# 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:** 18
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/341 "2010-12-09T19:33:52Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > The same assertions I mentioned earlier, that you have presented neither experimental evidence for, nor arguments and experiments that suggest alternate explanations are insufficient. You know, to use the OP’s term, science-y stuff and all. I don’t even understand what your point is. What have I said that Dawkins disagrees with? Or evolutionary psychologists or cosmologists or neurobiologists? Do you want a bibliography or something? I’m failing to see where what I stated is at odds with current scientific thought. Maybe you can give me some concrete examples of alternative scientific theories on the subject. ---
**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 9, 2010, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/342 "2010-12-09T20:43:01Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > That explains Hannah Montana and the Jonas Brothers. Never thought about that, but excellent point. And we can throw in the Olsen twins as an additional datapoint. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/343 "2010-12-09T21:51:04Z")
> [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > I don’t even understand what your point is. What have I said that Dawkins disagrees with? Or evolutionary psychologists or cosmologists or neurobiologists? Do you want a bibliography or something? I’m failing to see where what I stated is at odds with current scientific thought. Maybe you can give me some concrete examples of alternative scientific theories on the subject. You said you read Dawkins. His position on the topics you are espousing are completely different from yours. Maybe you didn’t understand what you read? You said you read nearly all of it. I wouldn’t call it an alternative scientific theory in relation to what you are posting though, because I don’t see what is scientific at all about what you have described. Rather than a bibliography, perhaps you can define your key terms as they are described in any scientific literature you would include in the bibliographies, and then maybe outline the history and nature of hypotheses, repeatable experiments and testable predictions that result from the experiments? If you can do that, I would be glad to refer to what you are discussing as science. it is pretty simple really. ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/344 "2010-12-09T22:20:09Z")
Why should I? You understand perfectly what I’m saying, and since I’m responding to **Kozmik** ’s philosophical inquiries with logical answers, I feel no need to. Show me any scientist, anywhere, who disagrees with the idea that we wouldn’t exist if there was no universe, or neurobiologists who have concluded that consciousness exists independent of living beings, and I’ll give your nitpicking some consideration. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/345 "2010-12-09T22:28:59Z")
> [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > Why should I? You understand perfectly what I’m saying, and since I’m responding to **Kozmik** ’s philosophical inquiries with logical answers, I feel no need to. Show me any scientist, anywhere, who disagrees with the idea that we wouldn’t exist if there was no universe, or neurobiologists who have concluded that consciousness exists independent of living beings, and I’ll give your nitpicking some consideration. Actually, I don’t understand your terms to a level that they are testable as science. I said all this at the top of the thread, probably before you jumped in at all, so I am not picking on you personally. If you are claiming there is such a definition, particularly for “consciousness”, then why not share with the teeming masses. I link or links as necessary will suffice. Without such a definition, from you since you are the one using the word as the basis for your claims, I am not about to go on a wild goose chase only to be told “oh but I meant something else”. Tell us what you mean and then we can all go look to see if you are serious or not. ---
**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 9, 2010, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/346 "2010-12-09T23:24:17Z")
Well, I have now tracked down sufficient information to be able to confidently state that my initial reaction was absolutely correct: we do not yet know, via testable means, whether “the afterlife” can possibly exist, however you define it. Research into the question shows that every answer out there is still a view, a theory, a position, etc. No one has shown up with the definitive answer. The questions are still largely in the laps of the philosophers, rather than the scientists. One runs into a whole slew of isms when researching this question: [ul] [li]Emergent Materialism[/li][li]Non-reductive Physicalism[/li][li]Anomalous Monism[/li][li]Biological Naturalism[/li][li]Epiphenomenalism[/li][li]Materialism[/li][li]Behaviourism [/li][li]Biological naturalism[/li][li]Dualism[/li][li]Eliminative materialism [/li][li]Functionalism [/li][li]Interactionism [/li][li]Materialism [/li][li]Monism [/li][li]Naïve realism [/li][li]Neutral monism [/li][li]Phenomenalism [/li][li]Physicalism [/li][li]Property dualism [/li][li]Solipsism [/li][li]Substance dualism[/li][/ul] All this “consciousness is an emergent property” stuff is certainly interesting, and it is definitely a theory that has been espoused and embraced by a number of intelligent, thoughtful people. But it is not, as some might have it, the last word on the subject. it’s not even close. It’s just one view. The argument being made most frequently in this thread is just that: an argument. Not a proof, not a fact. An argument. Well reasoned, certainly, but doesn’t rate as “the world’s data”. It’s described by one source as the atheism argument from physical minds: > [@](#): > > The argument from physical minds (APM) is a strong but neglected argument in the case for atheism. Two versions of the argument have important implications for the philosophy of religion. The first is the mortalistic argument from physical minds, which