The Case Against Immortality

[arthwollipot]

I don't have to! I'm the skeptic here, and you guys are the believers. I'm only pointing out your evidence is inadequate to prove your position. I don't need to support a contrary position, because I freely admit that the extinction hypothesis may be correct. Every bit as freely as I admit that the survival hypothesis may be correct. So no, you're the one that needs to refute the contrary evidence.

You're shifting the burden of proof. The null hypothesis is that there is nothing extraordinary going on - that the mind can be explained purely on a physical level, by physical interactions between physical objects. No undemonstrated non-physical forces need be invoked. The burden of proof is on the person claiming that there are undemonstrated non-physical forces forces at play, and the requirement for proof is to demonstrate the existence of these non-physical forces above and beyond the easily demonstrated physical existence.

Or to put it another way, the null hypothesis is that there is nothing supernatural about the mind. The extraordinary claim is that there is a supernatural element to the mind, and that it can survive the extinction of the body. The burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim (break that word down: extra-ordinary: outside the ordinary).

You can't simply shift the argument such that the supernatural survival of the mind after the body's extinction is the null hypothesis and then demand that skeptics disprove that. To do so is a misuse of the tools of skepticism. You want to call yourself a skeptic, you need to use the tools properly.

 

[Aepervius]

Well, thanks for agreeing that this is a "non-100% proof." (As you have already admitted, it isn't a fact. But, we'll call it an assertion.)

Noen of us ever said 100% proof. Most of us come from physic/biology/chemistry/geology etc... Sicnece domain where you always are open to contrary evidence and change of view on physical law. Only MATH accept 100% proof.

I don't have to! I'm the skeptic here, and you guys are the believers.

Yeah. Right. The usual schtick "you are the believer". Excuse me but so far we are the one having a NULL hypothesis (only the physical brain exists) and all verifiable evidence so far are consistent with that. Again as I say "The strongest argument for the brain/mind identity is that there is no evidence of anything beyond the physical brain AND physical modification of the brain influence directly the mind. "

I'm only pointing out your evidence is inadequate to prove your position.

Proof is only in math. With you not wanting to use "demonstrate" I would have thought you would not use proof so liberally. Tada.

I don't need to support a contrary position, because I freely admit that the extinction hypothesis may be correct. Every bit as freely as I admit that the survival hypothesis may be correct. So no, you're the one that needs to refute the contrary evidence.

Sooooo. What probability you are giving each ? If it is a 50/50 then please show us the evidence in equal quantity and quality in favor of the survival.

Oh, now stop. This is a beginner's error in logic. Actually two beginner's errors in one sentence. If you want to show me to be wrong, then look up "argument from ignorance" and "irrelevant conclusion" (if you need to) and explain why you haven't just given a fine example of each.

Feel free to show the beginner error. So far you jsut threw fallacy without justifying them. Argument from ignorance would mean that because I ignore some phenomena I assume they don't exists. That is not the case. I am saying that the null is that we only have the physical brain, and we also have evidence that change to the brain change the mind, and we have no qualitative evidence of the contrary, of an external entity from the physical brain. Where is the argument by ignorance ?

As for irrelevant conclusion, well good luck with that one. If brain and mind are in indentity, and there are no "external" soul like quality, then just like when you burn a box it disappear, killing and decomposing the brain make the mind disappear. No survival.

 

[Aepervius]

You're shifting the burden of proof. The null hypothesis is that there is nothing extraordinary going on - that the mind can be explained purely on a physical level, by physical interactions between physical objects. No undemonstrated non-physical forces need be invoked. The burden of proof is on the person claiming that there are undemonstrated non-physical forces forces at play, and the requirement for proof is to demonstrate the existence of these non-physical forces above and beyond the easily demonstrated physical existence.

Or to put it another way, the null hypothesis is that there is nothing supernatural about the mind. The extraordinary claim is that there is a supernatural element to the mind, and that it can survive the extinction of the body. The burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim (break that word down: extra-ordinary: outside the ordinary).

