Why dualism?

[Thor 2]

I offer this as some way towards proving there is no afterlife.

What about a person who has a deteriorating mental state. I'm sure many of us here, have had the experience of observing a loved one, with a slowly diminishing mental state. You could say after a while they are partially brain dead. So were is the original person then? Has he or she partially departed?

 

[annnnoid]

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.

There are so many factual mistakes in this post that it is way beyond a waste of my time to correct them. Suffice it to say that Sean Carroll and his stupid theories were thoroughly and utterly demolished in an earlier thread (can’t be bothered to dig up). Feel entirely free to resurrect it (if you can find it). Besides having a relative who’s a physics prof. at Cambridge, I’ve a friend who’s got a masters in theoretical physics…very useful when dealing with retarded physicists spouting garbage. These dumb ideas get thrown around until someone takes the time to examine them…at which point it becomes blindingly obvious just how intellectually bankrupt they actually are.

…but until then they do a great job of feeding the skeptic hoard.

The rest of the points about consciousness this that and the other are equally bankrupt...and could be very easily demonstrated as such. But this is a thread about dualism or something...and digging up the 'consciousness monster' for the thousandth time is just getting boring.

 

[Navigator]

I offer this as some way towards proving there is no afterlife.

What about a person who has a deteriorating mental state. I'm sure many of us here, have had the experience of observing a loved one, with a slowly diminishing mental state. You could say after a while they are partially brain dead. So were is the original person then? Has he or she partially departed?

The problem is that your question doesn't serve in any way to 'proving there is no afterlife.'

All it really does is open the subject up to speculative discussion...as in...

Q: "So were is the original person then? Has he or she partially departed?"

A: "He or she is already experiencing an alternate reality by the same degree that they are not experiencing this one."

See?

Then you could come back with a "prove it - show me the evidence that your claim is true!" and *bazinga* your ennui is diminished for the time being...until the next round... etc...

Its a silly game at best.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

There are so many factual mistakes in this post that it is way beyond a waste of my time to correct them. Suffice it to say that Sean Carroll and his stupid theories were thoroughly and utterly demolished in an earlier thread (can’t be bothered to dig up). Feel entirely free to resurrect it (if you can find it). Besides having a relative who’s a physics prof. at Cambridge, I’ve a friend who’s got a masters in theoretical physics…very useful when dealing with retarded physicists spouting garbage. These dumb ideas get thrown around until someone takes the time to examine them…at which point it becomes blindingly obvious just how intellectually bankrupt they actually are.

…but until then they do a great job of feeding the skeptic hoard.

The rest of the points about consciousness this that and the other are equally bankrupt...and could be very easily demonstrated as such. But this is a thread about dualism or something...and digging up the 'consciousness monster' for the thousandth time is just getting boring.

So you could very easily make a completely devastating argument that would quickly and simply resolve the matter, but you're just choosing not to? You'll forgive me if I'm sceptical.

 

[annnnoid]

So you could very easily make a completely devastating argument that would quickly and simply resolve the matter, but you're just choosing not to? You'll forgive me if I'm sceptical.

Go look for the thread. Carroll is an idiot. Like so many stupid skeptics he extrapolates what is known far far beyond any reasonable doubt. It’s not science, its speculation (aka: religion)…pure and simple. This was demonstrated unequivocally on that thread (which, btw, died an ignoble death when all Carroll's supporters completely ran out of any and all ability to defend his stupid assertions).

As for consciousness…there does not exist anything even remotely resembling a definition of what it is. In fact, no one even knows if it is a singular empirically differentiated ‘thing’ (or not). Nor does there exist the slightest capacity to empirically quantify whatever it is…or is not.

It’s all smoke and mirrors (but it sure impresses the hell out of the skeptic hoard).

…thus, your entire position fails right from the beginning.