runs as follows: > > > [@](#): > > > > If a nonphysical mind (rather than the brain) does our thinking, then altering the brain (say by lobotomy) should have no effect on one’s ability to think. But, in fact, altering the brain does (often dramatically) affect one’s ability to think. Therefore, thinking is probably not something done by a nonphysical mind, but rather something that the brain does. And since the brain is destroyed by death, thinking–or one’s mind as a whole–is probably destroyed by death too. > > Since the mortalistic version concerns certain forms of immortality, articles on the mortalistic APM are included separately on the immortality page. > > The second version, the atheistic argument from physical minds, runs as follows: > > > [@](#): > > > > Since all known mental activity has a physical basis, there are probably no disembodied minds. But God is conceived of as a disembodied mind. Therefore, God probably does not exist. > > The atheistic APM was first formulated by atheist philosopher Michael Tooley in an oral debate on the existence of God; it has since been defended by agnostic philosopher Paul Draper in his oral debates. According to this argument, the fact that minds are physically dependent upon the brain is some evidence for atheism. > > – Keith Augustine This argument also embraces Physicalism. Note the blue words: > [@](#): > > Physicalism is a **philosophical position** holding that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties; that is, that there are no kinds of things other than physical things. The term was coined by Otto Neurath in a series of early 20th century essays on the subject, in which he wrote: > “According to physicalism, the language of physics is the universal language of science and, consequently, any knowledge can be brought back to the statements on the physical objects.”[citation needed] > > In **contemporary philosophy** physicalism is most frequently associated with philosophy of mind, in particular the mind/body problem, in which it holds that the mind is a physical thing in all aspects. In other words, all that has been ascribed to “mind” is more correctly ascribed to “brain” or the activity of the brain. > Physicalism is also called “materialism”, but the term “physicalism” is preferable because it has evolved with the physical sciences to incorporate far more sophisticated notions of physicality than matter, for example wave/particle relationships and non-material forces produced by particles. > > The ontology of physicalism ultimately includes whatever is described by physics — not just matter but energy, space, time, physical forces, structure, physical processes, information, state, etc. Because it **claims** that only physical things exist, physicalism is generally a form of monism. And further, there seems to be quite a bit of reputable information that near-death experiences might be evidence of something beyond life. And I found the [case](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pam_Reynolds_(singer)) I talked about in the OP. Her name is [Pam Reynolds](http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html): > [@](#): > > She underwent a rare operation to remove a giant basilar artery aneurysm in her brain that threatened her life. The size and location of the aneurysm, however, precluded its safe removal using the standard neuro-surgical techniques. She was referred to a doctor who had pioneered a daring surgical procedure known as hypothermic cardiac arrest. It allowed Pam’s aneurysm to be excised with a reasonable chance of success. > This operation, nicknamed “standstill” by the doctors who perform it, required that Pam’s body temperature be lowered to 60 degrees, her heartbeat and breathing stopped, her brain waves flattened, and the blood drained from her head. In everyday terms, she was put to death.After removing the aneurysm, she was restored to life. During the time that Pam was in standstill, she experienced a NDE. Her remarkably detailed veridical out-of-body observations during her surgery were later verified to be very accurate. **This case is considered to be one of the strongest cases of veridical evidence in NDE research because of her ability to describe the unique surgical instruments and procedures used and her ability to describe in detail these events while she was clinically and brain dead.** > > When all of Pam’s vital signs were stopped, the doctor turned on a surgical saw and began to cut through Pam’s skull. While this was going on, Pam reported that she felt herself “pop” outside her body and hover above the operating table. Then she watched the doctors working on her lifeless body for awhile. From her out-of-body position, she observed the doctor sawing into her skull with what looked to her like an electric toothbrush. Pam heard and reported later what the nurses in the operating room had said and exactly what was happening during the operation. **At this time, every monitor attached to Pam’s body registered “no life” whatsoever.** > … > For practical purposes outside the world of academic debate, three clinical tests commonly determine brain death. First, a standard electroencephalogram, or EEG, measures brain-wave activity. A “flat” EEG denotes non-function of the cerebral cortex - the outer shell of the cerebrum. Second, auditory evoked potentials, similar to those [clicks] elicited by the ear speakers in Pam’s surgery, measure brain-stem viability. Absence of these potentials indicates non-function of the brain stem. And third, documentation of no blood flow to the brain is a marker for a generalized absence of brain function. > > _ **But during “standstill”, Pam’s brain was found “dead” by all three clinical tests - her electroencephalogram was silent, her brain-stem response was absent, and no blood flowed through her brain. Interestingly, while in this state, she encountered the “deepest” NDE of all Atlanta Study participants.