ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags ndes , obes

Reply
Old 15th August 2015, 07:59 PM   #361
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,869
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
Whut??????? "I don't understand mathematics, therefore afterlife?"

This is a very strange form of special pleading at work. You appear to have concluded that poisoning the well on mathematics invalidates any science that uses numbers.

Hang on a second, though... That does NOT create evidence in favor of your assertions, particularly if those assertions use numbers anywhere...
That's true Eager, but I'm simply stating that science doesn't provide evidence for the lack of existence of an after life
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 08:45 PM   #362
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
That's true Eager, but I'm simply stating that science doesn't provide evidence for the lack of existence of an after life
Why would you think that science should provide evidence for an after life?
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 08:52 PM   #363
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,869
hold on, I'm thinking.
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 09:02 PM   #364
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,869
All I've said about a whole divided into thirds and pi is that it isn't representative of the reality that we see. It indicates an infinite amount even though we apply them to concrete volumes. What I've said about the mathematical theories applied to light is also true, it doesn't adequately represent our experience of light.

Okay, now I'm getting in over my head with the mathematics so I'm open for correction but here goes: Try taking Godel's theorems of incompleteness as applied to human intelligence and extrapolate that to the near death experience. If the human mind is equivalent to a Turing Machine, which is finite, and if that analogy is consistent, then Godel's theorems of incompleteness would apply to the near death experience since it is a result of human intelligence. Therefore the existence of human intelligence existing after death is essentially undecidable using any kind of science based on mathematics ergo you can't use NDE research as evidence that there is no life after death.

Last edited by Jodie; 15th August 2015 at 09:09 PM.
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 09:03 PM   #365
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,869
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Why would you think that science should provide evidence for an after life?
Why would anyone think that it indicates that life after death doesn't exist?
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 09:13 PM   #366
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 17,803
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
All I've said about a whole divided into thirds and pi is that it isn't representative of the reality that we see. It indicates an infinite amount even though we apply them to concrete volumes. What I've said about the mathematical theories applied to light is also true, it doesn't adequately represent our experience of light.

Okay, now I'm getting in over my head with the mathematics so I'm open for correction but here goes: Try taking Goebel's theorems of incompleteness as applied to human intelligence and extrapolate that to the near death experience. If the human mind is equivalent to a Turing Machine, which is finite, and if that analogy is consistent, then Geobel's theorems of incompleteness would apply to the near death experience since it is a result of human intelligence. Therefore the existence of human intelligence existing after death is essentially undecidable using any kind of science based on mathematics ergo you can't use NDE research as evidence that there is no life after death.
The world is messy unlike the world of ideal forms described by mathematics. There are no perfect circles nor objects cut into equal thirds. This however doesn't stop us using mathematics as an essential tool in predicting the world.

While you take a forward step in admitting being out of depth why do you name drop concepts like Godels incompleteness theorems with zero argument for relevance?
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 09:18 PM   #367
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,188
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
That's true Eager, but I'm simply stating that science doesn't provide evidence for the lack of existence of an after life
Nor does it need to. The use of science has allowed us to establish that claims of an afterlife via NDEs is not supported by the evidence.

ETA - I was about to comment on your unintentional Godwinning of the thread, but you spoiled it by correcting the name of the person. So disappoint....
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....

Last edited by Kid Eager; 15th August 2015 at 09:21 PM.
Kid Eager is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 09:56 PM   #368
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,869
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
The world is messy unlike the world of ideal forms described by mathematics. There are no perfect circles nor objects cut into equal thirds. This however doesn't stop us using mathematics as an essential tool in predicting the world.

While you take a forward step in admitting being out of depth why do you name drop concepts like Godels incompleteness theorems with zero argument for relevance?
I felt it was relevant. We haven't succeeded in building AI equivalent to human intelligence because mathematical computations really can't be applied to human intelligence. If a near death experience is the result of human intelligence then nothing could be inferred from that to indicate that death is the end.
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 10:01 PM   #369
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,869
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
Nor does it need to. The use of science has allowed us to establish that claims of an afterlife via NDEs is not supported by the evidence.

