Welcome, Tandi

[Azrael 5]

Yes,lets close it.Im going to open what I expect to be the shortest thread ever! Wait and see....

 

[Interesting Ian]

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

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah . . . ontological self-subsistent reality . . . blah blah blah . . . but although this, of course, may render it logically possible, nevertheless it remains nomonologically impossible . . blah blah balh blah blah . . if, but not only if, one were acquanited with a multiplicity of Universes . . .blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah . . . the proposition there exists contingent beings . . . blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah . . . . of quantum mechanics applies to the universe as a whole . . . blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah . . . prima facie therefore . . blah blah . . . it is, of course, far from clear that any two worlds that are physically indistinguishable are thereby the same world . . . blah blah

Still there?

 

[Nex]

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah . . . ontological self-subsistent reality . . . blah blah blah . . . but although this, of course, may render it logically possible, nevertheless it remains nomonologically impossible . . blah blah balh blah blah . . if, but not only if, one were acquanited with a multiplicity of Universes . . .blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah . . . the proposition there exists contingent beings . . . blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah . . . . of quantum mechanics applies to the universe as a whole . . . blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah . . . prima facie therefore . . blah blah . . . it is, of course, far from clear that any two worlds that are physically indistinguishable are thereby the same world . . . blah blah

And thus we see Ian's total argument in a nutshell. A couple big words and a whole bunch o' blah.

 

[Ashles]

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah . . . ontological self-subsistent reality . . . blah blah blah . . . but although this, of course, may render it logically possible, nevertheless it remains nomonologically impossible . . blah blah balh blah blah . . if, but not only if, one were acquanited with a multiplicity of Universes . . .blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah . . . the proposition there exists contingent beings . . . blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah . . . . of quantum mechanics applies to the universe as a whole . . . blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah . . . prima facie therefore . . blah blah . . . it is, of course, far from clear that any two worlds that are physically indistinguishable are thereby the same world . . . blah blah

Still there?

Sometimes you can be quite funny Ian.
That made me chuckle.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Sometimes you can be quite funny Ian.
That made me chuckle.

BTW, did you ever see my first 4500 words of my website? I wanted you to comment on how easy it is to read, how interesting and attention grabbing it is, the grammatical errors etc since you have so much experience I pasted it in this post.

 

[Ossai]

Interesting Ian

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.

What are you, delusional? I said

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 never claimed that people cease to exist upon death. Dead bodies don’t just vanish into thin air, otherwise the funeral business wouldn’t hold so much power (at least here in the US)

You are stating that if consciousness does not affect physical reality, then necessarily it doesn't exist.

Hmm, I don’t recall saying anything of the sort, please point out where you though I said that.

Thus once our physical bodies exhibit no indicators of consciousness whatsoever, then [n]necessarily[/n] any consciousness no longer exists.

Nope, what I said was that consciousness is a product of matter, highly complex and specialized matter to be sure. Once that matter has ceased to function, the consciousness will also cease.
I never claimed that consciousness didn’t have an affect. We can see and affect, ie memory, but that is matter interacting and bringing about changes to other material.

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.

You create a straw man and then go off on a tangent. BTW, millions of Christians believe that exactly.


Ossai

 

[Ashles]

BTW, did you ever see my first 4500 words of my website? I wanted you to comment on how easy it is to read, how interesting and attention grabbing it is, the grammatical errors etc since you have so much experience I pasted it in this post.

Sorry I forgot.

I will have a look.

 

[Interesting Ian]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What are you, delusional? I said
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 never claimed that people cease to exist upon death. Dead bodies don’t just vanish into thin air, otherwise the funeral business wouldn’t hold so much power (at least here in the US)

I'm not talking about our bodies! I'm talking about the self, or if you don't believe in the self, then consciousness. If you don't believe in consciousness either, then there is absolutely no purpose in trying to communicate with you, since you do not exist.

