The Case Against Immortality

[BobR]

My comment also largely applies to them. Perhaps to a slightly lesser degree. But, it still holds.

Most PEOPLE who use (genuine) scientific data as a support system for their own beliefs, WILL change their own beliefs, should the data indicate that they should do so.

Sure. Sort of like when the Pope comes out with a new encyclical, Roman Catholics will change their beliefs should the theological data indicate that they should do so.

The problem is that people who don't actually have such data are expecting their ideas to be taken just as seriously as the currently accepted ones. But, you now understand why that doesn't happen, right?

Look, the reason that I don't patronize you is because I respect your point of view without fully agreeing with it, and am looking for areas of common understanding. With that in mind, what are the reasons for your patronizing comments? This one, I might add, being extreme to the point of being offensive? If you're getting angry with me, then maybe we should take a break. I'll read your books when I get around to them, and perhaps we can take up the discussion again some other time.

That said: Everyone defines data and evidence in their own way. One person will state that a scientific position isn't supported by theological data and therefore the position is not to be taken seriously. You will say that that person is sorely misguided, he will say you are, perhaps you all will start a war and set your children to killing one another (each saying that the other started it, of course). One way to deal with overpopulation, after all. I wonder if there are metaphysical ramifications to THAT fact.

People generally base their beliefs on certain assumptions: we were created by aliens, the Bible is the only source of truth, empirical evidence is the only true indicator of reality, whatever. And then they decide that every other assumption is the wrong one, and their minds close with respect to that assumption. Unless they remain skeptical of those assumptions, in which case their minds remain open.

The fact that legit brain sciences are continuing to generate new, novel, innovative knowledge demonstrates we are NOT going around in those circles, and that we are coming closer and closer to what is probably the truth.

Sorry, no. It demonstrates either that or that we're somewhere on the first go-round and haven't got back to the beginning yet. Continuing my analogy of being lost in the woods, it's obvious that someone thinks that they are not going in circles, because all the terrain is new. But they still are, and they realize it when they get to the state that you are describing. So, we are coming closer and closer to either the truth or to where we started.

 

[Porterboy]

My first impression was that Augustine is too much a black-or-white thinker.

He's certainly a very brave thinker! I think it's quite prestigious to face up to the disquieting truth of mortality. But hee has the guts to face up to it without any comfort blanket of afterlife myths.

 

[Porterboy]

For many people, the concept of self-annihilation is emotionally more easy to accept than the concept of self-ignorance. Perhaps that gives some insight into Augustine's motivation for writing this.

Possibly he has another motive. Disbelief in an afterlife actually takes some fortitude and courage; it's not easy to stand there,hold your head up high and say: "A time will come when I will no longer exist. When I die, I will be gone forever and my body will rot" We've managed to achieve that while others failed. I must admit I feel a certain glow of triumph whenever I meet an Afterlife-believer. It's a bit like beating somebody in a race. As Richard Dawkins once said: "There is a nobility associated with living your life knowing it's the only one we've got and nothing awaits us after it." I wonder how many others feel the same way... and if they do, will they also admit it?

If it is ever proved that the Afterlife does in fact exist I will no longer be able to enjoy that feeling. I must confess I would miss it. However, as Augustine has shown, progressing research seems to indicate that I will not have to worry.

 

[tsig]

He's just another on of those who assert that since science doesn't know everything his woo is true.

Let me rephrase that: Suppose the null hypothesis is that nothing exists. Demonstrate otherwise.If you mean evidence that I presume that the self is unknown, well, I can't prove that I'm not lying when I say I presume such. But I really, really and truly do. If you mean evidence that I can theorize [etc.] then I just did theorize same.

I'll do that. Thanks for the recommendations.
I don't mean to disrespect scientific method, and I will read the books you mention before I comment further on this statement. But there is an annoying tendency to treat scientific findings as unalterable truth. When that's done (and I submit that it's done a great deal on this forum), it becomes another form of religion and I find that disturbing. For the record, he didn't say that. More correctly, there's no evidence that he did.
Right there with you on this one.