ETA - I was about to comment on your unintentional Godwinning of the thread, but you spoiled it by correcting the name of the person. So disappoint....
I know, I sublimated one of my favorite shopping sites for a math philosopher, go figure.

http://www.goebel.de/en/
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 10:21 PM   #370
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 17,803
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
I felt it was relevant. We haven't succeeded in building AI equivalent to human intelligence because mathematical computations really can't be applied to human intelligence. If a near death experience is the result of human intelligence then nothing could be inferred from that to indicate that death is the end.
Are we behind schedule on building a replication of human intelligence?
How do you know mathematical computations cannot be applied to human intelligence?

Granted if NDEs can be explained without resorting to the afterlife, death may not be the end. This is true of any number of unfalsified ideas we might come up with.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman

Last edited by Sideroxylon; 15th August 2015 at 10:22 PM.
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 10:28 PM   #371
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 17,803
There have been a lot of interesting philosophical arguments to certain approaches to replicating human consciousness, as well as understandings of human thought and rationality, but these don't seem to be the avenues popularly explored today.

You seem to be alluding to arguments like these:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hube...l_intelligence
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman

Last edited by Sideroxylon; 15th August 2015 at 10:30 PM.
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 12:22 AM   #372
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,394
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
.. because mathematical computations really can't be applied to human intelligence.
Because Gödel, something. This means our minds are beyond math or any computation.

I'm sold.

Tell me more.

Quote:
If a near death experience is the result of human intelligence then nothing could be inferred from that to indicate that death is the end.
For that matter, nothing can be anything as hume intelligence is all over the place, a carpet after a cocktail party.

What I'm getting from your posts is that math can't count properly, it's out.

Clever math heavy Godel incompleteness theorems don't complete; they used math, so, duh!

Ergo we are not alive at all...
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat

Last edited by Donn; 16th August 2015 at 12:24 AM.
Donn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 01:53 AM   #373
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,799
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
Mathematics is a convenient way to describe reality, in this example it's light, and you can pick and choose which theory you want to use to demonstrate that reality, that's cherry picking is it not?

No, it isn't, it is using an appropriate model to best explain the results, not choosing only those results that fit a particular model. Nether light as particles nor light as waves is put forward by science as "demonstrating reality". You are arguing against a strawman. Light exhibits wave-particle duality; there are no alternative theories to be chosen here.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 16th August 2015 at 01:55 AM.
Mojo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 03:08 AM   #374
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
I don't, but the evidence suggested by near death studies is not indicative that there is no life after death. It describes the process of the dying brain.
A more noticeable aspect of such studies is the lack of proper indication of life after death.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 03:09 AM   #375
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
If the math behind the science is imperfect then the conclusion based on the data can't be definite.
This does not remedy the lack of valid data for survival of consciousness.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 03:12 AM   #376
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
That's true Eager, but I'm simply stating that science doesn't provide evidence for the lack of existence of an after life
Howevert, there is an utter lack of valid data to show that there is survival of consciousness.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 03:15 AM   #377
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
... you can't use NDE research as evidence that there is no life after death.
You mean, there are problems wit proving a negative?
That's nothing new.

The bigger problem for you is that the NDE research can not be used to show valid indication for the survival of consciousness.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 03:16 AM   #378
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,799
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
That's true Eager, but I'm simply stating that science doesn't provide evidence for the lack of existence of an after life

It doesn't need to. You don't get to reverse the burden of proof.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 03:18 AM   #379
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
Why would anyone think that it indicates that life after death doesn't exist?
Hilite by Daylightstar

Not that it, it's the persistent lack of valid data for the survival of consciousness
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 03:24 AM   #380
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
... You don't get to reverse the burden of proof.
Exactly.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 04:15 AM   #381
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,394
When measuring in ṫrollströms, reversing the proof burden is a natural consequence. Doupleplusundeath is a few ṫrolls from the skull.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 08:41 AM   #382
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Donn View Post
When measuring in ṫrollströms, reversing the proof burden is a natural consequence. Doupleplusundeath is a few ṫrolls from the skull.
Who really has the beast of burden of proof?
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 09:29 AM   #383
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,394
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Who really has the beast of burden of proof?
The burden of pray!

