In a way,I admire both hard-core athiests and dedicated theists committed to a particular religion.I was raised by a devout Christian,with stories of hell fire etc.I always had issues with the fairy stories of miracles and magic,hyprocrisy of church members and their lack of real love-especially for gays or folks who didn't fit the mould.But they're sure of where they're going and think their faith has all the answers.But hardcore atheism doesn't work for me either.The beauty of a sunset,the mysteries of love,art and literature etc don't seem covered by their world view either.But I admire those brave enough to take the leap to decide this is it and there's no God..Both stances require a sort of confidence in the ideas I don't have.Part of me WANTS to believe there's an afterlife.I miss my late mother so.But logic tells me it's unlikely.But I want to see her again very badly.I know-I'm lame for not picking a side and going with it.So I keep it in the 'don't know' category-'cos I truly DON'T.Guess when we die we find out.
Well I believe that currently when you die nothing happens because the time isn't right yet.
When it is God will resurrect those he believes deserve a second chance (the vast majority). You then get a certain amount of time to prove you deserve it and he'll let you live. If you fail/refuse to convert etc then ZAP bolt of lightning.
Sorry. Most of that wasn't well thought out to begin with, so there's no excuse for it.
How we experience feelings and colour, and anything else does not matter. It's an interpretation of the brain. We KNOW this. There are people that can feel in colour, and taste sound. It's called Synesthesia.
On the contrary. I would say it matters a great deal. To say it doesn't matter is to say existence doesn't matter. Which is true in some sense, but basically, to translate what you're saying, it comes across as this:
"We can't answer this question with science. Therefore it doesn't matter."
Which is putting the tool ahead of what you're trying to do with it.
To be somewhat facetious, it's akin to saying "Well, my scissors don't seem to be able to cut through concrete, but whatever. Who needs to cut concrete anyway?"
I take it as a sign that it's a bad idea to try and cut concrete with a pair of scissors. You seem to conclude that since scissors can't cut concrete, it's no use trying to find a tool that can, and that anything which scissors cannot cut through doesn't need to be cut.
If I'm understanding your essay correctly (I doubt it) I think your argument is that consciousness needs the brain to express itself or to be translated to reality by us. But I have countered this point by saying that people can alter their experiences via altering their brain, and their conscience changes. This must mean that the conscience is dependent on the brain, it does not continue to exist once the brain has been compromised. We can remove parts of people's conscience by giving them lobotomies and such; it can be altered with disease and when a person recovers they will not have had that same conscience the whole time. Maybe you're saying the brain is the recording device for conscience? Well then, what would conscience be without it? We are useless without memory, without awareness of our existence. I have more points, but I have 3 minutes before I have to go so I'll try to get your others.
Yes, but you base this on...? Asking people about their own experiences right? My sole point is there is a disconnect between what a person experiences, what can be measured about their brain activity (or whatever else about their physical body that may be relevant), and what they can describe.
You can talk about these things, but do you know what it actually means when a person with synaesthesia says they can 'taste' the colour blue?
But this is getting tedious, and I don't want to have a repeat of ending up with a rather huge and pointless comment.
"But something which is neither supported or contradicted by any evidence is neither true nor false until proven otherwise."
No. Innocent until proven guilty. We do not assume something is correct until we have evidence so we assume the negative. We assume invisible unicorns do not exist, we don't say that it's neither true or false, we say that they don't until evidence is provided.
Where do you get this from? Burden of proof is a legal concept. You have no business assuming it has ANY APPLICATION WHATSOEVER to questions about the nature of reality.
At what point did you decide that the universe obeys the principles of a court of law? It does what it does.
Also, are you aware of the Napoleonic code? And the legal systems of much of mainland Europe, which go by the principle of "Guilty until proven innocent?'
It's made all the worse by this piece of nonsense:
We do not assume something is correct until we have evidence so we assume the negative.
No, we don't assume an answer at all! To do so is incredibly arrogant unless you have a reason for assuming such an answer in the first place!
Therefore, the default position to a question is not TRUE, nor is it FALSE. In the absence of meaningful evidence, it is UNDEFINED.
Is that truly such a difficult idea to grasp?
Assuming the negative is making a claim, every bit as much as assuming the positive.
"Which is crazier?
Insisting you know the answer to something?
Or admitting that, in fact, you don't?
If you've got evidence, use it. If you don't, don't go around pretending your dogmatic nonsensical answers are any better than the dogmatic nonsensical answers given out by those with differing belief systems."
I don't know, but we only have no evidence to say that the mind is not physical, and there is no reason to believe that it isn't. The person making the claim must provide the evidence. It's of burden of proof. It's all burden of proof.
Burden of proof is meaningless. This isn't a court of law. The world does not respect your beliefs about proof.
An unknown is unknown unless proven otherwise. Any deviation from 'unknown' must be proven, whether it is a deviation towards the negative, or towards the positive. If you want to talk about burden of proof, THAT is it.
Anyone claiming to have an answer to a question must be able to substantiate that answer. There is no default position. That's just arrogance.
As for "Science is a particular subset of evidence based systems. There are quite a few more than aren't science, yet still have some basis in evidence of one kind or another." science is the best and most reliable system. And the system that we use.
anyway, gtg!
Maths is not science. Logic is a subset of maths. Philosophy is a superset of logic, math and science. (as well as religion, to be honest.)
Science depends on maths to be useful.
And who exactly do you mean by 'we'?
I will agree that science is the most reliable system we know at the moment for most questions but it is by no means the best at answering every question in existence
You can use mathematics to help sort out scientific problems. In fact, science would be quite useless without it.
But an abstract mathematical problem can't be solved using science.
Just what do you think science is exactly?
I find it rather ironic that your answer to why science matters so much is very similar to that which might be forwarded by someone defending their religion.
It is a useful tool. Nothing more. Nothing less. But it is neither infallible, nor applicable to every possible situation. You can't simply brush aside the questions it seems incapable of answering by claiming the questions themselves are unimportant because they can't be answered using science - which you definitely seem to be implying.
