# 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:** 14
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/261 "2010-12-08T15:28:48Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > If, for the sake of argument, Creative Loafing decided to kill off the board, it would no longer exist. _THEN_ would it make sense if I were to say that the _spirit of the board_ survives even though the board does not? How about if you see someone acting skeptically, doing their own inquiry, not just accepting conventional explanations… would it be reasonable and appropriate to say “aah, now that’s in keeping with the spirit of the old SDMB that was” – ?? Yes, that certainly makes sense. I think it would make sense to anyone who remembered the board. I suggest, though, that it wouldn’t be meaningful to anyone who was not familiar with the board, and therefore that the spirit of the board has some level of dependence on the existence of the board, although perhaps not as strongly as I originally suggested. So, the obvious question is, do you think the spirit of the SDMB could survive the destruction of the board and everyone who’s ever heard of it? ---
**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 8, 2010, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/262 "2010-12-08T15:51:27Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Now that’s what I’m talkin’ bout. No, what you’re talking about is trying to find \*cites \*to disprove an afterlife. And then strutting like you actually made a point. And you do this with no evidence \*for \*an afterlife. Wanting it isn’t enough, you need to offer evidence or it is simply another bullshit fantasy like invisible dragons or Grape Ape. ---
**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 8, 2010, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/263 "2010-12-08T15:55:57Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Think of life (including our personalities/experiences) as a role or a costume our soul wears and discards when the show is over. What is a soul? Where is it in the physical body? What is it made of? What is it’s function? What does it do that the body doesn’t do? > [@](#): > > The soul remembers playing the part or wearing the costume, but it was just a role, not the true soul itself. hat is the “true soul?” What is it made of? Where is it in the body? What is it’s function? What does it do that the body can’t do? How does it encpode and store memories? If it encodes and stores memoriesm then why do our btrians have to do that as well? Can the “true soul” see and hear as well? If so, then why do we have eyes and ears? > [@](#): > > And the soul may not be individual; like the creosote bush, under it all it’s really just one big entity in spite of appearing to be multiple lives, maybe all life itself. As I mentioned earlier, a number of spiritual teachings say that we are all one, all god, all expressions of god. Perhaps this is more literally true than most people have ever considered. No. It isn’t. There is no physical possibility of any such thing. This is nonsense. > [@](#): > > No argument with that; s/he’s always been a slippery little fucker. I’ll always remember when I was about 6 years old sitting in the yard with a pot, trying to “catch” god as though s/he were a butterfly, after being told that he was everywhere. Did it occur to you that maybe you were lied to? ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/264 "2010-12-08T15:57:47Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Yes, that certainly makes sense. I think it would make sense to anyone who remembered the board. I suggest, though, that it wouldn’t be meaningful to anyone who was not familiar with the board, and therefore that the spirit of the board has some level of dependence on the existence of the board, although perhaps not as strongly as I originally suggested. > So, the obvious question is, do you think the spirit of the SDMB could survive the destruction of the board and everyone who’s ever heard of it? I do, yes. I think the spirit of some neolithic explorer survives not only her death but the death of her tribe, the destruction or loss of all artifacts thereof, and the long-ago death of anyone who would ever have encountered any of them. The abstraction, in other words, exists even in the absence of someone to formulate it in any specific way. It remains true that she _did_ exist. Much as the law of gravity would exist even in the absense of both physicists to express it and physical bodies to exemplify it. ---
**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 8, 2010, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/265 "2010-12-08T16:05:50Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > I do, yes. I think the spirit of some neolithic explorer survives not only her death but the death of her tribe, the destruction or loss of all artifacts thereof, and the long-ago death of anyone who would ever have encountered any of them. The abstraction, in other words, exists even in the absence of someone to formulate it in any specific way. It remains true that she _did_ exist. Much as the law of gravity would exist even in the absense of both physicists to express it and physical bodies to exemplify it. Stretching definitions to the point that they are worthless