Welcome, Tandi

[Interesting Ian]

II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm betting you can't supply the proof for your claim.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ossai
Nope I can supply plenty of evidence for my claim. How many hours do you want to spend in a mortuary waiting on a dead person to speak? We can expand that and include graveyards and cemeteries. How about crash sites, hospitals and retirement homes?

No, I wasn't referring to your statement "Dead people can’t talk", I was referring to your statement "They have shuffled off this mortal coil" I take it by this statement that you mean they have ceased to exist? I want the proof for this claim since -- according to you -- the burden of proof rests upon the person making a claim.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most you could say is that we do not detect dead peoples' consciousnesses, therefore they have ceased to exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let’s see. Once the brain shuts down the consciousness ceases to exist.

Yes, that's your claim. Now supply the proof.

Once a brain has sustained enough damage the consciousness ceases to exist as well. Mind is dependant upon matter.

Yes, that's your claim. Now supply the proof.

If this were not so, damage to the brain would not significantly impair a person or change their outlook and behavior. However, it has repeatedly been observed that brain damage does all those things and more.

This cannot constitute proof for your claim because it is clear that consciousness in its turn, in the form of intentions, can determine ones behaviour. But if you're saying that consciousness must be ontologically dependent upon the brain because altering the brain brings about changes in conscious states, then by parity of reasoning, the brain must be ontologically dependent on consciousness because intentions can bring about changes in behaviour, and hence changes in the brain! But this is incoherent. In short you cannot say that from the fact that Y states follow X states, and X states follow Y states, that therefore Y is necessarily ontologically dependent on X, without also saying that X is necessarily ontologically dependent on Y.

Of course this does not negate the possibility that consciousness is existentially dependent on the brain*. But correlations do not provide the proof I'm afraid. Otherwise banging a TV set, and thus bringing about disturbances in the picture would entail that the storyline of the programme being shown has its origin wholly in the internal components of the TV set. This is a real world example which contradicts your proof.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But that is unconvincing for many many reasons which I could elaborate upon if you so desired. For a kick-off, if the world is physically closed we do not even detect peoples' consciousnesses even when they are alive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You’re ignorant. Go learn something. We regularly detect people’s consciousnesses while they are alive.

Only by saying that consciousness intervenes in the physical laws of nature. If it does then consciousness is "supernatural" as Naturalists (and hence materialists would assert). I submit that if consciousness is "supernatural" then it is far from clear that it should cease to exist when we die.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What about the ghosts encountered in, say, NDEs? Do they not exist? Even if they don't exist, are they experienced?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NDEs? Oxygen not reaching the brain and the brain starts to shut down. Endorphin release.

You therefore would expect the experiences to be fragmented random, and unclear -- not for the experients to experience "hyper-reality".

Cultural based visions.

Everything we see is culturally based. Everything we see is an implicit interpretation via low level theories regarding the nature of reality.


So . . still waiting for your proof.

* I suppose I'd better mention this because my experience with you guys on here has taught me that whenever I refute a proof, sKeptics, for some strange reason, think that I'm claiming not only to have refuted their proof, but that I have provided proof for the contrary position!

 

[juryjone]

Once again, Ossai, I'm wrong. You're not a materialist, but a sKeptic.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

Actually, he's a s

eptic.

* I suppose I'd better mention this because my experience with you guys on here has taught me that whenever I refute a proof, sKeptics, for some strange reason, think that I'm claiming not only to have refuted their proof, but that I have provided proof for the contrary position!

Well, I must not be one of those then. Because I don't think you offer proof of anything at all.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Look out, Ossai - you're about to be tagged with the vilest epithet in Ian's vocabulary - a materialist!

I believe (and Ian please correct me if I'm wrong) that he would especially object to "change their outlook". It is his opinion that, since we connot objectively measure someone's experiences, then we have no way of knowing what their outlook is and whether it has changed due to a brain injury.

I truly hope that Ian never has to test this particular portion of his theory that the mind is separate from the brain.

Ones outlook changes all the time. My own personal beliefs are not relevant in the context of this thread . .but if you want to know I'm denying that the self changes (or that there is no self). I am denying what a materialist must hold . .i.e that there is no self which persists from second to second.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Actually, he's a s

eptic.



Well, I must not be one of those then. Because I don't think you offer proof of anything at all.

No, I mean that they think that I think I have.