Reasonable, with the caveat that if we attach too much importance to empirical data, we may be going in circles if it turns out that the truth isn't empirically verifiable.Who says navel gazing isn't useful? Let's say about as useful as watching TV all day.
Again reasonable, again with the above caveat. Philosophers and psychologists deserve to be in on the discussion as well IMHO, and some of their conclusions diverge significantly from the ones drawn from scientific data.Agreed on all points. However provisional doesn't mean accurate either (of course, it does mean more likely to be accurate than "assumed" does). My point all along has been simply that we don't really know yet, and I have been taking exception to those who say that we do. How much data one needs before one makes up one's mind is an individual choice, most typically governed by what one finds to be emotionally attractive. Since I find the concept under discussion emotionally unattractive, I'm going to need to see more progress before I find it convincing.

Maybe we'll have a chance to see how true those provisional truths are. Maybe even before we die.

What's this? An appeal to popularity fallacy? Once you say the magic wooword everyone will believe what you say whether it's true or not? Not that it matters to you (obviously), but where's your evidence for your claim? Or are you just another one of those apostles of your sacred cause who think it's their sacred duty to spread lies about anyone calling that cause into any sort of question?

Hilited for you.

 

[BobR]

Hilited for you.

I didn't say that the null hypothesis is that nothing exists.
There is indeed an annoying tendency to treat scientific findings as unalterable truth. This has nothing to do with "woo". All you have to do is let people open their mouths.
I haven't said that the truth isn't empirically verifiable.

This isn't evidence of your claim, which is that I'm making claims that are unsupportable. So, I'm sorry I accused you of spreading lies. This response is evidence that you might actually believe your claim and are simply rather obtuse.

 

[BobR]

Possibly he has another motive. Disbelief in an afterlife actually takes some fortitude and courage; it's not easy to stand there,hold your head up high and say: "A time will come when I will no longer exist. When I die, I will be gone forever and my body will rot" We've managed to achieve that while others failed. I must admit I feel a certain glow of triumph whenever I meet an Afterlife-believer. It's a bit like beating somebody in a race. As Richard Dawkins once said: "There is a nobility associated with living your life knowing it's the only one we've got and nothing awaits us after it." I wonder how many others feel the same way... and if they do, will they also admit it?

If it is ever proved that the Afterlife does in fact exist I will no longer be able to enjoy that feeling. I must confess I would miss it. However, as Augustine has shown, progressing research seems to indicate that I will not have to worry.

I actually made my statement with responses like yours in mind. You're explaining the emotional attractiveness of the position. Hero complex sort of thing. People often act as if this is the courageous stance and that any other stance is less so. There's the ego-gratification from the "knowledge" that you're the one with the courage to "handle the tough issues".

While I grant that it's tougher to embrace extinction than it is to embrace the idea of resurrection into a state of total bliss, it is tougher still to embrace the idea that we have no knowledge of what happens when we die. We could go all go into a state of extreme agony after we die, no matter what we do here. That would be worse than extinction. We could find that we have to answer for our conduct in this life.

Self-annihilation means that we don't have to speculate on the nature of survival, and there is an amoral attraction to that. One may do whatever one can get away with. Grab whatever you can, climb over whomever to grab it, finish with more marbles than everyone else, because winning is more fun than losing and there's an end of it. Which isn't in the least bit noble.

 

[Wowbagger]

Sure. Sort of like when the Pope comes out with a new encyclical, Roman Catholics will change their beliefs should the theological data indicate that they should do so.

The difference is that the Pope is an authority. Most Roman Catholics would probably not question the Pope, at least not publically.

Science is not based on authority. Other science-based arguers would examine the quality of evidence before changing their minds. They would question the researchers at every angle they can, while doing so.