__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 11:34 AM   #384
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,095
Ironically it is the math that typically matches the reality, as shown by actual experiment and it is the human perception that is often incorrect and does not match the reality. Humans typically don't have an intuitive understanding of relativistic effects, yet GPS confirms that it is the prediction of the math, not the human expectation, that is correct and matches reality in this case. Same for the dual nature of light: it is not that the math fails to explain it, but that we have trouble intuitively understanding it. Again, it is the math that matches the reality as confirmed by experiments. Our perception is incorrect.

I can only reinforce what others here have said: the generating of a repeating string when dividing 1 by 3 is only a problem of the nomenclature, not the math itself. 1/3 is a perfectly acceptable mathematical notation for the precise answer to this division: if you wish instead to express it as a decimal, you must write a bar over the last digit of .3 to use this decimal nomenclature accurately, but it doesn't make either the math itself or the nomenclature incorrect. Different nomenclatures use the same math, but some are more useful than others for given purposes. Fractions for example are easier to write than certain decimals, but harder to use in accounting legers. The nomenclature is just a series of symbols; they are not truly the mathematical concepts that they are meant to indicate.
Giordano is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2015, 11:42 AM   #385
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,095
Back to the main focus of this thread: of course there are many things yet to be discovered! But there are many, many more things that will never be discovered simply because they do not exist. There is a massive amount of evidence against a concept of an afterlife, and no convincing evidence for it. So although one may wish, in principal, to not completely rule out the possibility, it is so very low as to not be worthwhile considering until there is good evidence for an afterlife. At that time I will re-consider my opinion. Until then, the concept appears to have no more evidence than there being a unicorn in my attic, and I have no more reason to consider an afterlife than to consider feeding my unicorn.
Giordano is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2015, 01:52 PM   #386
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,869
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Ironically it is the math that typically matches the reality, as shown by actual experiment and it is the human perception that is often incorrect and does not match the reality. Humans typically don't have an intuitive understanding of relativistic effects, yet GPS confirms that it is the prediction of the math, not the human expectation, that is correct and matches reality in this case. Same for the dual nature of light: it is not that the math fails to explain it, but that we have trouble intuitively understanding it. Again, it is the math that matches the reality as confirmed by experiments. Our perception is incorrect.

I can only reinforce what others here have said: the generating of a repeating string when dividing 1 by 3 is only a problem of the nomenclature, not the math itself. 1/3 is a perfectly acceptable mathematical notation for the precise answer to this division: if you wish instead to express it as a decimal, you must write a bar over the last digit of .3 to use this decimal nomenclature accurately, but it doesn't make either the math itself or the nomenclature incorrect. Different nomenclatures use the same math, but some are more useful than others for given purposes. Fractions for example are easier to write than certain decimals, but harder to use in accounting legers. The nomenclature is just a series of symbols; they are not truly the mathematical concepts that they are meant to indicate.
That was all that needed to be said.
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2015, 01:54 PM   #387
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,869
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Back to the main focus of this thread: of course there are many things yet to be discovered! But there are many, many more things that will never be discovered simply because they do not exist. There is a massive amount of evidence against a concept of an afterlife, and no convincing evidence for it. So although one may wish, in principal, to not completely rule out the possibility, it is so very low as to not be worthwhile considering until there is good evidence for an afterlife. At that time I will re-consider my opinion. Until then, the concept appears to have no more evidence than there being a unicorn in my attic, and I have no more reason to consider an afterlife than to consider feeding my unicorn.
I don't see how the research for near death experiences can indicate that an after life doesn't exist. If our perceptions are limited, then what people claim to be seeing would simply be a brain function. How would that be evidence that an after life didn't exist? If there is other evidence than these particular studies, I'm not aware of it.
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2015, 03:21 PM   #388
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
I don't see how the research for near death experiences can indicate that an after life doesn't exist. ...
For instance by consistently being unable to gather data which supports the existence of an afterlife.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2015, 03:23 PM   #389
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,869
If there is no data available how can you say there isn't? It works both ways, does it not? It's a matter of belief regardless.
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2015, 03:30 PM   #390
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
If data on such would have been available, surely this would have been made known publicly.
It would be quite an incentive for funding further research considering public interest could be enormous.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2015, 03:38 PM   #391
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,869
Non available data, or evidence, doesn't mean it's not there. If you want to believe no after life exists based on the lack of evidence so far then I'm fine with that. It's an equally biased statement based on the keyword "believe". I think it will be a very long time before we get there since we can't replicate how the mind works, assuming that has anything at all to do with what part of us might continue after we die.

