|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 07/27/2004 : 12:51:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
posted by Ricky:Not only can we observe human consciousness when a person is alive, but we know what is creating it, the brain.
We do? We know that the brain creates consciousness?
quote:
posted by astropin:IMHO - Dude is simply wrong. I would argue (and have) that we do know how consciousness is created. It is the by-product of a properly functioning brain. Brain failure = no consciousness, therefore death = no consciousness.
Correlation does not equal causation. That's a very basic concept, and one that you guys (astropin and Ricky) have ignored.
quote:
posted by SciFi Chick:Dude - do you think there ever will be enough information to make an informed decision? That would determine whether or not you can be considered agnostic in this sense, must more so than the fact that consciousness is observable in living humans.
Yes. The question is not unanswerable, I think. There is alot of work being done on this question, and it will surely be intersting to discover more.
quote:
posted by SciFi Chick:I disagree. If there had been evidence of God, and then there was no more evidence of God, but no specific evidence that God did or did not exist, I would still be an agnostic.
so... if you had breakfast with god yesterday, woke up thismorning to find that god had apparently disappeared from the universe, you'd become agnostic? Interesting.
quote:
posted by SciFi Chick: Just out of curiosity - what would you consider good evidence for God?
Preferably a chat and a sall demonstration of omnipotence.
There is a basic conceptual flaw that most people have when talking about god and proof/evidence. The way in which truth claims should be evaluated is often misunderstood. When somebody makes a truth claim it is their responsibility to provide evidence and proof. It is not the responsibility of another party to disprove the claim made.
When party A says "God exists", and Party B says "no way", it's not the responsibility of party B to disprove statements by party A. B can, and should, demand proof from A. B can, and should, evaluate the proof/evidence provided by A to see if it is acceptable however.
quote:
psted by Ricky:There is a holographic projector (the brain) on the ground making a 3d image of a dragon (consciousness). Now that holographic projector breaks (death). Does the image of the dragon just disappear, or is that image transported to another universe/dimention/heaven/whatever?
In this analogy you have solid evidence of the cause, and a working understanding if the cause as well. Take out the slide or film and put it in a new projector... and there your dragon is again. |
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 |
|
 |
|
|
SciFi Chick
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2004 : 13:20:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
posted by SciFi Chick:Dude - do you think there ever will be enough information to make an informed decision? That would determine whether or not you can be considered agnostic in this sense, must more so than the fact that consciousness is observable in living humans.
Yes. The question is not unanswerable, I think. There is alot of work being done on this question, and it will surely be intersting to discover more.
In that case, I think agnostic would be an inappropriate label for you, but perhaps, not insulting. 
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
posted by SciFi Chick:I disagree. If there had been evidence of God, and then there was no more evidence of God, but no specific evidence that God did or did not exist, I would still be an agnostic.
so... if you had breakfast with god yesterday, woke up thismorning to find that god had apparently disappeared from the universe, you'd become agnostic? Interesting.
I did not mean to imply that. Oops. I meant, I in the general sense, if that's possible.
Either way, that's not how I personally feel. I'm simply saying that a person who believed that way would, in fact, be agnostic - though I was picturing a longer time frame - say thousands of years rather than one day.
|
"There is no 'I' in TEAM, but there is an 'M' and an 'E'." -Carson
"Rather fail with honor than succeed by fraud."
-Sophocles |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2004 : 14:26:11 [Permalink]
|
Dude, there have been experiments done on the brain which shows that it is doing the thinking. They have mapped out the brain into each section of thought process. Emotions, movement, etc. Everytime you think, there are neutrons sending and recieving electrical impulses. This is what makes your thoughts and feelings, you consciousness.
