Of course that would be fair. But that doesn’t address the questions Czarcasm and I asked regarding absolute certainty.
Perfect example. People only object to others saying we “know” stuff because we don’t have absolute knowledge when they want to defend bat shit crazy claims.
There are more answers than “I know for sure” and "I don’t know at all."We don’t know for sure if a Higgs Boson exists, but we do have good reason to suspect it does and we do have good reason to state its characteristics. We don’t know for sure we die when we die, but we have pretty good reasons to suspect so. And much better arguments than for the alternative.
Good point. Are there any good reasons to suspect that there is Life after Death, or does all the evidence so far point in one direction?
Why don’t you tell us what you think you’re really saying? Being coy doesn’t go very far in debates.
This. We don’t do Guru.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Is there any evidence to suggest that these things are worth considering, or are they just concepts that scientists pulled out of their asses to provide a feeling of comfort? Unlike Life after Death, I suspect the former, not the latter.
[/QUOTE]
Well, a lot of money has and will go into researching them, which would indicate evidence that SOMEONE finds them worth considering. 
[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
Of course that would be fair. But that doesn’t address the questions Czarcasm and I asked regarding absolute certainty.
[/QUOTE]
Well, explain your absolute certainty then and why being uncertain is considered some sort of flaw in these discussions. Basically, it comes down to your assumption of certainty based on what you think you know, verse uncertainty in the face of no evidence one way or the other. We know the brain and body dies. We THINK that when the brain dies that is the end of consciousness, since it seems a pretty solid correlation between brain and consciousness. However, we don’t KNOW that this is the case, or that there aren’t other factors in play. You won’t know these things until you actually die, and find out for yourself, one way or the other. You just assume that the answer that seems most obvious to you will be the case until that time.
Really? That’s…interesting. So, you figure that evolution is ‘bat shit crazy’? And quantum mechanics? Plate tectonics? Heliocentric solar system? That’s a fascinating observation…
-XT
[QUOTE=Voyager]
There are more answers than “I know for sure” and "I don’t know at all."We don’t know for sure if a Higgs Boson exists, but we do have good reason to suspect it does and we do have good reason to state its characteristics. We don’t know for sure we die when we die, but we have pretty good reasons to suspect so. And much better arguments than for the alternative.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but that’s not really the point I was addressing. Yeah, I think that the probability that there is something that causes particles to have mass is real, whether it turns out to be the Higgs or not, while I don’t think there is consciousness after death. The POINT I was making, though is that we don’t apply “this “absolute certainty” crap” to JUST the supernatural.
-XT
Yes, but suppose instead of killing you, somebody took a knife and jabbed it into your brain. People who have severe brain damage also have changes to their mind. Damage your brain enough, and you’ll still be alive, but you won’t be conscious or able to think or experience anything. So didn’t your mind change when your brain got damaged?
If you can lose the ability to think and feel when your brain gets damaged, and how the heck is your mind supposed to continue to function when you are dead and your brain is a rotted mass of goo?
I will admit the logical possibility that there’s some sort of non-material component to human consciousness, but if there is, what the heck is it, what’s it made of, why can’t we detect it. And before you say that we can’t detect it because it’s a soul, well, if it makes a difference then it has to interact with this crude matter in some way, and if it interacts with our bodies in some way then we should be able to detect that interaction. And if something doesn’t interact with the material world in any detectable way, how is that different than something that doesn’t exist?
It begs the question.
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
Yes, but suppose instead of killing you, somebody took a knife and jabbed it into your brain. People who have severe brain damage also have changes to their mind. Damage your brain enough, and you’ll still be alive, but you won’t be conscious or able to think or experience anything. So didn’t your mind change when your brain got damaged?
[/QUOTE]
Well, let’s say it did. Bam! You just got hit in the head and your brain is dead and gone. Is everything that makes up the ‘you’ gone now? Will none of it live on? I’d have to say that, at a minimum, your input to this message board will live on at the least…as will the memories of you in the minds of the folks who know you right now.
And that doesn’t even get into anything exotic, such as if there are infinite copies of you in infinite possible alternative universes, or even more exotic stuff like the possibility that the universe is all a huge simulation, or that, as with the Higgs Boson, sentient consciousness might simply be the focal point of some field we can’t, as yet, detect…or collective consciousness…or that information in the universe can’t be created or destroyed, just change states. Or, hell, that there is some old white guy with a huge beard pulling fish out of His ass as he creates the universe from pure will and tortures his creations with all sorts of contradictory (to their natures) dictates, just for the, er, hell of it.
Granted, all of the above is wild, out of the ass speculation and complete horseshit, but in a universe as weird as this one, and in one where we still know so little, who knows what might or might not be possible? I find some level of comfort in Uncertainty…and folks who ARE certain, whether from a theistic or non-thestic world view just make me a little nervous.
-XT
I dispute your premise. Purely anecdotally, I’ve found that people are more willing to admit “once you’re dead, that’s it” than they are to being an atheist. These poll results are rather old, but at least in 1998 “only” 82% of Americans believed in life after death. Much less than the remaining 18% are atheist–<10% not believing in god and <1% identifying as atheist.
