I know you would turn around and say that it isn't necessarily stating that at all, but if the argument was in fact all for the possibility of an existing immaterial state of being, why on earth would it be arguing against the possibility of an immaterial state of being after a material death in the first place?
One possibility is that the immaterial aspect of being is generated by the material aspect and thus exists while the material aspect is active, but ceases to exist once the material aspect is destroyed. Regardless, the fact remains that a person who believes A does not have to have any stance on the existence of an immaterial state of being whereas a person who believes B does. You can't just add assumptions where there are none.
I understand where you're trying to say here, but this example doesn't really coincide with what we were talking about. We know cars exist, we know driveways exist, we know cars can be parked in driveways. These are facts. There is nothing factual about option "A", nor option "B". Both options are completely grounded in assumption.
Well, we know that what we identify as consciousness is tied to physical structures in the brain and we know that these structures are destroyed when a person dies. So this would lead us to believe that a person's consciousness is destroyed when he or she dies. Option A is based on this and nothing more. Option B is the one that has additional metaphysical baggage, since it presupposes the existence of a thing that is outside the scope of things we know to exist.
In both the car example and the afterlife, the believer has no access to the truth of the world. You can't possibly know for a fact that there is or is not an invisible car in my driveway, nor do you know for a fact that there is or is not an afterlife. But I think you'd agree that it would be quite unreasonable for you to believe that there is an invisible car in my driveway, but quite reasonable for you to believe that there isn't an invisible car in my driveway. Either way, you could say that you're making an assumption about the state of the world, but that doesn't make both assumptions valid.
Anyway, us arguing over the properties of an immaterial state of being is really pointless considering neither of us has a clue.
Well, my problem with it is that it's a very incoherent notion. When we use terms like "I" and "me," we have a pretty good sense of what we're referring to. But, taking reincarnation as an example, when I say that "I" will be reincarnated, what is the "I" that I'm referring to? If it's not some aspect of my consciousness, then what sense is it "me?" Moreover, if no aspect of me as a conscious being is passed onto the being that I am reincarnated as, then what's the point of calling it an afterlife?
It absolutely does matter. Assuming that there's an immaterial essence tied to every human being that persists after their death is a pretty… more major leap of faith.
All we're dealing with is assumption. I could argue that option "A" is taking a leap of faith in stating that there is not an immaterial state of being. I know you would turn around and say that it isn't necessarily stating that at all, but if the argument was in fact all for the possibility of an existing immaterial state of being, why on earth would it be arguing against the possibility of an immaterial state of being after a material death in the first place? Where is the logic in that? Should we add more assumptions to this argument in order to explain how an immaterial state of being can not possibly survive a material death? If so, that adds advantage to option "B".
Honestly though, using Occam's Razor here is a little pointless, considering both arguments are solely… [view original content]
One possibility is that the immaterial aspect of being is generated by the material aspect and thus exists while the material aspect is active, but ceases to exist once the material aspect is destroyed.
I understand that, but that would also qualify as an additional assumption.
Regardless, the fact remains that a person who believes A does not have to have any stance on the existence of an immaterial state of being whereas a person who believes B does. You can't just add assumptions where there are none.
Anyone arguing for option "A" has to have a stance on the existence of an immaterial state... unless they are choosing option "A" using zero reasoning/ thought process. A simple questioning of why they chose option "A" would tell us what their stance is. Either they don't believe in an immaterial state of being, or they think that an immaterial state is destroyed along with the death of the material. They can't possibly avoid both of these alternatives, unless they are picking option "A" for no particular reason. I'm not adding assumptions here.
If we work backwards from the original statement, we can arrive at this same conclusion:
"Nothing happens after death"
"Nothing" would obviously imply that there is no immaterial state of being following death. This then begs the question of whether or not an immaterial state existed before death. We then have the two alternative answers to that question, which coincide with the whole idea of "Nothing happens after death". Whichever of those alternative answers is used for the reasoning, that answer can be seen as an additional assumption to the overall stance.
As an aside, I would like to once again add that I don't think this process is a very good one to use in regards to what we're debating here:
"And even if we want to act like Occam's Razor does in fact add more legitimacy to option "A", that doesn't make option "B" incorrect. It doesn't make it unreasonable to be a believer of option "B", especially when personal life experiences are factored into that personal decision making."
"The whole point of Occam's Razor is to gravitate towards the simplest answer, and to stray away from assumption. When both arguments are completely grounded in assumption, this becomes a baseless process in terms of actually using it to tell someone their beliefs are unreasonable. The simplest answer is not always the correct one, or the most prudent one to follow. Especially when there is no body of knowledge to base it on. A simple explanation isn't necessarily more likely to be correct (strictly talking about probability here) in comparison to a slightly less simple explanation. That's an abstract idea that doesn't hold true for every given case. It doesn't actually tell us for sure what is more probable (again, this is especially true considering we have no actual body of knowledge to look at)."
