Existence after death?

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Agnostos Insania

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Agnostos Insania
Please point out where I'm condescending upon anyone.

I think it speaks for itself.

Don't avoid the question. Please point it out to me, I'm not being facetious.

Reply without the condescending manner (typical of AT people for some reason) and I'll give you a true reply.

To me, this sounds like you think that you are not the average person on AT and yet I am (which if you've been around ATOT, is a flat out insult, and I KNOW I'm being condescending by saying it, but we're obviously on the same page here) for saying such a thing. That you are so above everyone here that you cant even comprehend why us peons think such a way. And that your reply is so special that I must truely care and make amends in order that we all may be honored by your bestowing upon us your golden opinion.

Besides, condescension (sp?) is the name of the game in AT. If you cant stand the fire, get out of the kitchen. We are far from civilized here.

In the same sense that you chose not to dignify my response to you, with your own, I chose not to dignify yours with mine.

That being said, the burden of proof IS irrelevant. It is applicable in a court cause because the guilt or innocence of the individual in questions necessarily MUST be decided. A mistrial is in essence an exoneration as the individual goes free. When we're talking about such philosophical or scientific matters, acting as if you are right unless the others completely and utterly prove there case to an amazing degree (*cough* Intelligent design) is not applicable, and is in essence, simple minded, assuming that a dispassionate discussion of the issue based on evidence and rational logic is being high minded.

Not even mentioning the fact that science does not nor has it ever claimed to *prove* anything.

 

[Agnostos Insania]

Originally posted by: BD2003
To me, this sounds like you think that you are not the average person on AT and yet I am (which if you've been around ATOT, is a flat out insult, and I KNOW I'm being condescending by saying it, but we're obviously on the same page here) for saying such a thing.

If condescension is more common here than being polite, then yes you are more average in this instance.

That you are so above everyone here that you cant even comprehend why us peons think such a way.

They're not peons, just mean people. I don't understand why everyone has to use insults or otherwise demean others in arguments.

And that your reply is so special that I must truely care and make amends in order that we all may be honored by your bestowing upon us your golden opinion.

It's not special, but I simply think people should discuss things more politely. Is that so bad?

Besides, condescension (sp?) is the name of the game in AT. If you cant stand the fire, get out of the kitchen. We are far from civilized here.

Was I right by saying it was typical?

In the same sense that you chose not to dignify my response to you, with your own, I chose not to dignify yours with mine.

Very well.

That being said, the burden of proof IS irrelevant. It is applicable in a court cause because the guilt or innocence of the individual in questions necessarily MUST be decided. A mistrial is in essence an exoneration as the individual goes free.

I know, I was just using it as a turn of phrase. There's nothing that special about those three words anyway, they'd make sense without it being a term of law.

When we're talking about such philosophical or scientific matters, acting as if you are right unless the others completely and utterly prove there case to an amazing degree (*cough* Intelligent design) is not applicable, and is in essence, simple minded, assuming that a dispassionate discussion of the issue based on evidence and rational logic is being high minded.

I still think I disagree, although I'll concede that neither side will likely convince the other. All we know and learn is dependant on science, and I don't think we can simply disregard it when it concerns death. I'm not going very good at explaining it, but here's a stupid story I'll try to use an an example:

Bob runs his car on with mechanical engineering knowledge. He knows the physics and technology behind it all and has studied it. He goes to the doctor that is an expert is physiology to get some medicine created by chemists. Bob reads science books in his spare time and loves to learn about all the universe's workings.
Suddenly Bob's wife dies in a car accident. All the books he's read give him a strong feeling of what would likely happen if a lifeform's sentience-giving organs have been destroyed. He can't confirm what happens, but he feels science has the proverbial checkmate and that the other "side" must find error to regain equal footing.


Neither science or religion can "prove" what happens to her consciousness, but one side has a track record of consistently correcting the other. I do see the problem in having one side dependant on evidence and the other on faith, however.

Not even mentioning the fact that science does not nor has it ever claimed to *prove* anything.

Well, yeah I guess you're right in that aspect. Technically nothing can ever be proven.

 

[BD2003]

Was I right by saying it was typical?

It is absolutely typical. What isnt typical is someone being so condescending that they call someone out for condescending in condescending central. Thats like a midget laughing at another midget for being a midget.

It would be great if we all got along, but we dont.

I know, I was just using it as a turn of phrase. There's nothing that special about those three words anyway, they'd make sense without it being a term of law.

Either way, its still irrelevant.

I still think I disagree, although I'll concede that neither side will likely convince the other. All we know and learn is dependant on science, and I don't think we can simply disregard it when it concerns death."

