GQ as GD: Facts vs. opinions re: the afterlife and other unprovable stuff

[Stoid]

@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

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.