# 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:** 25
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/481 "2010-12-13T04:50:25Z")
**Kozmik** , you need to make yourself clear. State your arguments instead of providing one-word answers and links that don’t have sufficient background. And instead of asking everyone to watch a video, please just summarize what’s on it and why it is relevant. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/482 "2010-12-13T05:06:35Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > **Kozmik** , you need to make yourself clear. State your arguments instead of providing one-word answers and links that don’t have sufficient background. And instead of asking everyone to watch a video, please just summarize what’s on it and why it is relevant. Ok. In my next post I will summarize the video and the article, and I will provide an argument worthy of GD. ---
**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 13, 2010, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/483 "2010-12-13T05:23:04Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > Ok. In my next post I will summarize the video and the article, and I will provide an argument worthy of GD. Before you do, please answer this question: Will it directly relate to the OP? ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/484 "2010-12-13T06:07:43Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > If there has been experiments and testing that covers all the questions and results in a very strong likelihood that we are meat, that’s fine. For wooists, there are _always_ more questions and theories begging for answers. The lack of evidence supporting their claims and suppositions is never sufficient to stem the endless flow. > [@Stoid](#): > > If there validated experiences There aren’t. > [@Stoid](#): > > that create questions that remain unanswered See above. > [@Stoid](#): > > suggesting the possibility that we are meatplus The lack of evidence does not suggest that possibility; it merely reinforces the fact that the life-after-death crowd has nothing. > [@Stoid](#): > > All of it is interesting Or tiresome. > [@Stoid](#): > > and the fact that Assertion A is met with Refutation B, in a thousand different instances, just reinforces the obvious fact that the search for answers [continues](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind-body_problem) In reality it just reinforces the obvious fact that, as stated above, wooists cannot be swayed by the reality that their claims have repeatedly foundered for lack of evidence and refutations of their anecdotes. They’ll cling to their woo because they want to believe and lack critical thinking skills. There was another long and contentious thread recently started by someone who ostensibly did not believe in ghosts/spirits, but was insistent on [del]Just Asking Questions[/del] the need to keep plowing limited research dollars and valuable researcher time into experiments to prove/disprove the existence of spooks. He could not/would not accept that this would be a waste of time and satisfy no one, certainly not the ghost-believers who always seem to find a reason why their spirit brethren fail to turn up when searched for. Which leads to the following question\* for **Stoid** : is there any research study _you_ can suggest to uncover the Mysteries of the Afterlife? Or is anecdote and the ability of wooists to keep suggesting questions they feel have not been satisfactorily answered enough to keep us eternally Just Asking Questions? \*well, one more question: having found Einstein “wonderful” for supposedly agreeing with you that experience is everything, are you now disappointed with the man for declaring that belief in an afterlife is for “feeble souls” weighed down by “fear and absurd egoism” (see previous quote)? ---
**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 13, 2010, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/485 "2010-12-13T07:54:22Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Which leads to the following question\* for **Stoid** : is there any research study _you_ can suggest to uncover the Mysteries of the Afterlife? It’s very strange for you to ask me this. since I’ve made clear from the outset that I have no idea if one exists. But I understand that you and some of the others who have posted to this thread need to maintain your Fortress of Certainty against any perceived assaults; some people have very negative associations with uncertainty, because it can often lead to insecurity and anxiety. I become anxious about things too, some of them very commonplace and unremarkable, in fact. But uncertainty isn’t among those things. People are different, thank goodness. Keeps things interesting. ---
**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 13, 2010, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/486 "2010-12-13T07:57:40Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > Ok. In my next post I will summarize the video and the article, and I will provide an argument worthy of GD. I finished watching, I read the article. I find it hard to imagine how you think that all questions are answered - I found them both simplistic and shallow; not to say anything was bad or wrong, just…meh. Especially when compared with the other information available. It will be interesting to see what you submit. ---
**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 13, 2010, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/487 "2010-12-13T12:02:18Z")
**Stoid** , could you please describe the scientific study that would convince you that there was no afterlife? ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/488 "2010-12-13T14:01:09Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > I finished watching, I read the article. No need for links here! > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > What “aspect of consciousness” do you believe can be separated from the brain? The aspect of consciousness that Wilder Penfield and Sir John Eccles concluded can be separated from the human brain is the mental faculty of memory. “The scientist who is known as the father of neurology and the scientist who won a Nobel Prize for discovering how neurotransmitters work both came up with the conclusion that memories are not stored in the brain.” > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Please cite actual evidence, not just links to woo believing websites and pseudoscience articles from frauds and quacks. Eccles’ writings on the mind-body problem as cited in Wikipeida in his biography. Eccles book, Facing Reality, in his philosophy, and with Sir Karl Popper, postulates that there exist three worlds which are easily defined and then he proceeds to categorize them. Eccles explanation of Fig. 6-1 will illuminate the debate for you as it should for Czarcasm and others. Now, my prompt, was a YouTube video, which might be dismissed as “links to woo believing websites”. And the YouTube video was a response to a link to an article in Discover Magazine, which, just as The Lancent, could be considered as “pseudoscience articles”; however, Wilder Penfield and Sir John Eccles should not be considered “frauds and quacks”. > [@Fatwater\_Fewl](#): > > Memory is notoriously unreliable. And it may be that each time we access a memory the original encoding of that memory is destroyed and a new encoding is made with new or associated material added. Fortunately we are able to document events and facts using other media than our brains. In 3:49/9:56 in the YouTube video the mind is compared to a computer. “…But no one assumes that the computer knows what it is doing.” > [@Lobohan](#): > > The only reason you give as to why the afterlife gets this special treatment is that\* a lot of people believe in the afterlife\*. > > This is clearly an argument to popularity While you mention the fallacy of _argumentum ad populum_, there is another fallacy in your post. It is very fundamental. It is this: a lot of _people_ believe in the afterlife. But as Stoid [pointed out](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13239716&postcount=385), “new humans are born everyday and everyone comes to the question at some point”. The question: Is there an afterlife? It is interesting to me that Stoid’s parents “explained religion to me” as if they pulled out the encyclopaedia volume R. What is fascinating is that Stoid’s parents did not sit down and explain death to her _before_ they explained religion to her. In fact, it does not seem that they explained death to her at all: “…and the fact of my own death became clear to me.” Indeed, they did not pull out the encyclopaedia volume D. There is no equivalence between “a lot of people believe in an afterlife” and “new humans born believe in an afterlife”. > [@Stoid](#): > > So, one last time: it’s not accurate to say: There is no afterlife. It’s not accurate to say: there is an afterlife. It’s only accurate to say what your opinion is and then explain why. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > NDE’s have nothing to do with an afterlife. One thing we know absolutely for sure about them is that the people who have them aren’t dead. Yes, NDE’s have nothing to do with an afterlife; however, memory does have something to do with an afterlife. I’m sort of paraphrasing but, one thing we know about memory is that people who don’t have memory aren’t necessarily dead. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Obviously no one is going to talk you out of your woo, but, in point of fact, it actually OS scientifically proven that consciousness is a physical part of the brain. Ironically, I might be able to talk her out of her woo (NDE’s). But, if I am wrong, you, paradoxically, will be able to take me out of my woo (memory). As Wilder Penfield and Sir John Eccles concluded, memory is not necessarily a physical part of the brain. > [@Stoid](#): > > How _could_ we observe an afterlife from life? It seems that the only way would be to “dip into” it briefly by starting to die, which is what the NDEs are. There is another way. Have the subjects memory erased :eek: and then the “brain is that of a newborn”. Google. Or see the Related Video, Biological Mind Control, which is near the end of the YouTube video you finished watching. And that is the major thing, to kindly [paraphrase](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13239716&postcount=385) you, that