does nothing to suggest that there is a continuance of consciousness after death. Are you suggesting a soul or spirit is simply _having existed_? Kind of a shitty deal, don’t you think? ---
**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 8, 2010, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/266 "2010-12-08T16:07:39Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > Some of you may be operating from a mindset that does not consider that there is life BEFORE death in the sense that folks who don’t think “this life is all” might speak of life beyond death; that is, you may not consider yourself to exist while alive except as a physical process. If you define life as “A” and then say “is there any A in the set of all non-A”, then no, there isn’t. There you go, and that’s the end of it. That’s not a “mindset,” though, it’s demonstrable fact. > [@](#): > > Me, I consider myself to be conscious. Consciousness is a term I use to descibe something I consider to be real. That’s not the definition of "consciouness. > [@](#): > > Your mileage may vary. It’s not a question of “milegae.” You are giving the word “consciousness” a false definition. > [@](#): > > I consider myself to possess intention, volition, will; I consider explanations of my behavior that reference my intention to be real explanations. You, on the other hand, may not believe in volition. I am a person who rejects reductionism as a worldview — who rejects the assertion that since we are composed of molecules in various energy states etc, that “all” we are is a set of physical processes winding down. You can reject it all you want, but that rejection doesn’t amount to an actual argument against it. You might as well “reject” he notion that the earth goes around the sun or that 2+2=4. > [@](#): > > We are that; but there are things not seen in reductionistic analysis It’s not reductionist to say that everything that exists is material. That’s a statement of irrefutable fact. > [@](#): > > which are nevertheless true and valid. (Including the “fine wineness” of a fine wine; the ability to describe it in terms of quarks and the behavior of those quarks doesn’t mean it doesn’t “really” exist as a fine wine) What you are describing in that case is aesthetic responses. It’s still in the brain. You are describing a chemical reaction in your brain which resuklts from the input of a particular sensory stimulus. There’s nothing magic or etheral or non-material about it. It’s chemicals and electricity. > [@](#): > > I hate the term “afterlife”. I understand how much our everyday thinking “needs” to conceptualize in terms of a _time_ beyond the time of death and to use constructs such as “after we die” but it’s babytalk. Oversimplification. Leads to silly arguments with literal-minded people. Virtually everyone who uses the word “afterlife” means it as a survival of individual consciousness after death. That’s what we are talking about in this thread. If you don’t believe in that, then you don’t believe in an afterlife as that word pertains to this discussion. ---
**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 8, 2010, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/267 "2010-12-08T16:09:13Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > Can’t help you there; that one is a word I do _not_ use. How about spirit? Another nonsense word with no definition. ---
**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 8, 2010, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/268 "2010-12-08T16:11:09Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > If I said to you that this thread exemplfies the _spirit of this board_ would you find that statement to make sense? Only figuratively. ---
**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 8, 2010, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/269 "2010-12-08T16:12:52Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > If, for the sake of argument, Creative Loafing decided to kill off the board, it would no longer exist. _THEN_ would it make sense if I were to say that the _spirit of the board_ survives even though the board does not? Only figuratively. People who actually believe in an “afterlife” do not mean it figuratively, though. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/270 "2010-12-08T16:39:40Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Only figuratively. People who actually believe in an “afterlife” do not mean it figuratively, though. I think the word you’re looking for is “abstraction”. Should I parse this as “Actual belief in an afterlife is defined, for all conversations and debates, as meaning life existing after life ceases to exist”? If we agree that that’s what we’re talking about, then nope, doesn’t exist. By freaking definition, doesn’t exist. There is no A in the set of all non-A. But I don’t agree that that’s what we’re talking about; I don’t agree that (all) people who “believe in an afterlife” (i.e., use that term to refer to something they consider a real phenomenon) are people who do NOT conceptualize it as an abstraction. And I believe that’s the type of thing that **Stoid** is driving at here. It’s certainly what I was talking to in my first response above. Words _do not_ simply “mean what they mean”. I’m not being disingenuous; sprinked in the