You can't simply shift the argument such that the supernatural survival of the mind after the body's extinction is the null hypothesis and then demand that skeptics disprove that. To do so is a misuse of the tools of skepticism. You want to call yourself a skeptic, you need to use the tools properly.

Exactely. I wish I had some of your rethoric capability guys .

 

[BobR]

You're shifting the burden of proof.

Am not. You are.

The null hypothesis is that there is nothing extraordinary going on - that the mind can be explained purely on a physical level, by physical interactions between physical objects.

Null hypothesis is the default position. That the mind can be explained purely on a physical level, etc. is the materialist position, which has not been proven to the exclusion of others. (We may yet prove, for example, that imagination is the result of brain wave activity rather than the cause of same, but we haven't yet. There is no evidence that makes either position more likely. And again, it isn't for me to prove this.) In effect, the only argument you've put forth in favor of this position is an implied argument from popularity--all the other people on your side of the argument assume that the materialist position is the null hypothesis too. Therefore, what you are asking me to do is accept this position without argument and without proof and then saying that it is I who must prove to the contrary.

 

[BobR]

Exactely. I wish I had some of your rethoric capability guys .

Whose? His or mine?

 

[BobR]

Noen of us ever said 100% proof. Most of us come from physic/biology/chemistry/geology etc... Sicnece domain where you always are open to contrary evidence and change of view on physical law.

Thank you.

so far we are the one having a NULL hypothesis (only the physical brain exists)

The null hypothesis is that nothing exists. Demonstrate otherwise.

and all verifiable evidence so far are consistent with that.

Verifiable how precisely?

Again as I say

and again, and again...

"The strongest argument for the brain/mind identity is that there is no evidence of anything beyond the physical brain AND physical modification of the brain influence directly the mind. "

Yes, the old "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy. Very popular among true believers of all sorts. And I say mental modification of the mind also influences directly the brain.

Proof is only in math. With you not wanting to use "demonstrate" I would have thought you would not use proof so liberally.

And your evidence that I don't want to use "demonstrate", please?

Tada.

How old are you? 15?

Sooooo. What probability you are giving each ?

I dunno.

If it is a 50/50 then please show us the evidence in equal quantity and quality in favor of the survival.

I'll be sure and do that.

Feel free to show the beginner error. So far you jsut threw fallacy without justifying them.

Really? Gee, I thought I had.

Argument from ignorance would mean that because I ignore some phenomena I assume they don't exists.

Maybe that's what it means to you, but to most people it means that lack of evidence for something is taken to mean evidence for its opposite.

I am saying that the null is that we only have the physical brain,

Yeah, I know, and so is Arthwollipot, and see my comments to him about that.

and we also have evidence that change to the brain change the mind, and we have no qualitative evidence of the contrary

Do you mean that we have no evidence that changing the mind changes the brain, or that we have no evidence that change to the brain does not change the mind? I disagree with either assertion, of course, but I'm curious which one you support.

Where is the argument by ignorance ?

"The strongest argument for the brain/mind identity is that there is no evidence of anything beyond the physical brain..."

As for irrelevant conclusion, well good luck with that one. If brain and mind are in indentity, and there are no "external" soul like quality, then just like when you burn a box it disappear, killing and decomposing the brain make the mind disappear. No survival.

Don't need much luck for that. I completely agree with this conclusion, which is in no way relevant to my argument. You're simply saying that if all the things you postulate to be true are true, then your conclusion applies. Your logic is impeccable here, but really, I don't think the mind is a box. But if it were, I agree, it would disappear (at least in a physical sense) if you burned it. At least, it mostly would.

 

[BobR]

Nice trolling BobR

Gee, I didn't know I was trolling. I guess all of my arguments fail in the light of this new evidence against them. Minds must cease to exist at death after all.

 

[arthwollipot]

Am not. You are. Null hypothesis is the default position. That the mind can be explained purely on a physical level, etc. is the materialist position, which has not been proven to the exclusion of others. (We may yet prove, for example, that imagination is the result of brain wave activity rather than the cause of same, but we haven't yet. There is no evidence that makes either position more likely. And again, it isn't for me to prove this.) In effect, the only argument you've put forth in favor of this position is an implied argument from popularity--all the other people on your side of the argument assume that the materialist position is the null hypothesis too. Therefore, what you are asking me to do is accept this position without argument and without proof and then saying that it is I who must prove to the contrary.

