Afterlife burden of proof

[nebulaJP]

A lot of people say the burden of proof is on the person claiming there is an afterlife. I beg to differ. The burden of proof is on the person claiming there is NOT an afterlife.

There is one thing and one thing only that requires no faith at all - that each of us can KNOW beyond any doubt: that our own mind exists (see note at bottom) and has access to sensory information. Solipsism. Whether or not other minds exist is a matter of faith. If you believe other minds exist you are a faith-based believer in something unproven.

Everything you experience as other minds can merely be part of the sensory information you have access to. Would Occam's razor lead one to conclude other minds exist? I don't think so. Occam's razor is about making the fewest assumptions and this doesn't have any more assumptions. For example, each of these sentences has one assumption:

-Other minds exist independently of my own.
-Other minds are merely part of my sensory information.

However, if you don't find solipsism plausible then you have to have faith in something, i.e. that other minds exist independently of your own. Most of us BELIEVE (rather than know) other minds exist. So most of us are believers in something that is unproven.

OK, that's other minds but what about matter? Well, there is no evidence it exists as anything other than data. We don't have any experience with matter. Our only experience is with sensory information. Occam's razor doesn't lead to the conclusion that matter is anything other than data. These two sentences have the same number of assumptions:

-Matter exists as something other than data.
-Matter exists as data only.

So, we do have proof that mind exists. The proof is that we're able to think and know we exist. On the other hand, we don't have proof that matter exists as anything other than data. So you can't say the existence of something we know exists (mind) is reliant on something that we only assume exists as something other than data (matter).

Does the fact that if someone suffers brain injury it will have an effect on the person's mind prove that mind is reliant on matter? Not at all. It only proves there are rules in our reality and I don't deny this.

Note: If you have a reductionist argument that mind/self awareness is only an illusion, your argument assumes matter exists. However, there is no evidence that matter exists as anything other than data. So that is why I say we can know for sure our minds exist, at least until information comes along that proves matter exists as something other than data.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Your post has absolutely nothing to do with its premise, as far as I can tell. If you make a positive claim, you have the burden of proof. That includes the claim "there is an afterlife". Just because other people believe in unproven claims does not suddenly exempt you from the same rules as everyone else.

 

[nebulaJP]

Your post has absolutely nothing to do with its premise, as far as I can tell. If you make a positive claim, you have the burden of proof. That includes the claim "there is an afterlife". Just because other people believe in unproven claims does not suddenly exempt you from the same rules as everyone else.

OK, you're right, "burden of proof" is the responsibility of the person making the positive claim and I wasn't thinking in terms of positive claims vs. negative claims, just claims. For example, these sound like positive claims to me:

-When you die it's the end for you.

-Mind is an emergent property of the brain and ceases to exist when bodily processes stop.

 

[nebulaJP]

So, I will throw out "burden of proof" and positive vs. negative claims and instead put it like this:

As far as the afterlife goes, there is no reason to believe the mind doesn't survive. Why wouldn't it survive? Because the brain has died? So what? There is no evidence that the brain is anything other than data anyway. As far as we KNOW (rather than believe) the mind is data and the brain is also data.

 

[Paradoxum]

There are so many things that could be said in response, but I'll try to keep short.

I assume you are getting this partly from Descartes?

Firstly we don't know our own mind exists (depending on what you mean by mind). All we know is that we experience the feeling of thoughts and stimuli. These feelings could come from another source for all we know. If you listen to your own thoughts you realise that you don't know what you will think next. It is questionable whether 'you' are in control.

Anyway, if you have read Descartes Meditations you will have seen that he brings a number of problems with the mind existing on its own in a self-created world. For example, 'where did I come from?', 'where did my ideas come from without a world to give them to me?', 'if I am god then why do I think I am limited and imperfect?' This lead to Descartes proposing that God must exist to make sense all this.

Of course we have immediate knowledge that our experiencing 'selves' exist, but there are various reasons to doubt the 'self' to be the fundamental essence of existence.

 

[Conscious Z]

So, we do have proof that mind exists. The proof is that we're able to think and know we exist. On the other hand, we don't have proof that matter exists as anything other than data. So you can't say the existence of something we know exists (mind) is reliant on something that we only assume exists as something other than data (matter).

Does the fact that if someone suffers brain injury it will have an effect on the person's mind prove that mind is reliant on matter? Not at all. It only proves there are rules in our reality and I don't deny this.

The issue of skepticism with regard to the outside world is an epistemic one, whereas the issue of which way causation runs with regard to the mind and matter is much deeper. It's notoriously difficult to find a way around pyrhonnian skepticism, but it doesn't imply that the mind is the most basic and primary causal agent -- rather, the mind is the one thing we can know rather than merely believe. That says nothing about the mind not being dependent on matter or matter preceding the mind in terms of causation.

