Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is no conscious experience which is anything BUT subjective experience.
Even if everyone on the planet were to suddenly see the same thing and agree with that, this is still collectively a subjective experience.
The technique of repeatable experiment has long since overcome this limitation. Automated instrumentation and control systems provide objective data and data manipulation with no recourse to consciousness at all. Your philosophical stance was destroyed by Norbert Weiner in 1948. At this point in human history to argue that there is no objective reality is nonsense. If reality were not objective, our machines would not work.
At this point in human history to argue that there is no objective reality is nonsense. If reality were not objective, our machines would not work.
There are different degrees of objectivity, because there are different degrees of certainty. We can have a high degree of certainty about the numbers that come out of a properly calibrated and operated device like an encephalograph. We can have relatively less certainty about the hypotheses and opinions expressed about those numbers, particularly around certain topics. And people can always claim that there are other aspects of brain activity we don't know how to measure. And that is always at least remotely possible.
People looking for woo will always find gaps in knowledge and understanding where they can hopefully spin yarns about deities and afterlives and superpowers and so forth that science can't currently absolutely refute. Some people understand the value of the scientific method, understand how to check for logical fallacies, understand burden of proof, preponderance of evidence, and the like; some either don't or won't because they really crave immortality and other comforting lies.
So it goes and so it will for all practical purposes always be.
There will never be 100% certainty about 100% of reality and therefore reality will never be 100% objective. That doesn't mean we should fear when we have only 90% certainty or that we should devolve to superstition when we have only 40% certainty.
There will never be 100% certainty about 100% of reality and therefore reality will never be 100% objective. That doesn't mean we should fear when we have only 90% certainty or that we should devolve to superstition when we have only 40% certainty.
Exactly. Most things that are 90%+ certain are facts for all practical purposes. I would guesstimate that it's at least 95% certain that life evolved. While many of the specific stages and processes of evolution are unknown -and probably always will be because the fossil record is incomplete- the evidence that life has been evolving since it emerged is so overwhelming it's essentially a scientific fact (if not an absolute fact).
In terms of an afterlife, I would argue it's about 98% likely none exists. While we don't know exactly how each aspect of the brain corresponds to mental function and consciousness, we do know everything we experience is rooted in the brain. Consequently, every bit of evidence indicates every aspect of experience and consciousness ceases when brain function does.
As I think I've written before, I'm 98% certain there's no afterlife and 95% certain there's no god.
That's pretty much it. We can be certain of the data we have but (as the creationists say) it's all in the interpretation. It is accepted that you can't get 100% certainly even about validated facts as it is just remotely possible that this is all an illusion dreamed up by a computer -using alien. It follows that evidence -based certainly in the 90's is reliable fact for all practical purposes. It is when you get to the 60- 70% only probability that the Woo aspect can ask for serious consideration.
We give it that, as in NDE's, Abiogenesis and First cause. I at one tome put exodus and the Conquest in the 60 -70% + probbility area but now it is in the 80% probability against. Because of the evidence coming out.
None of this gives the afterlife -fanciers the validation they are always insisting on. It has never been correct to take as a pretty reliable fact what is still something observed but is only partially explained (1).
As this is where all the supernaturalists, God -believers and enthusiast for woo come a cropper every time, because, even if they do not seem to realise it, when they accuse us of closed -minded denial and rejection, what they are accusing us of is lacking gullible acceptance as 90+% reliable fact of claims that are failing to even make the probability cut.
(1) our pal Eusebius would say that this is just what we do with abiogenesis. Except it isn't even observed in the fossil record. It is really tracing the path back hypothetically and proposing some mechanism that woukld work. It is a bit like the Higgs -Boson. couldn't claim it as fact, but thought it ought be.
I used to be fascinated with NDEs until I applied cold logic to it. Now I annoy people by calling them Not Death Experiences. If you need a doctor you don't settle for someone who almost went to medical school. They use NDEs because there is no data about afterlife and I doubt there ever will be. Legal/medical death is based on biological symptoms that are about the best we can do short of waiting for the person to pass the sniff test. If someone is detected as dead but actually survives, we were wrong about them being dead. It happens.
We are all living in some kind of virtual reality, and when we die (our human animal bodies and brains) the illusion ends. That's my belief, can't prove me wrong. Additionally, I believe that what someone believes makes not one iota of difference, it's inconsequential. These types of debates are pointless.
We are all living in some kind of virtual reality, and when we die (our human animal bodies and brains) the illusion ends. That's my belief, can't prove me wrong. Additionally, I believe that what someone believes makes not one iota of difference, it's inconsequential. These types of debates are pointless.
While we can't entirely disprove your belief, since there's no evidence for it, most of us with evidence-based beliefs would consider it highly unlikely; so unlikely it's not even worth considering.
If these types of debates are pointless why are you participating?
We are all living in some kind of virtual reality, and when we die (our human animal bodies and brains) the illusion ends. That's my belief, can't prove me wrong. Additionally, I believe that what someone believes makes not one iota of difference, it's inconsequential. These types of debates are pointless.
You are correct that solipsism does not meet the criterion of disproof. There is no way to prove you wrong. It's not acceptable to scientific inquiry for this reason. Wolfgang Pauli made a pithy statement once about propositions that are not testable by experiment, "it is not only not right, it is not even wrong!"
Solipsism has been a key feature of religions for thousands of years. It is part of the Upanishads from 3000 years ago. It's a great basis for a religion because it is totally meaningless.
Believer: "Individual consciousness ceases to be. There is no afterlife!" (OP)
Q: How do you know!
Believer: *Points to a cadaver*
Hello all.
I've met some flimsy straw men in my time, but this "Believer" fellow takes the prize.
In the end, this argument is no different from others that have been bandied about this site for a long time. The general formula is to set an impossible standard of evidence, then (when that standard cannot be met) insist that some implausible/supernatural explanation must be considered on equal footing with that supported by a preponderance of evidence.
All empirical data indicates that cognition is inextricably tied to brain function, and it is therefore logical to conclude that cognition ceases when brain function ceases. Nor is there any known mechanism by which consciousness could endure outside of the physical brain. If this does not meet your personal criteria of conclusive evidence, then you are free to substitute whatever beliefs appeal to you. It does not change the fact that it (the end if consciousness at brain death) is by far the most likely scenario based on available scientific information.
It's a classic piece of misdirection to immediately start talking about "god," which is an undefined hypothesis not subject to the criterion of disproof. I know as much about God as anyone in the whole history of the human race, which is to say, nothing at all. Anyone who claims else is a braggart and a blowhard, or a simple deluded fool.
I prefer to examine what is in front of me, on a human scale easily understood and tested by humans. The plain fact is that human conscousness and memory arises from biology and depends on a functioning human brain. When your brain dies, so do your thoughts, memory and consciousness. This is easily observed. All attempts to demonstrate otherwise have failed.
There is no life after death. Any religion promising an afterlife is a false religion. That's about as simple as it gets. The idea that you will somehow "go on" is an immensely attractive fantasy, but it's not going to happen.
I don't think there's conclusive proof one way or the other but you might want to take a look at the Southampton study recently concluded in Britain that had some hardcore skeptics scratching their heads:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
