Afterlife burden of proof

[Conscious Z]

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).

You raise a good point, and I should clarify: consciousness doesn't seem to have any causal power that alters an organism's function. Any zombie could perform the same functions that a human can. As you've pointed out, it is true that the zombie and the human would not have the same set of beliefs, namely the zombie would not know that it was conscious (because it is not). However, I do not believe that such additional knowledge would alter the human's functional capabilities, and as such, consciousness would be causally impotent with regard to adaptive advantages.

 

[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.

Sorry, I contradicted myself because I said the only things we can be sure of are that our own minds and sensory information exist but the universe at large (or matter in general) is more than a person can perceive through his or her senses. So I will just say that I personally believe the universe and other minds exist but that they are both only data.

Maybe you can't be sure that the universe or other minds exist but there are good reasons for everyone to believe both of these as you pointed out. I do.

 

[Giberoo]

Sorry, I contradicted myself because I said the only things we can be sure of are that our own minds and sensory information exist but the universe at large (or matter in general) is more than a person can perceive through his or her senses. So I will just say that I personally believe the universe and other minds exist but that they are both only data.

Maybe you can't be sure that the universe or other minds exist but there are good reasons for everyone to believe both of these as you pointed out. I do.

Okay, so then perhaps your next step is to define exactly what you mean by 'data'.

We have never found solid reliable evidence of a mind existing without a brain. Whenever we find consciousness, we find it attached to a brain of some sort. That alone should give us reason to think the two are inseparable, surely?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

You raise a good point, and I should clarify: consciousness doesn't seem to have any causal power that alters an organism's function. Any zombie could perform the same functions that a human can. As you've pointed out, it is true that the zombie and the human would not have the same set of beliefs, namely the zombie would not know that it was conscious (because it is not). However, I do not believe that such additional knowledge would alter the human's functional capabilities, and as such, consciousness would be causally impotent with regard to adaptive advantages.

My more complicated argument is that pleasure and pain seems to be selectively associated with benign and malign functional stimuli and behavior. If they have no causal power what explains the ordered distribution? I mean for example why are [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] not painful if pain is just a random-spandrel rather than a causal-functional roleplayer?

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

Sounds similar to positive claims like

- Gravity caused the ball to fall rather than invisible falling gnomes pushing down on it
- Disease is caused by germs instead of impossible to detect spirits fighting it out inside us

In other words, they're positive claims based on evidence for them and a complete lack of evidence to the contrary. Sure, it's possible that there's all sorts of magic hiding behind the veil of reality driving everything. But if there's a good explanation without that magic and no reason to believe in it, it's perfectly reasonable to make a tentative conclusion about reality which ignores them.

 

[KCfromNC]

There are still many mysteries surrounding brain function

Including the mystery of why one would continue to be motivated to plagarize other people's work to present it here.

 

[KCfromNC]

My more complicated argument is that pleasure and pain seems to be selectively associated with benign and malign functional stimuli and behavior. If they have no causal power what explains the ordered distribution? I mean for example why are [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] not painful if pain is just a random-spandrel rather than a causal-functional roleplayer?

How does this question relate to consciousness? There are lots of organisms which react to pain which we wouldn't consider to have high levels of consciousness. There's also the fact that humans reactions to pain can happen before the nerve impulses reach the brain. So why are you bringing the idea of avoiding pain into a discussion about conscious thought?

 

[nebulaJP]

Okay, so then perhaps your next step is to define exactly what you mean by 'data'.

By data or information I mean digital information, a series of bits. There is nothing that can't be described by a series of bits.

We have never found solid reliable evidence of a mind existing without a brain. Whenever we find consciousness, we find it attached to a brain of some sort. That alone should give us reason to think the two are inseparable, surely?

In order to make your assumptions clear I would like to rephrase this as "we have never found solid reliable evidence of a mind existing without a brain, a brain made of matter that exists as something other than data" because I agree with the statement "we have never found solid reliable evidence of a mind existing without a brain" but this doesn't mean that brains exist as anything other than data.

 

[nebulaJP]

Sounds similar to positive claims like

- Gravity caused the ball to fall rather than invisible falling gnomes pushing down on it
- Disease is caused by germs instead of impossible to detect spirits fighting it out inside us

In other words, they're positive claims based on evidence for them and a complete lack of evidence to the contrary. Sure, it's possible that there's all sorts of magic hiding behind the veil of reality driving everything. But if there's a good explanation without that magic and no reason to believe in it, it's perfectly reasonable to make a tentative conclusion about reality which ignores them.