You have said we cease to exist when we die, and that this is proved. Now if that is no longer your contention, then fine. But as I have very patiently explained, your "proof" begs the question by taking it as a premise the very conclusion you are trying to establish!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are stating that if consciousness does not affect physical reality, then necessarily it doesn't exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmm, I don’t recall saying anything of the sort, please point out where you though I said that.

{sighs} You are using a criteria of signs of life to indicate the existence of consciousness. If there are no indicators of life whatsoever, you are claiming that this constitutes proof that there is no consciousness.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus once our physical bodies exhibit no indicators of consciousness whatsoever, then [n]necessarily[/n] any consciousness no longer exists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nope, what I said was that consciousness is a product of matter, highly complex and specialized matter to be sure.

You have directly implied what I said, but if you claim you do not agree with this, then fine. However, your modified position is even more blatently a circular argument! If you take as a premise that consciousness is generated by matter, then at death, when the brain has completely ceased to function, then how could there possibly be a "life after death"?? Possibly reincarnation, but this would be difficult to argue for, because if consciousness is a product of matter how could the "reincarnated" person be you given that we're talking about a different brain whose processes will not be identical to your original brain?? I mean what content could there be in saying you are the same person?? On the other hand, if you believe a a substantial self or soul, reincarnation poses no problem.

So, in a nutshell, by taking it as a premise that consciousness is a product of the brain, you are assuming your conclusion at the outset. As I argued in my first post to you in this thread, correlations between mind and brain states do not establish this premise. As I said, mind states might sometimes follow brain states, but also brain states follow mind states, so concluding mind is the product of the brain is no more reasonable than concluding brain is the product of mind. Also, if you were right that correlations establish origin, this would mean that the storyline of TV programmes are actually created by the internal components of the set. But we know they are not, so your thesis has been definitively refuted.

Once that matter has ceased to function, the consciousness will also cease.
I never claimed that consciousness didn’t have an affect. We can see and affect, ie memory, but that is matter interacting and bringing about changes to other material.

Hang on. Now you are presupposing the correctness of materialism! Yes, presupposing materialism does make the notion of life after death an unreasonable one (it of course doesn't constitute proof though -- an android created in the future might literally be you should its electronic brain carry out precisely the same function as your brain. Unless of course you subscribe to identity theory, but identity theory is ludicrous. I mean its ludicrous in addition to the general unintelligibility of materialism).

Anyway, you are presupposing your position again.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You create a straw man and then go off on a tangent. BTW, millions of Christians believe that exactly.

Resurrection is perfectly compatible with materialism. As is an android being you in the future. The point is though that most people who believe in a life after death don't understand "life after death" as meaning they will be resurrected or they will come back as a computer or android.

 

[Ossai]

Interesting Ian

I'm not talking about our bodies! I'm talking about the self, or if you don't believe in the self, then consciousness.

How can there be a self/consciousness without a brain? A change in the brain, physical damage, chemical, disease, etc, causes a change in consciousness.

Examples:
Physical damage - Phineas Gage
Disease, etc – Alzheimer, stroke, cerebral palsy
Chemical – antidepressants, amphetamines

You have said we cease to exist when we die, and that this is proved. Now if that is no longer your contention, then fine. But as I have very patiently explained, your "proof" begs the question by taking it as a premise the very conclusion you are trying to establish!

What do you believe I’m trying to establish? Empirically, without a brain there is no consciousness.

If you take as a premise that consciousness is generated by matter, then at death, when the brain has completely ceased to function, then how could there possibly be a "life after death"??

I said many Christians believed that, not I. I never made any sort of claim for life after death.

So, in a nutshell, by taking it as a premise that consciousness is a product of the brain,

Hardly, I’m speaking of empirical evidence that consciousness is a product of the brain.

As I argued in my first post to you in this thread, correlations between mind and brain states do not establish this premise. As I said, mind states might sometimes follow brain states, but also brain states follow mind states, so concluding mind is the product of the brain is no more reasonable than concluding brain is the product of mind.

Clarify what you mean by mind states vs brain states.