Now here is where I go off on a limb. As Dave said before, in some cases, absence of evidence can turn into evidence of absence. Can the same exception be made for causation? If I do A 100 million times and B happens right after, is that still a fallacy (post hoc)? This also relates to general science testing, if I take a group in an experiment and add substance S to it, and something happens that does not happen in the control group over 95% of the time, it shows significant results right? Is this also not post hoc? |
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 07/27/2004 14:28:05 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2004 : 15:34:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
posted by Ricky:Dude, there have been experiments done on the brain which shows that it is doing the thinking. They have mapped out the brain into each section of thought process. Emotions, movement, etc. Everytime you think, there are neutrons sending and recieving electrical impulses. This is what makes your thoughts and feelings, you consciousness.
Now here is where I go off on a limb. As Dave said before, in some cases, absence of evidence can turn into evidence of absence. Can the same exception be made for causation? If I do A 100 million times and B happens right after, is that still a fallacy (post hoc)? This also relates to general science testing, if I take a group in an experiment and add substance S to it, and something happens that does not happen in the control group over 95% of the time, it shows significant results right? Is this also not post hoc?
Correlation does not equal causation, even if you observe two events one after the other repeatedly. You must identify the causal link and have a plausible explanation to establish causality. With regard to human consciousness there is no way yet (to my knowledge) to determine if brain activity causes, or is caused by, consciousness.
The human brain is an extrordinarily complex organ, and we are only just beginning to be able to examine 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 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2004 : 19:19:03 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote:quote:
Correlation does not equal causation, even if you observe two events one after the other repeatedly. You must identify the causal link and have a plausible explanation to establish causality.
So, until the metabolic and biologic pathways through which aspirin works were mapped out in detail, we were unable to claim that there was a causal link? Most of the time, it seems to me, when medical scientists recount the story of aspirin, it is for the "we knew it worked, we just didn't know how" illustration it allows. All that existed was a "plausible explanation" - a pharmaceutical effect of some sort - prior to the real effects being figured out, yet it was never rejected as "just a correlation."quote:
With regard to human consciousness there is no way yet (to my knowledge) to determine if brain activity causes, or is caused by, consciousness.
Well, worded so vaguely, you're right. Let's look at some possibilities:Answer 1 - There is no way consciousness causes brain activity:Subsection A - For consciousness to cause brain activity, it would defy our knowledge of physics and biology. There is no known energy or matter outside or seperate from the neurons which causes brain activity.
Subsection B - Consciousness is neither caused by, nor causes, brain activity, but instead is brain activity. If the brain is not active, there is no consciousness. Answer 2 - Of course consciousness causes brain activity. You're watching TV, and you think, "I want a beer." Your desire - nothing but consciousness - causes the firing of the right brain centers to fire the right pattern of motor neurons so that you walk upstairs, open the fridge, grab a beer, etc.. Of course, the last is elementary, but shows - at the very least - that the answer is not that the causal factors are one-way only.quote:
The human brain is an extrordinarily complex organ, and we are only just beginning to be able to examine it.
There are seldom good arguments from ignorance.
Back to the logical arguments. Here's a "form argument," in mostly your words:Premise 1: There is no evidence to support the existence of _______
Premise 2: There is no sound argument to support the existence of ______
Premise 3: ______ is unnecessary to explain any known phenomenon
Conclusion: ______ does not exist Now, you put "god" into the blanks, and came out athiest. Both of us can put "a unicorn" into the blanks, and arrive at the same conclusion, that there aren't any. I put "consciousness after death" into the blanks, and find that consciousness ends with death.
"But," you've objected, "we know that consciousness exists." And I counter that I did not put "consciousness" into the blanks, but the entire phrase "consciousness after death." And I still object that we do not know that consciousness after death exists. So try this one out for size: we know that horses exist, and of various colors, and we also know that some living things are colored purple, so put "a naturally purple horse" into the blanks, and see what comes out.
