|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 07/22/2004 : 22:15:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In other words, I (and I think Ricky) find your judgements regarding consciousness and God to be inconsistent. I believe that were you to choose and apply the same standard to both, you'd either be an atheist who denies consciousness after death, or an agnostic who's undecided about what happens to the mind when the brain ceases to function.
Well, you'd be wrong.
Why can't I be the guy who isn't willing to speculate without more evidence? I hate being trapped in an either/or... what if there are other options that we have not considered or yet percieved?
There is nothing, in any argument or attempt to demostrate evidence, that you can point to and say.... there's god.
I can clearly point to humans and say that we all posess a quality that we define as consciousness. This makes for a fundamental difference in the topics.
The FACT is that we DO NOT know what happens to human consciousness upon death. Anything we say is nothing more than speculation.
quote:
The only way to reasonably conclude that no gods exist is through the use of Occam's Razor - gods are unnecessary pluralities. If you suggest that the Razor is inappropriate to use regarding consciousness after death, you should also deny its use in your decision about the gods
I do, my previous post regarding Occam and arguments for god was an attempt at an analogy... perhaps not so clearly stated. I find that you do not need to utilize Occam's razor for any situation wherin the proposed explanations have zero evidence to support them. It is an uneccessary complication to the argument. Any position or statement that is unsupported by evidence is nothing more than a gratuitious assertion. They may be gratuitiously dismissed.
quote:
I am, if you'll allow me to coin a term, arguing for nothing more than the "weak worm-food" position, in that I find that reaching a tentative conclusion (only valid until new evidence arrives) that consciousness does not survive death is reasonable. I reject, as do you, the "strong worm-food" position (utter denial of the merest possibility of post-mortem consciousness) as unreasonably and illogically sure of itself.
I'd say that any conclusion you draw concerning what happens to the consciousness after death, that is unsupported by evidence, is unreasonable and logically flawed.
quote:
In other words, I (and I think Ricky) find your judgements regarding consciousness and God to be inconsistent.
To address this more specifically...
The two ideas are fundamentally different. To interject god into any discussion of the fate of consciousness after death is a bit of a red herring. Even so, there is no inconsistency.
God exists- I reject this idea for three reasons.
1. Lack of any evidence.
2. Lack of any sound argument.
3. Lack of the neccessity of god to explain anything.
These lacks are a sound reason to propose evidence of abscence for god, and the basis of my professed atheism.
Now, when talking about human consciousness, we have an observable phenomenon to discuss. There is no question about the existence of this phenomenon.
Human consciousness is extinguished upon the death of the body- I reject this concept for one reason.
1. Lack of evidence to support it.
The other position put forth, human consciousness survives after the death of the body- Rejected for the same reason.
1. Lack of evidence to support it.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2004 : 03:15:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by astropin
“I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies” – ARG (2004) Does it step on anyone else's toes? I said it while having a debate with my Dad on Religion. Adam
Yes, reality can often be "cold" - but not always. Sometimes it is quite nice, as in this variation:
"I would rather face a serene reality of satin bedsheets than delude myself with uncomfortable fantasies of sleeping on rough burlap."  |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2004 : 10:57:03 [Permalink]
|
Dude, you have failed to follow through with the rest of the arguments:quote:
Now, when talking about human consciousness, we have an observable phenomenon to discuss. There is no question about the existence of this phenomenon.
Human consciousness is extinguished upon the death of the body- I reject this concept for one reason.
1. Lack of evidence to support it.
2. Debatably, there is a sound argument to support it.
3. The termination of consciousness upon death explains why there is no evidence of anyone being able to reliably communicate with us after their death.quote:
The other position put forth, human consciousness survives after the death of the body- Rejected for the same reason.
1. Lack of evidence to support it.
2. Lack of any sound argument.
3. Lack of the neccessity of survival of consciousness to explain anything.
Number 3, by the way, for both this subject and the subject of God's existence, is Occam's Razor in action. Which is why I'm puzzled that you would say this:quote:
I find that you do not need to utilize Occam's razor for any situation wherin the proposed explanations have zero evidence to support them. It is an uneccessary complication to the argument.
You also said:quote:
Any position or statement that is unsupported by evidence is nothing more than a gratuitious assertion. They may be gratuitiously dismissed.