But we know they are not, so your thesis has been definitively refuted

Not quiet. The straw man you presented has been definitively refuted, however my thesis has yet to be touched.

Ossai

 

[Interesting Ian]

I'm not talking about our bodies! I'm talking about the self, or if you don't believe in the self, then consciousness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How can there be a self/consciousness without a brain? A change in the brain, physical damage, chemical, disease, etc, causes a change in consciousness.

Examples:
Physical damage - Phineas Gage
Disease, etc – Alzheimer, stroke, cerebral palsy
Chemical – antidepressants, amphetamines

I completely despair. You just keep making the same assertions and keep ignoring my refutations!

Let me try a different tact. Almost throughout human history people have been aware that alcohol affects consciousness. Yet most people have believed in a "life after death". Now why can this be if being affected by a pint of beer proves there is no "life after death"?? According to you it must be because they are all stupid. The most brilliant minds that have ever existed are stupid according to you Have you been to your local bar and tried telling people there that the fact that an alcoholic drink mellows them, proves they will cease to exist when they die?? Are you not able to understand how completely idiotic your position is?? Maybe your drinking friends can explain to you because I despair. You simply don't understand the most simple arguments. What do you want me to say??

X affects Y, therefore necessarily X generates Y. WOW!! All so simple in your world isn't it. Let's just forget about the fact that TV sets directly refute this thesis!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have said we cease to exist when we die, and that this is proved. Now if that is no longer your contention, then fine. But as I have very patiently explained, your "proof" begs the question by taking it as a premise the very conclusion you are trying to establish!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What do you believe I’m trying to establish? Empirically, without a brain there is no consciousness.

Empirically with a brain there is no consciousness either. You never see or hear, or smell, or taste, or touch other peoples consciousnesses because other peoples' consciousnesses are not identical to your sensory perceptions!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you take as a premise that consciousness is generated by matter, then at death, when the brain has completely ceased to function, then how could there possibly be a "life after death"??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I said many Christians believed that, not I. I never made any sort of claim for life after death.

I know I know I know! But you cannot rule out "life after death" as a premise in your "proof" there is no "life after death"!!!.

 

[P.S.A.]

Have you been to your local bar and tried telling people there that the fact that an alcoholic drink mellows them

Alcohol clearly doesn't mellow you out. And despite hundreds of thousands of years, and billions of pints of alcholic drinks, there's not a single piece of evidence for an afterlife, except for people's belief in it.

But science has given us the television set.

And what's more, TV sets don't even refute his thesis. It's just another area of physics you don't understand. Like RGB colors, which ironically enough, is the way Televisions work.

You know Ian, people would be far, far more willing to debate you seriously here if you weren't so determined to be arrogant, and so determined to distort the arguments of others. You could actually be quite smart if you'd just admit that your knowledge of the real world is absolutely tiny, and tried to honestly learn all the things you are so blatantly ignorant of.

 

[Ossai]

Interesting Ian

Let me try a different tact. Almost throughout human history people have been aware that alcohol affects consciousness. Yet most people have believed in a "life after death". Now why can this be if being affected by a pint of beer proves there is no "life after death"??

1. People believe what they’ve been taught.
2. People were/are afraid of what happens after they die.
3. It is very mixed in with religion - which opens a whole can of worm.
4. By segregating the afterlife people can have a sense of ‘revenge’, 'expectation', etc.
And
5. Your statement is nothing more than an appeal to popularity.

Are you not able to understand how completely idiotic your position is?

I easily understand your arguments. They are simply appeals to ignorance and popularity, absolutely nothing original.

X affects Y, therefore necessarily X generates Y. WOW!! All so simple in your world isn't it. Let's just forget about the fact that TV sets directly refute this thesis!

Look another STRAWMAN along with a Non Sequitur. Actually, it’s almost a text book example of a non sequitur.

Empirically with a brain there is no consciousness either. You never see or hear, or smell, or taste, or touch other peoples consciousnesses because other peoples' consciousnesses are not identical to your sensory perceptions!

And yet another appeal to ignorance along with limited depth.