Well, we know that what we identify as consciousness is tied to physical structures in the brain and we know that these structures are destroyed when a person dies. So this would lead us to believe that a person's consciousness is destroyed when he or she dies. Option A is based on this and nothing more. Option B is the one that has additional metaphysical baggage, since it presupposes the existence of a thing that is outside the scope of things we know to exist.
Ah, that's a good point. Can't really disagree with you there. I suppose I was talking more in regards to the conclusions of both arguments instead of the overall reasoning leading up to those conclusions. But yes, I would say you are correct in the fact that option "B" contains "additional metaphyscial baggage" in it's reasoning.
As for the invisible car example, it still isn't the same principle... in regards to arguing that the idea of an afterlife is similar to believing in an invisible car. I'm honestly not sure if you are trying to argue that or not.
Well, my problem with it is that it's a very incoherent notion. When we use terms like "I" and "me," we have a pretty good sense of what we're referring to. But, taking reincarnation as an example, when I say that "I" will be reincarnated, what is the "I" that I'm referring to? If it's not some aspect of my consciousness, then what sense is it "me?" Moreover, if no aspect of me as a conscious being is passed onto the being that I am reincarnated as, then what's the point of calling it an afterlife?
You're trying to add definition/principle to something that no one knows anything about. As much as I would like to debate the matter, I don't know how we could possibly go about doing that. We would both just be completely grasping at straws. I mean, I could argue that our immaterial selves are completely independent of our material selves, and once freed of those constraints, can operate as such (I don't even know if that is what I necessarily believe... just giving an example). Obviously you can argue against that, but neither of us can do anything to really prove anything in regards to how such a thing would work or not work.
I know you would turn around and say that it isn't necessarily stating that at all, but if the argument was in fact all for the possibility … moreof an existing immaterial state of being, why on earth would it be arguing against the possibility of an immaterial state of being after a material death in the first place?
One possibility is that the immaterial aspect of being is generated by the material aspect and thus exists while the material aspect is active, but ceases to exist once the material aspect is destroyed. Regardless, the fact remains that a person who believes A does not have to have any stance on the existence of an immaterial state of being whereas a person who believes B does. You can't just add assumptions where there are none.
I understand where you're trying to say here, but this example doesn't really coincide with what we were talking about. We know cars exist, we know driveways exist, we know cars can be parked in… [view original content]
Either they don't believe in an immaterial state of being, or they think that an immaterial state is destroyed along with the death of the material. They can't possibly avoid both of these alternatives, unless they are picking option "A" for no particular reason.
No, it's perfectly fine to be agnostic or undecided towards the existence of an immaterial state of being and still profess a belief that there isn't an afterlife. Such a view would be stated as as "regardless of whether or not there is an immaterial state of being, such a state does not exist after death" whereas the opposing view would be "there is an immaterial state of being and such a state exists after death." The former is a wider view than the latter because it's only constrained by one claim rather than two. Yes, you can further specify the view, but then you're changing what the view is. We're looking simply at the claim that there is an afterlife vs the claim that there isn't an afterlife.
And even if we want to act like Occam's Razor does in fact add more legitimacy to option "A", that doesn't make option "B" incorrect. The simplest answer is not always the correct one, or the most prudent one to follow. Especially when there is no body of knowledge to base it on. A simple explanation isn't necessarily more likely to be correct (strictly talking about probability here) in comparison to a slightly less simple explanation.
Well, yes, we're not trying to determine probability or truth value here. We're trying to determine which of two views is more reasonable. A belief can be unreasonable and still be true, and it can be reasonable and untrue. What I'm trying to show here is that it is more reasonable to believe that there isn't an afterlife than to believe that there is.
In regards to the invisible car though, it still isn't the same principle.. in regards to arguing that the idea of an afterlife is similar to believing in an invisible car. I'm honestly not sure if you are trying to argue that or not.
Well point out where you think the difference lies and we'll try to parse it out.
One possibility is that the immaterial aspect of being is generated by the material aspect and thus exists while the material aspect is acti… moreve, but ceases to exist once the material aspect is destroyed.
I understand that, but that would also qualify as an additional assumption.
Regardless, the fact remains that a person who believes A does not have to have any stance on the existence of an immaterial state of being whereas a person who believes B does. You can't just add assumptions where there are none.
Anyone arguing for option "A" has to have a stance on the existence of an immaterial state... unless they are choosing option "A" using zero reasoning/ thought process. A simple questioning of why they chose option "A" would tell us what their stance is. Either they don't believe in an immaterial state of being, or they think that an immaterial state is destroyed along with the death of the material. They can't possibly … [view original content]
No, it's perfectly fine to be agnostic or undecided towards the existence of an immaterial state of being and still profess a belief that there isn't an afterlife.