I have never claimed to provide proof of anything, nor am I able to do so. I can only talk about what it is reasonable to believe, and what the evidence suggests.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

Mighty Thor - just because I attend demonstrations, I do not go for a peronsal reading. As for these blue books, one of the mediums I peronally think are excellent (and have trained with) does a lot of work in the public domain, they most definitely do not use the blue book approach, they demonstrate in front of audiences somestimes with more than 2000 people attending, and do sittings the rest of the week, it would be physically impossible to remember personal details of 40+ people per week, as well as extensive travelling and demonstrations, time would not permit. If you like to think that all mediums work with a 'blue book' I will let you carry on with this thought, but perhaps you could try working out the practicalities of this, as the best known mediums would certainly have been caught out if this is how they worked.

So, basically, you rule out hot reading by implying that it would not be worth it for the medium. The small amount of evidence that you said would convince you at a reading would not be impossible to remember for 40 plus people. If it's your job, you do it. Secondly, the details don't have to be remembered -- they can be refreshed before a sitting where the person is known. Or, they can be fed via an earpiece at a show - like Peter Popoff.

With the 2000 audience, how do you know that the mediums don't use stooges? You know these people can make a lot of money. Why rule out that they would go to extraordinary lengths to make a fortune? And, with credit card booking, the internet, and seat allocation, it would not be difficult to get information on a few audience members.

And, of course, cold reading is usually enough to convince most believers, even if you, Janice, set a higher standard. Why do you give these people the benefit of the doubt when none will take the Randi challenge?

 

[The Mighty Thor]

Ian - Your TV analogy is rubbish and has been shown to be so umpteen times in this forum.

We are not TVs.
There is no Cosmic Transmitter.
There is no Cosmic Studio.
There is no Cosmic Scriptwriter
There is no Cosmic Script.
There is no Cosmic Story Line.

The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that the above is wrong. NDEs are not evidence. NDEs are explainable by science. You just refuse to accept this.

If you were to blow your brains out (and you'd have to be an excellent shot) the world will go on without you. You would cease to exist. You would no longer post here. You would no longer get drunk. You would no longer try to philosophise. You would be like the Monty Python dead parrot -- a faint memory of an old joke. Sorry, but that's life.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

But we do carry adverts.

Hey, did you hear that there's a sale on now at Allied Carpets? Save up to 30% off a wide range of Berbers and Wiltons, with fitting and underlay FREE! Buy this weekend and we'll give you a free Near Death Experience. Conditions apply.
Allied Carpets - near the Sheffield Parkway. Just walk into the light.

 

[Ashles]

But we do carry adverts.

Hey, did you hear that there's a sale on now at Allied Carpets? Save up to 30% off a wide range of Berbers and Wiltons, with fitting and underlay FREE! Buy this weekend and we'll give you a free Near Death Experience. Conditions apply.
Allied Carpets - near the Sheffield Parkway. Just walk into the light.

There's always a sale at Allied bloody Carpets.

I see while I was away for the weekend lots of shocking and unexpected things happened:

Believers did not offer evidence.
They insulted people and didn't address the facts.
They accused sceptics of insulting people and not addressing facts.
Photos of dust were provided as evidence of ghosts.
Janice explained how well she can tell real psychics from fake psychics (*cough*Shirley Ghostman*cough*)
And Ian tried to derail the whole thing by talking about NDEs.

There is a comforting familiarity to it all - like putting on an old pair of slippers.

 

[Ossai]

juryjone

I believe (and Ian please correct me if I'm wrong) that he would especially object to "change their outlook". It is his opinion that, since we cannot objectively measure someone's experiences, then we have no way of knowing what their outlook is and whether it has changed due to a brain injury.

Sorry but outlook definitely changes. I watched my grandmother suffer with Alzheimer’s the last few years of her life and her outlook and behavior changed. My mother has had Alzheimer’s for the past seven years and her outlook has drastically changed, in part due to it and in part due to medication.

Interesting Ian

No, I wasn't referring to your statement "Dead people can’t talk", I was referring to your statement "They have shuffled off this mortal coil"

Actually “They have shuffled off this mortal coil” was meant to be a Dead Parrot reference.

I take it by this statement that you mean they have ceased to exist?

Lets see, we can detect, usually for an extended period, their physical remains and interact with them, autopsies, funerals, cremation, stuffed and mounted, etc. However, there is no response from them no matter what is done to their remains. We can’t detect or interact with them any other way. In a physical manner they don’t cease to exist, their component may be rearranged and scattered but the material that was ‘them’ is still present.

I want the proof for this claim since -- according to you -- the burden of proof rests upon the person making a claim.

Not going to let you do this one. The basic observation is that a person’s consciousness ceases to exist upon death. Now if you want to believe it goes somewhere else, heaven, nirvana, lower planes, dreamland, wherever, and can no longer interact with us on this mortal coil that’s fine. But, you are the once claiming interaction. Therefore the burden rests squarely on your shoulders.

Let’s see. Once the brain shuts down the consciousness ceases to exist.

Yes, that's your claim. Now supply the proof.