I know I know I know! But you cannot rule out "life after death" as a premise in your "proof" there is no "life after death"!!!.

It was never included. You are trying to force it in and thereby create yet another STRAWMAN.

Ossai

 

[Temp3st]

Are you not able to understand how completely idiotic your position is??

Ah! 4 posts.

So when are you off then?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ah! 4 posts.

So when are you off then?

Now. Quite frankly the stupidity exhibited by Ossami makes me feel embarrassed to be a member of the human race. And the same goes for you, or anyone else who agrees with him. I only have a limited amount of patience to explain 2 + 2 = 4. If Osammi and others are unable to understand the most simple things imaginable, then I am wasting my time here. I completely despair at the apparently incorrigible stupidity of most members of the human race.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

That depends what you mean by "stupidity", "human", and "race".

 

[Temp3st]

Now. Quite frankly the stupidity exhibited by Ossami makes me feel embarrassed to be a member of the human race. And the same goes for you, or anyone else who agrees with him.

You really are one of the most self absorbed prats, with total delusions of grandeur, that I have ever come across online.
How dare you insult anyone on this forum when all you do is repeat the same bulls**t over and over and over again. You are not fooling anyone with that thesaurus function on your word processor. Just adding big and clever words to a sentence does not make you knowledgeable.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Alcohol clearly doesn't mellow you out.

Very true when I'm trying to communicate with idiots on here. The post I made last night was when I was drunk. I don't think it proves there is no "life after death". Indeed, if anything, it makes me fairly convinced that damage to the brain does not change or destroy the self -- hence making the "life after death" hypothesis that more plausible. I am absolutely convinced that I am the same self after I've consumed a few pints of lager. Trusting the third person perspective over your own realisation on this issue, is one of mind numbing stupidity.

And despite hundreds of thousands of years, and billions of pints of alcholic drinks, there's not a single piece of evidence for an afterlife, except for people's belief in it.

Well that's just simply not true. Please become acquainted with the evidence. Try reading this.

Regarding the question of "life after death":
{quoting Michael Grosso}
academic community seems indifferent and, worse, uninformed.

. . . .

The first step in examining the question is to look at the full range of relevant data. Unfortunately, this is either unknown or willfully ignored by both the average citizen and mainstream intellectuals. However, it is a fact that a rather massive body of data has been slowly but steadily accumulating for well over a hundred years bearing on the enigma of death, beginning at least with the founding of the British Society for Psychical Research. Psychical research and what is nowadays called transpersonal psychology were simultaneously born with the publication of Frederic Myers' Human Personality and Its Survival of Bodily Death. 4 (Myers studied both survival evidence and transpersonal states of consciousness.)

. . . .

The evidence suggestive of life after death is considerable, daunting in its complexity and suggestiveness.
{/quote} (emphasis added)

Or what about what Neil Grossman says here:

{quote}
To my knowledge, no one who has had an NDE feels any need for an explanation in the reductionist sense that researchers are seeking. For the experiencer, the NDE does not need to be explained because it is exactly what it purports to be, which is, at a minimum, the direct experience of consciousness—or minds, or selves, or personal identity—existing independently of the physical body. It is only with respect to our deeply entrenched materialist paradigm that the NDE needs to be explained, or more accurately, explained away. In this article, I will take the position that materialism has been shown to be empirically false; and hence, what does need to be explained is the academic establishment's collective refusal to examine the evidence and to see it for what it is. The academic establishment is in the same position today as the bishop who refused to look through Galileo's telescope. (emphasis added)
{/quote}

Or what about what a good old sceptic says? From here.

{quote}
. . for a long time now I've thought that belief in an afterlife is a form of emotional escapism and self-indulgence. Our existence on this planet is to a considerable extent the outcome of chance; there was nothing planned about it, nothing inevitable, and I can see no good reason why we should think ourselves so important that the universe would wish to preserve our consciousness after we leave the scene.