No doubt it is totally fine. However, it should not be used to help push the logic of an argument. You can't actually be undecided and then logically choose one answer over the other. That would mean you are doing so without reason... and considering we're debating reasoning here, it really defeats the whole purpose.
Any valid sort of argument in support of option "A" is going to fall under the two categories I mentioned above.
Such a view would be stated as as "regardless of whether or not there is an immaterial state of being, such a state does not exist after death" whereas the opposing view would be "there is an immaterial state of being and such a state exists after death." The former is a wider view than the latter because it's only constrained by one claim rather than two. Yes, you can further specify the view, but then you're changing what the view is. We're looking simply at the claim that there is an afterlife vs the claim that there isn't an afterlife.
As I stated above, we simply can not ignore the actual thought process that goes into forming option "A". I mean, you're totally doing as much for option "B" in figuring out that the conclusion is based on the thought process that an immaterial self exists. Option "A" (as a legitimate/logical conclusion to the question at hand) is formed by the thought process that either an immaterial self does not exist, or that the immaterial self dies upon a material death. These things have to be true.
I honestly don't know if there is even a point in going back and forth on this particular issue seeing as we don't even agree with the application of this process in this overall debate anyway.
Well, yes, we're not trying to determine probability or truth value here. We're trying to determine which of two views is more reasonable. A belief can be unreasonable and still be true, and it can be reasonable and untrue. What I'm trying to show here is that it is more reasonable to believe that there isn't an afterlife than to believe that there is.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the entire purpose of the process all about selecting the answer with the fewest assumptions for the simple fact that it would have less assumptions to satisfy, and therefore supposedly be more probable to end up being legitimate? I agree with you in the fact that a belief can be unreasonable and yet still end up being true. I agree with you in the fact that a belief can be reasonable and yet end up being untrue. I don't know where you're trying to go with those thoughts, though.
Well point out where you think the difference lies and we'll try to parse it out.
There are a set of reasons for the belief in an afterlife. Same for the belief in a creator. It is an argument of purpose, and an argument of process. A process that we are all a part of. It isn’t just some completely contrived situation. It doesn’t compare to the close-ended idea that an invisible car could exist. We are facing a set situation with no clear answer. How we individually choose to reason with this situation is up to us. Based on my life experiences, I believe in a creator, and I tend to lean towards there being an afterlife. No one can tell me this is illogical or unreasonable. Again, it isn’t as if we’re looking at a ridiculous made up answer to a made up scenario. We’re talking about a very real set of circumstances here (existence, death), and we’re simply looking at what possible set of answers are staring us in the face. This is entirely why I brought up the whole example of “Option A” and “Option B”.
That was somewhat difficult to put into words, but hopefully you understand what I’m getting at. And just to clarify here, I'm not even really trying to advocate for one option over the other, simply trying to show that such decision making is largely subjective.
Either they don't believe in an immaterial state of being, or they think that an immaterial state is destroyed along with the death of the m… moreaterial. They can't possibly avoid both of these alternatives, unless they are picking option "A" for no particular reason.
No, it's perfectly fine to be agnostic or undecided towards the existence of an immaterial state of being and still profess a belief that there isn't an afterlife. Such a view would be stated as as "regardless of whether or not there is an immaterial state of being, such a state does not exist after death" whereas the opposing view would be "there is an immaterial state of being and such a state exists after death." The former is a wider view than the latter because it's only constrained by one claim rather than two. Yes, you can further specify the view, but then you're changing what the view is. We're looking simply at the claim that there is an afterlife vs the claim that … [view original content]
I mean, you're totally doing as much for option "B" in figuring out that the conclusion is based on the thought process that an immaterial self exists. Option "A" (as a legitimate/logical conclusion to the question at hand) is formed by the thought process that either an immaterial self does not exist, or that the immaterial self dies upon a material death. These things have to be true.
Okay, maybe this will help. Suppose we were speculating about whether or not a random person named Mary, whom we know nothing about, will get a divorce at some point in her life. View A is that she will not get a divorce. View B is that she will get a divorce. In order for view B to be true, it requires that Mary be married at some point in her life. That's an additional assumption that A does not have to take on. It's not a thought process supporting a conclusion, it's intrinsic to the conclusion itself. The view that Mary will not get a divorce could potentially be supported either by the revelation that Mary will not get married or by the revelation that Mary did get married but never chose to get a divorce. The crucial point here is that A does not require any specific a priori assumption about Mary's marriage state, whereas B does. This intrinsic specificity found in B is what makes it a weaker claim than A.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the entire purpose of the process all about selecting the answer with the fewest assumptions for the simple fact that it would have less assumptions to satisfy, and therefore supposedly be more probable to end up being legitimate?
Use of the word "probable" here is problematic since there's no way easy way of quantifying the likelihood of an outcome in this case. It's not like a coin clip or dice roll where we know the probability distribution. We can't really identify whether A or B is more "probable" in terms of their likelihood of being true, only which of the two is more reasonable to believe given what we know.