Again you’re trying to wiggle out of it but you’re the once making a claim against empirical observation. Billions of observations, I will add.

But if you're saying that consciousness must be ontologically dependent upon the brain because altering the brain brings about changes in conscious states, then by parity of reasoning, the brain must be ontologically dependent on consciousness because intentions can bring about changes in behaviour, and hence changes in the brain!

You are making the claim of parity of reasoning, not I. I’m repeating empirical observation.

Of course this does not negate the possibility that consciousness is existentially dependent on the brain*. But correlations do not provide the proof I'm afraid. Otherwise banging a TV set, and thus bringing about disturbances in the picture would entail that the storyline of the programme being shown has its origin wholly in the internal components of the TV set. This is a real world example which contradicts your proof.

You are leaving out an essential bit of information in your example. Other people can see the same show on different TVs. If consciousness is an outside signal being sent directly to a person it should be possible to disrupt the signal without physically harming the individual. It should also be possible to observe / detect the signal and even redirect it.

Only by saying that consciousness intervenes in the physical laws of nature. If it does then consciousness is "supernatural" as Naturalists (and hence materialists would assert).

What lunacy are you spouting now? I’ve never read/heard/seen any materialists or naturalist claim consciousness is supernatural.

I submit that if consciousness is "supernatural" then it is far from clear that it should cease to exist when we die.

The above completely negates this. You can submit that consciousness is ‘supernatural’ all you want, but you are not addressing the point.

Oh, as Ashles pointed out, we’re derailing the thread, so maybe another should be started.

Ossai

 

[voidx]

Posted by Janice
There are very few mediums I have seen that give evidence as I stated above, and the only way that I have encountered what I would class as non cold reading is by attending demonstrations (most of which have sent me off to sleep) and meeting them face to face. I would be happy to name the mediums that I have met, and think have a genuine ability, but they would only get slated on this forum.

And for that reason alone, productive debate is stifled by you alone. I've also remarked in the past that the attitude that some skeptics take in discussing things with believers is to brash to be productive. I understand why they get that way, out of frustration, or at times simply because they believe themselves to overwhelmingly be correct. However, what most people would term believers around here often do a fantastic job of shooting themselves in the foot. Your quote above is a fine example.

The one thing we could have a meaningful discussion about, the performances of specific mediums, you will not allow. For a rather poor reason. I've mentioned to you in the past, like I mentioned to the Clancie of days past, who you discuss things with is up to you. That you chase Dr. A and others around as much as it appears they do you is a hint that you perhaps are not as interested in serious and reasonable discussion of your beliefs as you would make out.

You are correct, there is no solid evidence for paranormal claims to be discussed on here. Its inherent in their definition that there cannot be. They are defined as beyond the scope of current scientific understanding. So that really should be open and shut. However, we do get many people on here that make an attempt anyway. But the fact that there is no scientific basis with which to quantify these beliefs does not stop of us from discussing the motivation of the beliefs themselves. What leads a person to believe in an absense of all evidence. Well the only answer here is an affirming personal experience, which again conviniently cannot be quantified. As I've mentioned before, as a matter of default respect, many people don't push to hard to make someone discuss these things, but for those that believe, they must realize that its all they've got.

Jason was a fine example of this. Blindly holding out hope that future technologies would be able to detect things that are undetectable now. Well the reasonable question is if they are undetectable now, then why does he believe in them, and also believe future technology will detect them, whatever they are? Simple, because he had an affirming personal experience. Why does he not discuss that more? Because he cannot quantify it adequately to anyone else. Why not? Because its beyond the scope of current scientific knowledge. It becomes circular.

At the end of the day you believe because you want to. Because it seems like a nice idea. Because you have had a personal experience. This applies as much to religion as to the paranormal, it applies to belief in general. However I'd very strongly argue that most people have not exhausted, or attempted to exhaust the wide array of mundane explanations for their experiences which they are not aware of. Because deep down, I think many people realize that the possible mundane explanation wouldn't be as pretty and personally satisfying as the unquantifiable belief they've adopted. Or have to admit that the experience was not a hint of something more. One's reactions to certain experiences are just simply that. Reactions. They do not have to be a glimpse at something more. Again I'd argue that to do so, is to do so simply because you want too, and not because there is essentially anything there.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian - Your TV analogy is rubbish and has been shown to be so umpteen times in this forum.

We are not TVs.
There is no Cosmic Transmitter.
There is no Cosmic Studio.
There is no Cosmic Scriptwriter
There is no Cosmic Script.
There is no Cosmic Story Line.

You don't understand; I'm not employing it as an analogy in this instance. I'm employing it as a refutation of the thesis that if states of Y inevitably follow states of X, this necessitates that Y wholly has in its origin in X. It's a watertight refutation. Read my post again. This time try to understand

The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that the above is wrong. NDEs are not evidence. NDEs are explainable by science. You just refuse to accept this.

