Life after death

Zillah

Betty Bloggs wrote: »

I don't think the scientists said anything about there being a heaven or a full life after death. They are just looking at the possibility of an awareness or consciousness remaining for a certain period of time (few minutes in this case) after death. Could this theory not be looked at on it's own without bringing in belief arguments about a heaven/afterlife that continues indefinitely?
It doesn't have to turn into a believer/non believer debate.(regarding religion).

It's not even that. The only claim that comes out of this study is "People feel weird things as their brain starts to shut down."

That's literally it.

Defender OF Faith

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

We do not know ANYTHING for certain. That is how science works. What we do is we place things on a probability continuum of truth. The more substantiated a claim is the further along that continuum it goes, but it never get to the end where "certainty" resides.

What we do know about human subjectivity and experience and consciousness is that 100% of the evidence we have thus far links it inextricably to the brain and the survival of the brain. 0% of the evidence we have thus far indicates any kind of disconnect or possibility of the existence of the former without the latter.

So while pedantically you are correct, we can not be "certain" about it.... we certainly are as "certain" about it as science currently allows us to be. There simply is not a speck.... of a shred.... of an iota..... of argument, evidence, data or reasoning that even begins to lend a modicum of credibility to the idea human awareness and consciousness survives independently of the brain. Much less from anyone on THIS thread.



Except that is simply not true, for the reasons I just laid out above. When all the evidence points at conclusion X while no evidence at all points at conclusion Y..... then it does not take "just as much belief" to subscribe to X over Y.

You make a good point with regard to not having the same faith it take to believe in heaven or hell & I probably shouldn't have said that however you cannot negate the fact that it does take a certain degree of faith to believe that nothing will happen after your death you have faith that God wont be there to hold you accountable for your action and this is something that no matter how hard science try will never be able to disprove as science will always be limited to the materialistic side of our world.
But for some reason the atheists doesn't seem to like this word even though faith come into various element of his life such as having Faith that your partner wont cheat on you, that your son will grow to help you. that everything will be ok and so on.

Spring Onion

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

You make a good point with regard to not having the same faith it take to believe in heaven or hell & I probably shouldn't have said that however you cannot negate the fact that it does take a certain degree of faith to believe that nothing will happen after your death you have faith that God wont be there to hold you accountable for your action and this is something that no matter how hard science try will never be able to disprove as science will always be limited to the materialistic side of our world.
But for some reason the atheists doesn't seem to like this word even though faith come into various element of his life such as having Faith that your partner wont cheat on you, that your son will grow to help you. that everything will be ok and so on.

Is that a mealy-mouthed apology? :rolleyes:

Philo Beddoe

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

You make a good point with regard to not having the same faith it take to believe in heaven or hell & I probably shouldn't have said that however you cannot negate the fact that it does take a certain degree of faith to believe that nothing will happen after your death you have faith that God wont be there to hold you accountable for your action and this is something that no matter how hard science try will never be able to disprove as science will always be limited to the materialistic side of our world.

I believe that consciousness is an emergent property of a living brain. From that I deduce that consciousness ceases when the brain dies. I don't see why either of these ideas require faith.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

But for some reason the atheists doesn't seem to like this word even though faith come into various element of his life such as having Faith that your partner wont cheat on you, that your son will grow to help you. that everything will be ok and so on.

You're conflating varying definitions of the word faith. Faith when used regarding God etc. is a belief in something regardless of absence of evidence or despite evidence to the contrary - it is viewed as a virtue among religious people to have this kind of faith.

Faith when used in the sense of having faith in your partner is just another word for trust. You trust that your partner will not cheat on you based on their declarations of love for you, the strength of their character etc.

nozzferrahhtoo

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

you cannot negate the fact that it does take a certain degree of faith to believe that nothing will happen after your death

Except it takes no faith at all. And what is baffling is that I explained to you _exactly why_ it takes no faith. I will repeat it:

1) 100% of the evidence we have links human consciousness, subjectivity and awareness directly and inextricably to the brain.
2) 0% of evidence we have shows any kind of disconnect or the ability to have the former exist without the latter.

So absolutely ZERO faith is required to simply acknowledge that all the evidence currently shows your consciousness will die with your brain and NO evidence currently suggests it will survive afterwards.

Where is the "faith" in that evaluation exactly?

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

you have faith that God wont be there to hold you

No. I do not. Which means at this point you have two choices. Ask me what I think and listen to the reply. Or tell me what I think and simply be this wrong, this often.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

faith come into various element of his life such as having Faith that your partner wont cheat on you

If you believe that about your partner solely on faith, without any supporting evidence, then you simply have my sympathy and I advise you to find a healthier relationship. My belief on the matter is entirely evidence based however. So once again: Speak for yourself, stop pretending to speak for me.

Defender OF Faith

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except it takes no faith at all. And what is baffling is that I explained to you _exactly why_ it takes no faith. I will repeat it:

1) 100% of the evidence we have links human consciousness, subjectivity and awareness directly and inextricably to the brain.
2) 0% of evidence we have shows any kind of disconnect or the ability to have the former exist without the latter.