There are a set of reasons for the belief in an afterlife. Same for the belief in a creator. It is an argument of purpose, and an argument of process.
But we're not talking about those arguments here. If you want to debate the positive arguments for and against an afterlife or a creator, we can do so another time. What we're looking at is the logical process involve in believing in something in the absence of arguments for or against its existence. If people have their own personal, experiential reasons for believing in an afterlife (miracles, religious revelations, etc), that's fine. I can't argue against that. But if their only argument for their belief is that "I can't prove that their belief is false" or that "there's no evidence for either side", then I would point out that that's silly for exactly the reason it would be silly for them to believe that I have an invisible car in my driveway.
No, it's perfectly fine to be agnostic or undecided towards the existence of an immaterial state of being and still profess a belief that th… moreere isn't an afterlife.
No doubt it is totally fine. However, it should not be used to help push the logic of an argument. You can't actually be undecided and then logically choose one answer over the other. That would mean you are doing so without reason... and considering we're debating reasoning here, it really defeats the whole purpose.
Any valid sort of argument in support of option "A" is going to fall under the two categories I mentioned above.
Such a view would be stated as as "regardless of whether or not there is an immaterial state of being, such a state does not exist after death" whereas the opposing view would be "there is an immaterial state of being and such a state exists after death." The former is a wider view than the latter because it's only constrained by one claim r… [view original content]
I mean, you're totally doing as much for option "B" in figuring out that the conclusion is based on the thought process that an immaterial s… moreelf exists. Option "A" (as a legitimate/logical conclusion to the question at hand) is formed by the thought process that either an immaterial self does not exist, or that the immaterial self dies upon a material death. These things have to be true.
Okay, maybe this will help. Suppose we were speculating about whether or not a random person named Mary, whom we know nothing about, will get a divorce at some point in her life. View A is that she will not get a divorce. View B is that she will get a divorce. In order for view B to be true, it requires that Mary be married at some point in her life. That's an additional assumption that A does not have to take on. It's not a thought process supporting a conclusion, it's intrinsic to the conclusion itself. The view that Mary will not get a divorce could… [view original content]
Sorry, fast scrolling, and I do feel like I need to interject.
The only reason we don't know with absolute certainty that nothing happens after death is because it's an unfalsifiable claim. The more we come to understand the nature of consciousness the more evidence we keep finding that it is an emergent property of the brain. That's what everything seems to suggest.
We don't "know" that there's no afterlife in the same way that we don't "know" that there are no fairies, no unicorns, and no magical block of conscious cheese on the dark side of Pluto.
There is simply no reason to believe that there "is" life after death other than wishful thinking.
You're over-complicating the argument, and you kind of completely ignored the actual points I made. You brought up some interesting topics o… moref conversation... but lets try and pull this debate back on course.
Again, we know that we're going to die at some point. What comes after that, indisputably falls into these two categories:
A: Nothing happens after death.
B: There is an afterlife of some sort after death.
One of these two things will happen. That is indisputable. We have no clue which one will, but we're free to speculate/ use our life experiences. You can't tell someone to grow up for believing in a totally valid possible outcome to a situation that is staring us right in the face.
Following your own logic, I would expect you to also refute the idea that there is nothing after we die. I would expect you to tell people who believe in nothing after death to "grow up". Of course that would just be ridiculous though. Again, only following the logic that you're presenting here..
I guess that depends on the procedure used to transfer your neurons from your brain to the virtual 1s and 0s and if the procedure destroyed your neurons in the process. My guess is it would not, so your physical body would age and die as any other, but your virtual person would live in immortality. How bitter sweet. I'd ask them to shoot me after the procedure was over if this was the case, so my virtual person (and therefore me... ish) has the illusion that I had just been transferred and that the other me wouldn't be walking around as mortal as the other mortals. Plus then the "me" wouldn't have to bare growing old and dying. I can't tell if that's fucked up or not....
Someone doesn't know what a straw man is.
Comparing an afterlife to unicorns/fairies is a completely sound, relevant argument. Belan didn't seem to understand there is a big difference between something and nothing, ie if there is no evidence we assume nothing is there. Just as how there is no evidence for unicorns or fairies, because there is no evidence. The idea of an afterlife and unicorns are very similar.
This reminds me of Star Trek teleporters. I'd never step on one of those. Those things destroy your matter and make a perfect copy elsewhere as it destroys you.
Pretty sure that from your perspective you'd poof out of existence. There'd be a perfect copy of you after you died, but... yeah... IMO in cannon every time a character is teleported a conscious entity dies (and a new one is created).
I guess that depends on the procedure used to transfer your neurons from your brain to the virtual 1s and 0s and if the procedure destroyed … moreyour neurons in the process. My guess is it would not, so your physical body would age and die as any other, but your virtual person would live in immortality. How bitter sweet. I'd ask them to shoot me after the procedure was over if this was the case, so my virtual person (and therefore me... ish) has the illusion that I had just been transferred and that the other me wouldn't be walking around as mortal as the other mortals. Plus then the "me" wouldn't have to bare growing old and dying. I can't tell if that's fucked up or not....