stops me from concluding that we are just meat. > [@AHunter3](#): > > It is difficult to imagine what “being conscious” would mean to us if we did not have any kind of exterior context (a surrounding “not-us” world) to relate to. Please see YouTube video at 3:39/9:56 for an explanation. > [@AHunter3](#): > > We’d still have our body which would provide something to experience, but even the body is sufficiently outward-directed in its senses that the sensory input would be attenuated quite a bit. You’d still have your body if your memory was erased. Also please see YouTube video at 4:20/9:56 which explains #9 How do the specialized systems of the brain integrate with one another? Which brings us to [my post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13234816&postcount=365) that focuses on #2 How are memories stored and retrieved in the brain? > [@Stoid](#): > > Consciousness IS us and relates directly to this question I argue that memory IS us and relates directly to this question; that memory is the soul, or, at least, the closest we can get to the meaning of soul. But, then, with memory, who knows how deep the rabbit hole goes.. > [@AHunter3](#): > > If consciousness persists, there must be a conscious SELF that persists after the death. Must there be a conscious self that persists through life (before death)? > [@Steophan](#): > > To clarify, my consciousness is only a property of the cosmos insofar as I’m an object that is part of the cosmos. As morbid as it may sound, yes, you are an object that is part of the cosmos, so am I, and so is everyone else. But, that you are an object that is part of the cosmos, then that object could possibly be dead, or have the property of death. I believe Stoid’s [next post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13226883&postcount=252) needs no explanation from me. However, I do want Stoid’s post to be compared and contrasted with woodstockbirdybird’s [scenario](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13226692&postcount=246) which I commented on. Which relates to Voyager’s [definition](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13224313&postcount=187) of soul. Therefore, I conclude that souls, or collective soul, exist only in woodstockbirdybird’s scenario. So I believe I answered my own [question](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13220916&postcount=150). > [@Stoid](#): > > My “belief” (if I have one, and I’m not sure, as stated) is that\*\*\* if we do\*\*\* have souls, they are not our personalities. If life exists after death, it’s not like we see in the movies, the personality and life experience persisting exactly, just ethereally. More like we revert to something more fundamental and collective. They are our memory! Yes!! Like reverting to something more fundamental and collective. > [@Stoid](#): > > Which…if you accept this idea, means that we actually DO live on in a manner of speaking, because if we actually are all one, then when we die individually, the personalities still living are accessible via the souls inside the bodies, and the memories of the people who have died are accessible to the collective soul. Yes, if you accept this idea. > [@Stoid](#): > > Wow…I think we’re the Borg! Cool. 🙂 Close. Not Star Trek. Space Cases. So that makes Bill Mumy & Peter David, in my opinion, the greatest science fiction writers, philosophers, of all time!!! I know I might be subject to ridicule but that’s my conclusion. And all the time composing this post, I was listening to If You Leave by OMD. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/489 "2010-12-13T14:08:59Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > But I understand that you and some of the others who have posted to this thread need to maintain your Fortress of Certainty against any perceived assaults; some people have very negative associations with uncertainty, because it can often lead to insecurity and anxiety. Sorry, but I’m not at all “anxious” about the Afterlife, unlike the “vast, vast, VAST” majority of people whom you believe are “enormously” concerned with the subject, including you. I agree with Einstein on this one - it’s an artificial construct for feeble souls motivated by fear and egoism. If his deceased spirit comes up, taps me on the shoulder and reveals to me the error of my ways, I’ll happily revise my opinion, but I do not tremble with anticipation that that will occur. What does concern me in general is sloppy non-critical thinking - the kind that leads wooists to believe that since they reject all logical, fact-based refutations of their woo and keep coming up with “questions”, that is somehow “suggestive of the possibility” that they are right. Statements like “the fact that Assertion A is met with Refutation B, in a thousand different instances, just reinforces the obvious fact that the search for answers continues” are similarly depressing to hear from a board veteran who needs to be reminded of the declared mission of the Straight Dope. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/490 "2010-12-13T18:16:18Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > Please see YouTube video at 3:39/9:56 for an explanation. If you cannot explain it in your own words, then you probably do not understand it well enough to defend the idea and if you cannot defend it, then you should not be wasting other posters’ times with your claims. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/491 "2010-12-13T18:23:33Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Which leads to the following question\* for **Stoid** : is there any research study _you_ can suggest to uncover the Mysteries of the Afterlife? Or is anecdote and the ability of wooists to keep suggesting questions they feel have not been satisfactorily answered enough to keep us eternally Just Asking Questions? > [@Stoid](#): > > It’s very strange for you to ask me this. since I’ve made clear from the outset that I have no idea if one exists. That, however, was not the question. You want to portray yourself as open to the idea, yet you dismiss all the contrary arguments. It is reasonable, therefore, to ask you what sort of evidence you would accept. Otherwise, you are not engaged in a debate, but simply witnessing for a potential idea in which you do not even believe, youself. ---
**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 13, 2010, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/492 "2010-12-13T22:34:44Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > That, however, was not the question. > > You want to portray yourself as open to the idea, yet you dismiss all the contrary arguments > > It is reasonable, therefore, to ask you what sort of evidence you would accept. > > Otherwise, you are not engaged in a debate, but simply witnessing for a potential idea in which you do not even believe, youself. The debate is mine; the fact that _others_ have decided on a different debate based on different criteria isn’t my responsibility. My position: Is it considered legitimate, in terms of logic, reason, English, science, whatever disciplines or metrics apply, to state that “It is a fact that there is no afterlife.”… _Let me be clear: 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 or absence of one._\*\* The response I received was:There is no afterlife, period. It’s been confirmed. We’re telling you this, and that’s all you need to know. Case closed. Because I don’t consider the assertions of people I do not know the backgrounds of to be sufficient evidence of anything except their own beliefs and biases, and because those people didn’t seem to think anything except their own assertions were necessary, \*\* I looked up what they were telling me. \*\*. The basis of the assertion was most frequently offered as science having “proved” the “fact” that there cannot be any afterlife was: “consciousness is an emergent property of the brain”. Contrary to your statement, Tom, I **did not** dismiss it, **did not** ignore it, **did not** pretend it didn’t exist. I did pretty much the exact opposite of ignoring and dismissing it: _I looked it up_. I _researched_ it. Since no one in the thread bothered to offer any background or foundation, I went and discovered on my own what I could about it. And guess what? It’s not true! Turns out some folks were stretching the truth just a tiny bit. Because nothing has been scientifically proven at all, certainly not the emergent property argument. Because that’s all it is, an argument. One that is part of, it turns out, a very large area of study which includes a wide variety of disciplines: \*\* the study of consciousness \*\*. And the emergent property argument, rather than being the “scientifically proved fact” that closes the case, it is considered a _[philosophical](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/)_ argument: > [@](#): > > **Emergence** is a notorious **philosophical term of art.** A variety of theorists have appropriated it for their purposes ever since George Henry Lewes gave it a philosophical sense in his 1875 Problems of Life and Mind. We might roughly characterize the shared meaning thus: emergent entities (properties or substances) ‘arise’ out of more fundamental entities and yet are ‘novel’ or ‘irreducible’ with respect to them. (**For example, it is sometimes said that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.) Each of the quoted terms is slippery in its own right, and their specifications yield the varied notions of emergence that we discuss below. There has been renewed interest in emergence within discussions of the behavior of complex systems and debates over the reconcilability of mental causation, intentionality, or consciousness with physicalism.