The problem with referring to the quantum universe, is that when you're talking about things as tiny as quanta, or as massive as galactic bodies, the rules of existence as we know them break apart. We start talking about space-time then, and the fact that ALL things bend the space around them simply by existing there, only in the case of regular physics the effects are so inconsequential on anything smaller then moons as to basically not exist at all. But when you're on the quantum level, that is no longer true. Hence, the moment we observe quantum mechanics they alter slightly. That's not proof of a soul to me, but I'm not in a position to say that you're wrong =].
I do believe though that our creativity is an extension of our curiosity, as one cannot develop new things and ideas unless one is firstly curious about the effects/benefits/consequences of doing so. And as for being conscious of our own deaths(the source of all consciousness I believe), that is, in my opinion a side effect(a good one?) of our brains complexity and higher intelligence. We can't be self educating without self-awareness. But to be honest at this stage we're just heading into my own personal thinking and philosophy on the matter =].
And yes actually, near death experiences were the very thing which encouraged what study there is on this matter, as of course we can't rely on the testimony of people that just have death experiences =p
From my understanding (doing a physics degree, rather than astrophysics) is that the rules for bodies on a cosmic scale are the same as those on a .. "human" scale, just that small effects which are as good as negligable on the human scale become large enough to not only be observed, but have a large effect. As for things on a quantum scale, the rules change completely. Energy which is normally continuous now has a smallest value (the quantum. the smallest unit of energy in quantum mechanics). instead of something being a particle or wave, things start to become both. Particles appear in places they cannot be, and all we are able to do at the moment is find formulas and equations that map out these effects, the rules they appear to follow, but without a understanding of exactly what happens between point A and point B in anything other than abstract maths.
I find the nature of the effect of concious observation on a quantum system to be facinating. For example, an electron (which is commonly considered a particle, yes?) can act as a wave when it is not being directly observed. The only way we have to map out what it does is by turning its position into a wavefunction, which when squared gives us a probability of observing it at any point in space. And yet, once we observe it, the wavefunction breaks down and the electron acts as a particle again, existing in one place only. We know it does this, but we don't understand why. As far as I (we?) know, observation doesn't effect space time like mass does.
I realise I've probably repeated myself in the above paragraphs. sorry about that.
As for your second paragraph, those are some interesting thoughts on learning. I haven't given them much thought myself, so thanks for yet more food for thought!
I don't know, and it's a difficult concept to get my head round.
As an atheist I'm not gonna say either way, but reincarnation doesn't make much sense to me - populations change rapidly.
And sorry about the "assume" bit, it's not what I meant, I meant that we reject something if we don't have any evidence for it. We don't assume the negative, we don't make a claim about the negative, we reject the claim. And rejecting the claim is disbelief.
So the default stance on the question "Do you believe in an afterlife?" is no.
If you said yes, you would be just going on faith, whereas saying no is the default. Saying "I don't know" is not the default. If you get asked a question about something invisible, untouchable and unmeasurable you don't say "I don't know" you just say "no," you make the assumption that because of the complete lack of evidence that there is no reason to consider that such a thing does exist. Essentially rejecting the belief.
Science is the method of using things such as maths to gather evidence to understand something.
It seems to me that the something so crazy and magical as a soul HAS to be made for more than just this. I think it's clear that we have them, too, as the differences between our behaviors and those of the animals are quite marked.
On the other hand, as changing morality that I cannot disagree with (namely, the eradication of human slavery and the cessation of the practice of stoning gay people) has convinced me that the organized religion I was raised in was wrong, I'm not particularly sure about where our souls come from and, thus, who's in charge of them, I was forced to cast my vote for "Undecided."
As for how this affects my behavior... well, I try to do my bit, certainly, but I can't say that I think much about the afterlife as I do it. Hard for a belief of "Undecided" to really guide you, exactly, but since it's morality (or at least a version of it) that took me out of my comfortable little shell it'd sort of better be important regardless.
As an Physicalist [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism] I don't see any reason to believe in an afterlife.
Hey I'd like to keep on existing as much as the next guy, but I just don't see how it would be possible. Not to mention the total lack of evidence. And that most afterlives come with some sort of religion attached to it.
it is impossible to prove god does not exist and unless god shows up it's impossible to prove god exists so arguing evidence is not going to get to anywhere since if there is an all mighty being that made everything it could easily avoid detection and if there isn't then people can just say it's hiding on another plane of existence or something
btw this isn't target directly at you, you just got this idea to pop in my head
However, Occam's razor makes a God seem very implausible. Basically, the less assumptions you have to make to form a theory, the more likely it is to be true. However, why WOULD God hide? Why not show itself and convince atheists?
That said, I believe the same thing happens when we die as before we were born. How'd that feel? Well, absolutely nothing. I see no evidence or reason behind an afterlife, so my belief is that there is none.
simple god doesn't care if you think about it why would an almighty being care about one insignificant race when he is making an entire plane of existence, not only that but if that race found him they would constantly bug him for every whim they desire and thus he would have to hide again or more likely kill them all. an example would be if you had 1000 ant farms would you care if one was trying to break out and if it did break out wouldn't you just grab the ant traps and kill them all.
If God didn't care enough about whether people believed in him or not to show athiests that he exists, then why would he condemn a person to unimaginable, never-ending agony just for not believing in him, as the crazy ones like to keep telling us?
As to your hypothetical question- kill all the ants just because one got out of the farm? Why?
Nope, and it doesn't affect my choices in life. You die and that's it; there's no reason whatsoever to believe in an afterlife beyond really quite desperately wanting to.
lunncal said:
... And yes, not believing in an afterlife is just as much a religious belief as believing in one.
An absence of belief does not equate to having a belief. I'm sure the people that constantly come out with that think its very philosophical and deep, but its not.
People. People. Please watch what you say carefully with statements like these.
There's 3 statements being used here, and at least two of them are getting very muddled up.
Now, pay close attention.
Statement 1: I believe there is an afterlife.
Statement 2: I don't believe there is an afterlife.
Statement 3: I don't have a belief about the afterlife.
Statements 1 and 2 are what lunncal is referring to. 4RM3D and Woodsey are both referring to statement 3.
Ergo, you are talking past each-other, not to each-other
Now, I know people get confused when Atheism is brought up, because Atheism can be defined both as "I don't believe in god", and "I don't have a belief about god", which are not the same thing.
And one person will assume it means one statement while the other will assume other is meant.
But please try and think about this before you chew someone about about something like this hmm?