 

[ferd burfle]

Go look for the thread. Carroll is an idiot. Like so many stupid skeptics he extrapolates what is known far far beyond any reasonable doubt. It’s not science, its speculation (aka: religion)…pure and simple.

There really ought to be a version of Godwin's Law where
"Nazi" or "Hitler" is replaced with "religion".


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Thor 2]

The problem is that your question doesn't serve in any way to 'proving there is no afterlife.'

All it really does is open the subject up to speculative discussion...as in...

Q: "So were is the original person then? Has he or she partially departed?"

A: "He or she is already experiencing an alternate reality by the same degree that they are not experiencing this one."

See?

Then you could come back with a "prove it - show me the evidence that your claim is true!" and *bazinga* your ennui is diminished for the time being...until the next round... etc...

Its a silly game at best.

Oh thanks heaps Navigator! It doesn't take you long to come in from nowhere with a disparaging comment does it?

I did say, if you bothered to read it, that it goes part way to proving. I think it requires some mental agility to imagine a person being somehow part way here or there. Perhaps you have that agility, whereas I do not.

 

[Navigator]

Seriously Thor 2...the comment is not inaccurate. It happens a lot.

Apart from that, 'part way there' is not there., and may never get there using the current popular logic that is oft employed.

If it is just about having the mental agility, fair enough, but more oft than not, displaying such is greeted with the pack mentality of disparaging comments, accusations, calls for evidence etc...I kid you not dude. "Mental agility' is frowned upon by the likes, and I am more than willing and able to stand up to that kind of practice.

 

[Aepervius]

Oh okay. *shrugs*

Nice discussion technique there Darat.

But he has a point. What could make this possible ? Try explain without resorting circularly to gods and existing beliefs.

basically you will hit a wall. The reason for that, is that if you remove any pre existing belief, you are left with not much. Taking the natural world only, things starts, continue then ends. Be it a rock, a piece of wood, a tree, an animal.... or us.

Do you believe in an afterlife for that rock before you shattered it ? For that tree before you cut and burnt it ? For that chicken before you cooked it ? So why would we human be special in that regard ?

Once you discard belief and wishful thinking, you start to realize that calling afterlife possible makes as much sense as calling unicorn possible.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Go look for the thread. Carroll is an idiot. Like so many stupid skeptics he extrapolates what is known far far beyond any reasonable doubt. It’s not science, its speculation (aka: religion)…pure and simple. This was demonstrated unequivocally on that thread (which, btw, died an ignoble death when all Carroll's supporters completely ran out of any and all ability to defend his stupid assertions).

What thread? A search of the board turns up no thread on Caroll whatsoever.

As for consciousness…there does not exist anything even remotely resembling a definition of what it is. In fact, no one even knows if it is a singular empirically differentiated ‘thing’ (or not). Nor does there exist the slightest capacity to empirically quantify whatever it is…or is not.

Correct. What's that got to do with my post?

 

[annnnoid]

What thread? A search of the board turns up no thread on Caroll whatsoever.

Correct. What's that got to do with my post?

The thread was about NDE’s or something. Jodie and dlorde got into a tussle and dlorde specifically referenced Sean Carroll’s youtube video. I checked out the vid and sent my physics friends a summary…which they essentially described as a load of steaming crap. We went through the various points on the thread…and eventually nobody had anything more to say about Carroll and his crap…so it got dropped and the thread ended.

To put it simply…Carroll’s argument is worthless. He’s a scientist and he’s connecting dots that can’t be connected. For some reason this does not seem to be a problem. So much for science.

