Life After Death

Off Topic
391

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Where is the hypokeimenon, in other words.

If physicalism, there is none. Indeed, if physicalism, there is, in a way, no self. The thing I (the pronoun is unavoidable – this is a linguistic constraint) call “me” is not some precise brain-state, but rather a loose and fuzzy entity which I perceive to be the “experiencer” of various thoughts, memories, qualia, etc. Because this experiencer’s past is connected to the present by way of its ability to avail itself of memorial neural connections, I think of it as consisting, on some essential level, of a constant and unchanging material. If physicalism, this is not the case, unless the physical consists, on a plane as yet undiscovered, of some such hypokeimenon.

[/quote]

The matter of the brain cannot be exactly defined it is in constant flux. How loose does a skin cell have to be for it to no longer be part of me? At what point does cow meat stop being cow meat and start being me when I eat it?

This is the same problem with definitions I was pointing out earlier. I have a problem accepting that physical definitions of language even can exist even if you allow alteration of the definition. I’ve continually asked on this board for the absolute physical definition of a chair. No one has even been able to give me the physical criteria for something as simple as chair-ness. I seriously doubt that exact physical definitions are even possible for what constitutes something as complicated as a thought or consciousness. Definitions require more continuity of system-ness than physicalism allows.

392

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I’ve continually asked on this board for the absolute physical definition of a chair. No one has even been able to give me the physical criteria for something as simple as chair-ness.
[/quote]

And no one ever will, and this gets at a few very well-worn and moderately useful philosophical discussions which we can assume every one of us has explored before.

The point that JJack and I are making is that none of these consequences – none of these assaults by physicalism on causality (that is for a different day), human self-conception, morality, value, language – constitutes even a single step in the direction of physicalism’s logical negation (or, for that matter, dualism’s affirmation).

393

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

You mean that’s not really Kirk, Spock, and Bones coming out on the other end of the transporter?[/quote]

Not only that, but Kirk, Spock, and Bones, or, rather, the actors who play them, do not even exist in the way that we think of them existing (as autonomous individual selves)

!

395

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It says that the question doesn’t exist, instead there is an arrangement of neurons in my brain that we could arbitrarily label as a question and gives rise to the false notion of the abstract.[/quote]

Can you explain what you mean by the “false notion of the abstract?” I don’t really understand why abstract thought requires supernatural intervention to exist, otherwise its is just a “false notion of the abstract.” Perhaps I am just getting lost here and not following your argument.
[/quote]

Basically thinking things like thoughts are abstract when they aren’t (because there is no abstract because there is only the physical). It’s not physics taking over meaning, but causing them to be false.[/quote]

What ever “thoughts” are, it seems to me that they measurably end when the brain dies, electricity stops flowing, and the chemicals stop reacting.
[/quote]

Truth is an idea. no brain = no truth?[/quote]

I am not really sure how to respond to this; I probably don’t have the philosophical tools necessary to adequately respond to this.

That said, I don’t think of “truth” as an objective “thing” that has an existence outside of the physical world. It is a concept that is a function of language and the way humans view and organize the world. Without humans, the physical world, and language, I do not believe the there would be an objective thing called “truth.” So, short hand, no brain = no truth.

[/quote]

Interesting. I commend your open introspection and really have nothing to add. At that level we can’t prove or know things, at best people can be non-contradictory, and as far as I can tell you have that going for you.[/quote]

Thanks for the civil conversation. I appreciate it.

396

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I’ve continually asked on this board for the absolute physical definition of a chair. No one has even been able to give me the physical criteria for something as simple as chair-ness.
[/quote]

And no one ever will, and this gets at a few very well-worn and moderately useful philosophical discussions which we can assume every one of us has explored before.

