Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What do you believe happens when we die

1171820222326

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,699 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    'Other unsubstantiated nonsense'



    To you maybe but not so much to others an open mind is required. Calling it all nonsense and 'woo' is just plain presumption.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    saabsaab wrote: »
    Calling it all nonsense and 'woo' is just plain presumption.
    As is suggesting that your fellow posters would believe you, were they to possess nothing more than an "open mind".

    Probably best take the tone down a peg - thanks.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,331 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    saabsaab wrote: »
    'Other unsubstantiated nonsense' To you maybe

    Well, yes. When I call something unsubstantiated I do so because no substantiation has been shown TO ME. I am not arrogant enough to presume that I have seen all evidence that exists everywhere. That is why I ask people who claim that there is evidence, to make me aware of it. Because I operate under the rubric that they might know something I don't.

    Alas with 100% consistency SO FAR anyone who has claimed there is evidence, and has been asked therefore to show it, has come up with diddly squat.

    So yes, I do mean it is unsubstantiated TO ME. If it has been substantiated to someone else, that is great for them. But it does not help me much.
    saabsaab wrote: »
    but not so much to others an open mind is required.

    "open minded" is a much misunderstood and misused term however. People use it in a way that generally means "agree more with me". But that is not what "open minded" means.

    What "open minded" actually means is to be entirely willing to change your world view on a subject if and when new argument, evidence, data or reasoning is presented to you to warrant such a change.

    Close minded means refusing to change your position despite new argument, evidence, data or reasoning being presented.

    The problem therefore is that all too often "open minded" is thrown about by people who are not actually presenting any such argument, evidence, data or reasoning. The term "open minded" is therefore used not because of argument, evidence, data or reasoning..... but it lieu of it. Hence the coined phrase "I want to be open minded, but not so open that by brain falls out".

    It has been a long time since I had a conversation where I got to cite this wonderful link. I had almost forgotten about it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,699 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    robindch wrote: »
    As is suggesting that your fellow posters would believe you, were they to possess nothing more than an "open mind".

    Probably best take the tone down a peg - thanks.


    An open mind would help.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,699 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    That link is interesting. I would say the comments are the most interesting part.
    Especially this one.


    'Depends on what definition of "agnosticism" you are going by. If you are using the version that basically goes: agnostic = one who does not claim to have knowledge of ..then yes, this is honest and sensible. It also isn't mutually exclusive with basic atheism/theism.'


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    saabsaab wrote: »
    An open mind would help.

    This also includes being open to the idea that there are a lot of charlatans out there peddling various types of snake oil. I think we need to be very wary of tenuous evidence surrounding assertions that we would really like to be true. Life after death is a case in point here as termination of subjective existence is something that terrorises many people. Many unscrupulous people play on such fears. I'm personally of the opinion that we need to properly apply critical thinking here, particularly in regard to confirmation bias. We could say that Children are open minded to the idea of Santa for example, but is this actual open mindedness or blindly accepting a proclaimed truth from a trusted source on the basis of it delivering a preferred outcome?

    Let me ask you a simple question. On a scale of one to ten, how probable do you think it is that death is the final and unalterable termination of subjective consciousness?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,699 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    Fair enough. Of course I could be wrong but to answer your question from 1 to 10 ten being virtually certain I'd say 5 (based on my understanding of recent theories in Physics and cosmology stating that time is an illusion and that all that is is ever present and interconnected) I know that theories are just that. I am not terrified if my consciousness existence just ends and that's it, probably like going into a deep sleep.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,331 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    saabsaab wrote: »
    That link is interesting. I would say the comments are the most interesting part.

    Well the link is about the term "open minded" so a comment on the link about the term "agnostic" is only tangentially interesting really. I tend to avoid the term "agnostic" myself because it's meaning has changed too much from what it was originally coined to mean.

    So it is a term that clouds discourse rather than furthers it.

    Not saying I have an issue when OTHER people use the term of course. It is just a term I try, where and when possible, to entirely avoid myself.

    But like I said the term "open minded" tends mostly to be used by people who can not substantiate their position in any way. It is an ad hominem move generally.

    "open minded" just means being willing to change your mind when evidence is offered. In a context where NO EVIDENCE is being offered therefore.... the term is inapplicable.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    saabsaab wrote: »
    Fair enough. Of course I could be wrong but to answer your question from 1 to 10 ten being virtually certain I'd say 5 (based on my understanding of recent theories in Physics and cosmology stating that time is an illusion and that all that is is ever present and interconnected) I know that theories are just that. I am not terrified if my consciousness existence just ends and that's it, probably like going into a deep sleep.