No. See, this is where you're wrong. The null hypothesis is that only things that can be demonstrated to exist need to be involved. Only the physical brain and its properties can be demonstrated to exist.

It isn't for you to prove this - no, it isn't. It's already been proven, or rather it has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. Since no reasonable doubt exists that the brain and its electrochemical properties exist, the null hypothesis is that only these entities need be involved. For any other hypothesis to be true, it must include something undemonstrated in addition to these entities. Therefore in order to disprove the null, you need to demonstrate that some other entity exists.

Let me suggest an experiment for you. Open a third-floor window and climb out. If the hypothesis that you can fly has equal weight to the hypothesis that you will plummet to the ground, then you can quibble about which might be the null hypothesis.

You are proposing that the hypothesis that there is an undemonstrated supernatural component to the mind has equal weight to the hypothesis that the mind is built up from discrete matter that we already know exists. It doesn't.

The burden of proof here is to demonstrate the hitherto undemonstrated.

 

[mike3]

And I say mental modification of the mind also influences directly the brain.

So we have bidirectional influence. Wouldn't that constitute an argument that the mind and brain are not separate after all?

 

[mike3]

I'd want to point out a big problem with NDEs is also that they are culturally conditioned. While Western NDErs claim Western imagery in their NDEs, others in other parts of the world claim other things. In Buddhist countries, imagery from the Buddhaverse is seen. This points to an experience generated inside the brain, not outside.

 

[BobR]

No. See, this is where you're wrong. The null hypothesis is that only things that can be demonstrated to exist need to be involved. Only the physical brain and its properties can be demonstrated to exist.

When you can demonstrate that reading a person's brain scan is analogous to reading his mind, you will have demonstrated an absolute correlation between brain and mind. Until then, your "null hypothesis" remains very much in doubt, though interesting. All we've really been able to demonstrate is that there is some sort of correlation between very broadly defined areas of thought and changes in activity levels in broadly defined areas of the brain. To presume from this that the brain is the cause of the mind is, well, presumptive.

 

[BobR]

So we have bidirectional influence. Wouldn't that constitute an argument that the mind and brain are not separate after all?

Sure it would. But the fact that the finger and the brain have a bidirectional influence, and are therefore not separate, doesn't constitute evidence that the brain dies when the finger does.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

When you can demonstrate that reading a person's brain scan is analogous to reading his mind, you will have demonstrated an absolute correlation between brain and mind. Until then, your "null hypothesis" remains very much in doubt.

What? How does that begin to make any sense. You condition is a demand for a crocoduck. It seems pretty clear to me that when something goes wrong with the brain, something goes wrong with the mind. Where do you propose thoughts come from? The kidneys?

Your "mind" is nothing mystical. It is your thoughts. Which come from your brain. This is the simplest of concepts, and it has not been refuted.

 

[BobR]

I'd want to point out a big problem with NDEs is also that they are culturally conditioned. While Western NDErs claim Western imagery in their NDEs, others in other parts of the world claim other things. In Buddhist countries, imagery from the Buddhaverse is seen. This points to an experience generated inside the brain, not outside.

No argument here, Mike. I wouldn't dream of arguing that NDE's are evidence of life after death. (If I did dream such, would you be able to tell from reading my brain waves?)

 

[BobR]

What? How does that begin to make any sense. You condition is a demand for a crocoduck.

I assume that you're saying that a crocoduck doesn't exist. So, you're saying that an absolute correlation between mind and brain can't exist either? Or just that you can't prove same?

It seems pretty clear to me that when something goes wrong with the brain, something goes wrong with the mind.

Me too. Sort of like when something goes wrong with the finger, something goes wrong with the hand.

Where do you propose thoughts come from? The kidneys?