I haven’t expressed any absolute certainty. WTF are you talking about?
I explained it already. Lack of absolute certainty is used to equate reasonable conclusions with unreasonable ones.
I said nothing of certainty and we do have evidence that when the brain ceases to function, so do we.
We “think” this based on evidence. That trumps thinking something contrary to the evidence.
We went over that already. Nothing can be “known” when using the definition of “know” that is so frequently used in defending silly beliefs.
When I die my brain won’t be functioning, so I won’t “know” then either.
I’m not assuming anything. :rolleyes:
I never made that observation and I’m perplexed that you would think that I find evidence based claims bat shit crazy.
There is evidence of consciousness, sentience and sapience. There is evidence it is a manifestation of the brain. I have evidence I am experiencing a reality I became aware of since my birth.
But what I don’t know is why do I find myself with this body, at this period of time in the evolution of the universe, and assuming there are other sapient beings in the universe, on this planet.
There’s a very, unshakeable “me” that arises in most every person on this planet, and it’s a very safe bet to believe when we die, this “me-ness” will disappear along with it.
With that, comes the notion that death is the same state as “before birth”; that is, nothingness.
So, in conclusion, I have evidence that my awareness arrived at some arbitrary point at this particular time, body and planet (not unlike the universe itself, in that it came into being, either from nothingness, or some eternal form of existence, and will meet a cold dead end, or continue on in some circular or ocillating pattern, etc.), resulting in at least the form of this question: If it happened once, might it happen again?
I sincerely doubt it, but really: I don’t know.
[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
I haven’t expressed any absolute certainty. WTF are you talking about?
[/QUOTE]
Did you, by chance, look at the title of the thread?
It’s also used to equate unreasonable conclusions with reasonable ones. And reasonable ones with reasonable ones. And unreasonable ones with unreasonable ones. I think that hits all the high points.
Yep. And if your assumption that everything that contains the essential ‘you’ is housed in your brain, and your brain alone, and that no information about the ‘you’ that is stored there will survive it’s death, then that’s a valid assertion. It’s still an assertion based on certain assumptions. If you wish to go beyond those assumptions you’ll need some sort of concrete proof, if you want to take the stance that ‘nobody really knows what happens after death’ is an unreasonable stance. That IS the topic of the thread, right?
No. We know the function of the brain. We know it’s impact on consciousness. Therefore it’s a reasonable assumption that if the brain dies, the essential thing that makes up the ‘you’ as an individual dies. But, science doesn’t KNOW that this is the be all and end all…so, it’s still an assumption based on currently available facts.
It’s used to defend non-silly beliefs as well. We went over this already, after all.
Won’t you be surprised if you are wrong?
Oh, of course not…you know it’s true. Which sort of makes your first assertion in this post a bit of an irony, ehe?
Those were all things that people in the past thought were ‘bat shit crazy’. It was some of that ‘humor’ stuff.
-XT
Good questions. Answers forthcoming.
Post #10.
Since you keep asking, I’ll tell you.
It’s about what SpoilerVirgin posted about first becoming aware of her mortality at age 9. I replied:
Just like her, I became aware of my mortality at an early age. However, at a much latter age, in college, I became aware of my personality. It goes back to what I said about “Once you’re born, that’s it.”
Think about it. Really.
Johnny comes up to dad when he’s ten and asks “the question” and dad looks at him and says, “Sorry, Johnny. Once you’re born, that’s it.” Meaning, you’ll will always be a boy, you will always be white, you will always be my son (the roles will never be reversed - you will never be dad to me or me son to you), you will always be in this body."
And, unless the dad is a little wiser:
“You will always have experience through time (and never experience time).”
And, on the other side of the coin, unless the son is wise beyond his years to understand:
“You are you, and you always will be.”
So, at age 24, I became aware of my personality. One day, perhaps, I will die (“When I was 10 years old, I first became aware of my mortality.”); however, whether I die or not, I will always be me. Not!
The title of the thread is irellevant. You said to me:
Well, explain your absolute certainty then…
Oh brother. :rolleyes:
You asked me (bolding mine):
*and why being uncertain is considered some sort of flaw in these discussions. *
I answered you. Above you are filibustering.
I’ve responded to statements you’ve made regardless of what the topic of the thread is. I don’t need “concrete proof” for anything (and that is again independent of what the thread title is).
WTF? So where does the “no” come in? I just said it’s based on evidence and you think it’s relevant to once again bring up that there is no absolute knowledge in science? Again, where does the “no” come in? You don’t agree that claims or beliefs based on evidence trump those that are contrary to the evidence?
I am God. I hate to break it to you all, but there is no after-life.
There is, or was in all of your cases, a before-life. I hope you all enjoyed it.
So, you’re saying you’re convinced your “personality” lives on, in a round-about way of what I outlined in post #54?
I “became aware of my mortality” meaning, you know, one day I’m going to die.
I became aware of my personality, meaning, well, “I” (supposedly) can never be “you”.
How deep. :dubious: