# GQ as GD: Facts vs. opinions re: the afterlife and other unprovable stuff **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 3, 2010, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876 "2010-12-03T23:30:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/181 "2010-12-07T17:09:14Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Well, that’s true, I guess. Then sensory stimuli would be not be necessity. How is information encoded in the brain? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/182 "2010-12-07T17:14:13Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > Then sensory stimuli would be not be necessity. How is information encoded in the brain? The sensory stimuli would be necessary for the original encoding. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/183 "2010-12-07T17:18:15Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > Then sensory stimuli would be not be necessity. How is information encoded in the brain? The sensory stimuli is still a necessity. I was only agreeing that an exact duplicate of a brain would have the memories already encoded into it, not everything else. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/184 "2010-12-07T17:41:02Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The sensory stimuli is still a necessity. I was only agreeing that an exact duplicate of a brain would have the memories already encoded into it, not everything else. This only makes sense if you don’t want the two copies to diverge - which is going to happen anyway. Stimuli are stateless, so any stimuli in the past that were not captured in a memory are don’t cares. If you want the two copies of the consciousness to not diverge, you’d have to arrange to have the same sense organs and provide both copies with the same stimuli, which is more or less impossible. But this experiment doesn’t transfer consciousness, it copies it, since the original brain will still be there - assuming the copying process is non-destructive, that is. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/185 "2010-12-07T17:44:37Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The sensory stimuli is still a necessity. I was only agreeing that an exact duplicate of a brain would have the memories already encoded into it, not everything else. What else is there? Transfer assumes there is something to transfer. If consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, build an exact duplicate of the brain and you get an exact duplicate of the consciousness - with no spinning machines transferring stuff, like in Star Trek, necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/186 "2010-12-07T17:51:28Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > This only makes sense if you don’t want the two copies to diverge - which is going to happen anyway. Stimuli are stateless, so any stimuli in the past that were not captured in a memory are don’t cares. > If you want the two copies of the consciousness to not diverge, you’d have to arrange to have the same sense organs and provide both copies with the same stimuli, which is more or less impossible. I agree. I said as much upthread - that new sensory input would immediately “corrupt the original files,” (although your own word “diverge” is probably more accurate). > [@](#): > > But this experiment doesn’t transfer consciousness, it copies it, since the original brain will still be there - assuming the copying process is non-destructive, that is. Good point. And even if the original is destroyed, it’s still a copy, not a transfer. > [@](#): > > What else is there? Transfer assumes there is something to transfer. If consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, build an exact duplicate of the brain and you get an exact duplicate of the consciousness - with no spinning machines transferring stuff, like in Star Trek, necessary. Agreed on transference, but the duplicate would only be an exact duplicate at the first instant it goes on line. At that point, new sensory stimuli (not to mention the immediate encoding of new memories not present in the original brain) would cause it to diverege from the original and become a new, separate consciousness altogether. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/187 "2010-12-07T19:10:24Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > an exact duplicate at the first instant it goes on line. At that point, new sensory stimuli (not to mention the immediate encoding of new memories not present in the original brain) would cause it to diverege from the original and become a new, separate consciousness altogether. And this is yet another strike against the soul. Souls have to be in some sense immutable, since they last for eternity, which consciousness and personality change with inputs and time. Soul believers have to tell us whether this experiment replicates the soul, or creates a new and different soul. Interesting problem. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/188 "2010-12-07T19:17:08Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > And this is yet another strike against the soul. Souls have to be in some sense immutable, since they last for eternity, which consciousness and personality change with inputs and time. Soul believers have to tell us whether this experiment replicates the soul, or creates a new and different soul. Interesting problem. The simple solution is to measure the souls in both brains by…by… Could a religionist please step in and tell us how one measures a soul, please? ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/189 "2010-12-07T19:47:43Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Could a religionist please step in and tell us how one measures a soul, please? With [one of these](http://www.specialtystoreservices.com/productchild.aspx?group=5722C&img=5722.jpg&category=3142). ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/190 "2010-12-07T20:08:28Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > With [one of these](http://www.specialtystoreservices.com/productchild.aspx?group=5722C&img=5722.jpg&category=3142). You’re a heel. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/191 "2010-12-07T21:25:45Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > And this is yet another strike against the soul. Souls have to be in some sense immutable, since they last for eternity, which consciousness and personality change with inputs and time. Soul believers have to tell us whether this experiment replicates the soul, or creates a new and different soul. Interesting problem. You evidently missed by creosote bush comparison to the soul, and the idea that our personalities, all the things that make us distinct individuals, are the mortal aspect and do not persist beyond life. How can anyone be so sure that a soul must function any particular way at all, while simultaneously denying that it could possibly exist? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/192 "2010-12-07T21:34:35Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > You’re a heel. 😛 There are shenanigans afoot. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/193 "2010-12-07T21:35:45Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > How can anyone be so sure that a soul must function any particular way at all, while simultaneously denying that it could possibly exist? How can anyone postulate they exist when there is exactly zero evidence for it and it defies everything we know about physics? ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/194 "2010-12-07T21:45:45Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Souls have to be in some sense immutable, since they last for eternity, which consciousness and personality change with inputs and time. A very interesting and controversial problem. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/195 "2010-12-07T21:50:40Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > A very interesting and controversial problem. Which is easily solved if one stipulates that souls do not exist. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/196 "2010-12-07T21:54:37Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > You evidently missed by creosote bush comparison to the soul, and the idea that our personalities, all the things that make us distinct individuals, are the mortal aspect and do not persist beyond life. > > How can anyone be so sure that a soul must function any particular way at all, while simultaneously denying that it could possibly exist? **Stoid** , I’m going to be as polite as possible, here. I’m not just trying to dig at you, but you can’t expect us to answer questions about the “soul” until you define what it is. As it stands, that’s just a nonsense word. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/197 "2010-12-07T22:00:11Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Which is easily solved if one stipulates that souls do not exist. That’s what makes it so controversial. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/198 "2010-12-07T22:23:47Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Souls have to be in some sense immutable, since they last for eternity, which consciousness and personality change with inputs and time. You could know without anyone else knowing. But then how could you know? What is consciousness when you take out the concept of time? When there is multiple consciousness, multiple personality through time? ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/199 "2010-12-07T23:36:24Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > How can anyone postulate they exist when there is exactly zero evidence for it and it defies everything we know about physics? [cuz](http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html) > [@](#): > > Many times in the past, people have concluded that because something is logically impossible (given the science of the day), it must be impossible, period. It was also believed at one time that Euclidean geometry was a universal law; it is, after all, logically consistent. Again, we now know that the rules of Euclidean geometry are not universal. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/200 "2010-12-07T23:49:54Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > [cuz](http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html) No. You are suggesting that something that flies in the face of the evidence that we do have. You are doing it with no evidence. That’s simply a worthless argument. Suggesting that _maybe_, \*somehow \*we will \*someday \*have the technology to explain the thing _you have no evidence for_ is beyond weak. I suspect the only reason you are arguing for a soul is that you really, really, want one. There is nothing whatsoever that suggests that one exists. Your wants and reality bear no necessary overlap. I really, really want a Dark Angel era Jessica Alba love robot, should I argue that one exists? To sum up, no evidence for a soul. No problem it solves. Sometimes you need to just accept that what you really, really want isn’t the way the universe works. It sucks to face a universe with no immortality, but wanting it isn’t enough a reason to pretend it exists. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876.md?page=11)