** _ > > Some scientists theorize that NDEs are produced by brain chemistry. But, Dr. Peter Fenwick, a neuropsychiatrist and the leading authority in Britain concerning NDEs, believes that these theories fall far short of the facts. In the documentary, “Into the Unknown: Strange But True,” Dr. Fenwick describes the state of the brain during a NDE: > > “The brain isn’t functioning. It’s not there. It’s destroyed. It’s abnormal. But, yet, it can produce these very clear experiences … an unconscious state is when the brain ceases to function. For example, if you faint, you fall to the floor, you don’t know what’s happening and the brain isn’t working. The memory systems are particularly sensitive to unconsciousness. So, you won’t remember anything. But, yet, after one of these experiences [a NDE], you come out with clear, lucid memories …\*\* This is a real puzzle for science. I have not yet seen any good scientific explanation which can explain that fact\*\*.” And yes, there are plenty of doubters regarding her experience. But no proof that it didn’t happen as reported, just doubt and speculation. So my OP was correct. It is incorrect to assert that “there is no afterlife”. It is also incorrect to assert that “There is an afterlife.” We still don’t know, and we still look at these questions from the same basis we always have: speculation, philosophy, theory. Very good arguments have been made. But they are still arguments, not proof. ( And in fact it appears that the only thing we have that comes anywhere close to evidence is actually on the side of evidence _for_, not against.) ---
**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 9, 2010, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/347 "2010-12-09T23:34:12Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > So my OP was correct. Nope. > [@](#): > > It is incorrect to assert that “there is no afterlife”. Only if it is also incorrect to assert that “there are no vampires.” Or “Superman doesn’t really exist.” Or “Intangible ninjas don’t lick your face while you sleep.” > [@](#): > > It is also incorrect to assert that “There is an afterlife.” This is true. Since there is no evidence for it. An afterlife is simply a desire to go on after death. It is wishful thinking. Just like a person falling from a building may wishfully want Superman to save him. > [@](#): > > We still don’t know, and we still look at these questions from the same basis we always have: speculation, philosophy, theory. Very good arguments have been made. But they are still arguments, not proof. You should look up proof, I don’t think you even understand its usage. > [@](#): > > ( And in fact it appears that the only thing we have that comes anywhere close to evidence is actually on the side of evidence _for_, not against.) Wrong. There is zero evidence for an afterlife. Nothing. If you believe any current evidence for an afterlife, you’re gullible. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/348 "2010-12-09T23:45:34Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Well, I have now tracked down sufficient information to be able to confidently state that my initial reaction was absolutely correct: we do not yet know, via testable means, whether “the afterlife” can possibly exist, however you define it. No, it is not “correct”. You still have not defined terms, and the woo you mentioned below does not even support your claim completely, unless by “testable” you mean “testable with current instruments as though the precision of instruments is fixed forever at the current standard”", which of course is bullshit of the first magnitude. > [@](#): > > Research into the question shows that every answer out there is still a view, a theory, a position, etc. A “theory” would be supported by an elaborate set of tested hypotheses. But your claim seems to be the opposite, that there is no hypothesis that is testable, let alone tested. So which is it? > [@](#): > > No one has shown up with the definitive answer. The questions are still largely in the laps of the philosophers, rather than the scientists. Nothing in science is “definitive”. Hypotheses are always accepted only to a level of certainty less than 100%. How much less is the important thing. But even then, that can change in a heartbeat with new data, new hypotheses, and new results. It happens routinely in science, that is the thing that non-scientists fail to grasp about science. The lack of certainty and the willingness to toss out results which no longer seem to hold is not a weakness, it is a strength. It is just bizarre for you and others to sit here and claim that it is impossible to define terms such as “afterlife” and “consciousness” in a way that can not be measured, can not be hypothesized about, and can not be tested. It is equally bizarre to leave those terms undefined, in the realm of woo, and then chastise science and scientists for not caring about woo. If you want to talk about science, then talk about science. If you want to talk about woo, fine, just leave science out of it. > [@](#): > > So my OP was correct. It is incorrect to assert that “there is no afterlife”. Not for scientists, it is not incorrect. to the extend that woo-peddlers have been wiling to define the terms within the realm of science, then tests can proceed, and conclusions drawn within a degree of certainty, always subject to more data andhypothesizing and testing and predicting. But when you say with abosolute certainty that “there is no afterlife” you are betraying by your very language that you are not discussing science but woo. Trying to make it into science without actually doing so does not make it less woo-y, it just makes it more psuedoscience among other categories of woo. Sorry to burst anyone’s bubble about all that. > [@](#): > > It is also incorrect to assert that “There is an afterlife.” We still don’t know, and we still look at these questions from the same basis we always have: speculation, philosophy, theory. Theory: another science term. So where is the science you refer to? > [@](#): > > evidence is actually on the side of evidence _for_, not against.) Let me know when someone is going to present scientific papers and evidence, or even define the terms under discussion, before making scientific claims about what science has learned, OK? Because it has not happened in this thread, not at all. ---