I wouldnt go as far as to say that all we know is dependent on science, since science depends on other areas of knowledge entirely independent of it to progress.

I'm not going very good at explaining it, but here's a stupid story I'll try to use an an example:

Bob runs his car on with mechanical engineering knowledge. He knows the physics and technology behind it all and has studied it. He goes to the doctor that is an expert is physiology to get some medicine created by chemists. Bob reads science books in his spare time and loves to learn about all the universe's workings.
Suddenly Bob's wife dies in a car accident. All the books he's read give him a strong feeling of what would likely happen if a lifeform's sentience-giving organs have been destroyed. He can't confirm what happens, but he feels science has the proverbial checkmate and that the other "side" must find error to regain equal footing.

That would be nothing more than his opinion however. He has every right to believe what he wants, but when he starts telling others that he knows he's right and theyre wrong and can prove it by bringing science to it, that is when he is officially talking out of his ass.

Neither science or religion can "prove" what happens to her consciousness, but one side has a track record of consistently correcting the other. I do see the problem in having one side dependant on evidence and the other on faith, however.

But here lies the problem: the thread is discussing what happens after death. Clearly this is a question about whether or not the "mind" or "soul" survives on. And that is absolutely out of the realm of science. Science can tell us amazing things about our *brain*, but the why the mind exists, it can (as of now) unfortunately, say absoutely (and I mean absolutely in the absolute sense) *nothing*.

By all means when we're talking about physical phenomena, science gets the edge. But you must make the distinction between the "mind" and the "brain".

Not even mentioning the fact that science does not nor has it ever claimed to *prove* anything.

Well, yeah I guess you're right in that aspect. Technically nothing can ever be proven.

While technically nothing can be proven (other than mathematically) in a strict skeptical/cynical sense, I wouldnt go as far to say nothing can ever be proven. Proven in the looser sense of the word, as in proven beyond a reasonable (or even unreasonable) doubt.

Given that science hasnt even begun to make real progress (will/can it ever?) on the mind, and we are talking about fundamentally untestable things, I say that it cant be proven one way or another because the evidence for saying one thing or another simply does not exist.

 

[Agnostos Insania]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Was I right by saying it was typical?

It is absolutely typical. What isnt typical is someone being so condescending that they call someone out for condescending in condescending central. Thats like a midget laughing at another midget for being a midget.

It would be great if we all got along, but we dont.

I guess I'm starting to see how refusing to reply to your post because of rudeness is sort of condescending. Sorry.

I wouldnt go as far as to say that all we know is dependent on science, since science depends on other areas of knowledge entirely independent of it to progress.

How so? Isn't "science" by definition any acquirement of knowledge based on observable phenonoma? What do we "know" that is outside of science?

That would be nothing more than his opinion however. He has every right to believe what he wants, but when he starts telling others that he knows he's right and theyre wrong and can prove it by bringing science to it, that is when he is officially talking out of his ass.

True, but science does generally have more of a logical stance than spirituality/religion.

But here lies the problem: the thread is discussing what happens after death. Clearly this is a question about whether or not the "mind" or "soul" survives on. And that is absolutely out of the realm of science. Science can tell us amazing things about our *brain*, but the why the mind exists, it can (as of now) unfortunately, say absoutely (and I mean absolutely in the absolute sense) *nothing*.

By all means when we're talking about physical phenomena, science gets the edge. But you must make the distinction between the "mind" and the "brain".

I see your point. To me the brain is the mind and vice versa, but others feel differently. I think for there to be an afterlife there would need to be some extra dimension/universe with different rules, which at this current point science could not detect. I guess we'll all find out eventually.

While technically nothing can be proven (other than mathematically) in a strict skeptical/cynical sense, I wouldnt go as far to say nothing can ever be proven. Proven in the looser sense of the word, as in proven beyond a reasonable (or even unreasonable) doubt.

I guess I was being more philisophical with the "never" thing.

Given that science hasnt even begun to make real progress (will/can it ever?) on the mind, and we are talking about fundamentally untestable things, I say that it cant be proven one way or another because the evidence for saying one thing or another simply does not exist.

I think we've made great progress, but that's my assumption that the mind is the brain. We can control a mice's actions with a little computer implanted into its brain, we can completely alter how a person experiences existence with chemicals, etc...
I have trouble seeing the difference between them. "Mind" sounds like "soul" to me, something that we hope exists out of fear of the unknown.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Agnostos Insania

Originally posted by: Vic
"Burden" of proof is irrelevent. There is no scientifically valid proof period. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. What remains is freedom of belief. This is where the pseudo-scientific close-minded authoritarians seek to abuse science for the sake of CONTROL and the propagation of their own belief system.