With that in mind, what are the reasons for your patronizing comments?

It wasn't my intention to patronize you. Perhaps I should have left that last sentence off. Sorry about that.

Everyone defines data and evidence in their own way.

The problem is that not all definitions are equal.

One could speculate that there is a lot more to thoughts than merely brain activities. But, from the point of view of scientists, there is no reason to take such speculation seriously. They are getting reliable results by examining brain processes as the only source of thoughts.

Another person would say the scientists are misguided. But, for some reason, they're not the ones telling us anything about how the mind or thoughts actually work. At least not anything reliable.

perhaps you all will start a war and set your children to killing one another

Now you are the one being offensive. But, perhaps you didn't mean to, so I will let it slide.

It happens that another way one can determine the quality of one's arguments is how willing or unwilling people are to go to war over them.

Less reliable ideas tend to start more wars than more reliable ones.

Scientists don't kill each other's children in the process of finding particles in accelerators. But, when two cultures collide on something that can't be independently verified, such as whether or not Mary descended to Heaven, it is possible for a genuine, bloody war to break out. (ETA: Technically, there might be other reasons behind the war, but differing ideas would still be presented front and center in the battles.)

The very idea that you think I, or anyone else, would start a war to influence our ideas is about as backwards and offensive as you could get, about our position.

If we can't prove our points with scientific evidence, perhaps they weren't worth proving, and they certainly wouldn't be worth fighting a war over.

Sorry, no. It demonstrates either that or that we're somewhere on the first go-round and haven't got back to the beginning yet.

If it ever feels like we're going back to the beginning, I will let you know. But, don't hold your breathe.

If it happens that thoughts are more than brain activities (hypothetically speaking), we would probably find where that other thing plugs into the system, even if we can't identify the thing, itself, yet.

For example, let's pretend we live in a Universe where there is a central, collective conscious energy system, that exists outside of normal matter. And, that this system happens to be required for living entities to have consciousness in that universe.
If that were the case, there might still be scientists seeking to determine how thoughts can come from ONLY brain activities, anyway. And, in doing so, they would find two things:
1. Gaps in the process they can't account for.
2. Some type of weird thing at the edges or borders of those gaps, that weren't predicted by any "thoughts only" theories.

In this example Universe, that "weird thing" would be an inter-material interface connecting the conscious collective to our brains. But, they wouldn't know that, at first.

Someone would have to develop the theory that a central collective conscious energy system exists, that can account for the weird things. They could then test this idea by controlling the inputs and outputs under laboratory conditions, to see if it has the effects they specifically predicted in their theory.

The reason I spelled out this entire hypothetical Universe is to show you that the "circles" of your argument won't exist under proper scientific investigations, even if you were right about thoughts being more than brain processes.

 

[arthwollipot]

If you wish to define truth as only true if there is a physical analog to support it, then of course you are right. For example, you would say that there is no such thing as seven without there being seven physical items to have seven of. Fair enough. I define truth differently

No, you have completely misunderstood what I said.

Direct question: How do you determine if something is true, if not with evidence?

 

[Porterboy]

I actually made my statement with responses like yours in mind. You're explaining the emotional attractiveness of the position. Hero complex sort of thing. People often act as if this is the courageous stance and that any other stance is less so. There's the ego-gratification from the "knowledge" that you're the one with the courage to "handle the tough issues".

Yes, I have to admit there is an element of that in me. Maybe I'm not the only one; anybody else want to come out of the closet?

While I grant that it's tougher to embrace extinction than it is to embrace the idea of resurrection into a state of total bliss, it is tougher still to embrace the idea that we have no knowledge of what happens when we die. We could go all go into a state of extreme agony after we die, no matter what we do here. That would be worse than extinction.

I suppose that depends on our position of the optimism vs pessimism scale. Most Afterlife-believers seem fairly convinced that what waits them after this life will be some kind of improvement. I know a few people of deep religious persuasion are convinced they're going to Hell; you're right that's far worse than what we think!