** _This_ is what was being offered to be the foundation for the statement that it IS legitimate to assert \*\* as fact \*\* that there is no afterlife. \*\* (Which was my OP, let’s not forget! \*\* Is a “philosophical term of art” that is “sometimes said in connection with consciousness” risen to the level of being absolutely “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent” (Gould’s description of a fact, also in the OP)? I don’t think it really does. Is that “dismissing” a contrary argument? I guess, but only after doing the due diligence the proponent of the argument wouldn’t do and discovering the argument was incorrect. Furthermore, having done the research that absolutely no one who was and is telling me what is fact and what is not has bothered to do, I actually learned a great deal about \*\* the actual subject of the OP, which was\*\*: > [@](#): > > \*\*SO… here’s what I’d like to discuss: is it considered legitimate, in terms of logic, reason, English, science, whatever disciplines or metrics apply, to state that “It is a fact that there is no afterlife.” \*\* > > My belief and contention is that such a statement is not accurately made, because it is impossible to know, therefore it is an opinion. **Let me be clear: 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 or absence of one.** > > To prevent any wasted time: I do not know whether there is an afterlife. I do not even know what I believe about it. Sometimes I think there might me some kind of energy existence that persists, but I rarely find myself leaning towards believing that the personality persists after death. But it doesn’t matter anyway, since that’s not really the topic, only how we arrive at our determination of certain unprovable ideas. And what I learned is that no, there is no consensus, and the people who are involved in this research, who fall all across the spectrum, from scientist believers to philospher non-believers, agree that it is the last great mystery and no solid answers have yet been found. The only place I found rigid, unbending assertions that the questions had been answered and the issue settled was in this thread. And rather than respond to my extensive research and citation in anything like a reasonable way, the response has been essentially: LA LA LA LA I can’t hear you! WOO WOO WOO WOO. Who is dismissing whom, Tom? Who is making a good faith attempt at debate, Tom? The people who start by misrepresenting what is fact and what isn’t, decline to present a single cite for their assertions, go on to dismiss anything and everything that disagrees with their unsupported positions as woo, and persist in telling me I that I think and believe things I don’t, or someone who is trying to actually find out the information and actually has? I absolutely agree that it’s reasonable to ask me what sort of evidence I’d find acceptable…to prove that it’s a true statement to assert that “there is no afterlife”. The evidence I would accept is the evidence that there is wide agreement among the many people who are or have been researching the subject that solid answers had been found and the subject was considered “conquered” for lack of a better term. But I don’t consider “is there any research study you can suggest to uncover the Mysteries of the Afterlife? “ to be the equivalent of that request, particularly since I am not a scientist or researcher. Nor do I believe, in light of the previous posts filled with mockery and dismissal and zero evidence of anything, that it was a good faith question to begin with. And I also find it hard to believe that you’ve actually read the thread, tom, because if you had read the thread, as opposed to just skimming my opponents’ representations of what I’ve said and assuming they portray it accurately (they absolutely don’t), you wouldn’t have said this: > [@](#): > > Otherwise, you are not engaged in a debate, but simply witnessing for a potential idea in which you do not even believe, youself. I witness for nothing except the fact that the questions \*are not \*considered answered by the people who are and have been actively engaged in finding those answers and go on to tell us what the answers are. Even the ones who believe the answers _will_ prove that we are only meat don’t assert that the answers are already known. And I have “witnessed” with _evidence_ showing that my assertion is true. But I’m not met with evidence that my assertions are not true, merely dismissal of anything and everything offered as evidence as woo. I therefore reject your characterization entirely. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/493 "2010-12-13T22:47:33Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Obviously no one is going to talk you out of your woo, but, in point of fact, it actually OS scientifically proven that consciousness is a physical part of the brain. Cite? > [@Kozmik](#): > > “The scientist who is known as the father of neurology and the scientist who won a Nobel Prize for discovering how neurotransmitters work both came up with the conclusion that memories are not stored in the brain.” [Cite.