It is okay to conclude, given what we know today, that consciousness doesn't survive death, so long as we agree - before the fact - to re-examine our conclusions in the light of new evidence and say either, "I was wrong," or "that conclusion was, in hindsight, premature," if the new evidence warrants a change in our premises. This is the nature of science, skepticism, and critical thought. Leaving every possible avenue open is nothing more than the nature of gullibility. Filtering out the "slim-to-none" possibilities is required to avoid con-men and/or psychosis. "Keep an open mind," a wise man said, "but not so open your brains fall out."
You've implied, Dude, that you would change your mind if you had a nice chat and miracle from god. How is it that we who have tentatively concluded that consciousness ceases after death like electrons cease flowing in a cut wire are less logical or reasonable than you, when if I got a clear message from my dead mother, I would instantly re-evaluate my P.M.C. stance?
By the way, you have absolutely no evidence that some god or other did not stride between the stars billions of years ago, erasing its presence as it went. To imply (as you did here: "...you would fist have to have had god in some observable form...") that no god has ever been observable (or has never changed) is to assume facts not in evidence, something for which you have faulted others here.
Later on, you wrote:quote:
There is a basic conceptual flaw that most people have when talking about god and proof/evidence. The way in which truth claims should be evaluated is often misunderstood. When somebody makes a truth claim it is their responsibility to provide evidence and proof. It is not the responsibility of another party to disprove the claim made.
When party A says "God exists", and Party B says "no way", it's not the responsibility of party B to disprove statements by party A. B can, and should, demand proof from A. B can, and should, evaluate the proof/evidence provided by A to see if it is acceptable however.
Indeed. It is your responsibility to defend the truth claims you made, that:- "...any statements made about the presence OR abscence of an afterlife are questionable at best."
- "The only thing we can say, and still be inside the realm of reason and rationality, is "there is no evidence to support <insert claim here>"."
- "Those who seriously make claims to the presence or abscence of life after death both assume/claim knowledge that is not verifiable."
- "Such claims are called gratuitous assertions."
- "As such, they can be gratuitously ignored or dismissed."
- "Occam's razor in no way applies to this situation, because all the explanations are pure speculation."
- And most importantly: "We are NOT talking about explanations for observed phenomenon, which is what Occam's razor is intended for."
Personally, it seems to me that your only attempts at defense of any of these truth claims is to make what amounts to an argument from ignorance in defense of the first three.
And the last is "most important" because I was unaware, even after much reading, that Occam's Razor is intended solely for explanations of observed phenomena, and not more broadly, any suggested hypothesis. You are saying that we cannot trim "ESP" away as an unnecessary hypothesis if we are denied Occam's Razor (since ESP has never been observed). We also cannot use Occam's Razor to simply make Bigfoot worthless. To quote The Skeptic's Dictionary:William's use of the principle of unnecessary plurality o |
- 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 - 07/27/2004 : 23:22:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And the last is "most important" because I was unaware, even after much reading, that Occam's Razor is intended solely for explanations of observed phenomena, and not more broadly, any suggested hypothesis. You are saying that we cannot trim "ESP" away as an unnecessary hypothesis if we are denied Occam's Razor (since ESP has never been observed). We also cannot use Occam's Razor to simply make Bigfoot worthless
My point here, and one I will stand by, is that you do not need Occam's Razor to reach a conclusion. By default, if a truth claim cannot be backed up by evidence, it may be dismissed. After typing that last sentence I can see why you would mistake it for an application of the razor, but it isn't. I would simply say to anyone claiming ESP or BigFoot is real, "What evidence?". If no valid evidence is then produced I'd dismiss the claim. You, it seems, would examine the alledged evidence (if any were produced), apply Occam's razor and eliminate the most complex explanation, and reach a conclusion that no such phenomenon exist.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The human brain is an extrordinarily complex organ, and we are only just beginning to be able to examine it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are seldom good arguments from ignorance.
