The Case Against Immortality

[BobR]

Your opinion is wrong.

Sez you.

 

[BobR]

But your happiness is not relevant to truth. That you may be happier with the wrong answer than the right one changes reality not one iota.

Neither is yours. I need stronger evidence to set aside the idea of eternal consciousness, and you don't. Whatever makes you happy, in other words. You can state that your position is proven all you like, and we will still not agree. In effect, you are attempting to prove a negative.

As the existentialists say, consciousness is absurd, that absurdity being "born out of the confrontation of human need and the unreasonable silence of the world" as Camus put it. One idea is that meaning in life is born out of continual struggle against that absurdity. To my way of looking, you don't like that idea.

 

[BobR]

Is there a way in which we can test for this hypothesis, at least in principle?

Not that I can think of. I was looking for a possible hypothesis, not a testable one. Truth isn't by definition testable, is it?

Well, it kinda bypasses it. You're not explaining what consciousness is. You're sweeping the problem under a rug of "it's just something that exists eternally".

Well, I don't know what consciousness is, and don't find that anyone else does either. As Lao Tzu might say, consciousness that can be imagined is not true consciousness. And one might also opine with (I submit) equal validity that you are sweeping the problem of human need under a rug of irrelevance.

How can we go about empirically confirming such infinite and eternal entities? At least in principle?

We can't really, can we? Which could call into question any sort of assumption that truth is empirically verifiable. Well, possibly one might say that in principle, an empirical confirmation that something could exist is the fact that it can be imagined. I suspect you won't go along with that, though.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Perhaps so. On the other hand, postulating that all real phenomena derive from the already known (I'm not accusing you of this, just making a point) is confining,

Yes, reality is like that, unfortunately.

 

[BobR]

No-one has ever presented any evidence that would make a reasonable person consider for a moment that the notion had any validity at all.

As George Bernard Shaw said, all progress is dependent on the unreasonable man.

Also, it's impossible.

Well, it is if you accept the extinction theory. I can see where that would be emotionally attractive.

 

[BobR]

Yes, reality is like that, unfortunately.

So you're saying there isn't any reality. While I don't agree, I'm not so sure that that would be unfortunate.

 

[laca]

Neither is yours. I need stronger evidence to set aside the idea of eternal consciousness, and you don't. Whatever makes you happy, in other words. You can state that your position is proven all you like, and we will still not agree. In effect, you are attempting to prove a negative.

In effect, you are trying to shift the burden of proof. It won't fly. Remember the null hypothesis?

 

[BobR]

[qimg]http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png[/qimg]

My girlfriend got a good laugh out of this one. Thanks for sharing.

 

[laca]

Not that I can think of. I was looking for a possible hypothesis, not a testable one. Truth isn't by definition testable, is it?

Depends what you mean by truth, but reality is. No, don't try to pull solipsism out of your sleeve again. It's boring and useless.

 

[BobR]

In effect, you are trying to shift the burden of proof. It won't fly. Remember the null hypothesis?

We've been over that already. Thanks for sharing your opinion, though. By the way, from what part of your brain does your need for heavy-handed sarcasm derive?

 

[BobR]

Depends what you mean by truth, but reality is.

Not a meaningful distinction in my opinion. If you can give examples of reality that are not true, I might change my mind.

No, don't try to pull solipsism out of your sleeve again. It's boring and useless.

Solipsism derives its logic from the presumption of a known self, and concludes from there that other folks don't exist since they are unknowable. That is just the sort of logic that I don't accept, as I believe I have made clear. Furthermore, I presume that the self is unknown, and therefore can theorize that it's possible that we are all connected at some level of which we are consciously unaware. In other words, that selves exhibit both unified and discrete properties.

 

[laca]

We've been over that already. Thanks for sharing your opinion, though. By the way, from what part of your brain does your need for heavy-handed sarcasm derive?

Don't know, don't care. Why do you?

 

[laca]

Not a meaningful distinction in my opinion. If you can give examples of reality that are not true, I might change my mind.

Agreed, just wanted to make sure.

Solipsism derives its logic from the presumption of a known self, and concludes from there that other folks don't exist since they are unknowable. That is just the sort of logic that I don't accept, as I believe I have made clear.

Ummm, but you said earlier:

The null hypothesis is that nothing exists. Demonstrate otherwise.

Was that not serious?

Furthermore, I presume that the self is unknown, and therefore can theorize that it's possible that we are all connected at some level of which we are consciously unaware. In other words, that selves exhibit both unified and discrete properties.

Evidence?

 

[tsig]

Not a meaningful distinction in my opinion. If you can give examples of reality that are not true, I might change my mind.
Solipsism derives its logic from the presumption of a known self, and concludes from there that other folks don't exist since they are unknowable. That is just the sort of logic that I don't accept, as I believe I have made clear. Furthermore, I presume that the self is unknown, and therefore can theorize that it's possible that we are all connected at some level of which we are consciously unaware. In other words, that selves exhibit both unified and discrete properties.

First you say that the self is unknown then you tell us what properties selves have. There seems to be a contradiction here, how do you know that which is unknown?

 

[Cainkane1]

At least, not until after you're dead.Proving that you left it behind.
At least, not until after you're dead.
Of course. You go to them. That's the way it works.
I mean, duh.

Evidence?

 

[Cainkane1]

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.

If you think that immortality exists you must be able to demonstrate the idea scientifically.. If you can do that in a controlled atmosperes your entitled to the one million dollar challenge. Belief in life after death is based entirely on faith but for that idea to be proven scientifically you have to be able to demonstrate it in a laboratory situation.

If you can do that you'll be much richer than I think you are now. There is no evidence for the supernatural unless you yourself or someone else can prove it. That hasn't happened yet and its my bet it never will.

 

[eerok]

Well, I don't know what consciousness is, and don't find that anyone else does either.

Then good luck convincing us that whatever consciousness might be persists after we are dead.

Skepticism is a no-brainer when it comes to the afterlife. So to speak.

 

[BobR]

Don't know, don't care. Why do you?

Just curious. Maybe you could tell me what part of the brain curiosity comes from, if you don't care where heavy-handed sarcasm comes from.

 

[BobR]

Then good luck convincing us that whatever consciousness might be persists after we are dead.

Thank you, if I should ever wish to try.

Skepticism is a no-brainer when it comes to the afterlife. So to speak.

Excellent. We agree completely.

 

[BobR]

If you think that immortality exists you must be able to demonstrate the idea scientifically.. If you can do that in a controlled atmosperes your entitled to the one million dollar challenge. Belief in life after death is based entirely on faith but for that idea to be proven scientifically you have to be able to demonstrate it in a laboratory situation.

If you can do that you'll be much richer than I think you are now. There is no evidence for the supernatural unless you yourself or someone else can prove it. That hasn't happened yet and its my bet it never will.

You might wish to read my posts before commenting on them.