Once again, you are confusing "assertions" and "conclusions." You:
1) assert that there is no evidence to support the existence of god,
2) assert that there is no sound argument to support the existence of god,
3) assert that god is an unnecessary hypothesis,
and from those assertions you conclude that no god exists. I, similarly,
1) assert that there is no evidence of consciousness after death,
2) assert that there are no sound arguments which support the idea of consciousness after death,
3) assert that consciousness after death is an unnecessary hypothesis,
and from those assertions I conclude that consciousness does not continue post-mortem.
Only by judging the two things to different standards, even though they are essentially the same, can one come to different conclusions. You claim, however, that the situations are fundamentally different, due to the fact that we know that consciousness is a quality possessed by living people. But let's toss around another analogy regarding abstract ideas like "consciousness":
I have a 2x4 which has the quality of "straightness." Should I leave as undecided the possibility that its own particular "straightness" might still exist after I throw the board in a chipper-shredder?quote:
The FACT is that we DO NOT know what happens to human consciousness upon death. Anything we say is nothing more than speculation.
And the FACT is that we DO NOT know squat about what a real god might be like. Anything we say is nothing more than speculation. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2004 : 11:36:25 [Permalink]
|
I must say that Dave W's arguments are sounding alot more reasonable. Just because we are conscious does not change in any way:
"1)that there is no evidence of consciousness after death,
2)that there are no sound arguments which support the idea of consciousness after death,
3that consciousness after death is an unnecessary hypothesis"
I would futher argue that there is some evidence as to how we achieve consciousness in the first place and it is purely a matter of "matter". That is to say our physical brains (and the electrical activity that takes place in them) generates our sense of consciousness. Turn off the brain and it's bye, bye consciousness. Here is another way of looking at it.
If you could make a perfect scan on my body (the brain being the key) right down to the atomic scale (actually just the molecular scale should safice) and you made a new me using new atoms, but placed those atom in the exact some locations, what you would end up with is ME, right down to my memories and everything....think about it.
Adam |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2004 : 11:44:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But, having not spent much time reading at positiveatheism, I can't say that I'm well-informed of their motivations for defining things as they do.
The motiviation they explained for this line of definitions was because the term "atheist" means no beleif in god, which would make agnostics actually be "atheist" because they do not have a belief in one.
quote:
I can clearly point to humans and say that we all posess a quality that we define as consciousness. This makes for a fundamental difference in the topics.
Yes, we know that consciousness exists when we are alive, however we are talking after death. We have not observed consciousness after death, just like we have not observed any kind of god.
Whats in question is whether consciousness exists after death or not. Just because it exists when we are alive does not have any impact at all on whether it exists after death. There is no difference in the topics.
Edit: I thought of a better way to say this. I think you are basically trying to say that there is a chance for consciousness to exist after death, since it exists in life. All things being equal, that chance is 50% (2 possibilites). This is where Occam's Razor comes in and says for there to be an afterlife, we would need to introduce something new to what we currently know about the universe. For there not to be an afterlife, we would not need to do this. So the conclusion is drawn from Occam's Razor that the easiest solutions tend to be the correct ones, and the easiest in this case being no afterlife. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 07/23/2004 11:49:31 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2004 : 13:01:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Yes, we know that consciousness exists when we are alive, however we are talking after death. We have not observed consciousness after death, just like we have not observed any kind of god.
Whats in question is whether consciousness exists after death or not. Just because it exists when we are alive does not have any impact at all on whether it exists after death. There is no difference in the topics.
There is a huge difference in the topics. One discusses pure speculation (god), the other discusses an observed phenomenon (consciousness).
quote:
Edit: I thought of a better way to say this. I think you are basically trying to say that there is a chance for consciousness to exist after death, since it exists in life. All things being equal, that chance is 50% (2 possibilites). This is where Occam's Razor comes in and says for there to be an afterlife, we would need to introduce something new to what we currently know about the universe. For there not to be an afterlife, we would not need to do this. So the conclusion is drawn from Occam's Razor that the easiest solutions tend to be the correct ones, and the easiest in this case being no afterlife.
Hey, if your comfortable with asserting a truth claim that is entirely unsupported by evidence, go for it. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2004 : 19:31:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Again, as Dave pointed out before, you have done this exact same thing with god. Yet its ok to say that you don't think that god exists when there is no evidence for or against him/her/it.
"god" is not an observable phenomenon. Consciousness is. If you can't/won't agree to that point then this conversation becomes pointless.
quote:
But consciousness has not been an observed phenomenon in dead people. Whether consciousness exists or not in the living is not the question.
All observed phenomenon have a cause. When you can provide evidence that brain activity is the cause of consciousness, as opposed to a result of or effect of consciousness, then you'll have a case for your position. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2004 : 20:47:03 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote:quote:
"god" is not an observable phenomenon. Consciousness is. If you can't/won't agree to that point then this conversation becomes pointless.
Until you cease conflating "consciousness while alive" and "consciousness while dead," you're right. Consciousness has never been observed in the dead, just like "straightness" has not been observed in a pile of sawdust.quote:
All observed phenomenon have a cause. When you can provide evidence that brain activity is the cause of consciousness, as opposed to a result of or effect of consciousness, then you'll have a case for your position.
I take it that the fact that serious injury to the brain eliminates what we call consciousness is not evidence of that particular direction of cause-and-effect? No, wait: we can show that many parts of the brain respond to outside input without need for consciousness, already. That means that brain neurons can fire without need of consciousness.
Of course, you've offered a false dichotomy, anyway. The third possibility is that certain patterns of brain activity are consciousness, rather then being either a cause or an effect of consciousness. A certain arrangement of steel and plastic doesn't "cause" a car, after all.
Adam wrote:quote:
If you could make a perfect scan on my body (the brain being the key) right down to the atomic scale (actually just the molecular scale should safice) and you made a new me using new atoms, but placed those atom in the exact some locations, what you would end up with is ME, right down to my memories and everything....think about it.
People have thought a lot about it. It is, after all, the premise behind Star Trek-style transporters. Numerous philosophical and physical (the branch of science) arguments have been had about this idea. I'm not sure that whether the purported duplicate would be YOU or not has been resolved, either in the physics world or the philosophical world. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2004 : 21:03:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Until you cease conflating "consciousness while alive" and "consciousness while dead," you're right. Consciousness has never been observed in the dead, just like "straightness" has not been observed in a pile of sawdust.
I'm not conflating anything, you are reading into what I'm saying. And it's rather annoying.
My point, from the beginning, is that any statement we can currently make (except to recognize our lack of knowledge) regarding human consciousness after the death of the body is an assertion unsupported by evidence.
I'm not suggesting that consciousness continues after death, nor am I saying it is extinguished. I'm saying that neither you, nor I, nor anyone, knows. To state, with the confidence some have, that consciousness is for a fact extinguished upon death, is outside the realm of reason.
quote:
Of course, you've offered a false dichotomy, anyway.
More reading into what I'm saying.
There is no question that something happens to consciousness upon the death of the body. It changes, it is extinguished, it goes to some spiritual afterlife, ect... there are many speculations.
All unsupported by evidence.
So, rather than reading into what I'm saying, how about some defense of yourselves for taking such a verlch-like stance on this topic? |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2004 : 01:21:15 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote:quote:
So, rather than reading into what I'm saying, how about some defense of yourselves for taking such a verlch-like stance on this topic?
I don't see that I have. I've explained to you, over and over again, in as many different ways as I could think of, my reasoning behind my position, and why I think it is precisely the same as your reasoning about deities.
Screw it, I'll do it again:quote:
My point, from the beginning, is that any statement we can currently make (except to recognize our lack of knowledge) regarding human consciousness after the death of the body is an assertion unsupported by evidence.
The exact same thing can be said about the existence of god, yet you have stated that you reject the god hypothesis for the exact same reasons that I tentatively reject the idea that consciousness continues after death.
Do I have to spell it out for you that by explicitly stating that my conclusion is 'tentative' I mean that if evidence shows up which demonstrates the existence of post-mortem 'mind', I will accept it and change my conclusion? Is that the damned problem?
Forcryingoutloud, if someone actually captures a freakin' Bigfoot, and it's examined by competent zoologists and pronounced genuine, I will be forced to believe that they exist. Until then: no, I've tentatively concluded that the stories are only stories, and no such primate exists.
And that is, actually, the perfect analogy for you, Dude. Like consciousness, we know that primates exist. We know that primates larger than human beings exist. But we've got no evidence that primates larger than humans are currently living in North America in the wild. We've also got confessions of Bigfoot hoaxes, just like we've got evidence that people who allegedly contact the dead are full of baloney. With all that in mind, should we simply throw up our hands and say "I don't know if Bigfoot exists," just like you prefer that people admit "I don't know if consciousness continues after death?"