It's starting to get very irritating.
You really don't see it? Or are you being facetious?
It really shouldn't be that complicated.
When faced with a question for which there is basically no identifiable evidence, you can take one of 3 positions.
1. - There's no evidence, but I think it's true.
2. - There's no evidence, but I think it's false.
3. - There's no evidence, so I don't think it's appropriate to try and give you an answer.
If you think cases 2 and 3 are identical, then you're confusing yourself, because it's self-evidently cases 1 and 2 which are identical.
(Eg. Believing something without evidence.)
The inverse of believing in god's existence, is believing in god's non-existence.
But both cases are equivalent, because asserting something's non-existence is merely the logical inverse of asserting it's existence.
case 3 is admitting that it's pointless to give an answer to something which has no evidence either way.
Note that this is easy to get confused when arguing about religion because for instance religions frequently make assertions about the world which contradict science (amongst others).
But all that tells you with any certainty, is that one of the statements that are in direct conflict must be wrong.
It doesn't prove anything either way about any other statements made.
Consider some examples:
I believe the sky is blue
I don't believe the sky is blue
I don't know if the sky is blue
I believe there's an invisible, intangible dog sitting in my room
I don't believe there is an invisible, intangible dog sitting in my room.
I don't know if there is an invisible, intangible dog sitting in my room.
Do you get it yet, or do I need to continue with this?
Two out of these 3 statements make unsubstantiated claims. One doesn't actually make any claim whatsoever.
You however, seem to be implying that making the unsubstantiated claim that (to stick with the original statement), NOT believing in the existence of an afterlife, is equivalent to not making any claim about it's existence or non-existence whatsoever.
While the person you were responding to, was pointing out (maybe not for quite the most appropriate of reasons), that making the unsubstantiated claim that there is an afterlife, is more or less equivalent to making the unsubstantiated claim that there isn't.
The key point being unsubstantiated
If there is some meaningful evidence one way or the other, then of course it's not equivalent. But this is rarely the case with most such arguments.
Fucking hell, it took you that many paragraphs to say "agnosticism"? Which is a pretty useless phrase, considering anyone without a mental deficiency will admit - even if it takes some wearing down - that they don't TRULY know. Of course, that doesn't then mean that atheism and theism are equal, and certainly doesn't mean atheism and religion are equal.
Alright, so now let's go back to your point: "not believing in an afterlife is just as much a religious belief as believing in one."
In any case, you're still wrong. Given the wording you presumably meant religion vs. atheism. Religion is an entire belief structure, atheism is defined solely by a lack of belief. Even when you look at theism vs. atheism, to be a theist you still have to accept something for which there isn't the slightest bit of objective evidence.
"If there is some meaningful evidence one way or the other, then of course it's not equivalent."
You seem to be coming at this from the view of the sort of person who'd tell an atheist to prove god doesn't exist, as if that were just as reasonable as asking someone whose religious to prove god exists.
Again: when there is no evidence, there is no reason to believe it. Anything other than not-believing (whether its theism, or forms an entire religion) requires a process in a person's mind. Believing and not believing are not the same.
Anyhow, I would see the afterlife as a destination for our soul with our body as the vessel and our life as the journey. In the same way you use a vehicle to travel from A to B. The problem with this theory (and many others) is that I can't explain the soul. Where does it come from? We are born with a soul? How does that work?
The soul is an ill-defined concept at best, so arguing about evidence for or against runs into some serious problems.
A better question would be to ask about consciousness, since that presents a far more awkward problem. There is evidence for it's existence, (everyone who is conscious knows they are), but for some reason it can't be measured by any objective means.
(Eg. I can trivially prove my own consciousness - by the ultimate in subjective means, but can't even begin to devise a method for proving the consciousness of another in any meaningful way. - Eg. A total failure of objective measurements.)
That comes back to the burden of proof. Some one comes up with the idea of "consciousness" existing as something more than or outside of a human brain, and other people accept that idea because..?
I say where there's a total lack of objective measurements involved in trying to prove something, it's best to call bullshit and move on to more worthwhile pursuits.
Sorry, but this response seems like something of a nonsequitor.
In any event, to go with what you're saying, objective measurement being the sole and only standard of evidence is incredibly flawed as a concept as far as I'm concerned.
Prove to me objectively you are conscious. That you have any kind of experience at all.
This is precisely the kind of problem that shows up the limits of objective proofs, yet you want to argue that because it can't be measured objectively it should be disregarded in it's entirety?
So... You know your consciousness exists, but since you can't prove it you don't want to give it any further thought?
To me, it is more important than 'objective reality', because it's the only thing I can be certain of.
I can be certain that I am currently experiencing something.
I cannot be certain that what is considered 'objective reality' has any actual existence whatsoever.
The problem comes in that if I speak to another person, (such as you), the only thing we seem to be able to agree on is this 'objective reality' we both seem to share.
But since the only parts of your existence that I can verify are the ones that exist 100% within this 'objective reality', and I cannot be in any way certain this actually exists, I cannot be certain you exist.
Except insofar as you tell me you do by means of 'objective proof'.
But objective proof is the least meaningful form of proof insofar as asking what it means to exist. Because it answers any question except the one you're actually trying to work out.
I cannot perform any objective experiment on any part of myself.
Anyway, as to 'burden of proof'
I never even said consciousness exists "Outside of a human brain". I merely made the observation that it exists.
Known facts about consciousness:
1. It exists.
That's it. And that's the problem. It's quite a different problem from asking about god. God May or may not exist. Same with the afterlife. This might, or might not exist.
Consciousness does exist. Everyone who is conscious knows this. Yet precisely no-one can prove it through objective means.
That is a big problem, and I don't see how you can find it acceptable to just brush aside like that.
OK, let me say something slightly different here:
Because you mentioned burden of proof, let's look at what else you've stated incedentally.
1. Objective measurements are the only meaningful way of understanding the world. If it is impossible to measure something objectively, it's not worth knowing about.
Now, that might sound a harsh or incorrect appraisal, but that seems to be what you've said.
However, my response to this would then be:
Given a phenomena which everyone knows to be true. (The fact that they personally have 'consciousnesss' - or whatever else you want to call the actual experience of being aware of your own existence)
And the observation that there seems to be no objective way to measure this phenomena at all...
The burden of proof lies with you to show why objective measurements are a valid way of understanding existence.
(And secondly, to double-check your claims about who has the burden of proof, let me reverse your own statement: Someone comes up with the idea that "consiousness" exists solely as a product of the human brain. Other people accept this idea because...?)
Honestly, I found most of that to be talking in existentialist circles. I can't prove to you that I'm not just a robot in a world built around you for the purpose of a sick experiment carried out by an omnipotent being... but assuming that isn't the nature of the world is reasonable because you have objective proof to the contrary (or at least you would if you dissected me... I suppose that's actually a bad *beep* example).
Objective proof of what though? Assuming my existentialist premise. (It's actually solipsism, which is " only one's own mind is sure to exist.", but then existentialism is a blanket term for various much more recent philosophical ideas, and has no consistent definition.)
The problem with this is that the premise on which this argument rests rules out the validity of what you would consider 'objective' proof.
Though to be honest, I can't find any such proof anyway, even if I did dissect you, what would I actually be able to prove about your consciousness (or potential lack thereof)?
This is not proof. At best it is inference and projection. The only way it could reasonably be said to be proof is if I performed some kind of non-fatal surgery upon myself, (since I am the only person for whom I can meaningfully verify the implications of what I am testing for).
Furthermore, these tests would have to alter something about my brain that does not fundamentally damage my ability to comprehend what I've done to myself. If I can't understand what I used to be like, it doesn't answer much either.
There's absolutely no point performing experiments on others to test for their changes in experiential reality (for want of a better way of putting it.). Because I cannot deduce with any degree of reliability what their experiences were before, or after the changes. (Nor if they even actually have any at all.)
About the only issue brought up that I can address without the condescension I have just displayed (so, to answer your question: yes, as far as I'm concerned, objective measurement is the only standard of evidence I accept) is that of the burden of proof.
People generally accept the idea of consciousness being a product of brain activity due to many studies of this subject [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience]. Individual consciousness is not an easy thing to explain, and I'm certainly not an expert on the subject, but what I've read on in makes a hell of a lot more sense than the spiritualist explanations I've received.
Sprititualist explanations are fiction. My own experiences are not. Neuroscience is fascinating, but it doesn't answer any of the questions I'm asking, because it fundamentally cannot answer them.
If objective measurement is the only thing you accept as 'proof' of anything, you're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy there.
Because if your default assumption is "Only things which can be objectively proven are true", you will never find anything which defies that assumption. You are wilfully making yourself blind to the very idea.
But let's move on. Here's that burden of proof thing again. Burden of proof is a legal concept. Not one that applies to the workings of reality. Reality is whatever it is. We can try and work out what that means, but burden of proof is akin to you saying you don't ever need to make an effort.
But while we are going through this anyway, let's try to be clear on the point I am making;
Which do you think it is?
1. Consciousness exists independently of the brain.
2. Consciousness can be fully explained by the workings of the brain.
3. Consciousness cannot be understood by the workings of the brain alone.
If you answered anything other than 3, you've misunderstood my point. Furthermore, I have attempted to show you why this is the case, which you reject mostly by asserting all manner of things which don't answer the question.
I know what it's like to be conscious, and what this entails. I also know that to date I have never come across any meaningful objective measures of why the experiences I have are the way they are, when the functional aspects of what purpose those experiences serve show no logical reasons for why they are the way they are, as opposed to any number of alternate variations which would accomplish the same task.
The burden of proof therefore lies with you in explaining why you assert that objective measurements are valid to any problem, when I have reasonable grounds for believing I have found a problem to which objective standards of measurement cannot provide an answer?
Or, rephrased: I may well have the burden of proof for claiming consciousness is not a product of the brain, (which wasn't a claim I was even making to begin with).
But you have the burden of proof for substantiating your claim that objective measurements are the only valid proof to any problem, when I can find several examples where not only is there a question they fail to answer, they show no real sign of even potentially answering it.
So... Prove to me your rather strong assertion that objective proof is the only valid form of proof, when my own evidence tells me otherwise.
(Unless you're going to argue that you don't have a consciousness of your own of course. Because me asking you about it about it relies on the idea that you do in fact have conscious experience somewhat comparable to my own. In which case you too should be able to spot the same logical flaws that conscious experience poses for the notion of objective proof.)
So, can you back up your claim? Or are you going to try and deflect it by insisting I prove a position I never asserted to begin with?
Wow! I went to bed, woke up, looked at this thread and it has exploded. You have written so much and quite -what is the correct term- abstract? high level? Anyhow, it will take some time for me to process everything you have said. It has been an interesting read so far.
Well, I'm glad you've found it interesting, because at times I mostly feel like some of it has been a long-winded way of getting someone to understand a point, only to have them reach a more or less unrelated conclusion, then attack me for this.
But... Such is the nature of arguments on internet forums. The escapist is certainly far better for such things than some other forums I've had debates on.)
There are probably a lot things I want to ask/say, but my mind has flooded. So, let me start with the things I can remember.
First of all about the example of describing colors. There has been a lot of research into human words and though no definite conclusion can be made, I can still infer from it that (thinking in) words is what's holding us back. Somethings just can not be scribed with (in?) words. An interesting technology would be if you could talk telepathically. Would you be able to convey emotions, images? That would be something.
That's an interesting question. I've seen some of the research you're referring to, but there do seem to be some complexities.
There's a definite relation between language and other concepts. It'd quite difficult to think about something you don't have a word for.
For that matter, it's quite difficult to describe what life is like without words. I briefly had generative aphasia. That means I couldn't create language.
It's really strange because I could understand what other people were saying, and I still somehow knew the intent of what I wanted to say...
But my internal dialogue was completely gone. I literally did not have any words in my head at all. And trying to speak, I could eventually, with much effort and stuttering say something in fits and starts.
But thinking without language, while still understanding the actual concepts that go along with it was very strange...
I suspect if you could convey a much more complete thought to another person, well... there'd be a lot less misunderstanding in the world. If you knew what I was actually feeling right now for instance. Or, what my mental model of any given word is (and how it differs from yours...)
Anyhow, an interesting example about the research into words.
Experiments have found that whether or not you can register a color depends on whether or not you have a name for it in your language. You can see the color, it just doesn't register in your mind.