**Author:** ![Light\_of\_Marduk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c67d28/32.png) [@Light\_of\_Marduk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Light_of_Marduk)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2010, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/349 "2010-12-10T00:50:58Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > Consciousness kind of sort of has to _inhere_ in something. Had to look up[inhere](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inhere). Interesting. I sometimes think that matter’s reaction to itself is an indication of consciousness. > [@AHunter3](#): > > I am capable of (and tempted to) go farther. That would be nice. I’m almost passively absorbing what you’re saying, as I find it presented in a very (mentally) palatable way. Don’t really have much to add at this point, although I might come back and add points c,d,e… and perhaps propose some type of non-self-aware consciousness (something only aware of other selves). ---
**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 10, 2010, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/350 "2010-12-10T01:14:50Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > You should look up proof, I don’t think you even understand its usage. Okay. I’m fine with that. I look forward to your links demonstrating that you have a finer understanding with examples of\*\* proof \*\* or **evidence** of anything related to your assertions that it is a **fact** there is no afterlife. Again… not about whether there is or is not, only about whether it is legitimate to speak of the subject in the form of assertions of **facts** , vs. **opinion**. Facts require something along the lines of **evidence** - the stuff that is _ **not** _ theories, speculation, ideas. Because all the stuff brought up in this thread thus far (primarily the “emergent property” stuff) is just one of a number of theories, actually hypotheses, put forth regarding whether we are pure meat, or Meat Plus. In fact, the “emergent property” stuff is actually classified as [philosophy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergentism)! (As for “looking up”, I am more than OK with that… you should try it yourself. Very educational.) > [@](#): > > In philosophy, emergentism is the belief in emergence, particularly as it involves consciousness and the philosophy of mind, and as it contrasts (or not) with reductionism. A property of a system is said to be emergent if it is more than the sum of the properties of the system’s parts. > > Physicalism may be defined as the theory that the universe is comprised exclusively of physical entities. However, consciousness, for example, appears to be problematic for this thesis, as it exhibits properties not ordinarily associated with most other physical entities.[citation needed] In response to this situation, two variants of physicalism have been advanced: reductionism and emergentism. > > Reductionists generally see the task of accounting for the possibly atypical properties of mind and of living things as a matter of showing that, contrary to appearances, such properties are indeed fully accountable in terms of the properties of the basic particles of nature (or in other, like terms), and therefore in no way genuinely atypical. By contrast, emergentists have argued that what is meant by the physical is more complex than this picture suggests, and that novel properties can arise above the level of fundamental particles. Thus, emergentism suggests a layered view of nature, with the layers arranged in terms of increasing complexity with each requiring its own special science. > [@](#): > > Biologists Ursula Goodenough and Terrence Deacon in their 2006 essay on emergence have assembled a range of examples of physical and biological emergent properties that provide the evidential basis for emergentism as a **philosophy** that comports with a modern scientific understanding of how complexity arises in the natural world, and as a philosophy that supports religious naturalism. A longer compilation of emergent forms in nature is the 2004 book by biologist Harold Morowitz: The Emergence of Everything. I’m pretty sure, so far, after having followed up on other people’s certainties (when they could not be bothered to) that no evidence for those certainties exist. They might, of course! But no one else has showed us what they are, and they didn’t emerge in any of the research. Many arguments and ideas are out there, and they lead to more arguments and ideas and theories and isms… and none of them reference proof or evidence or data of a damn thing, except that it is a major question that has occupied the minds of brilliant [people](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes) for [centuries](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle), resulting in a wide variety of _opinions_. Not facts. Smart opinions, well-reasoned opinions. But still opinions. Opinions that shift back and forth to this [day](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind%E2%80%93body_problem)… > [@](#): > > **Classical mind/body problem** > In classical mechanics the world is measurable, the measurements reveal the true state of the world, and the behavior is deterministic. Given the initial positions and velocities of a collection of the basic particles, the future of those particles can be predicted. When these assumptions are applied to an observer the conclusion is that with enough information about the present, the entire future behavior of the observer will be determined. This led many scientists to reject pre-scientific notions of [dualism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(philosophy_of_mind)), and to identify the mind of the observer with the classical state of the observer’s atoms.