Self-annihilation means that we don't have to speculate on the nature of survival, and there is an amoral attraction to that. One may do whatever one can get away with. Grab whatever you can, climb over whomever to grab it, finish with more marbles than everyone else, because winning is more fun than losing and there's an end of it. Which isn't in the least bit noble.

But that's an adaptation of the religious argument that you need God to be good; "you need the Afterlife to be good". However secularists and humanists are always demonstrating, correctly, that this is not the case. Few people don't do bad things purely because they don't want to face punishment after they pop off.

 

[BobR]

@wowbagger: I started a response to this but got late for work. I'll get it in later, but would like to apologize for my comment. It wasn't directed at you personally in any way, so it was a poor choice of words.

 

[steenkh]

While I grant that it's tougher to embrace extinction than it is to embrace the idea of resurrection into a state of total bliss, […]

I really do not understand yours and Porteboy's argument here. I do not see any kind of toughness or heroism in embracing extinction. I do it because I have no choice, with the evidence at hand, even though I would have loved an afterlife (well a nice one, anyway). You speak as if one can just decide to be brave or chicken out in matters of belief.

 

[BobR]

No, you have completely misunderstood what I said.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that I have. Rather, I believe that you are misunderstanding what you are saying, and resisting my attempts to clarify it for you. But to each his own.

Direct question: How do you determine if something is true, if not with evidence?

Logic. Evidence, according to this definition, is "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." An indication is rather less than a determination, so it would seem that I don't attach as much faith to evidence as you appear to do (nor does the writer of the definition, it would seem).

For example, one might assert that two walls of the same length, connected at an angle of 60 degrees, will require a third wall of the same length to connect them. You can build a wall like this, measure it, and now you have one evidence datum supporting the assertion. No doubt (logic being the reason that there is no doubt), every time you do this you will have another evidence datum supporting the assertion. At some point, you might get upset and start calling people names when they don't accept the assertion because the evidence so strongly indicates the assertion. However, Euclid's demonstration of the truth of this assertion doesn't use evidence, it uses logic. Once you have the demonstration, anyone saying otherwise may be dispassionately invited to refute the proof.

So, a logical proof is a stronger indicator of truth than evidence is. Evidence may only indicate more and more strongly what a logical proof demonstrates by the simple fact of its existence. (That is not to say that anything that is logically demonstrable is automatically true: it is only as true as the assumptions upon which it is based.)

 

[BobR]

I really do not understand yours and Porteboy's argument here. I do not see any kind of toughness or heroism in embracing extinction. I do it because I have no choice, with the evidence at hand, even though I would have loved an afterlife (well a nice one, anyway). You speak as if one can just decide to be brave or chicken out in matters of belief.

Yes, that's another way of looking at it. My argument was that the idea of extinction could be emotionally attractive to some. Porteboy gave some examples of how.

 

[BobR]

Most Afterlife-believers seem fairly convinced that what waits them after this life will be some kind of improvement. I know a few people of deep religious persuasion are convinced they're going to Hell; you're right that's far worse than what we think!

My point is that there is some sort of emotional reward associated with making the unknown the known or we wouldn't do it so easily.

But that's an adaptation of the religious argument that you need God to be good; "you need the Afterlife to be good". However secularists and humanists are always demonstrating, correctly, that this is not the case. Few people don't do bad things purely because they don't want to face punishment after they pop off.

Your last sentence I agree with. Your first I don't exactly: I'm simply attempting to say that you can use extinction to justify ignobility as easily as nobility. I understand your point, though; perhaps I'm saying the same thing while avoiding specifying the Divine Punishment angle. Of course, it could be that we have to return to this life over and over again until we quit being mean to people, in which case the argument would be "you need Life to be good."

 

[Aridas]

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that I have. Rather, I believe that you are misunderstanding what you are saying, and resisting my attempts to clarify it for you. But to each his own.