One study compared some young children from England with kids from a tribe in Nambia. In the English language, young kids usually learn 11 basic colors (black, white, gray, red, green, blue, yellow, pink, orange, purple and brown) but in Himba it's only five. For instance, they lump red, orange and pink together and call it "serandu."
If you showed the Himba toddler a pink card and then later showed him a red one and ask if they're the same card, the kid would often mistakenly say yes -- because they're both "serandu." If you hold up a pink card and a red card next to each other, the English kid and Himba kid both would say they're different. But not when they see them one at a time.
That is definitely a very interesting study. But notice the difference between being asked to compare two colours side by side.
Irrespective of the words involved, you can tell them apart. And it's a very interesting question, but it's slightly different to what I was getting at overall.
Say for instance you have two people, and you've already established that their eyes contain the same photoreceptor, which have the same degree of sensitivity to light.
Their brains process this information in more or less the same way.
If you shine a light of a certain wavelength and intensity in their eyes though, will their experience of what this is like be the same?
And how can you determine this when you can't actually measure the experience itself? You can ask them about it, but they can only describe what they have words for.
On top of that, whatever they do describe is immediately filtered and re-interpreted by whoever takes in the words, such that it no longer conveys the experience of the person that said the words, but rather the experience the person listening associates with those words.
The logic involved in measuring brain activity would imply that if the photo receptors are identical, and the way the brain processes the information is too, then surely the experiences involved should be as well right? - Well, that's an obvious answer, but the problem is it's not one that can be proven.
And that creates a real headache when you ask the question about what consciousness is, or what a person's experiences actually are.
In short, what is it like to be someone? And how do you go about proving that you're not just making stuff up when you try and answer that.
knowing what happens when you die depends on knowing what's going on when you're alive.
But are you interested in what happens to your body (and brain) when you die? Or in what happens to the experience you have while you are conscious? If you're interested in the body, that's easy.
If you're interested into the nature of what it's like to die, and the experience of being dead (if such a statement actually makes sense), well then you really do need to work out what it means to experience anything at all... And incidentally, whether talking about non-existence actually makes any sense in relation to any of this...
Have you ever not existed before? And on what basis do you make that claim?
But... I'm rambling a little here... So Time to move on.
And secondly (and lastly for now) about believing and not believing and mutually exclusivity.
One religion says there is one God, another religion says there are more Gods. They can't both be right? It's mutually exclusive. Same with some religions believing Jezus and God are the same person, while others believe Jezus was His son.
I just thought of that when reading your story. I wonder how that works? Because it doesn't seem to impact religious people.
I've been trying to find a good way to describe this, but I can't really find it. It has something to do with the nature of what religious groups tend to use as evidence, compared with what constitutes scientific evidence.
Arguments between religions will tend to just involve both sides immediately declaring the other's position invalid, and leaving it at that. (unless a war starts as a result), while a scientist will tend to not just claim your position is invalid, but also try and explain to you why that is the case.
And it is surprisingly difficult to argue with a claim that you can verify for yourself. Whereas it is quite easy to argue with one which you cannot.
Or, well, something to that effect probably has a big influence on it. It doesn't matter if two positions are mutually exclusive, as long as you can't actually prove either one to be true.
EDIT: Oh and I just remembered something else. Who are you? What do you do for a living? Because you seem well educated and very knowledgeable about the subject. I am just curious.
Uhm... I wouldn't consider myself any of the above. It's just a subject I think about a lot, combined with a lot of incidental research.
I don't do anything of much interest. Most of my skillset is computer programming, though I guess having an interest in artificial intelligence helps with some of these kinds of questions. Spending a reasonable amount of time working with physics models probably doesn't hurt either.
Sometimes I use this knowledge to ask the question "How else could the world work?" and see what results this leads to.
The only real answer I can get seems to be anything is possible, but if I want to model it on a computer it has to obey the principles of mathematics.
But what is valid mathematically, is much, much broader than what is valid based on the sciences.
I was at some point studying a physics degree, but I never completed it. So, make of that what you will. I'm sure someone will jump on that to 'prove' I don't understand science very well...
But I think otherwise. I know it well enough to spot where people are trying to use it in nonsensical ways, and to appreciate it has it's limits.
This becomes painfully obvious if you spend enough time listening to cosmologists and theoretical physicists describe how they think the universe formed, and how it functions.
If you can honestly listen to that and not question the way these people talk about the nature of reality... Well, I don't know.
But if I hear another physicist proclaim the beauty of mathematical simplicity as some kind of self-evident proof of the validity of some mathematical description of reality?
Well... At some point the distinction between what is science and what is religion starts to look very blurry indeed.
But anyway, that aside, who I am isn't really that important in a debate. If I told you I was a world-renowned physicist, would that make my arguments any more valid than anyone else's? No. It wouldn't.
I'm not, but that's not the point.
Yes, if that were the case I'd likely have some very esoteric and specialised knowledge about whatever my field of expertise might be.
But that certainly wouldn't mean my arguments would be valid just because I'd made them.
So in that regard it isn't very meaningful to ask who I am.
(Though you can perhaps infer I am much closer to being a scientist than I am to being religious. Which might seem amusing considering the people I'm arguing with seem to want to tell me what science is, and why I should believe in it...)
Oh, and would you look at that. Another incredibly lengthy post. Ah well. This is actually two independent responses at once, and contains a lot of quotes. So... Eh.
I get so burned out arguing with certain kinds of people... What is it about science that makes people want to argue it is an infallible tool exactly? It just makes no sense that people would espouse a philosophy whose core principle is not taking things on faith, but making the effort to work themselves out for yourself, and then trying to apply it in the most narrow-minded and dogmatic manner, even when it really doesn't make sense.
If you want to have a debate about something using purely scientific principles, then please pick a topic where that actually makes sense. But don't go telling me science can answer anything and expect me to take you seriously. Because I won't. Because it can't.
And it should be blatantly obvious where those limits lie really. But if you can't figure it out, here's a hint: If you cannot devise a meaningful objective test of what is being discussed, you probably shouldn't be trying to apply scientific principles to it, because your answers are unlikely to be any more meaningful than just making up something at random.
At least the arguments used by people with various religious beliefs tend to be compatible with how those beliefs work.