The point that JJack and I are making is that none of these consequences – none of these assaults by physicalism on causality (that is for a different day), human self-conception, morality, value, language – constitutes even a single step in the direction of physicalism’s logical negation (or, for that matter, dualism’s affirmation).[/quote]

Given that our knowledge of the physical world is incomplete it’s a little bit early to claim that everything can be explained by it. If we are yet to even describe what the physical world is how can we make any claims as to the completeness of such an explanation? This incomplete explanation explains everything?

397

The problem with monism(or dualism for that matter) is that we haven’t even described what this “substance/s” are. So everything is made up of A but we don’t know what A actually is.

398

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I’ve continually asked on this board for the absolute physical definition of a chair. No one has even been able to give me the physical criteria for something as simple as chair-ness.
[/quote]

And no one ever will, and this gets at a few very well-worn and moderately useful philosophical discussions which we can assume every one of us has explored before.

The point that JJack and I are making is that none of these consequences – none of these assaults by physicalism on causality (that is for a different day), human self-conception, morality, value, language – constitutes even a single step in the direction of physicalism’s logical negation (or, for that matter, dualism’s affirmation).[/quote]

Given that our knowledge of the physical world is incomplete it’s a little bit early to claim that everything can be explained by it. If we are yet to even describe what the physical world is how can we make any claims as to the completeness of such an explanation? This incomplete explanation explains everything?
[/quote]

This is often a point of confusion in these discussions. I’m making no claims with regard to what is true, or complete. I am simply describing what we cannot know not to be.

As for “what,” if physicalism is true, the physical is – you are absolutely correct. Then again, the same problem plagues dualism (and is joined by its cousin, What is the non-physical?)

399

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The motivation for behaving ethically is to do God’s will - to obey God. That is the only authentic ethical position.

[/quote]

Ok, so where do I find the correct set of ethical rules handed down by God? The Christian Bible? The Noble Qur’an? The Book of Mormon? It seems like if there’s only one right set of ethics, that are handed down by God, it would be pretty important to pick the right one. How do I choose and how do I know that I’ve chosen correctly?
[/quote]

I’m afraid I can’t answer that for you. But what I can do is advise you to follow that intuitive feeling you have to not murder; not steal etc. As I said, I believe that these fundamental, objective moral laws can be perceived by everyone. Friedrich Jacobi referred to it as one’s “spiritual eye.”

Whether or not that is “enough” and whether you also need scripture is something I cannot answer because I do not know the answer myself.[/quote]

I have always believed that if there is a god, he wouldn’t care so much about your faith in any particular religion as much as following the rules that every man of every faith can embrace.

Being loyal, but being a shitty, shitty person does nothing for you.[/quote]

Maybe. But one could argue that some religions promulgate ideas that are antithetical to objective, universal moral laws. In which case any “religion” is only authentic insomuch as it conforms with these universal, objective moral laws.

400

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’d put it this way: If you base your ethical system on pure rationality it leads to outcomes that we instinctively know are “not right” for want of a better word. You can see this in practice everywhere. I gave an example earlier in the thread of where Stefan Molyneux’s ethical system leads. Another example is Immanuel Kant’s ethical system and the absurd outcomes he gets. Kant’s deontological ethics are well known for their absurdity. Example:
[/quote]

I’d also offer that one of the reasons that its hard to come up with a set of universal moral rules that cover all circumstances is that its hard to come up with a set of universal rules that cover all circumstances. What are the exact set of universal moral rules that you are pointing to that you think give us an objectively correct result under all circumstances? [/quote]

I haven’t made the claim that these intuitive moral laws can come up with the right “answer” in every situation. But they can form a guide; a framework through which you can attempt to deal with difficult ethical decisions. And it’s a guide that I believe “works” to an extent that secular and purely rational ethical systems do not work. Secular, rational ethical systems will always lead to absurd outcomes. [/quote]

It seems a little unfair to claim someone else’s rules don’t work, and then, when asked for the correct set of rules, to not be able to point to them.