Imagine that I have a television set through which I watch all kinds of documentaries about electronics factories. I could reason that the only thing I actually know is that the television in front of me exists, as it's possible that the documentaries are wrong and there is no causal connection between the electronics factories and my tv. While I would be right regarding the epistemological limits of my knowledge, that would not serve as evidence that my tv didn't come from one of the electronics factories.

 

[KimberlyAA]

There are still many mysteries surrounding brain function, including the still elusive nature of consciousness. One of the most recent advocates of a materialistic approach, the rabid atheist Daniel Dennett, wrote a book called Consciousness Explained, but even fellow evolutionists have called it Consciousness Ignored. In fact, many evolutionary experts in the area admit that consciousness is a huge mystery for evolutionary theory. E.g. Richard Gregory, evolutionist and professor of neuropsychology and director of the brain and perception laboratory at the University of Bristol in England, explained the dilemma in the book Consciousness :

If the brain was developed by Natural Selection, we might well suppose that consciousness has survival value. But for this it must, surely, have causal effects. But what effects could awareness, or consciousness, have?

Why, then, do we need consciousness? What does consciousness have that the neural signals do not have? Here there is something of a paradox, for if the awareness of consciousness does not have any effect—if consciousness is not a causal agent—then it seems useless, and so should not have developed by evolutionary pressure. If, on the other hand, it is useful, it must be a causal agent: but then physiological description in terms of neural activity cannot be complete. Worse, we are on this alternative stuck with mentalistic explanations, which seem outside science.

The materialists teach that our consciousness is really an effect of our brain responding to external stimuli via the laws of chemistry. But this belief itself is merely the result of neural chemistry. Therefore according to their own belief system, they did not freely reason out their belief according to the evidence. Rather, they believed their theory because they couldn’t help it—it was predetermined by brain chemistry. But then, why should their neurons be trusted over mine? They both obey the same laws of chemistry.

In reality, those who assert that consciousness is just an epiphenomenon of the brain do so because of their materialistic philosophy that clouds the interpretation of the evidence. For example, Dennett admits that he can’t disprove the existence of a mind distinct from the brain, but asserts that such a view ‘is fundamentally unscientific’ and ‘is to be avoided at all costs’. In reality, materialism is an assumption before they even consider the evidence.

It seems philosophically unsound to attack a belief system by appealing to observation-based arguments which deny a priori the validity of that system’s own presuppositions. In other words, one would need to disprove the idea of the Christian God in order to deny the possibility of the survival of the persona after death. To use the apparent disproof of such survival to cast doubts on the validity of belief in the Christian God is thus seen to be a fairly subtle, but definite case of the philosophical fallacy known as ‘begging the question’.

The evidence for such things as fulfilled prophecy, the resurrection of Christ, and creation itself is freely available for all with a desire to see. The evidence of changed lives is another.

Some have experienced the reality of the supernatural realm in a way that defied all explanation by way of subjectivity, psychology, etc. and totally defied the laws of physics, mathematical probability, etc. It is not something of the nature of so-called ‘after death experiences’, which can never be proved to be anything more than a person’s brain chemistry under those conditions.

 

[Conscious Z]

Kimberly: I recently wrote a paper that was presented at a conference on consciousness and evolution, and Dennett also happened to be presenting at the same conference. While you've correctly summed up the possibilities for consciousness with regard to causation, you've made one oversight: evolution can and does produce things that have no causal power. These have been termed "spandrels" by the biologist Stephen Jay Gould, and I believe that is exactly what consciousness is. It is merely a byproduct of a complex brain, but was itself not the adaptive advantage being selected for. As such, it does not have adaptive value and need not have causal power.

Dennett's sentiment regarding favoring materialist positions in general makes sense when one considers the growing tidal wave of explanation that has been offered by science throughout history. No, that is not an argument for materialism, merely a recognition that we at least have reason to suspect consciousness is material.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

As such, it does not have adaptive value and need not have causal power.

Excepting I ask what caused the word "consciousness" to be current in the English language? We can know of consciousness, and speak of it? What caused this knowledge? (cf causal theory of knowledge for my angle on this).

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Everything you experience as other minds can merely be part of the sensory information you have access to. Would Occam's razor lead one to conclude other minds exist? I don't think so. Occam's razor is about making the fewest assumptions and this doesn't have any more assumptions.

Doesn't it assume a: you the unique human and b: p-ziombies by the billion. So you have added p-zombies by the million to the mix without enhancing your theory of society in predictive or explanatory power.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Everything you experience as other minds can merely be part of the sensory information you have access to. Would Occam's razor lead one to conclude other minds exist? I don't think so. Occam's razor is about making the fewest assumptions and this doesn't have any more assumptions.