Ugh. OK, enough of that. I need to get some sleep, and get over this habit of posting such long rants trying to convince someone of something they're never going to accept anyway.
Might as well start trolling people for all the good it does.
I believe in an afterlife. The reason is simple, I believe that there is something more to human beings than what can be explained by science. I believe in the existance of the soul, and I believe that since this is supernatural(remember I said it can't be explained by science) then it must continue on after the death of the body. Whether this continues in the form of an afterlife or reincarnation I do not know.
Because human beings are more than what can be fully explained. All the research done into the brain and nature vs nurture still falls short of explaining humans, I believe that the extra missing piece is the soul.
And I never said it couldn't be understood, just that it couldn't be explained.
Also, that's some really weird logic, even if you can't explain or understand lightning, you still know it's there.
I believe in an afterlife. The reason is simple, I believe that there is something more to human beings than what can be explained by science. I believe in the existance of the soul, and I believe that since this is supernatural(remember I said it can't be explained by science) then it must continue on after the death of the body. Whether this continues in the form of an afterlife or reincarnation I do not know.
Because human beings are more than what can be fully explained. All the research done into the brain and nature vs nurture still falls short of explaining humans, I believe that the extra missing piece is the soul.
And I never said it couldn't be understood, just that it couldn't be explained.
Also, that's some really weird logic, even if you can't explain or understand lightning, you still know it's there.
Except lightning has been understood and can be explained, by science.
Just because we can't yet fully explain human consciousness does not mean we never will be able to. Jumping to the conclusion that the 'missing piece' as you put it, must be the 'soul' is the laziest kind of religious assumption. It is also a textbook example of how many religious, and wrong I might add, explanations of nautral phenomena came about. For example when humans first looked up at the sky and realised the sun was a separate entity, they naturally assumed it was smaller than Earth because that's the way it looks. We now know differently of course because science has given us the true description of the solar system.
I can only think of two reasons why the notion of an afterlife developed:
1. In early human societies we were simply unable to comprehend that consciousness can simply end, being as it is a highly complex but fragile system of electrical impulses.
2. Early human existence was so unfathomably shit compared to modern, western living standards that people needed to cling to the idea that there was another life waiting for them that would be so much better.
Fucking hell, it took you that many paragraphs to say "agnosticism"? Which is a pretty useless phrase, considering anyone without a mental deficiency will admit - even if it takes some wearing down - that they don't TRULY know. Of course, that doesn't then mean that atheism and theism are equal, and certainly doesn't mean atheism and religion are equal.
Do you understand the nature of a negative argument? You don't seem to.
In any case, you're still wrong. Given the wording you presumably meant religion vs. atheism. Religion is an entire belief structure, atheism is defined solely by a lack of belief. Even when you look at theism vs. atheism, to be a theist you still have to accept something for which there isn't the slightest bit of objective evidence.
Correction, Religion is one of many different possible belief structures. As a whole, there is no such thing as 'religious belief', there are religions, yes. But no such thing as a specific belief structure common to all.
atheism is defined as the lack of belief... Of what? You can't have a lack of something without defining a structure to not believe in. You are asserting your lack of belief in a religious belief structure. Which does, in fact require having such a belief structure, otherwise you wouldn't have the slightest clue what it is you aren't believing.
Negatives are mental contstructs that depend on the their opposite. There's no such thing as a 'lack of belief in elephants', because you'd first have to know what an elephant is.
What's with this insistence on 'objective' evidence too? Objectivity is flawed, there is 'subjective' evidence of this, as well as incidental evidence from at least one supposedly objective source.
More to the point, there is no inherent validity in saying there has to be positive proof for something to claim it is valid. That's stupid.
"If there is some meaningful evidence one way or the other, then of course it's not equivalent."
You seem to be coming at this from the view of the sort of person who'd tell an atheist to prove god doesn't exist, as if that were just as reasonable as asking someone whose religious to prove god exists.
That's because it is. You have no evidence for your position, any more than they have evidence for theirs.
Your assertion that it more reasonable to support one unsubstantiated claim than it is to support another is arrogant and self-serving, and really only accomplishes the task of making you feel some sense of arbitrary superiority.
Asking you to prove there is no god or gods, or whatever, is perfectly reasonable, because it is an arbitrary claim with no supporting evidence whatsoever. (Certainly no objective evidence.)
Just as asking a religious person to prove that their god actually exists, is perfectly reasonable, because again, it is an arbitrary claim with no supporting evidence whatsoever.
What is so difficult to understand about the fundamental equivalence of these statements?
If you make a claim, you have the burden to prove it.
Or are you being distracted by the fact that most such arguments arise between someone with a specific religious belief and an atheist.
Someone with a specific religious belief should be willing to provide evidence that their belief is valid. Otherwise, you can reasonably assume it is not.
But claiming there is no god, and no afterlife, and all the other various things that all seem to go hand-in-hand with the athiest position (which you somehow seem to claim contains no inherent belief structure to it), is no more justified by any available evidence than any other.
Claiming there is nothing, is still a claim. It is no more, and no less reasonable than any other claim.
Therefore, prove it! Or stop yelling at everyone else that makes similarly unverifiable claims!
Again: when there is no evidence, there is no reason to believe it. Anything other than not-believing (whether its theism, or forms an entire religion) requires a process in a person's mind. Believing and not believing are not the same.
Not-believing, is the same process as believing. You have to have something to not-believe. If you truly had no mental process to do with religious beliefs (or your supposed lack their-of), you would not even be aware of this to begin with.
To answer the statement "I believe this", with the statement "I think you are wrong", means you have taken aboard the initial statement, then internally inverted it.
There's no such thing as 'not-believing', there is being entirely unaware of a concept, or having an opinion of it.
Saying 'There is no god", is an opinion on the concept of god. it IS NOT the total non-existence in your mind of this concept, which your statement implies, and which cannot possibly be the definition of atheism in any practical sense.
But let me make this entirely clear.
If you assert that you do not have to prove that the Christian God, or Zeus, or Thor, or the flying spaghetti monster actually don't exist, you are correct. You do not. Whoever claims they do, is the one that needs to prove it.