Thank you Sheldon. The thing about it is that it creates a perfect recreation of you. Every thought, every memory, every trait, everything. And this doesn't bother me, because the things that make me, me, as apposed to someone else, are my thoughts, my memories, my traits, etc.
This reminds me of Star Trek teleporters. I'd never step on one of those. Those things destroy your matter and make a perfect copy elsewhe… morere as it destroys you.
Pretty sure that from your perspective you'd poof out of existence. There'd be a perfect copy of you after you died, but... yeah... IMO in cannon every time a character is teleported a conscious entity dies (and a new one is created).
Thank you Sheldon. The thing about it is that it creates a perfect recreation of you. Every thought, every memory, every trait, everything. … more And this doesn't bother me, because the things that make me, me, as apposed to someone else, are my thoughts, my memories, my traits, etc.
All the things that make me me are still there. If everything about my consciousness/sub consciousness/body (to the minutest detail) is still there, then I am still there. I see you're argument, that the original you is now gone, but to me as long as I still exist (because the perfect recreation is literally perfect and every single little thing about me is present) then I was never, for all intents and purposes, destroyed. "I" would be alive and well on the other side of the teleporter. Just like I would be alive and well inside that hardware.
But "you" as in "your consciousness" is what I'm talking about.
Your consciousness is an emergent property of your brain. Figuring out h… moreow to copy it won't "move" it. It's still a copy, even if it's a perfect copy.
You feel me? "You" would die, and a perfect copy would be brought into existence.
I'm talking bout the nature of what causes "your perspective" to exist.
All evidence points to the idea that your perspective is an emergent property of your brain. By "your perspective" I mean the "you" that sees out of your eyes and experiences your senses.
If we're right about this then destroying the brain will cause "you" to stop existing regardless of if there is a perfect copy of you or not. The only way that "your perspective" could shift to the "new body" or whatever is if you bring magic into the mix (souls and whatnot), but there's no reason to suspect that this is how the world works.
For what it's worth, I hope I'm wrong (about life after death too) but there's no real reason to suspect that things work differently than that
All the things that make me me are still there. If everything about my consciousness/sub consciousness/body (to the minutest detail) is stil… morel there, then I am still there. I see you're argument, that the original you is now gone, but to me as long as I still exist (because the perfect recreation is literally perfect and every single little thing about me is present) then I was never, for all intents and purposes, destroyed. "I" would be alive and well on the other side of the teleporter. Just like I would be alive and well inside that hardware.
But the new you has your exact memories up to the point of "disintegration" so your perspective has moved. The original you is gone, but the perfect recreation is you in a different spot. Your original perspective is gone, but the perspective of the "clone" is exactly the same as yours picking up from the exact point where the other ends. There is no difference in perspective for the "close" aside from the addition of memories from the disintegration stage onward. I see your point, I just don't agree.
(This is why, earlier, I stated I wished they would shoot me after the operation to move my mind to virtual.)
This conversation has taken a turn. I don't hope your wrong. Oblivion sounds like a much needed bliss after death.
EDIT: To say that your "perspective" would change even when your neurons are copied to perfection means there is more to your perspective than your material brain (since it would be copied to perfection), ergo "souls and whatnot."
I'm talking bout the nature of what causes "your perspective" to exist.
All evidence points to the idea that your perspective is an emerg… moreent property of your brain. By "your perspective" I mean the "you" that sees out of your eyes and experiences your senses.
If we're right about this then destroying the brain will cause "you" to stop existing regardless of if there is a perfect copy of you or not. The only way that "your perspective" could shift to the "new body" or whatever is if you bring magic into the mix (souls and whatnot), but there's no reason to suspect that this is how the world works.
For what it's worth, I hope I'm wrong (about life after death too) but there's no real reason to suspect that things work differently than that
But the new you has your exact memories up to the point of "disintegration" so your perspective has moved. The original you is gone, but the… more perfect recreation is you in a different spot. Your original perspective is gone, but the perspective of the "clone" is exactly the same as yours picking up from the exact point where the other ends. There is no difference in perspective for the "close" aside from the addition of memories from the disintegration stage onward. I see your point, I just don't agree.
(This is why, earlier, I stated I wished they would shoot me after the operation to move my mind to virtual.)
This conversation has taken a turn. I don't hope your wrong. Oblivion sounds like a much needed bliss after death.
EDIT: To say that your "perspective" would change even when your neurons are copied to perfection means there is more to your perspective than your material brain (since it would be copied to perfection), ergo "souls and whatnot."
Right, from the clone's POV it would look seem like he warped, but from "your" POV... well you'd just die. Bam! Oblivion.