[/quote]

It’s not unfair at all. Claiming something is untrue doesn’t necessitate knowing what is true. In fact, the process of discounting the untrue leads one towards the truth. Or as Sherlock Holmes put it:

“…when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

401

[quote]smh_23 wrote:/

This is often a point of confusion in these discussions. I’m making no claims with regard to what is true, or complete. I am simply describing what we cannot know not to be.

As for “what,” if physicalism is true, the physical is – you are absolutely correct. Then again, the same problem plagues dualism (and is joined by its cousin, What is the non-physical?)[/quote]

Yes I agree, and I said so myself in my subsequent comment. So if we cannot define what the “physical” and “non-physical” are then we cannot describe phenomenon and neumenon in terms of the physical or non-physical.

402

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:/

This is often a point of confusion in these discussions. I’m making no claims with regard to what is true, or complete. I am simply describing what we cannot know not to be.

As for “what,” if physicalism is true, the physical is – you are absolutely correct. Then again, the same problem plagues dualism (and is joined by its cousin, What is the non-physical?)[/quote]

Yes I agree, and I said so myself in my subsequent comment. So if we cannot define what the “physical” and “non-physical” are then we cannot describe phenomenon and neumenon in terms of the physical or non-physical. [/quote]

Yeah I didn’t see the later post until after I’d written that one. We are in agreement.

403

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:/

This is often a point of confusion in these discussions. I’m making no claims with regard to what is true, or complete. I am simply describing what we cannot know not to be.

As for “what,” if physicalism is true, the physical is – you are absolutely correct. Then again, the same problem plagues dualism (and is joined by its cousin, What is the non-physical?)[/quote]

Yes I agree, and I said so myself in my subsequent comment. So if we cannot define what the “physical” and “non-physical” are then we cannot describe phenomenon and neumenon in terms of the physical or non-physical. [/quote]

Yeah I didn’t see the later post until after I’d written that one. We are in agreement.[/quote]

I think a better way to put it would be we are in agreement as to the form our disagreement must take.

404

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
… others, we know in our hardwiring and the way we process that it is wrong…
[/quote]
No, absolutely not. There isn’t even a scientific method to define right or wrong, much less prove it. At best you are saying our hard wiring could cause you to feel some semblance of neural activation we give the label “pain” when we see others experiencing similar neural activation. There is no scientific physical quantification of wrong, when you use it, you violate your own principals. There is no scientific reason to call the neural activation we label as “pain” bad or wrong. There is no reason to scientifically ascribe it as wrong and the absence or the activations of other neurons we might label “pleasure” as good or right. And even if you were to rely on your own revelation (which is exactly what religion does) and assert that as true, there are a million counter examples. My legs hurt after a good squat session, but I consider that both good and right. All value judgments are outside the scope of science.

lol. not sure where you got any of this. Sounds like you’ve had some bad experience and you’re projecting.

The last part about science I did say, but that is the logical conclusion of your belief in science. I never claimed any such reliance on it. I claim that one is better than the other because I believe in the abstract. You are the one that denies the abstract, you deny yourself the ability to claim any state of matter is better. That is your problem to wrestle with, not mine.[/quote]

No, I’m just pointing out that it’s silly to say that we cannot make value judgements off reasons that science and very basic reason informs us of.

Just like you wouldn’t rely on something like prayer to pay your bills, it’s also silly to rely on prayer and God to posit what is right and wrong.

And, it doesn’t benefit anyone to have religious extremists, or at least ones who think they know what Gods will is, what right and wrong is, projecting their beliefs in such a way that they limit everyone elses autonomy.

405

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
People talking about evidence of afterlife don?t understand one or both of the terms. An afterlife is supernatural, evidence is the presence of physical clues. There can be no evidence, because the notion is non-sense. It?s like discussing the existence of purple based on what you can hear. I?ve never heard purple, therefor I don?t believe in it, never-mind that purple isn’t a concept bounded by hearing.