Doesn't it assume a: you the unique human and b: p-zombies by the billion. So you have added p-zombies by the million to the mix without enhancing your theory of society in predictive or explanatory power.

 

[Giberoo]

So, I will throw out "burden of proof" and positive vs. negative claims and instead put it like this:

As far as the afterlife goes, there is no reason to believe the mind doesn't survive. Why wouldn't it survive? Because the brain has died? So what? There is no evidence that the brain is anything other than data anyway. As far as we KNOW (rather than believe) the mind is data and the brain is also data.

With respect, your logic leads to absurdities. I can paraphrase it as "We cannot be certain the world around us exists [which is true], therefore we can make up whatever claims we like about the world and claim it all boils down to belief anyway".

Such a train of logic can be used to support anything. Pink magic unicorns. I say they exist. Is the burden of proof on me to prove it? I could say no, because we are merely 'believing' the world around us exists, therefore the burden of proof is on you to show it exists without pink magic unicorns in.

See? An absurdity. Or perhaos you don't think so?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

A lot of people say the burden of proof is on the person claiming there is an afterlife. I beg to differ. The burden of proof is on the person claiming there is NOT an afterlife.

The burden is on both - anyone who makes a claim has to shoulder the burden of proving their claim.

 

[nebulaJP]

There are so many things that could be said in response, but I'll try to keep short.

I assume you are getting this partly from Descartes?

Firstly we don't know our own mind exists (depending on what you mean by mind). All we know is that we experience the feeling of thoughts and stimuli. These feelings could come from another source for all we know. If you listen to your own thoughts you realise that you don't know what you will think next. It is questionable whether 'you' are in control.

I didn't see this one coming. I guess the only way I can deal with it is to say "assuming our thoughts aren't being fed to us" we can be sure our minds and sensory information exist.

Anyway, if you have read Descartes Meditations you will have seen that he brings a number of problems with the mind existing on its own in a self-created world. For example, 'where did I come from?', 'where did my ideas come from without a world to give them to me?', 'if I am god then why do I think I am limited and imperfect?' This lead to Descartes proposing that God must exist to make sense all this.

I was only mentioning solipsism in passing but I'm not trying to argue it's true. I believe or take on faith that other people's minds exist. What I'm trying to argue is that, since we don't have evidence that matter exists as anything other than data, the body dying doesn't necessarily lead to our minds ceasing to exist.

Of course we have immediate knowledge that our experiencing 'selves' exist, but there are various reasons to doubt the 'self' to be the fundamental essence of existence.

To me everything is information, including our minds and our universe, so that's what I believe is the fundamental essence of existence. What reasons are there to doubt that?

 

[nebulaJP]

The issue of skepticism with regard to the outside world is an epistemic one, whereas the issue of which way causation runs with regard to the mind and matter is much deeper. It's notoriously difficult to find a way around pyrhonnian skepticism, but it doesn't imply that the mind is the most basic and primary causal agent -- rather, the mind is the one thing we can know rather than merely believe. That says nothing about the mind not being dependent on matter or matter preceding the mind in terms of causation.

Imagine that I have a television set through which I watch all kinds of documentaries about electronics factories. I could reason that the only thing I actually know is that the television in front of me exists, as it's possible that the documentaries are wrong and there is no causal connection between the electronics factories and my tv. While I would be right regarding the epistemological limits of my knowledge, that would not serve as evidence that my tv didn't come from one of the electronics factories.

I'm not saying that this lack of evidence that matter exists as anything other than data is evidence that mind doesn't come from matter. I'm just saying there is no evidence that matter exists as anything other than data so there is no reason to believe that this is what causes mind. One is saying "this is evidence for that" and the other is saying "there is no evidence for this so there is no reason to believe something that presumes this."

If you want proof that matter is only data I can supply it but that's a separate issue.

 

[nebulaJP]

Doesn't it assume a: you the unique human and b: p-ziombies by the billion. So you have added p-zombies by the million to the mix without enhancing your theory of society in predictive or explanatory power.

I was only trying to get some epistemic baseline there for what we can know for sure and what we have to take on faith.

 

[nebulaJP]

With respect, your logic leads to absurdities. I can paraphrase it as "We cannot be certain the world around us exists [which is true], therefore we can make up whatever claims we like about the world and claim it all boils down to belief anyway".

This isn't what I'm saying. We CAN be sure the world around us exists. What we can't be sure of, because we don't have any evidence for it, is that it exists as anything other than data.

Such a train of logic can be used to support anything. Pink magic unicorns. I say they exist. Is the burden of proof on me to prove it? I could say no, because we are merely 'believing' the world around us exists, therefore the burden of proof is on you to show it exists without pink magic unicorns in.

See? An absurdity. Or perhaos you don't think so?

I threw out the phrase "burden of proof" because I don't want to deal with it, even though it's in the title (grrr).