But if you assert "there is no god", as a blanket statement - which would imply not just rejecting any specific notion of god, but every single possible notion of god anyone has ever come up with, as well as any other idea that might be possible...
that, is a statement that requires every bit as much proof as any religion. Because that is a very, very strong statement indeed.
If you make such a claim, you are actively stating that out of every conceivable idea that fits the available evidence, one, and only one is valid. (Specifically, the total non-existence of any god or gods of any description whatsoever.)
that is not a claim you can make without proof. And that is what you appear to be saying is a valid argument that doesn't require any defence.
I believe in an afterlife. The reason is simple, I believe that there is something more to human beings than what can be explained by science. I believe in the existance of the soul, and I believe that since this is supernatural(remember I said it can't be explained by science) then it must continue on after the death of the body. Whether this continues in the form of an afterlife or reincarnation I do not know.
Because human beings are more than what can be fully explained. All the research done into the brain and nature vs nurture still falls short of explaining humans, I believe that the extra missing piece is the soul.
And I never said it couldn't be understood, just that it couldn't be explained.
Also, that's some really weird logic, even if you can't explain or understand lightning, you still know it's there.
Except lightning has been understood and can be explained, by science.
Just because we can't yet fully explain human consciousness does not mean we never will be able to. Jumping to the conclusion that the 'missing piece' as you put it, must be the 'soul' is the laziest kind of religious assumption. It is also a textbook example of how many religious, and wrong I might add, explanations of nautral phenomena came about. For example when humans first looked up at the sky and realised the sun was a separate entity, they naturally assumed it was smaller than Earth because that's the way it looks. We now know differently of course because science has given us the true description of the solar system.
I can only think of two reasons why the notion of an afterlife developed:
1. In early human societies we were simply unable to comprehend that consciousness can simply end, being as it is a highly complex but fragile system of electrical impulses.
2. Early human existence was so unfathomably shit compared to modern, western living standards that people needed to cling to the idea that there was another life waiting for them that would be so much better.
I wasn't trying to say lightning wasn't understood, I was saying how we knew about even before we understood it.
You can believe that the human will be fully explained in the future, but can't see how something as complex and emotional and inconsistant as human beings will ever be fully explained by chemical reactions in the brain.
That's not lazyness, it's my belief about how to explain the unexplained. If you think that is a lazy assumption, then so is darkmatter. Or the graviton. Or a myriad other scientific theories that have no evidence to support them, we just assume they must exist because we can see their effects.
It's called deduction, maybe you should try it sometime, you might learn something.
Fucking hell, it took you that many paragraphs to say "agnosticism"? Which is a pretty useless phrase, considering anyone without a mental deficiency will admit - even if it takes some wearing down - that they don't TRULY know. Of course, that doesn't then mean that atheism and theism are equal, and certainly doesn't mean atheism and religion are equal.
Do you understand the nature of a negative argument? You don't seem to.
In any case, you're still wrong. Given the wording you presumably meant religion vs. atheism. Religion is an entire belief structure, atheism is defined solely by a lack of belief. Even when you look at theism vs. atheism, to be a theist you still have to accept something for which there isn't the slightest bit of objective evidence.
Correction, Religion is one of many different possible belief structures. As a whole, there is no such thing as 'religious belief', there are religions, yes. But no such thing as a specific belief structure common to all.
atheism is defined as the lack of belief... Of what? You can't have a lack of something without defining a structure to not believe in. You are asserting your lack of belief in a religious belief structure. Which does, in fact require having such a belief structure, otherwise you wouldn't have the slightest clue what it is you aren't believing.
Negatives are mental contstructs that depend on the their opposite. There's no such thing as a 'lack of belief in elephants', because you'd first have to know what an elephant is.
What's with this insistence on 'objective' evidence too? Objectivity is flawed, there is 'subjective' evidence of this, as well as incidental evidence from at least one supposedly objective source.
More to the point, there is no inherent validity in saying there has to be positive proof for something to claim it is valid. That's stupid.
"If there is some meaningful evidence one way or the other, then of course it's not equivalent."
You seem to be coming at this from the view of the sort of person who'd tell an atheist to prove god doesn't exist, as if that were just as reasonable as asking someone whose religious to prove god exists.
That's because it is. You have no evidence for your position, any more than they have evidence for theirs.
Your assertion that it more reasonable to support one unsubstantiated claim than it is to support another is arrogant and self-serving, and really only accomplishes the task of making you feel some sense of arbitrary superiority.
Asking you to prove there is no god or gods, or whatever, is perfectly reasonable, because it is an arbitrary claim with no supporting evidence whatsoever. (Certainly no objective evidence.)
Just as asking a religious person to prove that their god actually exists, is perfectly reasonable, because again, it is an arbitrary claim with no supporting evidence whatsoever.
What is so difficult to understand about the fundamental equivalence of these statements?
If you make a claim, you have the burden to prove it.
Or are you being distracted by the fact that most such arguments arise between someone with a specific religious belief and an atheist.
Someone with a specific religious belief should be willing to provide evidence that their belief is valid. Otherwise, you can reasonably assume it is not.
But claiming there is no god, and no afterlife, and all the other various things that all seem to go hand-in-hand with the athiest position (which you somehow seem to claim contains no inherent belief structure to it), is no more justified by any available evidence than any other.
Claiming there is nothing, is still a claim. It is no more, and no less reasonable than any other claim.
Therefore, prove it! Or stop yelling at everyone else that makes similarly unverifiable claims!
Again: when there is no evidence, there is no reason to believe it. Anything other than not-believing (whether its theism, or forms an entire religion) requires a process in a person's mind. Believing and not believing are not the same.
Not-believing, is the same process as believing. You have to have something to not-believe. If you truly had no mental process to do with religious beliefs (or your supposed lack their-of), you would not even be aware of this to begin with.
To answer the statement "I believe this", with the statement "I think you are wrong", means you have taken aboard the initial statement, then internally inverted it.
There's no such thing as 'not-believing', there is being entirely unaware of a concept, or having an opinion of it.
Saying 'There is no god", is an opinion on the concept of god. it IS NOT the total non-existence in your mind of this concept, which your statement implies, and which cannot possibly be the definition of atheism in any practical sense.
But let me make this entirely clear.
If you assert that you do not have to prove that the Christian God, or Zeus, or Thor, or the flying spaghetti monster actually don't exist, you are correct. You do not. Whoever claims they do, is the one that needs to prove it.