If science cannot explain any conscious states whatsoever, then a fortiori it cannot explain NDEs.

If you were to blow your brains out (and you'd have to be an excellent shot) the world will go on without you. You would cease to exist. You would no longer post here. You would no longer get drunk. You would no longer try to philosophise. You would be like the Monty Python dead parrot -- a faint memory of an old joke. Sorry, but that's life.

Non-sequitur.

 

[Darat]

Hi Tandi - welcome to the forum.

 

[Interesting Ian]

II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I take it by this statement that you mean they have ceased to exist?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ossai
Lets see, we can detect, usually for an extended period, their physical remains and interact with them, autopsies, funerals, cremation, stuffed and mounted, etc. However, there is no response from them no matter what is done to their remains. We can’t detect or interact with them any other way. In a physical manner they don’t cease to exist, their component may be rearranged and scattered but the material that was ‘them’ is still present.

II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want the proof for this claim since -- according to you -- the burden of proof rests upon the person making a claim.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ossai
Not going to let you do this one. The basic observation is that a person’s consciousness ceases to exist upon death. Now if you want to believe it goes somewhere else, heaven, nirvana, lower planes, dreamland, wherever, and can no longer interact with us on this mortal coil that’s fine. But, you are the once claiming interaction. Therefore the burden rests squarely on your shoulders.

You have asserted that you have proof that we cease to exist when we die. But your whole argument presupposes this very thesis. Allow me to explain.

You are stating that if consciousness does not affect physical reality, then necessarily it doesn't exist. Thus once our physical bodies exhibit no indicators of consciousness whatsoever, then necessarily any consciousness no longer exists.

But this therefore entails that for there to be a "life after death", consciousness or the self must necessarily interact with the physical world. One presumes you must hold that this interaction must manifest itself through ones physical body*.

Therefore in order for there to be "life after death" ones body must show signs of life.

But!

If ones body shows signs of life, then this is necessarily not "life after death".

In other words your entire arguments begs the question.

* Although it need not necessarily do this. Ones consciousness could, for example, be uploaded to a computer/robot, and the robot would then literally be "you" (not of course that they can be a "you" under a materialist based metaphysic. There can be no persisting self under materialism).

 

[Temp3st]

oh ffs!!

Why do I feel I've read all this crap somewhere before?

The big question on my mind right now is just how many more posts will Ian make before he calls someone an idiot and then claims he is leaving this board - never to return......etc...etc....etc.

 

[Ashles]

You have asserted that you have proof that we cease to exist when we die. But your whole argument presupposes this very thesis. Allow me to explain.

blah, blah, blah...

Ian do you believe that you are ever actually pushing your argument forward? Or getting closer to some form of new knowledge by repeating the same things over and over?

You try to word things in a way that lead you to conclusions, but the conclusions are only a result of your own route of logic, and your own definitions and opinions. Reality remains the same as when you started and you have definitively demonstrated nothing.

You follow a tortuous chain of assumptins then finish with some form of flourish as though your theory has been logically demonstrated, nay proven.

But ol' reality still bubbles away, oblivious to your thoughts and arguments. Life after death remains impenetrable to any theoretical argument.

What do you get out of this constant mental onanism?

 

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Ossai Oh, as Ashles pointed out, we’re derailing the thread, so maybe another should be started.
Ossai [/B]

This thread no longer has a purpose, as Tandi has buggered off in a huff.

As the thread starter, I hereby declare it closed.

(Can I do that? If not, why not?)

 

[Mojo]

This thread no longer has a purpose, as Tandi has buggered off in a huff.

As the thread starter, I hereby declare it closed.

(Can I do that? If not, why not?)

Certainly, you can declare it closed. But enforcement might be a bit of a probem...

 

[Ashles]

This thread no longer has a purpose, as Tandi has buggered off in a huff.

As the thread starter, I hereby declare it closed.

(Can I do that? If not, why not?)

Absolutely.
I wasn't complaining about the derail as the believers had all clearly left, so the original thread purpose was now irrelevant.

But please God let's not start a new thread about Ian and his NDEs and arguments and theories about consciousness.

Anyone who feels the need for a new one of those is ancourage to type "materialism" into a search under Interesting Ian and read all the resulting posts.

If they are still hungry for a new thread on the subject after that, then they may request one.
Or ask us to kill them.

 

[Ossai]

Or we could just kill Ian.
That way if we’re right Ian is gone.
If we’re wrong then Ian can haunt us until we’re convinced.

Since I’m under a time limit right now I’ll get back to Ian’s response latter.

Ossai