Why are you changing the subject? Got somewhere you have to be? Or are you throwing a straw man party?

Your "mind" is nothing mystical.

I'll keep that in mind.

It is your thoughts. Which come from your brain.

Well, since YOU say so...I guess it has to be true.

This is the simplest of concepts, and it has not been refuted.

Pink unicorns are an even simpler concept, and they haven't been refuted either. Bye now.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

I assume that you're saying that a crocoduck doesn't exist. So, you're saying that an absolute correlation between mind and brain can't exist either? Or just that you can't prove same?

Me too. Sort of like when something goes wrong with the finger, something goes wrong with the hand.Why are you changing the subject? Got somewhere you have to be? Or are you throwing a straw man party?I'll keep that in mind. Well, since YOU say so...I guess it has to be true. Pink unicorns are an even simpler concept, and they haven't been refuted either. Bye now.

A demand for a crocoduck is an unreasonable, silly request for evidence that has nothing to do with how the world works.

There is no reason to believe that we need to meet the condition you propose in order to demonstrate that the mind is anywhere outside the brain.

So, the injured brain is like the injured finger? What is the hand in this simile? The skull?

You can't say the mind lives it's outside the brain without proposing a mechanism, and some evidence. The evidence for the brain-mind association is available. The evidence against it is nothing but talk, talk, talk.

 

[arthwollipot]

Still not understanding what a null hypothesis is, I see.

 

[BobR]

Still not understanding what a null hypothesis is, I see.

Null hypothesis is the general or default position. In your case, you are defining such to be that the mind is a product of brain activity. You put forth the idea that a preponderance of evidence points to this hypothesis as the most likely to be true. An example of the evidence that you use to support this position is that destroying a part of the brain destroys a concomitant part of the mind, for example damage to certain parts of the brain results in damage to memory. (Although not always, of course.)

I'm simply saying that there isn't sufficient evidence to support the hypothesis that all mental phenomena arise from brain activity. If so, then each discrete thought in the mind would have a concomitant discrete brain activity, and these would be mappable one to the other. Since we haven't yet discovered anything of the sort, accepting your hypothesis as the default one is quite a stretch. Evidence supports the claim that broad categories of thought process are handled by specific areas of the brain. To say that therefore all mental phenomena are caused by brain activity is an argument of insufficiency and smacks of confirmation bias.

So, I have another hypothesis for you. There is a great deal of evidence that people fear the unknown. There is also a great deal of evidence that people deal with this fear by creating fantasies wherein the unknown becomes the known, and then manufacture evidence to support these fantasies. (This is the basis of religion.) Now the extinction fantasy is just such a fantasy, and so is the survival fantasy. The only truth (at least, the only truth that can be derived from intellection) is that we don't know one way or the other.

 

[BobR]

A demand for a crocoduck is an unreasonable, silly request for evidence that has nothing to do with how the world works.

Ok, yes, I got that first time around. So, if I correctly understand your metaphor, you're saying that asking for evidence that the brain and mind share a common identity before believing such to be true is unreasonable, silly, and has nothing to do with how the world works. Well, I agree that it generally has nothing to do with how the world works. Most people accept this sort of thing without sufficient evidence, you being an apparent case in point.

There is no reason to believe that we need to meet the condition you propose in order to demonstrate that the mind is anywhere outside the brain.

Nobody is trying to demonstrate that. Certainly not me, but if you want to assert that the mind is somewhere outside the brain, go ahead. I'll be looking forward to the evidence you present.

So, the injured brain is like the injured finger? What is the hand in this simile? The skull?

Keep trying...

You can't say the mind lives it's outside the brain without proposing a mechanism, and some evidence.

No, you sure can't. And you can't say it lives INSIDE the brain without doing the same thing.

The evidence for the brain-mind association is available.

Association is one thing. Equivalence is very much another. Looks like that straw man party is in full swing.

The evidence against it is nothing but talk, talk, talk.

I really don't think anyone is seriously saying that there is no association between mind and brain. I certainly don't.

 

[arthwollipot]

Wow, so much wrong in such a small space.