As for consciousness…you make a whole bunch of points about consciousness this that and the other as if we actually have some definitive idea what’s going on. We don’t. Not anywhere in any explicit way. No one has a clue what the specific relationship is between the physical activity of the brain and this thing we call consciousness (the situation has been described by neuroscientists using those exact words). Nor does anyone have a clue what consciousness actually is, or if it is a thing in and of itself. It is therefore utterly impossible to conclude…as you do in your post…that there is any kind of explicit causal relationship between the brain and whatever-it-is that we are. There are correlations. Nobody knows about causes. I could get much more detailed…and I have in previous threads…even with ISF members who have obvious scientific credentials. Without exception they, as well as the less experienced, have utterly failed to resolve a single point I have ever presented. This is simply because…as I said…neuroscience really doesn’t have a clue as to the causal relationships involved or what consciousness even is. Lots of skeptics really really do not like to have to admit that or what it implies.

…in addition…there are vast numbers of reports throughout recorded history of individuals who experience anomalous psychological events (NDE’s, OBE’s, etc. etc. etc.). This is called evidence. There does not exist anywhere anything remotely resembling a definitive explanation for these events (any more than there exists – even remotely – a definitive explanation for what you or I even are!). There does exist lots of idiots who are convinced that there stupid ideas actually solve these issues. Carroll is one of them. There also exists lots of skeptics who are quite happy to swallow any old explanation without ever taking the time to examine it with anything remotely resembling skepticism.

Admittedly...these issues are probably some of the most complex that exist in science today...and Carroll should be expected to actually have some scientific integrity (apparently not).

...but...without exception, whenever these so-called explanations are examined carefully, they are found to be either conjecture, speculation, conditional, or utter garbage.

 

[Navigator]

The thread was about NDE’s or something. Jodie and dlorde got into a tussle and dlorde specifically referenced Sean Carroll’s youtube video. I checked out the vid and sent my physics friends a summary…which they essentially described as a load of steaming crap. We went through the various points on the thread…and eventually nobody had anything more to say about Carroll and his crap…so it got dropped and the thread ended.

To put it simply…Carroll’s argument is worthless. He’s a scientist and he’s connecting dots that can’t be connected. For some reason this does not seem to be a problem. So much for science.

As for consciousness…you make a whole bunch of points about consciousness this that and the other as if we actually have some definitive idea what’s going on. We don’t. Not anywhere in any explicit way. No one has a clue what the specific relationship is between the physical activity of the brain and this thing we call consciousness (the situation has been described by neuroscientists using those exact words). Nor does anyone have a clue what consciousness actually is, or if it is a thing in and of itself. It is therefore utterly impossible to conclude…as you do in your post…that there is any kind of explicit causal relationship between the brain and whatever-it-is that we are. There are correlations. Nobody knows about causes. I could get much more detailed…and I have in previous threads…even with ISF members who have obvious scientific credentials. Without exception they, as well as the less experienced, have utterly failed to resolve a single point I have ever presented. This is simply because…as I said…neuroscience really doesn’t have a clue as to the causal relationships involved or what consciousness even is. Lots of skeptics really really do not like to have to admit that or what it implies.

…in addition…there are vast numbers of reports throughout recorded history of individuals who experience anomalous psychological events (NDE’s, OBE’s, etc. etc. etc.). This is called evidence. There does not exist anywhere anything remotely resembling a definitive explanation for these events (any more than there exists – even remotely – a definitive explanation for what you or I even are!). There does exist lots of idiots who are convinced that there stupid ideas actually solve these issues. Carroll is one of them. There also exists lots of skeptics who are quite happy to swallow any old explanation without ever taking the time to examine it with anything remotely resembling skepticism.

Admittedly...these issues are probably some of the most complex that exist in science today...and Carroll should be expected to actually have some scientific integrity (apparently not).

...but...without exception, whenever these so-called explanations are examined carefully, they are found to be either conjecture, speculation, conditional, or utter garbage.

I think it has a lot to do with atheism being confused with skepticism. The 'joining of dots which are not there' is all about bias rather than anything particularly scientific. It is perfectly acceptable to remain skeptical about the nature of consciousness as implied by theists who then embark on a similar 'connecting of dots that aren't there' but unacceptable to practice the same type of assumptive reasoning based upon not what is being observed but rather what is assumed from the observations. Atheists who use science to argue against theists in relation to consciousness are misusing science. Even the scientists who do this are misusing science.