    That's interesting. Personally I haven't seen any rational reason to believe there might be any form of subjective conscious existence after death. As such, I assume death is final, sad as that is. We might well build a AIs that are much closer to immortal, but everything that I've read suggests our consciousness is entirely dependent on the substrate that is our brain.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,699 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    smacl wrote: »
    That's interesting. Personally I haven't seen any rational reason to believe there might be any form of subjective conscious existence after death. As such, I assume death is final, sad as that is. We might well build a AIs that are much closer to immortal, but everything that I've read suggests our consciousness is entirely dependent on the substrate that is our brain.


    Going over old ground here but what of the studies that suggest that 'A consciousness' exists when it was not expected as measured by brain activity? Further studies are underway so I am open to results either way.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,331 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Then such studies just show our expectations are false. Nothing more. As I have been saying for many pages now.

    Can't be more specific than that, without a specific citation to an actual study.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,699 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    Then such studies just show our expectations are false. Nothing more. As I have been saying for many pages now.

    Can't be more specific than that, without a specific citation to an actual study.


    I am aware of your position on them. Perhaps further studies will convince you?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,331 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    I await them with interest. I can only wait and see.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    I await them with interest. I can only wait and see.

    Fair to say you are keeping an open mind?
    :p


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,331 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    :) As open as I can short of drilling holes in my own skull anyway :)

    I will still put pineapple on pizza on occasion though. Mind is totally closed to change on that one.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I will still put pineapple on pizza on occasion though. Mind is totally closed to change on that one.

    Burn the heathen!!! :pac:


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    smacl wrote: »
    Burn the heathen!!! :pac:

    Trepan the heathen first!!!!!

    :cool:


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,699 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    Below is a link is of a scientist who believes that 'consciousness' is not a by product of the brain. It rambles along a bit but what I find relevant starts about 2.55 in. Open to looking further.



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr7eaE9AUtg


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,331 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    I am sure there are a lot of scientists who believe it. Finding a scientist who believes it, it no more interesting to me than finding a queen who believes it, or a homeless person who believes it, or a dentist who believes it.

    The only thing interesting is WHY the believe it, and on what substantiation. None of that is in this video.

    You say the interesting part starts at 2:55. But all I see starting at 2:55 is what is called "an argument from ignorance". He says that the reason we can not find out how the brain causes consciousness.... is because it doesn't. And it must be "something deeper".

    This is what an "argument from ignorance" is. An assertion based solely on what we DO NOT know rather than what we do.

    This being an atheist forum the most common "Argument from Ignorance" we hear around here follows the structure "Well you do not know how the universe came to be, therefore god did it".

    This argument "We can not explain how X does Y, therefore X must not be doing Y and therefore Z must be" is a deeply uninteresting manifestation of an argument from ignorance ploy.

    The rest of the video he merely proposes a hypothesis. Nothing wrong with that. But that is all it is right now. A hypothesis. He has a LOT of work to do before getting anywhere with that. I wish him well/luck.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,699 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    I've heard it argued that there is little evidence that the brain is responsible for consciousness. Correlation yes, convincing proof , no.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,331 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    I've "heard it argued" that the earth is flat.
    I've "heard it argued" that the political elite are actually lizards in human disguises.
    I've "heard it argued" that Elvis is still alive.
    I've "heard it argued" that Homeopathy is a medicine system that is significantly more effective than placebo.
    I've "heard it argued" that there is a god.
    I've "heard it argued" that putting pineapple on pizza is an unforgivable moral wrong.

    More recently I've "heard it argued" that Covid 19 is caused by terrestrial magnetism and can be prevented by wearing jade amulets.

    "Heard it argued" tell me exactly nothing really. What I am not hearing is the substantiation any of these arguments are based on.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,699 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    Some of the support for this line of argument include the following:


    Cases where those who suffered major brain loss or damage could still maintain higher level brain function.

    Deathbed recovery of higher level consciousness for a short period immediately prior to death in cases with advanced dementia.
    The already mentioned NDE and OBE experiences.
    Even the seeming 'past life' regression cases that are difficult to explain.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,331 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    saabsaab wrote: »
    Cases where those who suffered major brain loss or damage could still maintain higher level brain function.

    Too vague. Not sure what you are referring to here. But in general I am not sure why this is at all surprising to you. The brain is not a like an old model car where if you take out one major part the whole thing stops functioning. It is a modular system often with more pathways and structures than we give it credit for, and damage to one part of it in no way automatically precludes "higher level brain function".

    I follow closely with great interest the work of people like VS Ramachandran for example. People who study major damage to different areas of the brain and the effects of this. And you can get some pretty impressive damage with some pretty interesting results.... all in patients who still maintain higher level brain function.
    saabsaab wrote: »
    Deathbed recovery of higher level consciousness for a short period immediately prior to death in cases with advanced dementia.