We understan… mored each-other I think. I'm never stepping into a teleporter lol. I don't want to die so that a perfect copy of me can live somewhere else.
Last note: You would never know you died. The new you would only know he moved.
If it got me onto a Star Fleet Starship... I'd take a million teleporters
I feel I must reiterate the fact: "To say that your "perspective" would change even when your neurons are copied to perfection means there is more to your perspective than your material brain (since it would be copied to perfection), ergo "souls and whatnot.""
If you talked me out of wanting to go on a deep-space spaceship I may hold a bit of a grudge also :P lol
Well... yeah, it would be very fast and painless, but without souls and magic you'd just be dead
Haha, I had this conversation with a fr… moreiend of mine who "loves" Star Trek and he hates me for it . He's never stepping into a teleporter either, now.
Comments
One possibility is that the immaterial aspect of being is generated by the material aspect and thus exists while the material aspect is active, but ceases to exist once the material aspect is destroyed. Regardless, the fact remains that a person who believes A does not have to have any stance on the existence of an immaterial state of being whereas a person who believes B does. You can't just add assumptions where there are none.
Well, we know that what we identify as consciousness is tied to physical structures in the brain and we know that these structures are destroyed when a person dies. So this would lead us to believe that a person's consciousness is destroyed when he or she dies. Option A is based on this and nothing more. Option B is the one that has additional metaphysical baggage, since it presupposes the existence of a thing that is outside the scope of things we know to exist.
In both the car example and the afterlife, the believer has no access to the truth of the world. You can't possibly know for a fact that there is or is not an invisible car in my driveway, nor do you know for a fact that there is or is not an afterlife. But I think you'd agree that it would be quite unreasonable for you to believe that there is an invisible car in my driveway, but quite reasonable for you to believe that there isn't an invisible car in my driveway. Either way, you could say that you're making an assumption about the state of the world, but that doesn't make both assumptions valid.
Well, my problem with it is that it's a very incoherent notion. When we use terms like "I" and "me," we have a pretty good sense of what we're referring to. But, taking reincarnation as an example, when I say that "I" will be reincarnated, what is the "I" that I'm referring to? If it's not some aspect of my consciousness, then what sense is it "me?" Moreover, if no aspect of me as a conscious being is passed onto the being that I am reincarnated as, then what's the point of calling it an afterlife?
I understand that, but that would also qualify as an additional assumption.
Anyone arguing for option "A" has to have a stance on the existence of an immaterial state... unless they are choosing option "A" using zero reasoning/ thought process. A simple questioning of why they chose option "A" would tell us what their stance is. Either they don't believe in an immaterial state of being, or they think that an immaterial state is destroyed along with the death of the material. They can't possibly avoid both of these alternatives, unless they are picking option "A" for no particular reason. I'm not adding assumptions here.
If we work backwards from the original statement, we can arrive at this same conclusion:
"Nothing happens after death"
"Nothing" would obviously imply that there is no immaterial state of being following death. This then begs the question of whether or not an immaterial state existed before death. We then have the two alternative answers to that question, which coincide with the whole idea of "Nothing happens after death". Whichever of those alternative answers is used for the reasoning, that answer can be seen as an additional assumption to the overall stance.
As an aside, I would like to once again add that I don't think this process is a very good one to use in regards to what we're debating here:
"And even if we want to act like Occam's Razor does in fact add more legitimacy to option "A", that doesn't make option "B" incorrect. It doesn't make it unreasonable to be a believer of option "B", especially when personal life experiences are factored into that personal decision making."
"The whole point of Occam's Razor is to gravitate towards the simplest answer, and to stray away from assumption. When both arguments are completely grounded in assumption, this becomes a baseless process in terms of actually using it to tell someone their beliefs are unreasonable. The simplest answer is not always the correct one, or the most prudent one to follow. Especially when there is no body of knowledge to base it on. A simple explanation isn't necessarily more likely to be correct (strictly talking about probability here) in comparison to a slightly less simple explanation. That's an abstract idea that doesn't hold true for every given case. It doesn't actually tell us for sure what is more probable (again, this is especially true considering we have no actual body of knowledge to look at)."
Ah, that's a good point. Can't really disagree with you there. I suppose I was talking more in regards to the conclusions of both arguments instead of the overall reasoning leading up to those conclusions. But yes, I would say you are correct in the fact that option "B" contains "additional metaphyscial baggage" in it's reasoning.
As for the invisible car example, it still isn't the same principle... in regards to arguing that the idea of an afterlife is similar to believing in an invisible car. I'm honestly not sure if you are trying to argue that or not.
You're trying to add definition/principle to something that no one knows anything about. As much as I would like to debate the matter, I don't know how we could possibly go about doing that. We would both just be completely grasping at straws. I mean, I could argue that our immaterial selves are completely independent of our material selves, and once freed of those constraints, can operate as such (I don't even know if that is what I necessarily believe... just giving an example). Obviously you can argue against that, but neither of us can do anything to really prove anything in regards to how such a thing would work or not work.
