death After Life vs Death Before Life

[Oystein]

Yes, most brain neurons live with the person and few if any neurons are produced, but the atoms might still change even in the long lived cells.

Do you know this from textbooks or scientific research papers, or is that your best guess?

 

[Oystein]

There are many ways of being, some trivial, some perplexing.

There is only one way of not-being, and that is very very easy.

------------

Olmstead's "continuity is an illusion created by memory" is interesting, as is the comparison with a flame.

I would argue that in the actual world that we do observe, there is yet no real and practical way for a person (a mind with a sense of self) to feel continuous with actually being observably continuous: My mind goes to sleep for a few hours at night, then is rekindled and finds itself in a world (a brain, a bed, a house, the surface of a planet) that has changed little enough for memory to latch onto and restore the "same" sense of self as before it fell asleep. And I would say this continuity is real, is not an illusion, it is co-existent (and has in fact co-evolved) with the continuity of the physical arrangement of things in your environment.

These things get loose and shaky and untrustworthy for example when you sink into advanced dementia, and memory fails you more and more. And you don't wake up knowing where you are, and perhaps not even who you are.

*shudders*

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Suren, is there a reason you're not responding to me?

 

[suren]

Do you know this from textbooks or scientific research papers, or is that your best guess?

Mostly an accumulation and comparison of information from popular science and the opinions of people with a biological education.

At least I haven't seen any serous resource stating that brain neuron atoms are not replaced.

I am myself not a biologist but what I write below is is not my idea.

There is virtually no doubt that brain cells cannot divide, but cell replacement and cell atom replacement are different things. The active metabolism of living cells means that many of their molecules are constantly being produced and replaced. Thus, even without replacement of neurons, there is a significant replacement of atoms during the neuron maintenance. For example, proteins break down during time and they need to be replaced. Also the neurons can form connections which also requires a new building material.

Also the idea of production of new neurons in some brain regions is still debatable, some recent paper suggest that adult neurogenesis might be extinct.

 

[mumblethrax]

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?

This doesn't especially make sense. If I claim that "The moon is not made of green cheese", does it follow that we should assume the negation of that claim (that the moon is made of green cheese) until I can prove my case?

The null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between two datasets/populations/phenomena/whatever. It's really neither here nor there when we're talking about what ought to be believed in light of a claim.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

This doesn't especially make sense. If I claim that "The moon is not made of green cheese", does it follow that we should assume the negation of that claim (that the moon is made of green cheese) until I can prove my case?

The null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between two datasets/populations/phenomena/whatever. It's really neither here nor there when we're talking about what ought to be believed in light of a claim.

That's not a positive claim, that's a negative claim.

The null is the negative of a positive claim. If someone makes a positive claim "God is real" the null is that god is not real. If I claim I ate eggs for breakfast, the null is that I didn't eat eggs.

That's what the null is.

 

[mumblethrax]

That's not a positive claim, that's a negative claim.

There's no logical distinction. Any "positive" claim can be rephrased as a "negative" claim.

The null is the negative of a positive claim. If someone makes a positive claim "God is real" the null is that god is not real. If I claim I ate eggs for breakfast, the null is that I didn't eat eggs.

"There exists a universe in which there is no God." Doesn't seem wise to stick to the negation of this claim.

That's what the null is.

Honestly, it's not.

All contested claims carry a burden of proof, and the sensible thing is to reserve judgment with respect to unproven claims, rather than playing opposite day with them.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

There's no logical distinction. Any "positive" claim can be rephrased as a "negative" claim.

Not really, no. Negative claims are impossible to demonstrate. You can't prove a negative. That's why I said "positive" claim.

"There exists a universe in which there is no God." Doesn't seem wise to stick to the negation of this claim.

But that is a negative claim, which is impossible to demonstrate logically.

Honestly, it's not.

Yes, it is.