    Also not all that unheard of or surprising really. At death the brain appears to get flooded with all kinds of activity and hormones and chemicals. That this might cause a temporary revival or re-instatement of function in an extremely short term is interesting.... but not narrative changing. It certainly suggests nothing like what this thread is about.
    saabsaab wrote: »
    The already mentioned NDE and OBE experiences.

    Not sure why you mention these again though as we have covered them EXTENSIVELY in many posts now and failed to find anything relevant to what this thread is about.
    saabsaab wrote: »
    Even the seeming 'past life' regression cases that are difficult to explain.

    If you say so. But again without citations this is terribly vague. But "difficult to explain" is erring again towards "arguments from ignorance" here. If you find something that is difficult to explain then ALL this tells us is the thing you found is difficult to explain.

    What it does NOT do is lend credence to any entirely unsubstantiated explanation one might want to attach to it. Reference earlier my post about tiny fairies going into the ear of a patient just before they regain consciousness. I made that up entirely and me saying "But the person on the death bed knowing something I do not know how they know is difficult to explain!" does not for one moment lend credence to my fairies idea.

    It is a common move. In conspiracy theory. In religion. In conversations about the paranormal or the supernatural. The speaker puts forward some woo..... then just points at something difficult to explain..... and then acts like the latter somehow supports the former. It doesn't. Go back to the video I linked to earlier for example and go the part about the "moving lampshade" in that video.

    Finally however, if you do want to cite something "difficult to explain" then please ensure you have made SOME attempt to explain it. For example we used to have a user big into claiming reincarnation was a thing around here. He posted a lot on this... using mostly the same things you have been using such as telling people to be "open minded" or quote mineing scientists in 3 minute videos who SEEMED to agree with him.

    Finally I asked him to give me his BEST example of reincarnation. His absolute killer ace up the sleeve story. He came back with a very young girl who seemingly fluently spoke a language from a past life that he claimed she could not possibly be able to speak as the language was now long dead. This too was "difficult to explain" in his view and so to his imagination supported his claims about reincarnation.

    5 minutes of research later I found out that this girls father studied history..... specifically the culture in question and.... you guessed it.... their language. And people who knew anything about the language stated that she was not speaking it fluently but barely at the level of a toddler.

    Shortly after the user, a long time member of the forum, closed his account and never returned. Wonder why.

    So all too often "difficult to explain" seems to mean "I heard an anecdote that supports my narrative so I in fact made absoultely ZERO EFFORT to explain it.... rather I regurgitate it because it feed by world view and confirmation bias".


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,699 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    Article on reincarnation below for those interested.


    Just because one case can be discounted it seems to be a common occurrence and worthy of further study which is ongoing.



    https://uvamagazine.org/articles/the_science_of_reincarnation


    As regards hard evidence is there any for extra terrestrial life? No.



    That doesn't mean that it isn't being investigated as such a thing may be possible. Should it be totally discounted until there is some proof.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    saabsaab wrote: »
    Article on reincarnation below for those interested.


    Just because one case can be discounted it seems to be a common occurrence and worthy of further study which is ongoing.



    https://uvamagazine.org/articles/the_science_of_reincarnation


    As regards hard evidence is there any for extra terrestrial life? No.



    That doesn't mean that it isn't being investigated as such a thing may be possible. Should it be totally discounted until there is some proof.

    Maybe aliens, therefore maybe reincarnation?

    Oh dear.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    saabsaab wrote: »
    An open mind would help.

    An open mind means that you are open to any evidence, regardless of the claim it is being used to support.
    Not that you are open to any claim, regardless of the evidence being used to support it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,331 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    saabsaab wrote: »
    That doesn't mean that it isn't being investigated as such a thing may be possible. Should it be totally discounted until there is some proof.

    Not sure what your point here? I have not seen a single person on this thread "totally discount" anything. Least of all me. Not one person here appears to be saying that this stuff is not possible.

    Be it the existence of a god, reincarnation, consciousness operating independent of the brain, or extra terrestrial life. They are all "possible". No one has suggested otherwise?

    There is just not a shred of evidence at this time that any of them are in fact true.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,699 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    pauldla wrote: »
    Maybe aliens, therefore maybe reincarnation?

    Oh dear.


    Not what I meant. Just comparing what people see as possible without absolute proof.


    I think that a previous poster had a good point re a scale of probability of something being true say 0 to 10. Virtually nothing would make a 10 an absolute certainty or a zero absolutely not.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Trepan the heathen first!!!!!

    :cool:

    Had to look that one up. Certainly one way of opening the mind :)

    Hieronymus_Bosch_053_detail.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,699 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    smacl wrote: »
    Had to look that one up. Certainly one way of opening the mind :)

    Hieronymus_Bosch_053_detail.jpg


    It might have worked. Let the devil out.


Advertisement