[12][13] > > **Transition to quantum mechanics** > The determinism and materialism of classical mechanics, divorced or at least distanced science from many pre-scientific philosophies that held various dualist perspectives towards the mind. Quantum mechanics made some _**[dualist](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(philosophy_of_mind))**_ ideas about the mind/body problem acceptable again within mainstream science. Now, let’s take a look at the stricter, or more specific definitions of the words and terms in use. What I have called “theories” are actually hypotheses: > [@](#): > > A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true. > > A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it’s an accepted hypothesis. > > Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes. **Philosophy:** Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] It is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3] The word “philosophy” comes from the Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which literally means “love of wisdom”, and was originally a word referring to the special way of life of early Greek philosophers.[4][5][6] **Branches of philosophy** The following branches are the main areas of study, in modern academia: _ **Metaphysics** _ is the study of the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and body, substance and accident, events and causation. Traditional branches are cosmology and ontology. _ **Philosophy of mind** _ deals with the nature of the mind and its relationship to the body, and is typified by disputes between dualism and materialism. In recent years there has been increasing similarity between this branch of philosophy and cognitive science. **The Mind Body Problem:** > [@](#): > > The mind-body problem is a philosophical problem arising in the fields of metaphysics and philosophy of mind. The problem arises because of the fact that mental phenomena appear to be qualitatively and substantially different from the physical bodies on which they appear to depend. There are at least two major **theories** on the resolution of the problem. Dualism is the theory that mind and body are two distinct substances, and monism is the theory that mind and body are, in reality, just one substance. Monist materialists (also called physicalism) take the view that they are both matter, and monist idealists take the view that they are both in the mind. **Opinion:** [ul] [li]A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.[/li][li]a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.[/li][li]n opinion may be the result of a person’s perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. In casual use, the term opinion may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs.[/li][/ul] **Proof:** [ul] [li]any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something; “if you have any proof for what you say, now is the time to produce it”[/li] [li]Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial:[/li] [li]The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.[/li][/ul] [**Scientific Proof**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_proof): > [@](#): > > Scientific evidence has no universally accepted definition but generally refers to evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is generally expected to be empirical and properly documented in accordance with scientific method such as is applicable to the particular field of inquiry. Standards for evidence may vary according to whether the field of inquiry is among the natural sciences or social sciences[citation needed]. Evidence may involve understanding all steps of a process, or one or a few observations, or observation and statistical analysis of many samples without necessarily understanding the mechanism. **Utility of scientific evidence** > [@](#): > > Philosophers, such as Karl R. Popper, have provided influential theories of the scientific method within which scientific evidence plays a central role[7]. In summary, Popper provides that a scientist creatively develops a theory which may be falsified by testing the theory against evidence or known facts. Popper’s theory presents an asymmetry in that evidence can prove a theory wrong, by establishing facts that are inconsistent with the theory. In contrast, evidence cannot prove a theory correct because other evidence, yet to be discovered, may exist that is inconsistent with the theory[8]. See falsificationism for more on this view of scientific evidence. **Scientific Method** > [@](#): > > Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[3] \*\*Evidence: \*\* [ul] [li]ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood[/li] [li]evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.[/li][/ul] And the most important of all: **FACT** [ul] [li]Knowledge or information based on _ **real** _ occurrences[/li] [li]Something demonstrated to _exist_ or known to have _existed_:[/li] [li]a truth verifiable from experience or observation[/li] [li]something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.[/li][li]a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.[/li][/ul] So, now that we see what’s really been said so far about what’s supposedly been “proved” or “disproved” by “science” as a “fact”, I repeat: No one has pointed to \*\*any evidence or data \*\*that science has disproved or proved any of the hypotheses which have been put forth to explain the nature of the human mind/self/consciousness vs. the body and the possibility of any existence for the human mind/self/consciousness beyond this plane and dimension that we share during life. There has been some anecdotal evidence, in the form of NDEs, Near Death Experiences, to lend a bit of support to the possiblity that the human mind/self/consciousness might persist in some way beyond the death of the body. But nothing concrete for either. If you object to the definitions I’ve used and the conclusions I’ve made, great. But your objections will have a lot more weight if they include something other than variations on “bullshit!”