And yet I cannot persuade myself that, in adopting this attitude, I'm being entirely fair to the known facts, though I realize that view is going to be unpopular with rationalists, most of whom appear to have made up their minds quite firmly on the question, and indeed don't regard it as a real question at all. Such people seldom bother to look at the evidence, which they assume will turn out to be a morass of self-deception and outright fraud, as indeed very much of it is, but not all; and the best of this material poses serious difficulties for anyone who wishes to dismiss the survival hypothesis out of hand.
{/quote}

But science has given us the television set.

Ummm . .er . .yeah?

And what's more, TV sets don't even refute his thesis.

{sighs}

It's just another area of physics you don't understand. Like RGB colors, which ironically enough, is the way Televisions work.

It doesn't matter how television sets work. The point is that neither the picture nor the storyline of the programme has its origin in the sets internal components. Don't believe me? What do you think would be displayed if someone took a TV set back to the 17th century?? This proves that simply from the fact that Y might always follow X, this cannot prove that Y has its origin in X, because the TV set example directly refutes this!! What are you unable to understand about this?? Not that I believe that in the consciousness/brain case that consciousness always follows processes in the brain. This is epiphenomenalism and is incoherent. Also, the materialist thesis of saying that consciousness is the same as such processes, or is the same as the function of such processes, is a flat out denial of the facts.

Now of course you will not agree with me here, but that's irrelevant to my refutation of Ossai's "proof". You're all just making yourselves look like idiots to any lurker. Why not at least concede on this and acknowledge that correlations between X and Y do not force the conclusion that Y has its origin in X (or vive versa)? I say again TV sets directly refute your contention here! . .not an abstract philosophical proof!

But yes, I believe that the mind/brain relationship is analogically akin to a TV set in this particular narrow sense regarding origin. Thus, just as you would not get a picture if you took a TV set back to the 17th Century, if you had a matter duplicator device and we duplicated your body, your duplicate would just slump to the floor. In other words it would be a corpse. You, on the other hand, must believe that it would not only be alive, but would be you in the fullest sense. Indeed, rationally you should be perfectly happy about your original body being destroyed -- or indeed be perfectly happy with killing you before the duplicate is created.

 

[Interesting Ian]

You really are one of the most self absorbed prats, with total delusions of grandeur, that I have ever come across online.
How dare you insult anyone on this forum when all you do is repeat the same bulls**t over and over and over again. You are not fooling anyone with that thesaurus function on your word processor. Just adding big and clever words to a sentence does not make you knowledgeable.

I'd rather be a self absorbed prat than a thick prat.

 

[Ashles]

I'd rather be a self absorbed prat than a thick prat.

Do you want the good news or the bad news?

 

[voidx]

It doesn't matter how television sets work. The point is that neither the picture nor the storyline of the programme has its origin in the sets internal components. Don't believe me? What do you think would be displayed if someone took a TV set back to the 17th century?? This proves that simply from the fact that Y might always follow X, this cannot prove that Y has its origin in X, because the TV set example directly refutes this!! What are you unable to understand about this?? Not that I believe that in the consciousness/brain case that consciousness always follows processes in the brain. This is epiphenomenalism and is incoherent. Also, the materialist thesis of saying that consciousness is the same as such processes, or is the same as the function of such processes, is a flat out denial of the facts.

Its a good thing humans aren't TV sets or that might have been really disconcerting . So by comparison of the fact that you wouldn't get anything on your TV if you took it back to the 17th century (except for Xtreme Jousting on ESPN) how far back do we take our human body back to find that it has no consciousness? I mean, being an analogy and all its a fair question. And what came first? The TV program or the TV?

Honestly though, its just a bad analogy as has been pointed out to you in many ways previously. To you the TV is just a dumb terminal spitting out a fiction or program received from some TV station in the ether. And so you think humans are the same. One rather major difference though is that TV's do not have inputs with which to construct new fictions, something human's have. Which is why we don't require the big TV station in the ether. We take in information, and create logical fictions with it, that are then observed by others. Unless your TV is way cooler than mine, its just not a good comparison to humans.

But I gotta run, Sir Mix-a-lot is competing on Xtreme Jousting.