Pseudo-scientific close-minded Authoritarians? When has science actually controlled anything? If anything science has helped free us from control I'd say. You seem to have issues with the scientific community in general. Why is that?

To eradicate the freedom of belief for those beliefs that they do not themselves believe in. And in this fashion, loic2003 is every bit as bad as the worst fundamentalist seeking to legislate their own belief system.

I can see your point, but science isn't "Think this way or you're against us", science is just... science. It sounds mean to say religion has outlived its purpose, but it's in science's nature to go against preconceived notions and do its best to explain things uhh... scientifically. If it goes against religion, it can't be helped.

That's what this issue is about, sorry if you can't understand it.

Somehow I'll manage. Seriously though, I understand what you're saying but I disagree. Science has its crackpots, but they're looked down upon.

Originally posted by: BD2003
It isnt a court case. There is no "burden of proof". If I have heard any single thing simple minded in this thread, that is it.

Reply without the condescending manner (typical of AT people for some reason) and I'll give you a true reply.

I was not referring to science. True science does not involve nor concern itself with religion or politics. I specifically referred to pseudo-science, which does involve and concern itself with religion and politics. You are confusing the 2. I have the greatest respect for science, and none at all for pseudo-science (which IMO is a religion in itself). Can you see my point?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: Ready
you become a vagina after you die

We're all fvcked.

:laugh:

 

[BD2003]

I guess I'm starting to see how refusing to reply to your post because of rudeness is sort of condescending. Sorry.

AA, and Ive learned around here that one can only fight fire with fire.

How so? Isn't "science" by definition any acquirement of knowledge based on observable phenonoma? What do we "know" that is outside of science?

Mathematics, is not science. Knowing how to build a machine and technology, uses science, but is not science. Logical inferences and philosophy etc - may use science, but isnt science.

If we're talking about science we are talking about the scientific method - gathering data, testing hypotheses etc. For it to be science, it must be testable, therefore any idea on what happens after we die is automatically NOT science.

True, but science does generally have more of a logical stance than spirituality/religion.

Indeed, but that isnt to say the others are invalid...they deal with different things. Science is *very* narrow in its aims and achievements, although people (typically non-scientists) unfortunately but naturally extend it well beyond its true validity.

I see your point. To me the brain is the mind and vice versa, but others feel differently. I think for there to be an afterlife there would need to be some extra dimension/universe with different rules, which at this current point science could not detect. I guess we'll all find out eventually.

I perfectly understand the basic logic behind it. By our current understanding we can not have consciousness without a brain. Therefore no brain = no consciousness. But it doesnt work vice versa. We can not say for sure whether other animals (or even other people) have consciouness (as in a mind), until we can begin to understand how/where it is produced by our brain, if that is even a valid question. That is how little we understand it. My opinion is the same as yours - after death, the lights are out. But do I KNOW this? Can I say this with any REAL confidence? Absolutely not.

Right now neuroscience is based on the *assumption* that the brain creates the mind. Its not a terrible assumption, and it seems dead on to me, but even the best neuroscientist will have to admit that its a basic assumption, which is a necessity for starting research.

That being said I find the idea that we all go to a magical place like heaven absolutely ludicrous, but again, thats just my opinion.

I think we've made great progress, but that's my assumption that the mind is the brain. We can control a mice's actions with a little computer implanted into its brain, we can completely alter how a person experiences existence with chemicals, etc...
I have trouble seeing the difference between them. "Mind" sounds like "soul" to me, something that we hope exists out of fear of the unknown.

I think its a lot of a terminology struggle. The word soul has too many religious connotations. The word mind is automatically connotated with the brain. The word consciousness implies awakeness.

Technically speaking what is meant by the mind is your subjective experience of existence. Your brain is the physical organ that theoretically predicates it. There is an undoubted connection between the workings of your brain and subjective experience of the mind.

Here is the problem: Does the brain create the mind, or does it control the mind? Is your mind a complete and total product of your brain, is it just one part, is it even necessarily there in all humans, or is the brain just part of your mind? The vast majority of computation/processing done by your mind is accomplished unconsciously and unaware to you. Does that imply that there is just a part of the brain that produces the mind? Where/what is that part? Is the mind an emergent property of the workings of the brain etc?

There are just TOO MANY questions about the basic facets of our conscious existence that it is premature to say one way or another, in a very real sense, not just in the facetious skeptical "you cant prove anything so anything is theoretically possible" sense.

 

[ncage]

Originally posted by: Mucho
Only the dead knows for sure and they don't communicate with us.

I SEE DEAD PEOPLE