. Because then it’s just your [opinion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion), lacking evidence or proof of any kind, much less [scientific evidence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_proof). **SUMMARY:** We don’t know nuthin’ for sure yet, or if we do, no one in this thread has shown us. ---
**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 10, 2010, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/351 "2010-12-10T01:19:48Z")
Also: you are all really freakin’ lazy, you know it? Sheesh… ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2010, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/352 "2010-12-10T01:28:16Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Okay. I’m fine with that. I look forward to your links demonstrating that you have a finer understanding with examples of\*\* proof \*\* or **evidence** of anything related to your assertions that it is a **fact** there is no afterlife. No such proof can exist without a clear definition of the terms. Define the term “afterlife” without woo, THEN come back and ask for a proof about it. Presenting woo in the forms of goalposts you are advertising you are going to move and then bitching that no one will try to kick the ball through is foolish on your part. > [@](#): > > (As for “looking up”, I am more than OK with that… you should try it yourself. Very educational.) Could you simply look up a definition you like of the terms we are asking about and present a link, so we can all be educated as to what is in your mind? > [@](#): > > Now, let’s take a look at the stricter, or more specific definitions of the words and terms in use. At fuckingg last. > [@](#): > > What I have called “theories” are actually hypotheses: That is a really poor citation, because the bit about the “theories” surrounding the explosion are wrong, they are hypotheses. But more importantly, the fact that you not only don’t understgand the meaning of basic scientific words, let alone you chose such a poor citation to demonstrate what you DO mean, is exactly why at the top of the thread, I asked you to clarify what the key words you were using mean. Because I hypothesized that without them, the thread would devlove into nonsense, people talking past each other by using wrods that they each make up the meaning of, assuming incorrectly that the others have the same understanding, and by observation, that has turned out to be the case. You can still rectify it though by leading us to a consensus of the definitions of the terms you choose to discuss. > [@](#): > > If you object to the definitions I’ve used and the conclusions I’ve made, great. But your objections will have a lot more weight if they include something other than variations on “bullshit!”. Because then it’s just your [opinion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion), lacking evidence or proof of any kind, much less [scientific evidence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_proof). The only thing that is bullshit in this thread is every post you have made in it, avoding defining the terms you want to discuss, then providing bullshit pseudoscience woo masquerading as proof. Every word of it is bullshit. > [@](#): > We don’t know nuthin’ for sure yet, or if we do, no one in this thread has shown us. [/QUOTE] Of course! Because you are out there swinging goalposts around instead of providing a testable basis and an open mind. Bullshit of the first degree. You are fooling no one. ---
**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 10, 2010, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/353 "2010-12-10T01:41:27Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > You are fooling no one. Not totally true. She seems to be fooling AHunter3 and Kozmik. 😃 Also, Stoid, do you yet understand that you’re demanding special treatment for an afterlife? There are literally infinite numbers of fantasy concepts with no evidence, and you dismiss many of them as factually non-existent, yet you require overt proof [heh], before dismissing an afterlife? Why the dichotomy? Also, what is an afterlife, exactly? ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2010, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/354 "2010-12-10T01:50:59Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Not totally true. She seems to be fooling AHunter3 and Kozmik. 😃 OK, given the new observation and resultant data, with which I concur, I see that my hypothesis was stated beyond a level of certainty I am now comfortable with. Being a man of the scientific method, I withdraw my hypothesis and defer to yours which is better supported by actual empirical evidence. Of course, yours is still subject to further revision, should anyone else step up and say they are being fooled, or should observation suggest anyone else to a sufficient degree of certainty, am I correct? No hard feelings. See how science works, y’all? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Nicest\_of\_the\_Damned](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8baadc/32.png) [@Nicest\_of\_the\_Damned](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nicest_of_the_Damned)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2010, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/355 "2010-12-10T03:03:48Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > No such proof can exist without a clear definition of the terms. Define the term “afterlife” without woo, THEN come back and ask for a proof about it. You are asking for a scientific definition of something you claim scientists have said is impossible. If they think it’s impossible they probably don’t have an acceptable scientific definition. > [@Lobohan](#): > > Also, Stoid, do you yet understand that you’re demanding special treatment for an afterlife? There are literally infinite numbers of fantasy concepts with no evidence, and you dismiss many of them as factually non-existent, yet you require overt proof [heh], before dismissing an afterlife? I genuinely don’t understand why this is an issue. Just because one particular possibility is unlikely the whole concept should be dismissed? I don’t believe in the Burping Aliens of Rigel 5 but I don’t think that means SETI should call the whole thing off. And it’s certainly not “wishful thinking” on my part. As I said, if some kind of “afterlife” exists I don’t necessarily believe it’s an act of some benevolent god. It could just as easily be something naturally occurring and no more likely to be pleasant than experience on earth. ---
**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 10, 2010, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/356 "2010-12-10T03:09:50Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Also, Stoid, do you yet understand that you’re