 

[Navigator]

But he has a point.

No, he does not. My point was far more logical...It isn't about wishful thinking but actual experiences which people have to which they are thus forced to think about such things. This is where the 'knowing it could be possible' derives.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The thread was about NDE’s or something. Jodie and dlorde got into a tussle and dlorde specifically referenced Sean Carroll’s youtube video. I checked out the vid and sent my physics friends a summary…which they essentially described as a load of steaming crap. We went through the various points on the thread…and eventually nobody had anything more to say about Carroll and his crap…so it got dropped and the thread ended.

And I'm supposed to take your word for it that this is an accurate and unbiased account of what occurred in this thread that you won't link to?

No one has a clue what the specific relationship is between the physical activity of the brain and this thing we call consciousness (the situation has been described by neuroscientists using those exact words).

I like the subtlety of this straw man. As straw men go, it's quite artful.

I also like the way that the appeal to authority is without citation.

That's quite impressive for just the one sentence.

…in addition…there are vast numbers of reports throughout recorded history of individuals who experience anomalous psychological events (NDE’s, OBE’s, etc. etc. etc.). This is called evidence.

What do you believe it's evidence of?

 

[annnnoid]

And I'm supposed to take your word for it that this is an accurate and unbiased account of what occurred in this thread that you won't link to?

…I “won’t link to”. Yeah…cause I’m so terrified that you’ll find something. Here’s the actual argument. The others had nothing…absolutely nothing…to say about it. Go look if you even care.

Carroll’s claim boils down to this: That there is no known medium or mechanism that could account for NDE’s / OBE’s etc., and that if they were to occur they would be detectable.

A theoretical physicist had this to say about that:

I find the claim that "were to occur it would be detectable" somewhat question-begging. It presumes that it (OBEs) would occur in a way that is easily detectable through the known forces of nature (EM, weak, strong, gravity). But in fact, it's not so clear. For example, the electromagnetic vacuum energy of quantum electrodynamics is an enormous energy density, yet we can barely observe its indirect physical effects on visible matter other than in highly controlled experimental setups (e.g. Casimir plates in a hard vacuum). If OBEs (say) were mediated by the E&M vacuum energy (perhaps through correlations in the vacuum field modes or whatever), it would be extremely hard to detect those correlations (much harder than doing a Casimir effect experiment). Then of course, there's the fact that there are mediums in our physical universe whose constituents or physical origins we know next to nothing about - dark matter and dark energy (it's not clear yet if dark energy is really the same as the electromagnetic/weak/strong quantum vacuum energy, or something different). These two mediums constitute around 96% of the mass-energy content of the universe, yet the only way we know how to 'detect' them at the moment is by observing their gravitational effects at galactic and inter-galactic scales. If (say) the medium for OBEs (assuming they really are 'consciousness' displacing itself from the physical brain) was mediated by dark matter and/or dark energy, it would be hopeless right now to try and detect the physical effects of an OBE with earth-bound lab experiments, and probably impossible to infer OBEs from gravitational effects at galactic or inter-galactic scales. I can't think of any evidence or theory that can decisively rule out these two possibilities for the mediums of OBEs, and I highly doubt that your skeptical associates can either. But it would be interesting to hear how they might try.

There wasn’t a single post in the other thread that even began to challenge a single one of these points (do let me know if you actually find one). All they did…over and over and over and over…was call the author names. Very impressive.

I like the subtlety of this straw man. As straw men go, it's quite artful.

I also like the way that the appeal to authority is without citation.

That's quite impressive for just the one sentence.

…and here’s the direct quote from the neuroscientists:

We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain and we do not know whether consciousness can emerge from non-biological systems, such as computers.

No doubt you will behave like all the other wannabee skeptics and pretend that these are not real neuroscientists (try google before you jump on that stupid bandwagon)… or that their position is wrong.