All contested claims carry a burden of proof, and the sensible thing is to reserve judgment with respect to unproven claims, rather than playing opposite day with them.

That's not what I'm doing, nor is that what logic dictates that you should do.

 

[mumblethrax]

Not really, no. Negative claims are impossible to demonstrate. You can't prove a negative. That's why I said "positive" claim.

Negative claims are often trivial to demonstrate. And since P = ~(~P) it's a bit silly to imagine that there's anything special about "positive" claims in this respect.

But that is a negative claim, which is impossible to demonstrate logically.

It's quite literally positing the existence of a universe that contains no God, and negative claims are not impossible to demonstrate.

Yes, it is.

You could just look it up and save us some time. That's not what "null hypothesis" means.

That's not what I'm doing, nor is that what logic dictates that you should do.

If you're "sticking with" the negation of a claim absent evidence or argument for that claim, it's exactly what you're doing.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Negative claims are often trivial to demonstrate. And since P = ~(~P) it's a bit silly to imagine that there's anything special about "positive" claims in this respect.


It's quite literally positing the existence of a universe that contains no God, and negative claims are not impossible to demonstrate.


You could just look it up and save us some time. That's not what "null hypothesis" means.


If you're "sticking with" the negation of a claim absent evidence or argument for that claim, it's exactly what you're doing.

I have looked it up.

Null Hypothesis (H0) – This can be thought of as the implied hypothesis. “Null” meaning “nothing.” This hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups or no relationship between variables. The null hypothesis is a presumption of status quo or no change.
Alternative Hypothesis (Ha) – This is also known as the claim. This hypothesis should state what you expect the data to show, based on your research on the topic. This is your answer to your research question.

Which indicates that I'm not actually wrong. The alternative hypothesis is the claim, the null is the lack of said claim.

I've also argued the definition of the null in other threads. You're the first person who has told me I'm wrong. I'm impressed.

 

[mumblethrax]

Which indicates that I'm not actually wrong. The alternative hypothesis is the claim, the null is the lack of said claim.

Well, no. The null hypothesis is the lack of a relationship, as your source says. Here's what you wrote, as a reminder:

"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."

There's no accordance between the definition you've now provided and what you were claiming earlier. The null hypothesis is not the negation of a claim.

I've also argued the definition of the null in other threads. You're the first person who has told me I'm wrong. I'm impressed.

Somebody had to be first, I suppose, but that has no bearing on anything.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Well, no. The null hypothesis is the lack of a relationship, as your source says. Here's what you wrote, as a reminder:

"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."

There's no accordance between the definition you've now provided and what you were claiming earlier. The null hypothesis is not the negation of a claim.

I suppose I may well be using the very specific term incorrectly then, but I stand by my actual point. The proper way to approach life is by assuming a positive claim is incorrect unless provided with evidence for it. If someone proposes a god, the proper attitude is that said god does not exist unless presented with evidence for it.

This DOES only work for any positive claim, which is why I do not make positive claims that I do not have evidence for.

 

[theprestige]

Well, no. The null hypothesis is the lack of a relationship, as your source says. Here's what you wrote, as a reminder:

"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."

There's no accordance between the definition you've now provided and what you were claiming earlier. The null hypothesis is not the negation of a claim.


Somebody had to be first, I suppose, but that has no bearing on anything.

The way I see it, the null hypothesis has an application within the context of a specific dialectic. It's a default assumption that holds only as long as we are considering your claim, and only until the claim is proven or abandoned.

We don't willy-nilly start believing that the moon is made of cheese, just because you say it isn't. Rather we say, "since you bring it up, let's assume for the sake of argument that the moon is made of cheese, and see how you go about falsifying that assumption."

As soon as you falsify the null, or abandon the claim, we happily go back to whatever axiom or paradigm about the moon's composition that we generally espouse.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

The way I see it, the null hypothesis has an application within the context of a specific dialectic. It's a default assumption that holds only as long as we are considering your claim, and only until the claim is proven or abandoned.