demanding special treatment for an afterlife? There are literally infinite numbers of fantasy concepts with no evidence, and you dismiss many of them as factually non-existent, yet you require overt proof [heh], before dismissing an afterlife? Lobohan, do you not yet understand that there’s absolutely nothing unusual about ooking at this question as a question more deserving of consideration than the question of whether Snow White existed? Try “looking things up” - you’ll be amazed at the brilliant people who have given this question serious consideration and still do. Are you that isolated in your own reality that this strikes you as unreasonable? The most obvious and compelling reason the possibility of an afterlife calls for more consideration than dragons in the garage or vampires is the fact that the _ **vast, vast, VAST** _ majority of human beings who are now living and who have ever lived **believe in some version or degree of it** , while the same cannot be said of fairies, dragons, or vampires. Nor is this belief or question the exclusive province of the religious: > [@](#): > > [Types of views on the afterlife](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_after_death) > > There are two different types of views on the afterlife > > The first type is loosely based on observations and conjecture made by humans or instruments (for example a radio or a voice recorder, which are used in electronic voice phenomena, or EVP). These observations come from reincarnation **research, near death experiences, out-of-body experiences,** astral projection, EVP, mediumship, various forms of photography and so forth. **Academic inquiry** into such phenomena can be broken down roughly into two categories: psychical research generally focuses on case studies, interviews, and field reports, while parapsychology relates to strictly **laboratory research.** > > The second type is based on a form of faith, usually faith in the stories that are told by ancestors or faith in religious books like the Bible, the Qur’an, the Talmud, the Vedas, the Tripitaka etc. This article is mainly about this second type > [@](#): > > There is still the position, based on the philosophical question of personal identity, termed open individualism, and in some ways similar to the old belief of monopsychism, that concludes that individual existence is illusory, and our consciousness continues existing after death in other conscious beings. **Positions regarding existence after death was supported by some notable physicists such as Erwin Schrödinger and Freeman Dyson**.[48] In addition, there is the nature of the question. Vampires and dragons have nothing whatsoever to do with us. Consciousness IS us and relates directly to this question: > [@](#): > > **Consciousness** is variously defined as subjective experience, awareness, the ability to experience “feeling”, wakefulness, the understanding of the concept “self”, or the executive control system of the mind.[ > > Although humans realize what everyday experiences are, consciousness refuses to be defined, philosophers note (e.g. John Searle in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy):[3] > "Anything that we are aware of at a given moment forms part of our consciousness, making **conscious experience at once the most familiar and most mysterious aspect of our lives."** > —Schneider and Velmans, 2007[4] > > .. > Consciousness is the subject of much research in **philosophy of mind,** psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science, cognitive neuroscience and artificial intelligence. Issues of practical concern include how the presence of consciousness can be assessed in severely ill or comatose people;[8] whether non-human consciousness exists and if so how it can be measured; at what point in fetal development consciousness begins; and whether computers can achieve a conscious state.[9][10][11] > [@](#): > > There are many philosophical stances on consciousness, including behaviorism, dualism, idealism, functionalism, reflexive monism, phenomenalism, phenomenology and intentionality, physicalism, emergentism, mysticism, personal identity, and externalism. So, again, your absolute certainty that you have an absolutely perfect understanding of the\*\* factual, immutable truth\*\* on this subject makes you look exactly as rigidly close-minded as any random Christian, with exactly as much evidence for your fixed opinion masquerading as knowledge. And the continued snickering at me for asking the question is fine..because I’m happy to be counted among the many and the brilliant minds who have pondered and still ponder the mysteries (that are in many ways still mysteries) of our minds seeking the best possible understanding conscious existence… > [@](#): > > The classical mind/body problem can be approached empirically, using instances of the near-death experience (NDE) as experimental data. The monistic viewpoint, that the mind is the functioning of the brain, finds little support in the NDE data, while dualism, mind and body as separate entities, is consistent with NDE research to date. Comparison of the details of the NDE with predictions from theoretical cosmology shows strong similarities between the two and further strengthens the case for dualism. A theory of human nature is proposed that incorporates these similarities. > _ **J. Kenneth Arnette, Ph.D. received a doctorate in Physical Chemistry from Florida State University** _ I would feel like a perfect fool to imagine that I have somehow arrived at perfect truth while people who are so much more brilliant and educated than I am continue to research and inquire, and \*continue to admit that they do not have all the answers. \* It is how we deal with the questions and arrive at the answers, not what the answers turn out to be, that is my interest, remember? [QUOTE=stoid] I’m interested in discussing the way we determine **what is a genuine “fact” vs. what is an opinion** , not the particulars of the afterlife [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=stoid] > [@](#): > > But to claim that it’s equally logical to believe in an afterlife as to not is fucking retarded and demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the rules of science and logic. > > If you disagree, I’d like to introduce you to the invisible, intangible, floating, silent dragon who lives in the garage of my apartment building. Oh, and he doesn’t eat, breathe, shit, or give off heat. But you can’t prove he doesn’t exist, so it’s arrogant to claim that I’m wrong! I never claimed that it was equally logical. HOWEVER… what are the lines? That’s what this thread hopes to answer. I’m comfy dismissing the dragon in the garage, I’m not comfy dismissing the afterlife. I’m not entirely sure why, and I’ll have to think about it, but I’d love to hear theories from others. [/QUOTE] **(I’ve figured out why, and that’s what I’m telling you in this post.)