Last edited by Jodie; 17th August 2015 at 03:42 PM.
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2015, 03:43 PM   #392
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
Non available data, or evidence, doesn't mean it's not there. ...
Not "Non available data" but no data available.

Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
... doesn't mean it's not there. ...
Where could this data be?
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2015, 03:46 PM   #393
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,910
Certainly. And if you want to believe there's no leprechaun hiding in your house, you're free to remain close-minded. I mean, it's just as biased as believing there is.
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2015, 03:47 PM   #394
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,095
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
I don't see how the research for near death experiences can indicate that an after life doesn't exist. If our perceptions are limited, then what people claim to be seeing would simply be a brain function. How would that be evidence that an after life didn't exist? If there is other evidence than these particular studies, I'm not aware of it.
This is, in a round-about way, my point. If we presume that life after death can not be detected using our instruments and sensors, then it is much like the situation with my attic, which I have not checked for unicorns for many months. Either an afterlife or a unicorn in my attic could exist, both being beyond my ability to deduce based on what I already know right now. But there is no reason to assume that either exists. The existence of either requires special pleading (they exist, but you can't detect them because they happen to have properties that are special and unlike all the other things that you do know exist in the world). Are they possible in theory- sure. But are they likely enough to be worth considering? I'd say no.

I would also point out that fundamental to the proposal that there is an afterlife is the concept that somehow our consciousness is separable and distinct from the physical and chemical function of the brain. Another example of special pleading. No one proposes that the functions of our kidnys somehow out live us and continue after the kidneys themselves die. Same with our hearts, or livers, or our muscles. When these organs are dead, people accept that the functions of these organs while alive also stop on death. But somehow, some people would like to believe that our brain function, our minds, will outlive our brains. I see no reason to believe that.
Giordano is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2015, 03:59 PM   #395
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,869
Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
Not "Non available data" but no data available.


Where could this data be?
I'm assuming belief is the drive to ask the question in the first place. The data is non available if you are looking in the wrong place. Can you find a television show in a broken television? If I knew where to look for the data I certainly wouldn't be here debating the question.
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2015, 04:03 PM   #396
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,869
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
This is, in a round-about way, my point. If we presume that life after death can not be detected using our instruments and sensors, then it is much like the situation with my attic, which I have not checked for unicorns for many months. Either an afterlife or a unicorn in my attic could exist, both being beyond my ability to deduce based on what I already know right now. But there is no reason to assume that either exists. The existence of either requires special pleading (they exist, but you can't detect them because they happen to have properties that are special and unlike all the other things that you do know exist in the world). Are they possible in theory- sure. But are they likely enough to be worth considering? I'd say no.

I would also point out that fundamental to the proposal that there is an afterlife is the concept that somehow our consciousness is separable and distinct from the physical and chemical function of the brain. Another example of special pleading. No one proposes that the functions of our kidnys somehow out live us and continue after the kidneys themselves die. Same with our hearts, or livers, or our muscles. When these organs are dead, people accept that the functions of these organs while alive also stop on death. But somehow, some people would like to believe that our brain function, our minds, will outlive our brains. I see no reason to believe that.
Neither do I, but I don't think we stop being when we die.
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2015, 04:15 PM   #397
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 17,803
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
I'm assuming belief is the drive to ask the question in the first place. The data is non available if you are looking in the wrong place. Can you find a television show in a broken television? If I knew where to look for the data I certainly wouldn't be here debating the question.
Your TV example already assumes TV shows.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2015, 04:19 PM   #398
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,869
LOLOL...you're not wrong there.
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2015, 04:27 PM   #399
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
I'm assuming belief is the drive to ask the question in the first place. The data is non available if you are looking in the wrong place. Can you find a television show in a broken television? If I knew where to look for the data I certainly wouldn't be here debating the question.
On what basis would you then believe there is an afterlife?
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2015, 04:28 PM   #400
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
Your TV example already assumes TV shows.
Quite right.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:20 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.