No, it's perfectly fine to be agnostic or undecided towards the existence of an immaterial state of being and still profess a belief that there isn't an afterlife. Such a view would be stated as as "regardless of whether or not there is an immaterial state of being, such a state does not exist after death" whereas the opposing view would be "there is an immaterial state of being and such a state exists after death." The former is a wider view than the latter because it's only constrained by one claim rather than two. Yes, you can further specify the view, but then you're changing what the view is. We're looking simply at the claim that there is an afterlife vs the claim that there isn't an afterlife.
Well, yes, we're not trying to determine probability or truth value here. We're trying to determine which of two views is more reasonable. A belief can be unreasonable and still be true, and it can be reasonable and untrue. What I'm trying to show here is that it is more reasonable to believe that there isn't an afterlife than to believe that there is.
Well point out where you think the difference lies and we'll try to parse it out.
No doubt it is totally fine. However, it should not be used to help push the logic of an argument. You can't actually be undecided and then logically choose one answer over the other. That would mean you are doing so without reason... and considering we're debating reasoning here, it really defeats the whole purpose.
Any valid sort of argument in support of option "A" is going to fall under the two categories I mentioned above.
As I stated above, we simply can not ignore the actual thought process that goes into forming option "A". I mean, you're totally doing as much for option "B" in figuring out that the conclusion is based on the thought process that an immaterial self exists. Option "A" (as a legitimate/logical conclusion to the question at hand) is formed by the thought process that either an immaterial self does not exist, or that the immaterial self dies upon a material death. These things have to be true.
I honestly don't know if there is even a point in going back and forth on this particular issue seeing as we don't even agree with the application of this process in this overall debate anyway.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the entire purpose of the process all about selecting the answer with the fewest assumptions for the simple fact that it would have less assumptions to satisfy, and therefore supposedly be more probable to end up being legitimate? I agree with you in the fact that a belief can be unreasonable and yet still end up being true. I agree with you in the fact that a belief can be reasonable and yet end up being untrue. I don't know where you're trying to go with those thoughts, though.
There are a set of reasons for the belief in an afterlife. Same for the belief in a creator. It is an argument of purpose, and an argument of process. A process that we are all a part of. It isn’t just some completely contrived situation. It doesn’t compare to the close-ended idea that an invisible car could exist. We are facing a set situation with no clear answer. How we individually choose to reason with this situation is up to us. Based on my life experiences, I believe in a creator, and I tend to lean towards there being an afterlife. No one can tell me this is illogical or unreasonable. Again, it isn’t as if we’re looking at a ridiculous made up answer to a made up scenario. We’re talking about a very real set of circumstances here (existence, death), and we’re simply looking at what possible set of answers are staring us in the face. This is entirely why I brought up the whole example of “Option A” and “Option B”.
That was somewhat difficult to put into words, but hopefully you understand what I’m getting at. And just to clarify here, I'm not even really trying to advocate for one option over the other, simply trying to show that such decision making is largely subjective.
Here soon we will be able to, theoretically, upload our minds to hardware.
Double post. Stupid forum!
Okay, maybe this will help. Suppose we were speculating about whether or not a random person named Mary, whom we know nothing about, will get a divorce at some point in her life. View A is that she will not get a divorce. View B is that she will get a divorce. In order for view B to be true, it requires that Mary be married at some point in her life. That's an additional assumption that A does not have to take on. It's not a thought process supporting a conclusion, it's intrinsic to the conclusion itself. The view that Mary will not get a divorce could potentially be supported either by the revelation that Mary will not get married or by the revelation that Mary did get married but never chose to get a divorce. The crucial point here is that A does not require any specific a priori assumption about Mary's marriage state, whereas B does. This intrinsic specificity found in B is what makes it a weaker claim than A.
Use of the word "probable" here is problematic since there's no way easy way of quantifying the likelihood of an outcome in this case. It's not like a coin clip or dice roll where we know the probability distribution. We can't really identify whether A or B is more "probable" in terms of their likelihood of being true, only which of the two is more reasonable to believe given what we know.
But we're not talking about those arguments here. If you want to debate the positive arguments for and against an afterlife or a creator, we can do so another time. What we're looking at is the logical process involve in believing in something in the absence of arguments for or against its existence. If people have their own personal, experiential reasons for believing in an afterlife (miracles, religious revelations, etc), that's fine. I can't argue against that. But if their only argument for their belief is that "I can't prove that their belief is false" or that "there's no evidence for either side", then I would point out that that's silly for exactly the reason it would be silly for them to believe that I have an invisible car in my driveway.
You are saying what I wanted to say, only miles better. Thanks Dome
I'm a Christian, so I believe that there is an afterlife.
Sorry, fast scrolling, and I do feel like I need to interject.