Yes, I'd agree. I'd also add that it's ignorant to argue for a conclusion without evidence. To state that we do not yet have enough information to draw an intelligent conclusion is not an argument from ignorance.
quote:
posted by Dave W:Premise 1: There is no evidence to support the existence of _______
Premise 2: There is no sound argument to support the existence of ______
Premise 3: ______ is unnecessary to explain any known phenomenon
Conclusion: ______ does not exist
Now, you put "god" into the blanks, and came out athiest. Both of us can put "a unicorn" into the blanks, and arrive at the same conclusion, that there aren't any. I put "consciousness after death" into the blanks, and find that consciousness ends with death.
Can we please make the distinction between god and human consciousness? Is that asking to much? That little blurb above is a meaningless addition to the discussion about human consciousness and what happens post mortem, unless you are deliberately trying to conflate god and post mortem consciousness. I've already explained why the comparison is not valid.
Human consciousness, while alive, is the starting point of our observation of consciousness. We have an observable phenomenon to work with. Not so with god. So put the stinky fish back in the fridge.
quote:
Dude wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correlation does not equal causation, even if you observe two events one after the other repeatedly. You must identify the causal link and have a plausible explanation to establish causality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Dave W:
So, until the metabolic and biologic pathways through which aspirin works were mapped out in detail, we were unable to claim that there was a causal link? Most of the time, it seems to me, when medical scientists recount the story of aspirin, it is for the "we knew it worked, we just didn't know how" illustration it allows. All that existed was a "plausible explanation" - a pharmaceutical effect of some sort - prior to the real effects being figured out, yet it was never rejected as "just a correlation."
I wouldn't suggest such an extreme approach. But, if I wear blue boxers 365 days a year, and everytime I see the daytime sky it's blue, does that mean there is a correlation between my blue undies and the sky being blue? Perfect correlation between the two events exists...
Correlation, in and of itself, never equals causation. In your asprin example, they "knew" it worked because of tests comparing results to placebo. They established a link between cause and effect.
quote:
Posted by Dave W: It is okay to conclude, given what we know today, that consciousness doesn't survive death, so long as we agree - before the fact - to re-examine our conclusions in the light of new evidence and say either, "I was wrong," or "that conclusion was, in hindsight, premature," if the new evidence warrants a change in our premises. This is the nature of science, skepticism, and critical thought. Leaving every possible avenue open is nothing more than the nature of gullibility. Filtering out the "slim-to-none" possibilities is required to avoid con-men and/or psychosis. "Keep an open mind," a wise man said, "but not so open your brains fall out."
I wouldn't call myself gullible by any use of the word.
|
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 - 07/28/2004 : 09:39:38 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote:quote:
By default, if a truth claim cannot be backed up by evidence, it may be dismissed.
Great. Then the truth claim that it is possible that consciousness survives death can be summarily dismissed for lack of evidence.
Look, Dude, I don't know if you're being obtuse on purpose, or if it's my lack of communications, but you appear to be missing points that you had a handle on previously, and also answering rhetorical portions of my posts while failing to answer direct questions.
You continue to use the word 'conflate' inappropriately, and in such a way that I cannot help but feel it is intended to be insulting. Just because the arguments I use against two different subjects are identical doesn't mean I am confusing or equating the two subjects. There are an infinite number of non-existant things for which the same argument is appropriate.
And then there's this:quote:
I've already explained why the comparison is not valid.
Yes, I know. BELIEVE ME, I know. And I have made what appear to me to be valid objections to your explanation, which you have utterly failed to address, except to re-iterate your explanation. That makes your explanation less than convincing as an argument as to why it is correct.quote:
Human consciousness, while alive, is the starting point of our observation of consciousness. We have an observable phenomenon to work with. Not so with god.
And not so with consciouness after death, which is what we're talking about. You continue to conflate pre- and post-mortem consciousness. At the moment of death, however, consciousness ceases to be measurable in any way. And we have no observable phenomena whatsoever which require P.M.C. for a satisfactory explanation.quote:
So put the stinky fish back in the fridge.
[Rude gesture] right back atcha, bub.
