Why dualism?

[Porpoise of Life]

The impression I get is that 'we' can't have me being 'right' but whatever! It wasn't the point I was making.

The claim made was that there is no evidence. If you have evidence provide it. Otherwise at the very least, argue against what I have said rather than make stupid snide comments about me. Okay?

Good.

How would one prove there is no afterlife? Other than by pointing to the conspicuous lack of evidence in favor of it?

 

[Thor 2]

How would one prove there is no afterlife? Other than by pointing to the conspicuous lack of evidence in favor of it?

Same old argument about the existence of god. Now we have the situation were we are asked to provide proof there is no afterlife. No, no, no, those that say there is must provide the proof.

 

[Pup]

...but not staying neutral because of what evidence there is, is still an act of belief.

As is saying we cannot know. You believe the evidence is insufficient.

You're planning to die one day, like everyone, I expect. Or is that something else you believe you can't know? If you die and are still conscious, you will know there's an afterlife.

*Chuckles* It isn't about 'being wrong' or 'being right'. No one knows, get it? I know you want to be right because that is part of the belief you have about your position Pup. That is why you can argue against anything opposing your beliefs. But there is no evidence, and without that, there is no need to establish any beliefs, but you do anyway...

You hold the belief that there's no evidence. I disagree with your belief. I'm not sure, but it seems you're saying that even those who have died and still experience consciousness wouldn't know.

I agree that if there's no afterlife, we can never be aware of the definite answer, but it's too far out in the land of strange beliefs for me to believe that if there is an afterlife, no one can know. Maybe one of those Christian options where the dead haven't been resurrected yet? But if that's true, they still would know one day.

 

[Magrat]

Then what makes it "your" church? If your parents, siblings and child don't share that faith I'm wondering why you identify with the church at all. Are you cursed with faith you'd rather not have?

Lounging around on clouds doesn't seem all that fun ... but the sky is a metaphor and signifier of transcendence, infinity and eternity. It's something all humans share as opposed to local landmarks, caves, fields etc.

By referring to "my church" you run the risk of being taken for a theist RogueKitten.

I just think the idea of eternity in whatever company is insanity inducing. Even trying to contemplate infinity of distance can drive you nuts.

Sorry, didn't think about that some people on this thread don't know me.

We homeschool, and in our area the only co-op available is christian. Very nice people I am happy to call my friends, but I myself do not believe.

Don't forget your daughter!!!!! I prefer those who are invested (As they say: Jesus saves, but Moses invests!!!)!!!!!!

My daughter is christian again right now, just got back from church camp. (It is a lot of fun, and they give her a scholarship. Couldn't possibly afford camp on our own. Also all her friends go). She will be atheist again in a few weeks.

She's young.

 

[Magrat]

No because as long as "Wrong and Right" exist, there exists the possibility of you being wrong and we just can't have that can we?




Anti-intellectualism distilled down to it's purest and most condensed form. Any unknown = a blank slate to claim whatever I want.

You've just summed up an entire thread with this individual, who claims a supernatural entity possibly exists because we can't disprove it. Even when I was a practicing christian I don't recall claiming something so silly. Faith is okay, be honest about faith. But trying to make it sound logical is ridiculous.

 

[LarryS]

I wonder if anyone here has researched how man developed into a creature that believes in an afterlife, that feels it has a "soul" apart from its body. I suggest dualism came about because of a need to believe in an afterlife, which reveals a fear of the end of one's own existence. Animals have survival instincts; they pine; they grieve. But do they actually fear death? Is it an accident that humans developed rituals and taboos around the subject, or did* it serve some adaptive purpose? Did shamanistic con men use it to increase their own power and importance?

It seems to be almost a defining factor in the development of modern man. This isn't even just about religion - many us intuitively separate body and mind. Language reinforces the idea of separation, with concepts such as "willpower" and "mind over matter."

Why did humans develop this way?

It could also be due to the 'perennial philosophy' - when mystics and normal folks throughout recorded human history have transcendental experiences - experiences which are better explained with a model that includes something like a 'soul'. Interestingly, the more elaborate articulations of the 'perennial philosophy' state that a clear experience of being a 'soul' is the normal life of a human being. I put the above terms in quotes because I am not an expert and am using the terms casually.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

How would one prove there is no afterlife? Other than by pointing to the conspicuous lack of evidence in favor of it?

Well, there is evidence against any part of consciousness being non-physical, which I'd take as evidence against an afterlife.

There's a YouTube video somewhere of a talk by Dr. Sean Caroll where he outlines how quantum field theory rules out any interactions between the brain and something that we can't as yet detect. That's very interesting and would rule out any part of our consciousnesses going anywhere after death.

Different evidence for the same thing would be the well-established relationship between the brain and consciousness. If the brain is physically damaged in specific ways it can alter consciousness/personality in predictable, replicable ways. If brain chemistry is altered (such as by taking a psychoactive drug of some kind) that can affect consciousness/personality in predictable, replicable ways. It has been observed that undertaking specific tasks (such as recognising faces) causes specific parts of the brain to be utilised. And so on.

So there's plenty of evidence that consciousness is intrinsically linked to the physical brain, and evidence that there can be no interaction between the physical brain and something as yet undetected by science. I'd count that as evidence that consciousness cannot exist outside of a physical brain. And that is evidence that the afterlife doesn't exist.

 

[Navigator]

As is saying we cannot know. You believe the evidence is insufficient.

I know the evidence is insufficient. So much so that there is no evidence either way.

You're planning to die one day, like everyone, I expect.

Not really sure that one plans to die anymore than one plans to be born...it is just one of those things...

Or is that something else you believe you can't know? If you die and are still conscious, you will know there's an afterlife.

If one dies and still experiences an afterlife then one does not die. Ones body dies.