 

[Ken-1122]

There is one thing and one thing only that requires no faith at all - that each of us can KNOW beyond any doubt: that our own mind exists (see note at bottom) and has access to sensory information. Solipsism. Whether or not other minds exist is a matter of faith. If you believe other minds exist you are a faith-based believer in something unproven.

How are you defining faith? If you are defining faith as something that has been proven to every single person on earth; then you might be right. I define faith as believing something that is not logically sound. The fact that some mad man may believe he is the only one who exists and everyone around him are robots doesn’t mean I am acting on faith because I don’t believe it is so.
For me the idea that other minds exist other than my own is based upon logic and reason thus it does not require faith for me to come to that conclusion. Of course I speak only for myself; can’t speak for you though.

Everything you experience as other minds can merely be part of the sensory information you have access to. Would Occam's razor lead one to conclude other minds exist? I don't think so. Occam's razor is about making the fewest assumptions and this doesn't have any more assumptions. For example, each of these sentences has one assumption:

-Other minds exist independently of my own.
-Other minds are merely part of my sensory information.

These sentences may have the same number of assumptions but I would consider one logically absurd, whereas the other is not. Big difference.

However, if you don't find solipsism plausible then you have to have faith in something, i.e. that other minds exist independently of your own. Most of us BELIEVE (rather than know) other minds exist. So most of us are believers in something that is unproven.

Might wanna speak for yourself; I don't simply believe other minds exist; I KNOW other minds exist. No faith here my friend!

OK, that's other minds but what about matter? Well, there is no evidence it exists as anything other than data.

I disagree! I see plenty of evidence that matter is more than just “data”. The fact that I can experience matter with each of my 5 senses, and data is just information; is plenty of evidence that to me that matter is more than just data.

Ken

 

[nebulaJP]

How are you defining faith? If you are defining faith as something that has been proven to every single person on earth; then you might be right. I define faith as believing something that is not logically sound. The fact that some mad man may believe he is the only one who exists and everyone around him are robots doesn’t mean I am acting on faith because I don’t believe it is so.
For me the idea that other minds exist other than my own is based upon logic and reason thus it does not require faith for me to come to that conclusion. Of course I speak only for myself; can’t speak for you though.

Here is the first definition at dictionary.com:

faith
   [feyth] Show IPA
noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

It may have the connotation for you personally of belief in something that isn't logically sound but that isn't what the word denotes.

These sentences may have the same number of assumptions but I would consider one logically absurd, whereas the other is not. Big difference.
Might wanna speak for yourself; I don't simply believe other minds exist; I KNOW other minds exist. No faith here my friend!

You can say that you know if you want but a lot of people knew the earth was flat. The idea of a spherical earth was logically absurd to them: "If the earth were round then why wouldn't the water fall out?" The way I look at it, if you believe something that is true, you know. If you believe something that is logically sound, you believe.

I disagree! I see plenty of evidence that matter is more than just “data”. The fact that I can experience matter with each of my 5 senses, and data is just information; is plenty of evidence that to me that matter is more than just data.

Ken

From a purely physicalist perspective:

The only thing you experience are electrical signals. Your brain has no direct contact with anything in your surroundings. The electrical signals received by your brain don't resemble the objects you perceive through your senses in the slightest and the electrical signals are data.

 

[Ken-1122]

Here is the first definition at dictionary.com:

faith
   [feyth] Show IPA
noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

It may have the connotation for you personally of belief in something that isn't logically sound but that isn't what the word denotes.

Dictionary also defines “faith” as a belief that is not based upon proof. Your definition is basically the same as to believe, which makes the word useless. The religious type of faith (which is what I was talking about) is blind faith; a belief that is not reasonably sound. Even your bible defines it as “the study of things hoped for, evidence of things unseen. Unseen means blind.

You can say that you know if you want but a lot of people knew the earth was flat. The idea of a spherical earth was logically absurd to them: "If the earth were round then why wouldn't the water fall out?" The way I look at it, if you believe something that is true, you know. If you believe something that is logically sound, you believe.

To know only means to believe beyond any shadow of doubt. You can know something and still be wrong. Example: I know my birth date, who my birth parents are, and my age. But if some new information came to light proving I was adopted at birth and that I was born on a different day than I have known all this time, and the birth certificate I have was faked and all a part of the conspiracy to trick me, I will admit I was wrong and accept this new information as true. But until such info comes to pass I will continue to know my age, birth date, and who my parents are, even though my proof might not be good enough for you.

From a purely physicalist perspective:

The only thing you experience are electrical signals. Your brain has no direct contact with anything in your surroundings. The electrical signals received by your brain don't resemble the objects you perceive through your senses in the slightest and the electrical signals are data.

Those electrical signals is how I perceive information! For me that information is proof that matter is much more than just data. It might not be good enough for you, but for me it is.

Ken