The only reason we don't know with absolute certainty that nothing happens after death is because it's an unfalsifiable claim. The more we come to understand the nature of consciousness the more evidence we keep finding that it is an emergent property of the brain. That's what everything seems to suggest.
We don't "know" that there's no afterlife in the same way that we don't "know" that there are no fairies, no unicorns, and no magical block of conscious cheese on the dark side of Pluto.
There is simply no reason to believe that there "is" life after death other than wishful thinking.
I'm of the opinion that making a copy of your consciousness won't actually "move" your consciousness, from your perspective
I guess that depends on the procedure used to transfer your neurons from your brain to the virtual 1s and 0s and if the procedure destroyed your neurons in the process. My guess is it would not, so your physical body would age and die as any other, but your virtual person would live in immortality. How bitter sweet. I'd ask them to shoot me after the procedure was over if this was the case, so my virtual person (and therefore me... ish) has the illusion that I had just been transferred and that the other me wouldn't be walking around as mortal as the other mortals. Plus then the "me" wouldn't have to bare growing old and dying. I can't tell if that's fucked up or not....
[removed]
Someone doesn't know what a straw man is.
Comparing an afterlife to unicorns/fairies is a completely sound, relevant argument. Belan didn't seem to understand there is a big difference between something and nothing, ie if there is no evidence we assume nothing is there. Just as how there is no evidence for unicorns or fairies, because there is no evidence. The idea of an afterlife and unicorns are very similar.
This reminds me of Star Trek teleporters. I'd never step on one of those. Those things destroy your matter and make a perfect copy elsewhere as it destroys you.
Pretty sure that from your perspective you'd poof out of existence. There'd be a perfect copy of you after you died, but... yeah... IMO in cannon every time a character is teleported a conscious entity dies (and a new one is created).
Thank you Sheldon. The thing about it is that it creates a perfect recreation of you. Every thought, every memory, every trait, everything. And this doesn't bother me, because the things that make me, me, as apposed to someone else, are my thoughts, my memories, my traits, etc.
But "you" as in "your consciousness" is what I'm talking about.
Your consciousness is an emergent property of your brain. Figuring out how to copy it won't "move" it. It's still a copy, even if it's a perfect copy.
You feel me? "You" would die, and a perfect copy would be brought into existence.
All the things that make me me are still there. If everything about my consciousness/sub consciousness/body (to the minutest detail) is still there, then I am still there. I see you're argument, that the original you is now gone, but to me as long as I still exist (because the perfect recreation is literally perfect and every single little thing about me is present) then I was never, for all intents and purposes, destroyed. "I" would be alive and well on the other side of the teleporter. Just like I would be alive and well inside that hardware.
I'm talking bout the nature of what causes "your perspective" to exist.
All evidence points to the idea that your perspective is an emergent property of your brain. By "your perspective" I mean the "you" that sees out of your eyes and experiences your senses.
If we're right about this then destroying the brain will cause "you" to stop existing regardless of if there is a perfect copy of you or not. The only way that "your perspective" could shift to the "new body" or whatever is if you bring magic into the mix (souls and whatnot), but there's no reason to suspect that this is how the world works.
For what it's worth, I hope I'm wrong (about life after death too) but there's no real reason to suspect that things work differently than that
But the new you has your exact memories up to the point of "disintegration" so your perspective has moved. The original you is gone, but the perfect recreation is you in a different spot. Your original perspective is gone, but the perspective of the "clone" is exactly the same as yours picking up from the exact point where the other ends. There is no difference in perspective for the "close" aside from the addition of memories from the disintegration stage onward. I see your point, I just don't agree.
(This is why, earlier, I stated I wished they would shoot me after the operation to move my mind to virtual.)
This conversation has taken a turn. I don't hope your wrong. Oblivion sounds like a much needed bliss after death.
EDIT: To say that your "perspective" would change even when your neurons are copied to perfection means there is more to your perspective than your material brain (since it would be copied to perfection), ergo "souls and whatnot."
Right, from the clone's POV it would look seem like he warped, but from "your" POV... well you'd just die. Bam! Oblivion.
We understand each-other I think. I'm never stepping into a teleporter lol. I don't want to die so that a perfect copy of me can live somewhere else.
Last note: You would never know you died. The new you would only know he moved.
If it got me onto a Star Fleet Starship... I'd take a million teleporters
Well... yeah, it would be very fast and painless, but without souls and magic you'd just be dead
Haha, I had this conversation with a friend of mine who "loves" Star Trek and he hates me for it
. He's never stepping into a teleporter either, now.
I feel I must reiterate the fact: "To say that your "perspective" would change even when your neurons are copied to perfection means there is more to your perspective than your material brain (since it would be copied to perfection), ergo "souls and whatnot.""
If you talked me out of wanting to go on a deep-space spaceship I may hold a bit of a grudge also :P lol