** [QUOTE=stoid] > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Morgenstern > Maybe I’m missing something here Really Not All That Bright. If you are you saying CC’s-_(CC said it is “a fact” that there “is no afterlife”)_ beliefs are an educated guess, how would you describe a believer,s beliefs? > > Quote: > Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright > An unconscious irrational choice? **What is meant by an “educated” guess in this exact instance? What education does CC or Really Not All That Bright or anyone else have that directly leads to the conclusion that (it is a fact that no longer deserves further examination)** there is no afterlife? …we do have some very interesting anecdotal evidence for the possibility, at least, that there might actually be an afterlife, this and other reports are at least more than there is for NON-existence of an afterlife, even though they are usually explained away. Not proven to be false, just given a pretty plausible explanation. **And that distinction is meaningful in this discussion.** [/QUOTE] …of how we decide what’s fact and what’s opinion. > [@](#): > > This is my understanding, and as such, I continue to say **it is not accurate** to say that there is no afterlife and call it a fact. Nor is it accurate to say there IS an afterlife and call it a fact, although, as I just finished typing, my limited knowledge is that we have a teensy weensy bit more possible evidence for than against. > [@](#): > > on what basis … can we say it **is a FACT** that there is no afterlife? Has it been “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.”? if it has, I’m okay with that, I’d just like to be educated as to how. > > > [@](#): > > > > But my understanding from all of this is that the afterlife cannot be falsified and neither can the absence of the afterlife, so the yes or no of it\*\* is opinions, not facts. > > - And I’m still waiting to be educated with evidence and proof and _ **any** _ kind of attempt at citation to _ **some** _ reputable authority…derision arising from any Dopers’ absolute certainty that they alone, ahead of all the others since the dawn of time, have managed to **actually definitively answer the mind/body problem** \* when no one else makes such a claim…well, that doesn’t really qualify as an education.\* In case you haven’t made the slightest attempt to take in any information: “the mind / body problem” is the umbrella term that encompasses all these issues of whether we are Meat or MeatPlus. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2010, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/357 "2010-12-10T03:21:45Z")
Well, of course you have to mind your body, but its not that much of a problem! If you’re going to be gone for an extended absence, just leave it safely situated, not vulnerable to the weather, or perverts. ---
**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 10, 2010, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/358 "2010-12-10T03:30:01Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Lobohan, do you not yet understand that there’s absolutely nothing unusual about > ooking at this question as a question more deserving of consideration than the question of whether Snow White existed? Try “looking things up” - you’ll be amazed at the brilliant people who have given this question serious consideration and still do. Are you that isolated in your own reality that this strikes you as unreasonable? The reality I’m interested in is the one that exists. Not the fairy stories you need to get through the day. > [@](#): > > The most obvious and compelling reason the possibility of an afterlife calls for more consideration than dragons in the garage or vampires is the fact that the _ **vast, vast, VAST** _ majority of human beings who are now living and who have ever lived **believe in some version or degree of it** , while the same cannot be said of fairies, dragons, or vampires. So there we have it. You simply offer the idea of an afterlife preference because of its popularity. I had held out hope that you were thinking something reasonable. But instead you are simply acting without question because reality, to you, is a popularity contest. I can’t force you to shed such silly notions. All I can do is point out how silly those notions are. I’ve removed the rest of the glurge because it is meaningless now that we’ve isolated that you have no intention whatsoever of actually engaging your logic an reason about this issue. If the vast, vast, vast majority of reality thought raping children cured disease, well then, I suppose it would also meet your ludicrous requirement of needing \*proof \*to unseat it. This sort of empty, fetid ignorance is what this board is here to fight. [Cite](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/sdmb_images/reader/ignorance2lines.gif). ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2010, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/359 "2010-12-10T03:37:13Z")
The consensus reality is real, man! What, you don’t agree? Fuck. ---
**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 10, 2010, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/360 "2010-12-10T04:39:05Z")
Lobo… if you need to cling to the fantasy that you’re arguing with someone trying to sell you the afterlife, I realize now it would probably be downright cruel to continue to try and interfere. Peace. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876.md?page=19)