I don't think that I can agree with your assessment, but actually debating that point is little other than an empty distraction.

Logic. Evidence, according to this definition, is "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Logic will often suffice, if solidly based. I could nitpick a couple things in your example, but I'll hold back again. Those things said, the logic presented supporting both the proposition that there is an afterlife and the proposition that is it is reasonable to consider the proposition that there is an afterlife to be at all worthwhile if it lacks support is not even remotely solid when it comes to seeking the truth of the matter, which is in sharp contrast to your example. This, unfortunately, makes your post somewhat moot, if the topic isn't wandering too much.

To be fair, your position has been, basically, "we don't know, so I'll believe whatever I want," unless I'm misunderstanding it. That position treads on rather shaky grounds, at the very best of times, when dealing with truth. It's just fine if the sole objective is comfort, though.

 

[arthwollipot]

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that I have. Rather, I believe that you are misunderstanding what you are saying, and resisting my attempts to clarify it for you. But to each his own.

I say exactly what I mean to say.

Logic. Evidence, according to this definition, is "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." An indication is rather less than a determination, so it would seem that I don't attach as much faith to evidence as you appear to do (nor does the writer of the definition, it would seem).

...

So, a logical proof is a stronger indicator of truth than evidence is. Evidence may only indicate more and more strongly what a logical proof demonstrates by the simple fact of its existence. (That is not to say that anything that is logically demonstrable is automatically true: it is only as true as the assumptions upon which it is based.)

In what way is logic not a form of evidence?

You appear to be fixated on this idea that I am arguing from a strictly positivist framework. This is the misunderstanding I referred to earlier. You're suggesting that I am defining evidence as something strictly physical and material - something that you could pick up and handle. This definition excludes things like the concept of the number 7, and logic, and is very much NOT what I am discussing!

Please throw out your assumptions of material positivism, and re-read my arguments. Come back to me when you have done so, and I'll tell you if you've understood me or not.

 

[BobR]

Now you are the one being offensive. But, perhaps you didn't mean to, so I will let it slide.

No, I didn't mean to suggest that you or people holding to your position would start a war over your ideas. Poor choice of words, and I apologize for that. I did mean to suggest that people calling themselves scientists and applying scientific method would do so, using their adherence to the scientific method as justification for same. We have to look no further than Nazi propaganda and the so-called science of phrenology to determine this to be the case.

It happens that another way one can determine the quality of one's arguments is how willing or unwilling people are to go to war over them.

That's a very good point, assuming that you are saying that the less willing the higher the quality. However it should also be pointed out that everyone going to war perceives themselves to be taking a defensive action rather than an aggressive one.

Less reliable ideas tend to start more wars than more reliable ones.

Agreed, entirely. People don't feel as threatened by opposition to ideas whose validity is obvious.

Scientists don't kill each other's children in the process of finding particles in accelerators.

Josef Mengele considered himself to be a scientist. So did a lot of other people. Of course, he wasn't looking for particles in accelerators.

But, when two cultures collide on something that can't be independently verified, such as whether or not Mary descended to Heaven, it is possible for a genuine, bloody war to break out. (ETA: Technically, there might be other reasons behind the war, but differing ideas would still be presented front and center in the battles.)

WWII was a good example, and I submit again that Nazi Germany used science as an underpinning for its positions. Falsely so, of course, but nevertheless.

The very idea that you think I, or anyone else, would start a war to influence our ideas is about as backwards and offensive as you could get, about our position.

Again I didn't mean to make this personal between you and me, but if you really are serious about the "or anyone else" part of your statement your understanding of relevant historical data is entirely the opposite of mine.

If we can't prove our points with scientific evidence, perhaps they weren't worth proving, and they certainly wouldn't be worth fighting a war over.

But if you can, they would be? A lot of people would think so. We have the "scientific evidence" for WMD in Iraq as a recent example.

