That’s not a true statement. If you reconfigured it like so:
“Human consciousness is an emergent property of the brain”
The statement would be slightly less incorrect, although human consciousness is far more than simply an emergent property of the brain.
An afterlife exists, obviously. When someone dies, life continues on: that is the afterlife.
The thing about the real afterlife is this: what you have done in your life either makes the afterlife better or worse for the consciousnesses that inhabit it. Look at how bad Jesus fucked up…
If Marduk means that life continues for everyone else after you die then, yes, I’ll agree.
In other words, if I die now, you all continue to type, bears remain catholic and the pope keeps a’crappin’ in the woods.
Ah, so your argument for the absence of the ghost in the machine is an assertion that there is no ghost in the machine.
Perfectly circular and so simply dismissed.
I say, for the sake of argument, that the brain is not both data and processing. I say that there’s a neat separation between CPU, memory and software.
Once again, your argument for the absence of the ghost in the machine is an assertion that there is no ghost in the machine.
Perfectly circular and so simply dismissed.
[quote=Blake]
Which laws does the existence of the afterlife violate?
Which is absolute nonsense.
There are four laws of electromagnetism:
• The law of Biot-Savart magnetic field generated by currents in wires
• Ampere’s law the effect of a current on a loop of flux which it threads
• Force law the force on an electron moving through a magnetic field
• Faraday’s law the voltage induced in a circuit by magnetic flux cutting it
Which of those laws does the afterlife violate Der Trihs? Please explain this to us. I am eagerly awaiting this explanation. Please explain which of those laws states that two things can not be connected by a non-EM process while leaving no evidence of that connection.
Of course the fact is that none of those laws says that two things can not be connected without leaving an EM trace. Gravity, for example, connects the brain with Mars all the time, yet it does not contradict the laws of electromagnetism in any way at all. Any other non-Em process providing such connections would also not just fail to contradict the laws, it would be impossible for it to contradict them.
You don’t actually know what the EM laws mean, do you Der Trihs?
Please provide evidence that all, or even any, beliefs in the afterlife require something that is stable that is neither matter nor energy.
At this stage you are quite clearly constructing a straw man.
So you get to make them up as it suits your argument?
And you expect people in GD to accept this nonsense? Given that you clearly have no idea what the laws of electromagnetism actually say, or what they apply to?
Typical responses to this includes appeals to anecdote (as in the OP) and triumphantly exclaiming “You can’t prove it isn’t so!”, as if it was up to the debunkers of illogical claims to furnish evidence on the matter.
Got woo? What evidence do you have to support it?
Yes, exactly.
“Debates” such as the one proposed in the OP shouldn’t matter to believers. They know via revelation/convictions/voices that they are right, and the doubters are wrong. And yet they can’t stop craving scientific validation, and so we get these appeals to the Unknowable That Can’t Be Proven Wrong.
If there is such a thing as an inexplicable relentless force, it is Woo and the compulsion to embrace it.
The OP was triggered by somebody who claimed to know, presumably via revelation/convictions/voices, that there is no afterlife.
Meanwhile nobody at all is claiming that they can scientifically validate the afterlife that I can see. The only claims of scientific validation in this thread have been made by Der Trihs, who claims he can scientifically validate the *absence *of the afterlife by means of the four laws of electromagnetism.
I agree with that. Claims that the laws of electromagnetism make it impossible for gravity to connect things without leaving any evidence, for example. Woo of the highest order.
It’s false because no one CAN say it really happened. Who disagrees with me that Sirens didn’t exist besides you?
If you never said anything like that, then you agree with me. (Thank you.) You did say that none of it speaks to probability. You wanted to know why I think it’s IMpossible. But I don’t believe that’s your case. You wanted me to admit that since I think it’s impossible, you wanted evidence. You omitted the second part of that reply:
ME -
It seems more like you want an easy conclusion to this question of afterlife, but we already know it’s not likely. Yet at the same time, it seems the possibility you want me to admit to is just because we can’t disprove it. I’ll give you that. You’ve got a frayed thread the size of an atom based on superstition, faith and “the ancients” that an afterlife may exist. Myself and other posters have a much more conclusive argument there is no afterlife weighing more than the planet. Is it definite? No. But the ancients weren’t definite either, were they?
No, I don’t agree with you. You are clearly posting nonsense. And this is a classic example of the nonsense that you post. It is called a false dichotomy, and can, like almost everything else you have posted, be rejected out of hand ion any rational debate.
Dang! You’re harsh, man. Please post something toward your argument BESIDES the argument from ignorance link you posted. Although the link DOES sum up some points you’ve made.
Your argument so far to me is simply: Afterlife is not probable, but it IS possible.
How is this not a false dichotomy or an argument of ignorance?
If someone asked you if there’s a tooth fairy do you say “I don’t know” or “it’s extremely unlikely”? If you’ve got any sense you just say “no”. I think the existence of God is so unlikely that you might as well just declare his nonexistence as fact. I mean, how do we really know anything? How do I know there isn’t a hippopotamus on my bed? And if I go check how do I know that it wasn’t a magical hippo that teleported out of my room just as I opened the door? No. You eventually get to a point where you just have to be realistic. If, in the unlikely event that evidence for God’s existence is ever presented, we’ll reevaluate what we claim to “know”. But for now, I know that there is no God. It’s a fact.
Neither of those posts says that there is scientific evidence for the afterlife.
Nor is the poster, to the best of my knowledge, religious, so he can hardly be said to be “craving scientific validation” or “appeal[ing] to the Unknowable That Can’t Be Proven Wrong.”
So I repeat: Don’t you have that back to front?
The OP was triggered by somebody who claimed to know, presumably via revelation/convictions/voices, that there is no afterlife.
Meanwhile nobody at all is claiming that they can scientifically validate the afterlife that I can see. The only claims of scientific validation in this thread have been made by Der Trihs, who claims he can scientifically validate the absence of the afterlife by means of the four laws of electromagnetism.
Indeed, and the only psuedo-scientific posturing in this thread has been from Der Trihs. While he claims to loudly to have scientific proof that the afterlife doesn’t exist, nobody has claimed that hey have proof that it does exist.
Most people believe that the existence of God is so *likely *that you might as well just declare his existence as fact. Does that make them right? After all there are more of them.
Right, so since this thread is about the afterlife, can you tell us where exactly people have looked for, say, the Hindu afterlife? Bonus points if you can explain what methodology they used and why that methodology is considered valid. More bonus points if you can explain why it is more valid the methods people used to look for it that *confirmed *the existence of the afterlife.
Because it seems that Mrs. Darwin’s little boy was right. There is no possible way to falsify that, or most other, afterlifes. Almost by definition it can’t be looked for.
Just like I don’t think there’s a hippo on my bed. I think that 2+2=4. I think that I’m sitting in my living room. Really, you’re going to go after me for using the word “think”? Fine. An afterlife’s existence, based on all the available evidence (which is none), is so incredibly unlikely that you might as well declare its nonexistence a fact. There, I didn’t use the word “think”.
Everyone could believe that God is real, myself included, but that wouldn’t make his existence any more likely.
Not my job to find evidence of an afterlife. If I told you that there was a ghost in my house it’s not your job to come to my place and look for ectoplasm. It’s my job to provide evidence. I know this can really be a pain in the ass for people making baseless claims but thems the breaks.