We don't willy-nilly start believing that the moon is made of cheese, just because you say it isn't. Rather we say, "since you bring it up, let's assume for the sake of argument that the moon is made of cheese, and see how you go about falsifying that assumption."

As soon as you falsify the null, or abandon the claim, we happily go back to whatever axiom or paradigm about the moon's composition that we generally espouse.

Thank you, that's exactly what I mean.

 

[mumblethrax]

I suppose I may well be using the very specific term incorrectly then, but I stand by my actual point. The proper way to approach life is by assuming a positive claim is incorrect unless provided with evidence for it. If someone proposes a god, the proper attitude is that said god does not exist unless presented with evidence for it.

Right, and I'm saying this is wrongheaded and will lead you to weird, overconfident conclusions. If someone says there's a tree outside their window and I (for some reason) challenge them on this claim, their failure to present evidence should not be construed as support for the negation of that claim. Taking the negation as a default assumption is also groundless. I cannot then declare that there is no tree outside their window. The sensible thing would be to say something like "Well, there may or may not be a tree outside your window, but you've given me no reason to believe that there is."

This DOES only work for any positive claim, which is why I do not make positive claims that I do not have evidence for.

That cannot be true, because any "positive" claim can be expressed as a negative claim.

The way I see it, the null hypothesis has an application within the context of a specific dialectic. It's a default assumption that holds only as long as we are considering your claim, and only until the claim is proven or abandoned.

The null hypothesis has no application where you don't have at least two sets to compare. It has no relevance to simple existential claims at all.

If we're talking about supporting claims, it would make a lot more sense to talk about where the burden of proof lies (with the claimant, irrespective of whether the claim is phrased negatively) and what to do if that burden is not met (reserve judgement).

 

[arthwollipot]

"There exists a universe in which there is no God." Doesn't seem wise to stick to the negation of this claim.

This is two claims. "There exists a universe" is a positive claim, and can be logically proven. "The universe that exists has no god" is a negative claim and can't. You don't get to conflate the two claims into one.

 

[mumblethrax]

This is two claims. "There exists a universe" is a positive claim, and can be logically proven. "The universe that exists has no god" is a negative claim and can't. You don't get to conflate the two claims into one.

I don't see any particularly good reason to believe that I don't get to do this. What's wrong with saying "There's an empty car in my driveway?"

I also don't think "There exists a universe" can be logically proven. That seems like an empirical claim to me.

 

[arthwollipot]

I don't see any particularly good reason to believe that I don't get to do this. What's wrong with saying "There's an empty car in my driveway?"

I also don't think "There exists a universe" can be logically proven. That seems like an empirical claim to me.

Again, "There's an empty car in my driveway" is two claims. One, that there is a car in your driveway, and two, that it is empty.

 

[mumblethrax]

Again, "There's an empty car in my driveway" is two claims. One, that there is a car in your driveway, and two, that it is empty.

It's a single claim that entails at least two others. So, for that matter, is "There's a tree outside my window." But what's the relevance? Why, specifically, do you think I can't make such a claim?

 

[arthwollipot]

It's a single claim that entails at least two others. So, for that matter, is "There's a tree outside my window." But what's the relevance? Why, specifically, do you think I can't make such a claim?

You can't make a single claim, and the reason is because it conflates both a negative claim and a positive claim. It's only by breaking a claim into the smallest possible units that any logical conclusions can be drawn from it. Compound claims are much more complicated.

"There is a duck that is not green." First, you have to establish that a duck exists. That's the positive claim. Only having first established that can you discuss what colour the duck might or might not be.

In the case of the original claim, I think "a universe exists" is trivially easy to prove, leaving only the negative claim that the universe has no god, which cannot be proved.

Disclaimer: I am not well-versed in formal logic. But the above seems logical to me. Someone with more expertise in logic may want to fact check what I've said.