Which of course would signify that 'life' is about being conscious and experiencing something.

You hold the belief that there's no evidence. I disagree with your belief. I'm not sure, but it seems you're saying that even those who have died and still experience consciousness wouldn't know.

I am not saying anything about what afterlife might be if it is the case.

I agree that if there's no afterlife, we can never be aware of the definite answer, but it's too far out in the land of strange beliefs for me to believe that if there is an afterlife, no one can know. Maybe one of those Christian options where the dead haven't been resurrected yet? But if that's true, they still would know one day.

Yes. There either is or there isn't. No telling which.

 

[Pup]

I know the evidence is insufficient. So much so that there is no evidence either way.

If you can say you know the evidence is insufficient, then to be fair, allow others the same privilege. Or if you want to say that others' conclusions are "still an act of belief," then so are yours.

Otherwise, you're making incredibly egotistical posts telling others that they only believe what the evidence indicates, but you alone actually know. What offensive nonsense. We're all competent adults here, forming our own conclusions about the strength of the evidence. Some will say ghostly encounters are evidence of an afterlife; others will say that's weak evidence or none. Some will say that consciousness requiring a brain is evidence that consciousness can't continue immaterially; others will say that's weak evidence or none.

I'd be happy either to say I know or I believe what the strength of the evidence is. What I'm not happy about is being told that you know, but others don't.

 

[Navigator]

If you can say you know the evidence is insufficient, then to be fair, allow others the same privilege. Or if you want to say that others' conclusions are "still an act of belief," then so are yours.

Otherwise, you're making incredibly egotistical posts telling others that they only believe what the evidence indicates, but you alone actually know. What offensive nonsense. We're all competent adults here, forming our own conclusions about the strength of the evidence. Some will say ghostly encounters are evidence of an afterlife; others will say that's weak evidence or none. Some will say that consciousness requiring a brain is evidence that consciousness can't continue immaterially; others will say that's weak evidence or none.

I'd be happy either to say I know or I believe what the strength of the evidence is. What I'm not happy about is being told that you know, but others don't.

I know that there is insufficient evidence. That is what I know. You seem to also know this. It is knowable. My argument is directed at those who know this but still choose to believe one way or the other.

In other words - there is no necessity to draw conclusions one way or the other, and I don't - and so nope - no offence in that.

That is all.

 

[Navigator]

How would one prove there is no afterlife? Other than by pointing to the conspicuous lack of evidence in favor of it?

What kind of evidence would you accept that there is an afterlife? I can't think of any myself.

 

[Darat]

I think it was an accident that served an adaptive purpose. ...snip...

I agree, I suspect that it occurred long before language did. For humans people actually don't cease to exist when they die even if we see them die. This is because we have an internal model of the people we know and this does not end when the person dies.

I think it will have arisen because as our ability to model the world improved (allowing us to better survive) we obviously had to model people in that world. We can see these models baked into our languages today, our language is "dualist" because its roots lie back when we started to create sophisticated models of each other which improved cooperation and of course probably improved non-cooperation as well. When language started we would also be able to describe or communicate about the "person" that "survives" death.

 

[Darat]

What kind of evidence would you accept that there is an afterlife? I can't think of any myself.

Communication verified to be from a verified deceased person.

 

[Pup]

I know that there is insufficient evidence. That is what I know. You seem to also know this. It is knowable. My argument is directed at those who know this but still choose to believe one way or the other.

There is sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion. That is what I know.

I'm willing to say I either believe or know there is sufficient evidence, in the same way I'd be happy to say I either believe or know there's enough evidence to decide on the reality of unicorns and Barack Obama.

Telling me what you believe/know is fine. But don't tell me what I believe/know.

 

[Navigator]

There is sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion. That is what I know.

I'm willing to say I either believe or know there is sufficient evidence, in the same way I'd be happy to say I either believe or know there's enough evidence to decide on the reality of unicorns and Barack Obama.

Telling me what you believe/know is fine. But don't tell me what I believe/know.

I don't care what you believe. Don't tell me what you believe.

What you know is what can be known.

 

[Navigator]

Communication verified to be from a verified deceased person.

How would you go about achieving that?

 

[Navigator]

I agree, I suspect that it occurred long before language did. For humans people actually don't cease to exist when they die even if we see them die. This is because we have an internal model of the people we know and this does not end when the person dies.

I think it will have arisen because as our ability to model the world improved (allowing us to better survive) we obviously had to model people in that world. We can see these models baked into our languages today, our language is "dualist" because its roots lie back when we started to create sophisticated models of each other which improved cooperation and of course probably improved non-cooperation as well. When language started we would also be able to describe or communicate about the "person" that "survives" death.

I think the concept comes from knowing it could be possible and then forming beliefs around what it is going to be like (when one dies) because it is unsatisfactory (in relation to your observation re language etc) to simply leave it as a possibility which cannot be proven true or false.

The subjective experiences of visions of afterlife which we can assume have gone on throughout human history to present day tend to 'paint pictures' of 'what it will be like' and are the strongest reasons for why afterlife ideas have flourished and remain part of the human story.

 

[Darat]

How would you go about achieving that?

Off topic for this thread.

 

[Darat]

]I think the concept comes from knowing it could be possible and then forming beliefs around what it is going to be like (when one dies) because it is unsatisfactory (in relation to your observation re language etc) to simply leave it as a possibility which cannot be proven true or false.

The subjective experiences of visions of afterlife which we can assume have gone on throughout human history to present day tend to 'paint pictures' of 'what it will be like' and are the strongest reasons for why afterlife ideas have flourished and remain part of the human story.

Rubbish.

 

[Navigator]

Rubbish.

Oh okay. *shrugs*

Nice discussion technique there Darat.