…in which case you can give these questions a try:

- What is it about any particular neural process that causes any sensory input to be felt as a particular sensation or experience?
- What physical property differentiates the quality of these experiences?
- How is this process expressed through the biochemistry of neurons?
- What part of the system actually has the experience(s)?
- What are the relevant physical properties of this portion of the system that causes it to be subjectively sensible?
- Why (for example) does the amygdala have the physical dimensions and bio-chemical constitution that it has (and how did it achieve that condition) and in what specific ways do these elements determine its cognitive functionality? When you’re done explaining that, provide equivalent explanations for every other significantly differentiated brain region (modularity of mind...what many claim is evidence that we know how the brain works).

So far not a single one of you has even attempted to answer any of these questions (and others that I continually post when that quote is challenged). You just scream and moan that the quote I introduce is wrong…but never anything remotely resembling something called evidence to explain why.

…like I said…most of you are simply biased and ignorant. You don’t like the facts, so you just ignore them. So much for skepticism.

What do you believe it's evidence of?

Lots of things that you don't like the sound of.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Go look if you even care.

I have. Searching turns up 3 threads, none of which are the one you describe (and which you have only even described after being asked to).

You seem not to understand how burden of proof works, or why it is what it is.

A theoretical physicist had this to say about that:

Any theoretical physicist in particular? You've not really got the hang of this whole "citation" thing, have you?

…and here’s the direct quote from the neuroscientists:

"the neuroscientists"? What, all of them?

No doubt you will behave like all the other wannabee skeptics and pretend that these are not real neuroscientists (try google before you jump on that stupid bandwagon)… or that their position is wrong.

Christ knows what they are. You've not given me anything to go on other than your assertion that "these" are "the neuroscientists".

Still, I'm not sure that it's at all relevant, as nothing in that statement contradicts anything I've said.

Lots of things that you don't like the sound of.

And now you know what is inside my head? So much for scepticism indeed.

 

[annnnoid]

I have. Searching turns up 3 threads, none of which are the one you describe (and which you have only even described after being asked to).

You seem not to understand how burden of proof works, or why it is what it is.

…and you do not seem to understand how the search function works. When I search for that paragraph above I get only two replies. One of which is the post above. The other is the thread where it originally appeared.

Any theoretical physicist in particular? You've not really got the hang of this whole "citation" thing, have you?

Why on earth does it matter who it is? The others were similarly fixated on the personal details of the individual in question. What matters are the points being made. The others couldn’t come up with a single challenge to a single one of them. It remains to be seen whether or not you will manage any better.

"the neuroscientists"? What, all of them?

Really having trouble with that search thingy aren’t you. Give it a try. Google that quote and see what comes up. If you can manage to figure it out you will discover that the book that the quote is taken from is edited by a group of neuroscientists. If you read around the quote you will discover that they do not use ‘I’ anywhere…they use ‘we’.

…neuroscientists…pleural.

Christ knows what they are. You've not given me anything to go on other than your assertion that "these" are "the neuroscientists".

…google knows what they are. My search took all of 1.4 seconds. You should give it a try sometime.

Still, I'm not sure that it's at all relevant, as nothing in that statement contradicts anything I've said.

You have claimed that there can be no interaction between the physical brain and something as yet undetected by science.

…this is utter crap. We don’t even begin to know enough to claim that we know how the brain works (‘light-years’ would be a good metaphor to describe how far away that particular holy grail actually is). We sure as hell don’t know how consciousness works (…we don’t even know what it is, or if it is a ‘thing’!). As for whatever there is that is undetected by science…it goes without saying that whatever that may be…we know nothing about that either.

…so your claim is crap...on every possible level!

You have also made numerous claims about the well established relationship between the brain and consciousness. As that quote very clearly establishes…that relationship is anything but well-established…and there does not exist anywhere anyhow anything remotely resembling an empirical definition for or understanding of this thing you call consciousness that you keep referring to.