If it happens that thoughts are more than brain activities (hypothetically speaking), we would probably find where that other thing plugs into the system, even if we can't identify the thing, itself, yet.

For example, let's pretend we live in a Universe where there is a central, collective conscious energy system, that exists outside of normal matter. And, that this system happens to be required for living entities to have consciousness in that universe.
If that were the case, there might still be scientists seeking to determine how thoughts can come from ONLY brain activities, anyway. And, in doing so, they would find two things:
1. Gaps in the process they can't account for.
2. Some type of weird thing at the edges or borders of those gaps, that weren't predicted by any "thoughts only" theories.

In this example Universe, that "weird thing" would be an inter-material interface connecting the conscious collective to our brains. But, they wouldn't know that, at first.

Someone would have to develop the theory that a central collective conscious energy system exists, that can account for the weird things. They could then test this idea by controlling the inputs and outputs under laboratory conditions, to see if it has the effects they specifically predicted in their theory.

The reason I spelled out this entire hypothetical Universe is to show you that the "circles" of your argument won't exist under proper scientific investigations, even if you were right about thoughts being more than brain processes.

That's all very interesting and imaginative.

Proper scientific investigation would probably identify that we were going in circles if we in fact were, yes. The idea that we do not regularly mistake improper scientific investigation for proper is naive, however. Not saying that that's your idea, but there's a lot of bad science out there that is generally accepted for long periods of time. For example, people would most likely find these "gaps" and account for them inaccurately for quite some time until either some unusually open-minded and creative individual came along and pointed out the flaws in the accounting, or it became so clear that the explanation was faulty that it just had to be set aside. That would account for perhaps a century or two.

Perhaps your faith in scientists is stronger than mine.

 

[BobR]

I say exactly what I mean to say.

In what way is logic not a form of evidence?

Well, you asked this earlier:

How can a "truth" be in any way relevant if there is no empirical data to support it? How does it even earn the label "truth" if there is no empirical data to support it?

Since "empirical" means "verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic" you may understand my confusion about exactly what you mean to say.

You appear to be fixated on this idea that I am arguing from a strictly positivist framework.

Gee, I wonder why.

Please throw out your assumptions of material positivism, and re-read my arguments.

I'm having a really tough time doing the former after doing the latter, since, after all, you say exactly what you mean to say. Maybe you need to take your own advice, and then explain which part of exactly what you say is exactly what you mean.

 

[arthwollipot]

Since "empirical" means "verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic" you may understand my confusion about exactly what you mean to say.

I see where your misunderstanding lies.

empirical [ɛmˈpɪrɪkəl]
adj
1. derived from or relating to experiment and observation rather than theory
2. (Medicine) (of medical treatment) based on practical experience rather than scientific proof
3. (Philosophy) Philosophy

a. (of knowledge) derived from experience rather than by logic from first principles Compare a priori, a posteriori
b. (of a proposition) subject, at least theoretically, to verification Compare analytic [4] synthetic [4]​

4. (Medicine) of or relating to medical quackery

Collins English Dictionary

You were using definition 3(a), whereas I was using definition 1. I wasn't talking about philosophy, I was talking about whether it was reasonable to include a supernatural element in the null hypothesis. If you want to talk philosophy, you'd better take it up with someone else, as I have very little background in that subject.

 

[BobR]

To be fair, your position has been, basically, "we don't know, so I'll believe whatever I want," unless I'm misunderstanding it. That position treads on rather shaky grounds, at the very best of times, when dealing with truth. It's just fine if the sole objective is comfort, though.

So, (and if I'm not being fair, please let me know) your position is, basically, "Let's see if I can slip an 'I'll believe whatever I want' into his argument without anyone noticing. That way, I can belittle it in the standard ways that one belittles belief, and everyone will think I've actually belittled his real argument."

Unless I'm misunderstanding it, of course.