midst of the concrete and literal-minded people who over the centuries have believed heaven was “a place UP THERE” (_points to sky_), believed God was a semi-translucent bearded male fellow living in heaven and therefore also UP THERE, believed souls are gauzy-yet-invisible things that arise out of the body and go UP THERE when we die, etc etc, there have been thinking people who meant something different; their meaning was seriously intended, they considered it to be a real phenomenon, and you aren’t disagreeing with them so much as talking PAST THEM when you dismiss “afterlife” as a term that might refer to a real phenomenon simply because, when YOU imbue the term with the meaning YOU intend for it to mean, it is indeed pretty dismissible. ---
**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 8, 2010, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/271 "2010-12-08T16:51:25Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > I think the word you’re looking for is “abstraction”. No, I meant “figurative.” When you used that phrase, “spirit of the board,” you were being figurative. > [@](#): > > Should I parse this as “Actual belief in an afterlife is defined, for all conversations and debates, as meaning life existing after life ceases to exist”? No, it’s defined as an individual _consciousness_ continuing to exist after the destruction of the physical brain. Obviously, it makes no sense to say that “life” can continue after death. That’s a contradiction in terms. > [@](#): > > If we agree that that’s what we’re talking about, then nope, doesn’t exist. By freaking definition, doesn’t exist. There is no A in the set of all non-A. Great. So we’re agreed. There is no such thing as an afterlife. > [@](#): > > But I don’t agree that that’s what we’re talking about; I don’t agree that (all) people who “believe in an afterlife” (i.e., use that term to refer to something they consider a real phenomenon) are people who do NOT conceptualize it as an abstraction. Those people (if they exist) can change the definition all they want, but this thread has been about the possibility of a continuing individual consciousness after brain death. > [@](#): > > And I believe that’s the type of thing that **Stoid** is driving at here. No, she’s talking about magic, invisible fairy spirits called “souls” that live in some kind of giant Avatar type bush under the ground or something. She isn’t altering the definitions of “life” and “spirit” to basically deprive them of any substantive meaning. > [@](#): > > I’m not being disingenuous; sprinked in the midst of the concrete and literal-minded people who over the centuries have believed heaven was “a place UP THERE” (_points to sky_), believed God was a semi-translucent bearded male fellow living in heaven and therefore also UP THERE, believed souls are gauzy-yet-invisible things that arise out of the body and go UP THERE when we die, etc etc, there have been thinking people who meant something different; their meaning was seriously intended, they considered it to be a real phenomenon, and you aren’t disagreeing with them so much as talking PAST THEM when you dismiss “afterlife” as a term that might refer to a real phenomenon simply because, when YOU imbue the term with the meaning YOU intend for it to mean, it is indeed pretty dismissible. The word means what it means, dude. If you agree that there is no continuing individual consciousness after the death of the physical brain,m then you agree that there is no afterlife. I have no particular interest in other definitions. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/272 "2010-12-08T16:55:40Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It’s not reductionist to say that everything that exists is material. That’s a statement of irrefutable fact. Oh? _Nothing is an irrefutable fact_. At best there are compelling observations and conclusions that are difficult to argue with. Everything perceived is perceived from a perspective; all meaning is meaning _to a subject_; objectivity is not an attainable condition. Nothing material may exist, actually, except as a manifestation of interaction. Materiality is not the bedrock of reality you seem to think it is. Bricks mountains and you are composed of interactiong molecules composed of interacting atoms composed of interacting quarks composed ultimately of energy states that have a tendency to exist and whose existence is constitutes of relationships themselves rather than particles doing interacting. Particles are not primary after all, interactivity is. Causality and determinism do not occupy the privileged position you’d like to grant them either. In the history of spacetime no event has occurred except as an artificially and cognitively imposed distinction between one aspect and another aspect of the single event that started occurring roughly 12 billion years ago and which is still occurring and of which you and I are a part. And that event cannot be explained with reference to causal determinism. It makes more sense to say “It is all here because it could be” or even “It is all here because it chose to be” than to say “Something caused it”. There were no prior events. You appear to like a concrete world, a world with stark contrasts between what is so and what it not so, a world in which certainty can be possessed. Be that as it may, I don’t think you are in one. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/273 "2010-12-08T16:59:37Z")
[QUOTE=me] You appear to like…a world in which certainty can be possessed. [/quote] A characteristic, incidentally, which you share in common with the literal-minded theological believers you stand in such vehement opposition to. ---