Finally, if you think I was suggesting that you are gullible, then I am led to believe that you are taking things far too personally in this thread. |
- 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 - 07/28/2004 : 11:11:23 [Permalink]
|
Dave, I hope you were on the debate team. Not only do "You Rock", but I would also add that "You are the Man". Your ability to fire off some of the most logical and comprehensive responses is amoung the best I've encountered. If I ever get in over my head I may have to email you for some "Heavy Artillary" counter attacks.
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 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2004 : 12:05:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And not so with consciouness after death, which is what we're talking about. You continue to conflate pre- and post-mortem consciousness.
Maybe partially conflate, yes. For good reason though. When you start with and observable phenomenon (consciousness) and some time passes/environment changes/ ect... we should be able to determine what happens to that phenomenon, what changes it undergoes, ect... I can't think of any observable phenomenon that we can look at now, and then at a later time say, with real certainty, that the phenomenon "just dissapeared". Nobody would accept that as an explanation for any other observable phenomenon.
Maybe it's just me, but I'm not seeming to have much success in conveying what I'm trying to say here.
I think it's not apprpriate to consider only PMC when discussing the subject. It's an inapropriate division of the subject of human consciousness. But yes, the arguments stated are sound if only considering PMC. Any argument made on the topic needs to take consciousness before death into account and explain what happens to it upon death of the body.
quote:
Just because the arguments I use against two different subjects are identical doesn't mean I am confusing or equating the two subjects. There are an infinite number of non-existant things for which the same argument is appropriate.
Ok, then you do understand that just because you can use similair arguments for topic A and topic B, that the two topics have nothing to do with one another.
Which makes me wonder why the topic of god has been brought into a conversation about human consciousness ,and it's post mortem fate, with such frequency.
quote:
posted by Ricky:Comparing the asprin to the placebo is correlation. It is not causation. Finding that people take asprin have less symptoms is not causation, its correlation, which results in (possibly a weak) causation.
People taking asprin would have symptoms relieved more often than those with a placebo. If the test is conducted with solid scientific technique, when you compare the results of asprin and placebo you establish your causation or lack thereof.
quote:
Posted by Dave W:Finally, if you think I was suggesting that you are gullible, then I am led to believe that you are taking things far too personally in this thread.
Taking things personally? Nope. |
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 - 07/29/2004 : 16:53:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
God is just an unobservable phenomenon just like consciousness after death. And besides, its the whole reason for this discussion. What we are trying understand is how you can take a no evidence situation with god and conclude that god does not exist, and take a no evidence situation with consciouness after death and conclude that you can't make a conclusion.
I'll give this one more shot... I'll assume it's my lack of eloquent rhetoric that is at fault for this complete failure of communication, rather than deliberate obstinance of the opposition.
It is meaningless to discuss PMC by itself, for the very reasons stated by Dave W. and you, Ricky. It's a pointless conversation, just as is any conversation about the phrase "god exists."
You can't have any meaningfull discourse about the fate of human consciousness after death without considering the fact that human consciousness is a clearly observable phenomenon before the death of the body.
If you can't see the distincion between "god" and "PMC" (a better description might be the Fate of Human Consciousness Post Mortem, FHCPM), then we'll just agree to end the conversation now as it's only going to continue this downward spiral until it flushes...
quote:
Posted by Ricky:Thats still not what you call causation, but its correlation leading to causation:
People in group A take drug C
People in group B take placebo D
Group A shows no symptoms
Group B shows symptoms
While I would say its causation, its only causation because of the correlation. There has been no cause here, with the given data we have no idea why drug C stops they symptoms. However, what we do know (if the test groups are of a good size) is that there is some causation.
When you use controlled circumstances, and you compare symptom relief in your two study groups (Asprin Group and Control Group), IF the Asprin Group exhibits symptom relief and the Control group does not, then you have evidence of causation.
Knowing why a drug relieves symptoms (mechanism of action) is just stronger evidence of causation. |
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 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