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYwAPF0mh-U) > [@tomndebb](#): > > If you cannot explain it in your own words, then you probably do not understand it well enough to defend the idea and if you cannot defend it, then you should not be wasting other posters’ times with your claims. Why is it that when **Diogenes the Cynic** makes a claim without a cite he gets a free pass but when I make a claim with a cite I get called out? I provided a cite to my claim that memories are not stored in the brain. I provided an argument and a conclusion in my last post. My opinion is based on memory; Stoid’s opinion is based on NDE’s: > [@Stoid](#): > > So, one last time: it’s not accurate to say: There is no afterlife. It’s not accurate to say: there is an afterlife. It’s only accurate to say what your opinion is and then explain why. What Stoid said. ---
**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 13, 2010, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/494 "2010-12-13T22:47:38Z")
Another wall of text with no substance. There is no phsyical possibility of an “afterlife.” That is the answer to your question. The evidence is that we know for a fact that consciousness is an emergent physical property of the physical brain and nothing else. Questioning this is the same as questioning whether people see with their eyes and hear with their ears, proposing debate on the possibility that we see and hear by magic instead and demanding evidence that no magic is involved. If you want to propose that any part of human consciousness is not caused by the brain, you have to specify what part of consciousness you’re talking about, and where this consciousness is physically stored. Any suggestion of a non-physical process is a _de facto_ proposition of magic and is woo by definition. Do you believe it’s a scientific certainty that human physical strength is caused by muscles, or do you think it might be “muscles plus” - that some other magical force might be involved? Because that is exactly what your “soul” amounts to. ---
**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 13, 2010, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/495 "2010-12-13T22:49:34Z")
Spare us the youtube links, please, **kosmic**. Summatize the actual physical evidence. ---
**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 13, 2010, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/496 "2010-12-13T22:50:32Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > **Stoid** , could you please describe the scientific study that would convince you that there was no afterlife? Of course not. Not merely because I’m not convinced there IS an afterlife (your question assumes that I believe there is one. I don’t.) But because I’m not qualified. I’m not a consciousness researcher of any kind, and what I’ve learned about the subject of consciousness research is that it is some very complex stuff, no matter what the disciplinary approach: cognitive science, medicine, neuroscience, philosophy, physics - all of which are considered pertinent, by the way. And whether there actually is or is not a post life existence of any kind is not the subject of my OP. The subject is whether or not the question _can be considered answered_ in a way that extends beyond one’s personal opinion - answered one way or another by the people who make it their business to ask and who will then let the world know what they’ve found. I’ve found the answer by doing the research: No, it’s not, not even by the people who are _personally_ of the opinion that when the answers _ **are** _ found that they will prove that there is no afterlife and we are only meat. Therefore, it is not really correct to say that “there is no afterlife” and call it a fact, only an opinion. And THAT is the subject of the OP. ---
**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 13, 2010, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/497 "2010-12-13T22:55:34Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > Why is it that when **Diogenes the Cynic** makes a claim without a cite he gets a free pass but when I make a claim with a cite I get called out? Gotta ditto that. ---
**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 13, 2010, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/498 "2010-12-13T22:57:11Z")
No qualification is necessary, just a basic understanding of scientific method. Let me help you. It is not possible to devise a scientific test to prove that something does not exist. It is not possible to devise a test to prove there’s no afterlife. There is also no way to prove there are no smufs or no Cthuhlu. ---
**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 13, 2010, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/499 "2010-12-13T23:00:04Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Gotta ditto that. I haven’t made any claims that are uncited. Links to brain research have been provided throughout the thread. The problem is that you think it’s necessary to prove that understandable and demonstrable physical explanations are not sufficient to rule out magic. You are mistaken. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/500 "2010-12-13T23:09:14Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Spare us the youtube links, please, **kosmic**. Summatize the actual physical evidence. [_The Self-Conscious Mind and the Meaning and Mystery of Personal Existence_](http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=995) Abstract: > [@](#): > > Human beings must realize the great unknowns in the material makeup and operation of the brain, in the relationship of brain to mind, in the creative imagination, and in the uniqueness of the psyche. The essential feature of the dualist-interaction theory is that mind and body are independent entities which somehow interact. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876.md?page=26)