…so A) It’s fundamentally relevant cause it establishes that your points are nonsense and B) it contradicts just about everything you say to one degree or another.

To summarize…it is quite obvious that the brain influences who and what we are fundamentally. But…nobody really knows who and what we are and nobody really knows how that happens or what actually is happening. Nor does there exist anything resembling the most remote capacity to establish that NDE’s or OBE’s or paranormal experiences of any kind what-so-ever cannot or do not happen.

I could go into lots and lots of detail with this stuff so I wouldn’t waste your time trying to dispute any of these issues unless you really know what you’re talking about. There are folks at ISF with actual neuroscience credentials who have got nowhere with these points and from the looks of things you don’t possess any such experience.

And now you know what is inside my head? So much for scepticism indeed.

You’re a skeptic. You have an aversion to anything that smells of woo. Would I be guessing if I assumed that life after death ranks high on that list?...I don’t think so.

 

[David Mo]

…and here’s the direct quote from the neuroscientists:

We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain and we do not know whether consciousness can emerge from non-biological systems, such as computers.

Can you precise some points?:

Who are these "the neuroscientists"?Can you quote some of them? "Google" is a too vague answer. What keywords? A link, please.

What does "consciousness" mean here?

Do you admit the difference between to know that and to know how?

I need your answers to understand your position. Thank you.

 

[annnnoid]

Can you precise some points?:

Who are these "the neuroscientists"?Can you quote some of them? "Google" is a too vague answer. What keywords? A link, please.

…sorry…I simply cannot understand how ‘google’ can be vague in this instance. Whenever I search for that quote I get one and only one specific source. There are numerous places where the quote is referenced…only one where it is sourced.

If you look on the side-bar of that specific source you will see a list of the editors / authors of the book. They were (at the time the book was published) professionals practicing in the field of cognitive science. If you want to confirm this you need do no more than search each of their names.

What does "consciousness" mean here?

I have no idea what ‘consciousness’ means here, there, or anywhere…and neither does anyone else (beyond “it is what I am”). Like much of human nature, there is an almost biblical disconnect between what we know ‘subjectively’ and what we empirically know ‘scientifically’.

…thus, we all know (or believe we do) what / who ‘I’ am. Science, on the other hand, doesn’t really have a clue. Thus…consciousness is a word without an empirical definition. IOW…science does not know what a human being is.

Do you admit the difference between to know that and to know how?

No idea what you mean by this.

 

[David Mo]

…sorry…I simply cannot understand how ‘google’ can be vague in this instance.

Well, you are quoting an article of Wikipedia: "Animal consciousness": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness . The problem is that your quotation is not referred to "the neuroscientists" (as you said) but to a book written by seven of them. Usually this kind of books is not written by all the authors together. Each of one is usually responsible of a chapter or section. In this case you don't seem to know what of them is the author of the sentence. Then we have a statement from a single anonym neuroscientist. This is not a great authority argument.

I have no idea what ‘consciousness’ means here, there, or anywhere…and neither does anyone else (beyond “it is what I am”). Like much of human nature, there is an almost biblical disconnect between what we know ‘subjectively’ and what we empirically know ‘scientifically’.

…thus, we all know (or believe we do) what / who ‘I’ am. Science, on the other hand, doesn’t really have a clue. Thus…consciousness is a word without an empirical definition. IOW…science does not know what a human being is.

If you don't know what you are speaking about how can you affirm anything about this?

Neuroscientists and philosophers usually give an operative definition of "consciousness": subjective states, will, intentionality, Ego, etc. If you have no definition you cannot say anytihing about it.

No idea what you mean by this.

You can know that fire warms the water although you may not know how it does this.

We are in a similar situation with the relation mind-body. We know that many states of mind are caused by brain activity although we may not explain how this happens.