But I can say that the idea that we are the product of random chance and there is nothing else is completely self-defeating. If existence is random then humans are a randomly produced product of mindless functions without a point. This means that if that idea were true then the idea itself is an entirely random product of arbitrary laws and there is no reason to even discuss it as true or not because it is the random meaningless product of a mindless universe. What reason is there to believe your brain if it is just a random accident? If the idea is “true” then there is no reason to believe it.

I believe in more than we can see, not because I have evidence for or against it, but because it?s the only actual answer I know of. Everything else I?ve ever heard is self-contradiction or just plain avoidance of the question.
[/quote]

Good post. this concept of some mystical world that is forever outside of our observation like the Platonic world of perfect forms is absolute nonsense.

Abandoning this mysticism and embracing the Aristotelian philosophy of an observable universe and, as an extension of our senses, the scientific method is the driving force against violence in this world.

[/quote]

I don’t think you understand what I meant. According to science, there is no morality, so why would one avoid violence? If there is nothing mystical about you, you (including your thoughts on this subject) are nothing but randomly caused meaningless physically dictated reactions. If we throw out the mysticism, your thoughts are the nothing but a chemical reaction akin to metal rusting.[/quote]

Evolutionary psychologists hold that morality is partially a product of evolution and partially a social construct to establish social norms and hierarchy. Altruism, for example, can be observed among species with whom Homo sapiens share a commmon ancestor. Why must a deity exist for morality to be a biological and social practice?[/quote]

That is exactly the stance I’m taking. Without the “diety”, morality it is a social construct that happens because it tends to make itself more prevalent when it happens. There isn’t any actual right or wrong, morality is just the random result of certain physical properties of the universe.

If you believe that, there is no right or wrong, and no actual morality, just a biological explanation for the physical behavior we think come from moral judgments which are actually just social survival mechanisms.
[/quote]

Yep.[/quote]

Social norms developed and proliferated because their reciprocal practice allowed for our ancestors to pursue interests and values other than immediate survival. Without the development of morality, humans would have been condemned to a Hobbesian state of nature. It didn’t merely allow for survival, it led to the birth of civilization. Rational egoism underpinned cooperation, and over time, lead to genuine empathy and codified rules of conduct. Why is that inherently meaningless? The

Does objective morality have universal application? Homo sapiens have only existed for 200,000 years. What of the 15-20 species of early humans that predate modern humans by 2-6 million years?

406

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Social norms developed and proliferated because their reciprocal practice allowed for our ancestors to pursue interests and values other than immediate survival. Without the development of morality, humans would have been condemned to a Hobbesian state of nature. It didn’t merely allow for survival, it led to the birth of civilization. Rational egoism underpinned cooperation, and over time, lead to genuine empathy and codified rules of conduct.
[/quote]

Oh really? What is “genuine empathy” then? And how is it distinct from the empathy of utility you describe?

407

[quote]Severiano wrote:

And, it doesn’t benefit anyone to have religious extremists, or at least ones who think they know what Gods will is, what right and wrong is, projecting their beliefs in such a way that they limit everyone elses autonomy.
[/quote]

I’m curious as to what exactly your beef is. Is it:

  1. What “religious fundamentalists” believe?

  2. The authority of anyone to dictate universal truths?

  3. The actual concept of universal truth itself?

408

[quote]Severiano wrote:

No, I’m just pointing out that it’s silly to say that we cannot make value judgements off reasons that science and very basic reason informs us of.

Just like you wouldn’t rely on something like prayer to pay your bills, it’s also silly to rely on prayer and God to posit what is right and wrong.

And, it doesn’t benefit anyone to have religious extremists, or at least ones who think they know what Gods will is, what right and wrong is, projecting their beliefs in such a way that they limit everyone elses autonomy.
[/quote]

Okay, reason out for me from science why rape is wrong.

409

I want to say that following this thread over the past several days has been a pleasure for me. Very interesting and informative from both directions.

SexMachine, your posts in particular have resonated with me. You have articulated and deepened my understanding of what it is I think and feel. Thank you.