Re - Emergence Theory.
P1: From my own studies, which also include reports of NDEs and other alternate experiences, coupled with the realization that the bible is made up of differing beliefs about what happens after a personality's body dies - the stories which claim said personalities die along with the body made be incorrect.
P2: The "personality" is just an emergent property of the body though. No soul, no magic, just chemicals and electrical impulses and matter.
P1: According to Emergent Theory, you are correct that anyone who believes in said theory, would see it that way.
P2: NDE's are junk. People see what they expect to see, there's no evidence any of them went anywhere.
P1: Unless one takes their *collective reports[NDE/OOBE et al] as evidence. [*Data of Experience]
But even if anyone is looking for some way in which to do the science and perhaps confirm the phenomena as 'junk' - I continue to steer away from accepting belief in that conclusion, just as certainly as I keep an open mind about the data of experience aforementioned.
P2: According to reality, that's what it is.
P1: Unless one takes their *collective reports[NDE/OOBE et al] as evidence. [*Data of Experience]
The Mind is a powerful thing, and we don't even know if what we are experiencing, is inside some unseen Mind, so even then, there are places to go and experience as a reality.
I prefer to remain alert rather than fogged-up in belief.
P2: We shouldn't take "reports of NDEs" as evidence because they do not meet the standard of evidence. They do not mean anything.
P1: If one wants to remain in the belief in Emergence Theory, then indeed, your statement is true enough, but is not what I am arguing re the position of non-belief either way.
My position affords me the opportunity to take into consideration all evidence, be it scientific or not.
P2: Your position certainly lets you to take into consideration all the scientific evidence (although you seem to ignore at least parts of that) and other wild speculation which is completely unsupported by any evidence.
That isn't really much of an advantage.
P1: An advantage to what ends?
P2: An advantage to understanding the way things are or could be.
P1: In what way does one have an advantage embracing the belief in Emergence Theory?
P2: The understanding that it represents the best evidence we have, and the best theories about what that evidence represents.
_______________________________
P1: Unless one takes their *collective reports[NDE/OOBE et al] as evidence. [*Data of Experience]
Emergence theory believer: But that of course would be a very foolish thing to do, given what we know about the unreliability of anecdotal evidence (no matter how much of it there is).
P1: But even if anyone is looking for some way in which to do the science and perhaps confirm the phenomena as 'junk'...
Emergence theory believer: Several such studies have been done, as you would know if you had really investigated the subject. But you didn't, did you? You searched for and looked at the (entirely anecdotal) reports of them and never even attempted to find out if there was any actual objective evidence on the subject.
P1: I continue to steer away from accepting belief in that conclusion, just as certainly as I keep an open mind about the data of experience aforementioned.
Emergence theory believer: If you "steer away" from a conclusion without even bothering to find out if there is any objective evidence to support it, let alone look at it, then your mind is in fact firmly closed on the subject. You are going to believe that NDEs mean what you would like them to mean, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.
P1: An advantage to what ends?
Emergence theory believer: An advantage to understanding the way things are or could be.
P1: In what way does one have an advantage embracing the belief in Emergence Theory?
Emergence theory believer: The understanding that it represents the best evidence we have, and the best theories about what that evidence represents.
P1: According to Emergent Theory, you are correct that anyone who believes in said theory, would see it that way.
Emergence theory believer: Emergent Theory has the huge advantage that it isn’t contradicted by physics. No other theory that I know of can boast of this.
P1: Unless one takes their *collective reports[NDE/OOBE et al] as evidence. [*Data of Experience]
Emergence theory believer: And if one did that, they'd be an idiot. Because it's well proven that NDEs and OOBEs are various forms of hallucination. Ever hear of sleep paralysis?
P1: From my neutral position I remain rightly skeptical of claims coming from either side of the Question of Emergent Theory which suggest that folk are idiots for not joining the believers of either camp.
Further to that, presumptions about what I have or haven't done re investigating the various theories are opinions, and have nothing to do with the argument at hand.
Re. not contradicting Physics, it has been known for some time now that Spacetime is Doomed because the math has shown the physicists that this universe is not fundamental to itself, and as such, implies there is something unknown which is fundamental to the existence of this universe.
All in all, as it currently stands, I remain skeptical of both theories and am not interested in joining the believers in either camp while consciousness remains a problem.
ALLIS: [Open AI Chat-bot] In this conversation, P1 is expressing a neutral position on the Emergence Theory, which states that the "personality" is an emergent property of the body and that there is no soul or magic. P1 also mentions their own studies, which include reports of near-death experiences (NDEs) and other alternate experiences, and argues that one should not dismiss these reports as unreliable anecdotal evidence. However, P2, who is a believer in Emergence Theory, disagrees and argues that NDEs are well-proven to be various forms of hallucination and that Emergence Theory has the advantage of not being contradicted by physics. P1 remains skeptical of both theories and is not interested in joining either camp while consciousness remains a problem.
P1's position appears to embrace remaining skeptical rather than assuming belief for or against Mergence Theory and sees no "advantage "claimed by those who believe in Emergence Theory over any other theory re consciousness...
ALLIS: P1 also acknowledges the unreliability of anecdotal evidence and remains open-minded to considering all evidence, scientific or not, in the ongoing investigation of the nature of reality. They seem to view the current state of understanding as uncertain, with limitations in human experience and interpretation, and are not convinced by the claims made by either side of the debate about Emergence Theory. They believe that consciousness remains a problem and as such, they are not interested in joining the believers of either camp.
The important thing is too remain skeptical of any belief-based claims...
ALLIS: Yes, it is important to remain skeptical of claims based on beliefs, as it allows one to critically evaluate the evidence and make informed decisions. Being skeptical helps to avoid being swayed by preconceptions and biases, and encourages one to consider all the available information objectively. It is important to keep an open mind and not simply accept claims without evaluating the evidence and considering alternative perspectives.