So absolutely ZERO faith is required to simply acknowledge that all the evidence currently shows your consciousness will die with your brain and NO evidence currently suggests it will survive afterwards.

Where is the "faith" in that evaluation exactly?

You have faith that these evidences are correct, you have faith that the scientist conducting these experiments have done it well, you have faith that NO evidence would in the future prove that another form of consciousness exist without the brain.I mean after all were are science is merely tip toeing in understanding the realm of consciousness.
Basically no matter how hard you try to avoid "faith" and run away from it you will always have it in one way or another.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If you believe that about your partner solely on faith, without any supporting evidence, then you simply have my sympathy and I advise you to find a healthier relationship. My belief on the matter is entirely evidence based however. So once again: Speak for yourself, stop pretending to speak for me.

You cant be with your partner 24/7 during these time you have faith that they will stay faithful to you I mean if you have faith that your partner will break your trust and cheat you might aswell find another one

nozzferrahhtoo

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

You have faith that these evidences are correct

Nope. Wrong again. As I said if you insist on telling me what I think, rather than asking me what I think, then you are simply going to keep being very wrong, very often.

I am very heavily trained in science and epidemiology. And in reading and interpreting studies and scientific papers. And I am well capable of repetition of results which is the core premise of science.

Once again: No faith required. You and your theist cohort have such an abundance of "faith" I guess that the only way you can interpret the world view of others is to parse it (falsely) through that lens.

To repeat however, you will simply stop being so wrong if you switch from telling other people what you think they think.... and simply stop and ASK them what they think and why instead. Try it sometime. Discourse will likely prove more fruitful for you. And them.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

you have faith that the scientist conducting these experiments have done it well

Again entirely false. I know EXACTLY how to interpret their results and their methodologies. I do not simply believe they did their job. I know EXACTLY how to check their work and raise questions about their methodologies and standards. Perhaps YOU have to simply take their word for it, but I do not. So speak for yourself, and stop pretending to speak for me.

Plus as I said already above, repetition is a massive part of science. One does not simply read a science paper and believe it. One either repeats it oneself or waits for other people to do so. And only when REPEATED attempts to verify the results of original claims come up positive do we start to adopt the truth of the verification into our discourse.

You would do well to learn more about the science process because the sole result of your posts thus far are to highlight that you simply have no idea at all about it. What you are saying so far lands on my ears in EXACTLY the same way as it would for you if someone said to you "Oh yes I love American Baseball and I think David Beckham is the best player there was there". You _instantly_ know you are talking to someone who simply has not the first idea of what it is they are talking about and making assertions about.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

you have faith that NO evidence would in the future prove that another form of consciousness exist without the brain.

Now you are not simply wrong, but egregiously making up falsehoods that directly go against everything I have said to you thus far. You are simply playing a record and not pausing once to read a single thing I actually wrote.

But I am happy to repeat myself in the vague hope it sinks in for you:

EVERY claim in science is placed on a probability spectrum, a truth continuum, based on how much substantiation there is for it in the PRESENT MOMENT. As such EVERY claim in science is subject to moving up and down that spectrum/continuum in the light of any new evidence that comes to bear.

So what you simply asserted about me, and science, could in fact not BE more wrong if you tried. It is simply as wrong as wrong gets. I am perfectly open to the possibility that my world view on human consciousness may be modified by new data in the future. I am just not seeing any reason to find that possibility a likely one. But I am 100% open to it if and when it occurs.

All I do, have done, and will do, is comment on the data set available to me at the time of commenting and I REPEAT for you that 100% of the data at this time shows human consciousness to be linked inextricably to the brain and the survival of the brain. 0% of the data set at this time suggests otherwise.

So the claim that human consciousness can operate independent of the brain, or following the death of the brain, is simply devoid of any argument, evidence, data or reasoning to substantiate it. Much less so from you. As such it is merely at the NULL point on the probability spectrum/continuum to which I referred.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Basically no matter how hard you try to avoid "faith" and run away from it you will always have it in one way or another.

Repetition of assertion does not make fact. You keep asserting I have faith and you keep failing to demonstrate a single case where I in fact do.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

You cant be with your partner 24/7 during these time you have faith that they will stay faithful to you

Again: speak for yourself. YOU might rely solely on faith in this regard, and you have my sympathy that you are in a relationship where faith is all you have to draw on.

In MY relationship however my judgement that my partner will most likely stay monogamous to me is evidence based. And like I explained to you above about science, no one can be "certain" about anything but judgement are on a belief continuum and the evidence I have to hand at this time strongly suggests the conclusion I have reached on the subject.

I can merely wish you well in the future in finding a relationship where your conclusion as to the fidelity of your partner is actually based on reality, and not merely faith. I, thankfully, am happily in such a relationship and I repeat that you have my sympathy for not being in one too.