I mean, if you're going to admit to suggest that Occam's Razor is unapplicable to anything for which there is no evidence one way or the other, then you might as well admit that you've got precisely zero evidence that consciousness exists outside of your own mind. In other words: you must doubt your own senses, and are unable to conclude that anybody (or anything) exists other than your thoughts. After all, you have no evidence of anything outside of what comes in through your perceptions, and so no way to confirm that your senses are "correct," in that they are painting an accurate picture of "the world" for you.
To paraphrase you: I'm not suggesting that I exist, nor am I saying I do not. I'm saying that neither you, nor anyone else, knows. To state, with the confidence some have, that I for a fact exist, is outside the realm of your version of "reason." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Wulfstan
New Member
USA
42 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2004 : 02:57:44 [Permalink]
|
Can an insomniac interject?
quote:
I'm not suggesting that consciousness continues after death, nor am I saying it is extinguished. I'm saying that neither you, nor I, nor anyone, knows. To state, with the confidence some have, that consciousness is for a fact extinguished upon death, is outside the realm of reason.
Dude, you are logically correct, however logic is a tool, not a governing principle of reality. Dave is realistically correct in his confidence to assert that something does not exist if no definitive, sound proof is offered.
A. Consciousness does not exist after death; there is no plausible evidence that shows it does.
B. Aliens don't exist; no one has proven otherwise.
Both of those are "arguments from ignorance." We can not say with 100% certainty that aliens don't exist or consciousness after death exists, but until good science shows us otherwise, we can accept that they don't.
Reality dicates that we generally agree something does not exist if there is not good evidence proving it does exist. If we didn't, we'd, as Dave points out, live in this constant state of ambivalence that I believe would be mentally and intellectually crippling.
Think about it:
C. Santa Claus exists; no one has proven that he doesn't exist.
This is a logically correct statement. But, c'mon does anyone truly believe a roly-poly man with a white beard flies around in a reindeer sleigh? No...but can anyone be absolutely 100% certain? No. Therefore it is logically, but not realistically correct.
D. God exists; no one has proven that he doesn't exist.
E. Of course God does not exist; nobody can prove otherwise.
Both are logically correct. But, look at the evidence for each claim. Now of course a theist will give all sorts of evidence to E. that God does exist.
And D. can't be 100% sure that God doesn't exist, but it is safe and reasonable for D. to assume so until good proof is offered.
That's how I work it out in my mind.
|
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2004 : 07:08:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Now of course a theist will give all sorts of evidence to E. that God does exist.
Not really true. Most theists that I have encountered when I have asked them for evidence, they say you must "have faith" in god, that no evidence exists to test you. (Oh, btw, love your last quote by the Chruch, can I ask where you got it from?)
quote:
So, rather than reading into what I'm saying, how about some defense of yourselves for taking such a verlch-like stance on this topic?
A verlch-like stance is one to make assertions and then make new assertions that have nothing to do with the old one. Do you really think we are doing that?
quote:
There is no question that something happens to consciousness upon the death of the body. It changes, it is extinguished, it goes to some spiritual afterlife, ect... there are many speculations.
Yes, and with no evidence for either one, you pick the one that is the most reasonable, the one that does not take anymore than what we already know about the universe to explain. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 07/25/2004 07:09:41 |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2004 : 08:12:09 [Permalink]
|
To answer the original question, "Does it step on anyone's toes?"...uh, yeah.
Dismissing someone's deeply held beliefs, spiritual worldview, or religion as a delusion and a fantasy is disrespectful, dontchathink? It isn't a fantasy TO THEM.
If you don't care about that and you're only interested in winning the argument, then fine. But discussing things with people who only want to win has grown tiresome for me, personally.  |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2004 : 08:17:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Dismissing someone's deeply held beliefs, spiritual worldview, or religion as a delusion and a fantasy is disrespectful, dontchathink? It isn't a fantasy TO THEM.
If the evidence goes against them (think of Noah's Ark and the Creation), then no, I don't think its disrespectful.
quote:
If you don't care about that and you're only interested in winning the argument, then fine. But discussing things with people who only want to win has grown tiresome for me, personally.
Its not in wanting to win, its for finding the truth, well, at least it is for me. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