**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 8, 2010, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/274 "2010-12-08T17:02:35Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > No, what you’re talking about is trying to find \*cites \*to disprove an afterlife. That would mean I have asserted that an afterlife exists. I haven’t. I haven’t even asserted that I believe an afterlife exists. That’s just the way multiple people have responded. ---
**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 8, 2010, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/275 "2010-12-08T17:08:04Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > Oh? Yep. > [@](#): > > _Nothing is an irrefutable fact_. Sure it is. This kind objection is always a favorite refuge of woo believers, but for all practical purpose, we can say that some things are irrefutable facts. In this case, it’s not even about empirical assumptions, but simple definitions. Anythinh which exists, by definition, exists materially. If it doesn’t exist materially, it doesn’t exist. > [@](#): > > Nothing material may exist, actually, except as a manifestation of interaction. Materiality is not the bedrock of reality you seem to think it is. Bricks mountains and you are composed of interactiong molecules composed of interacting atoms composed of interacting quarks composed ultimately of energy states that have a tendency to exist and whose existence is constitutes of relationships themselves rather than particles doing interacting. Particles are not primary after all, interactivity is. All of those things are material. Quarks are material. Energy is material. Quantum particles are material. > [@](#): > > Causality and determinism do not occupy the privileged position you’d like to grant them either. I haven’t said anything about causality and determinism. > [@](#): > > You appear to like a concrete world, a world with stark contrasts between what is so and what it not so, a world in which certainty can be possessed. Be that as it may, I don’t think you are in one. I would prefer a magical world actually, but as it stands, it’s a fact that the universe obeys physical laws, and that those laws do not permit consciousness to exist after the death of the brain. ---
**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 8, 2010, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/276 "2010-12-08T17:08:44Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > A characteristic, incidentally, which you share in common with the literal-minded theological believers you stand in such vehement opposition to. I didn’t want to go there…that’s just asking for some knees to jerk so hard they are likely to break some noses… ---
**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 8, 2010, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/277 "2010-12-08T17:13:04Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > A characteristic, incidentally, which you share in common with the literal-minded theological believers you stand in such vehement opposition to. Nice try, but a big swing and a whiff. Religious believers _believe_. Their “certainty” is based on no actual evidence. I have no religious beliefs. I’m only “certain” about provable facts. I know, I know, you want to deny that there are provable facts. The first and last refuge of true believers. ---
**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 8, 2010, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/278 "2010-12-08T17:14:29Z")
The attempt to declare that critical thinkers are exactly the same as religious believers is always amusing to me. It’s so desperate. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/279 "2010-12-08T17:15:42Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > That’s not the definition of "consciouness. consciousness: an emergent property of the cosmos. > [@Steophan](#): > > Note that consciousness being an emergent property of the cosmos is only true in the trivial sense that the brain is part of the cosmos. ---
**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 8, 2010, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/280 "2010-12-08T17:23:16Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > That would mean I have asserted that an afterlife exists. I haven’t. I haven’t even asserted that I believe an afterlife exists. That’s just the way multiple people have responded. You haven’t asserted it, but you for some reason give it special likelihood, ignoring that Grape Ape, Godzilla and Papa-fucking-Smurf are all as likely. In point of fact, they are more likely, because they at least are material and don’t require as much bullshit magic to exist. Why aren’t you open minded to vampires? You giving special position to an afterlife while discounting other magical drivel means you aren’t as open-minded as you think you are. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876.md?page=15)