But if you assert "there is no god", as a blanket statement - which would imply not just rejecting any specific notion of god, but every single possible notion of god anyone has ever come up with, as well as any other idea that might be possible...
that, is a statement that requires every bit as much proof as any religion. Because that is a very, very strong statement indeed.
If you make such a claim, you are actively stating that out of every conceivable idea that fits the available evidence, one, and only one is valid. (Specifically, the total non-existence of any god or gods of any description whatsoever.)
that is not a claim you can make without proof. And that is what you appear to be saying is a valid argument that doesn't require any defence.
I've skimmed because I'm bored of 2000 word essays. Especially when your last one could have been summed up in about 5 words.
"atheism is defined as the lack of belief... Of what? You can't have a lack of something without defining a structure to not believe in."
Yes you can. It denotes people who aren't theists. Theists believe in something, atheists don't.
"There's no such thing as 'not-believing', there is being entirely unaware of a concept, or having an opinion of it."
I do not believe there is a god because there is no evidence to support the notion that there is.
This entire debate hinges on your inability to understand that a lack of belief is a thing. Or maybe you're using 'opinion' and 'belief' interchangeably.
As I said, there is nothing to give me cause to believe in god, so I do not believe in god. A belief in god relies on FAITH, if I were to belief in god, it would rely on EVIDENCE.
"But if you assert "there is no god", as a blanket statement - which would imply not just rejecting any specific notion of god, but every single possible notion of god anyone has ever come up with, as well as any other idea that might be possible..."
I suspect people say that because its easier than qualifying everything with "that has yet been proven or shown to exist with any substantial evidence, yada yada yada."
If there's no evidence or reason to believe something then its perfectly acceptable to say it doesn't exist, because for all intents and purposes it doesn't. Again, it is evidence based; it can change.
Atheists as a whole rely on evidence, theists on faith.
"That's because it is. You have no evidence for your position, any more than they have evidence for theirs."
My evidence is a lack thereof; you can't prove a negative. The only reason I am having to say "I don't believe in god" is because someone has had to imagine them in the first place.
"Correction, Religion is one of many different possible belief structures. As a whole, there is no such thing as 'religious belief', there are religions, yes. But no such thing as a specific belief structure common to all."
Duh.
Religions have a structure of some sort (and I think you'll find a lot of them share common elements anyway; leaders, holy books, etc - even gods), whereby theism does not need that. I was simply making a distinction between theists and the religious.
And sorry about the "assume" bit, it's not what I meant, I meant that we reject something if we don't have any evidence for it. We don't assume the negative, we don't make a claim about the negative, we reject the claim. And rejecting the claim is disbelief.
So the default stance on the question "Do you believe in an afterlife?" is no.
If you said yes, you would be just going on faith, whereas saying no is the default. Saying "I don't know" is not the default. If you get asked a question about something invisible, untouchable and unmeasurable you don't say "I don't know" you just say "no," you make the assumption that because of the complete lack of evidence that there is no reason to consider that such a thing does exist. Essentially rejecting the belief.
Science is the method of using things such as maths to gather evidence to understand something.
That link redirects to a page on the scientific method. Nothing on that page is a huge surprise to me, but also nothing in my experience of science, nor anything I can find on that page mentions anything you're using as reasoning here.
Aside from which, I consider it completely flawed to reject a belief based on lack of evidence, so if this is standard practice (which seems rather odd), it is honestly rather silly.
This basically either means things are being rejected arbitrarily, or they are working from the assumption that "No" = "I don't know", but this is a very dangerous concept to take on board, because there's a rather important difference between "I reject this because it contradicts evidence I have", and "I reject this because I have no evidence of any kind relating to it."
That really, truly should not be a position anyone should take if they're working from what scientific principles are supposed to mean. - Though it would certainly explain a lot of stupid statements I've seen scientists come out with over the years.
As a Buddhist, I definitely have a belief in rebirth, although it's more of a logical/empirical framework for a view of life than a definite claimed knowledge. I don't think it's possible to know one way or another with any certainty, but rebirth definitely makes the most sense to me within the context of my views on the nature of the world.
Is it more plausible that there is something that performs miracles, creates the entire world, clearly interferes with the world, but we cannot comprehend it or even see it?
I like the much more likely theory of "physics works" to explain the world.
There is another possibility that a lot of people seem to forget. It is either evolution or God. But why can't it be both?
Evolution can only explain so much. The possibility I am seeing is that God only planted the seed of life and after that just sat back to enjoy seeing the growth of life. In the analogy of someone planting a tree in the garden and see it grow over the years, when eventually it bears fruit to apple or oranges (or whatever; apples being humans and oranges being aliens .
Okay, that wasn't an argument against Occam's Razor, but it had to be said nonetheless.
I still think one should be more open-minded than that. Sure, it is a possibility, but is it more likely than any other explanation? Evolution explains how, not why. No, we have derailed this long enough. I challenge you in a private message battle! If you're bored, anyway, since I love these kinds of discussions.
tjcross said:
again an automated process now this entirely reflects my beliefs but i think that when we die our souls are just automatically randomized by some divine equation into the nearest available vessel (for example a fetus that has yet to show signs of life or something don't know much about that) so that god doesn't have to worry about it and he can get back to his hobby of making planets, stars and other races ps.also as you may have noticed i don't believe god is perfect if he was and we were made in his image we would be perfect to and we're not.
Yeah, your beliefs. So basically reincarnation? I can't disprove you, since that's your belief. However, just because you think something doesn't make it right. Just doesn't seem likely, if you get me. Though... Assuming your soul is transferred into a fetus, how come you suddenly change personality? You're most likely not the same as you were before, so in what way would it still be YOU?
well i believe our consciousness does indeed die since our brains do not come with the soul. our existence itself does not end but is altered. also i believe the soul does contain part of what we were, it is every thought and emotion we ever had and is used to being manipulated in a certain way so when it is transferred it is easier to do things you did a lot in another life, think about it like a series of buttons some you push a lot and cause the spring to weaken and the button is easier to push others you never needed so when you do try to push it the button resists. also I'd like to thank you for remaining civil a lot of people on other forums can get out of hand when it comes to things like these.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