Here is a positive claim based on evidence, for which there is a complete lack of evidence to the contrary:

-Matter is nothing more than data.

Here is the evidence:

In the double slit experiment, you fire one particle at the time. The particle can be a photon, electron, atom or molecule (buckyball), it does not matter. You fire only one at a time, but somehow, you get an interference pattern. Apparently, each particle does one of four things: it goes through one slit, it goes through the other slit, it goes through both slits or it goes through neither slit.

Well, this can only happen if the particle is in fact data. Probability distributions or degrees of certainty are data.

If you don't accept that this is proof that matter is nothing more than data, please explain how one particle can go through both slits and interfere with itself.

 

[Gracchus]

Here is a positive claim based on evidence, for which there is a complete lack of evidence to the contrary:

-Matter is nothing more than data.

A datum is an item of information. It cannot exist without a mind. For instance, a series of bits in a computer may be a fact; but it is not data, it is not information, until it is interpreted according to some system, and it may not be factual. Matter is a fact. A fact is an aspect of reality. What one perceives to be a fact, may not actually be a fact. It may be only a datum that does not correspond to reality. But repeated independent observations lend some certainty in the absence of contradictory observations. Well, "matter" is a fact. Matter is not data.
Data are data, facts are facts. Some data do not correspond to reality: "Matter is nothing more than data." is data that does not correspond to reality.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

KCfromNC I am equating pain with pain states we are aware of, consciously felt pain, pain qualia etc.

 

[nebulaJP]

A datum is an item of information. It cannot exist without a mind. For instance, a series of bits in a computer may be a fact; but it is not data, it is not information, until it is interpreted according to some system, and it may not be factual. Matter is a fact. A fact is an aspect of reality. What one perceives to be a fact, may not actually be a fact. It may be only a datum that does not correspond to reality. But repeated independent observations lend some certainty in the absence of contradictory observations. Well, "matter" is a fact. Matter is not data.
Data are data, facts are facts. Some data do not correspond to reality: "Matter is nothing more than data." is data that does not correspond to reality.

Thank you. I am going to continue to say "matter is nothing more than data" for simplicity's sake but your comment is duly noted and I agree. Technically, matter is a probability distribution until it is perceived at which time it becomes data. Similarly, a horizon is a mountain ridge or the curvature of the earth until it is perceived, at which time it becomes a horizon.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

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.

Analogy and coherence for positing other minds. I think it would be a crime against analogy to deny other minds, the case is so strong. Plus if you are going to believe in evolution than the coherent is we are all similar mentally rather than me being unique in having a mental life just because I have unique access to my mental life.

 

[nebulaJP]

Analogy and coherence for positing other minds. I think it would be a crime against analogy to deny other minds, the case is so strong. Plus if you are going to believe in evolution than the coherent is we are all similar mentally rather than me being unique in having a mental life just because I have unique access to my mental life.

PLEASE forget I said anything about other minds. I AM BEGGING YOU. Lets all assume, or take it as a given that other minds and the universe exist. The only question now is whether these exist as anything other than data. That's really what the thread is about, not solipsism, which I was only mentioning in passing.

 

[Paradoxum]

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.

Which is an assumption, similar to the assumption that the world exists.

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.

There are probably good reasons for thinking that it is more likely that matter exists, rather than that our minds created an illusionary universe.

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?

Well I don't know what the universe is fundamentally like. What do you mean by information?

 

[CabVet]

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.

You would be wrong. When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a positive claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa).

 

[GrowingSmaller]

PLEASE forget I said anything about other minds. I AM BEGGING YOU. Lets all assume, or take it as a given that other minds and the universe exist. The only question now is whether these exist as anything other than data. That's really what the thread is about, not solipsism, which I was only mentioning in passing.

The only data I know about is in star treck.

 

[nebulaJP]

Which is an assumption, similar to the assumption that the world exists.

Right. And the assumption that our thoughts aren't being fed to us is more or less held by everyone who doesn't wear a tin foil hat at all times. This thread can't move forward unless three things are accepted. I accept all three of these despite me mentioning solipsism in the OP (big mistake):

1. Minds (plural) exist, and the thoughts aren't being fed to us by anything external to our minds.

2. Sensory information exists.

3. The universe exists (either as data or as something other than data).

There are probably good reasons for thinking that it is more likely that matter exists, rather than that our minds created an illusionary universe.

The idea that our minds created an illusionary universe doesn't make any sense to me at all. I don't even see how that would work and I'm not arguing that. This is about the nature rather than the origin of the universe. I'm trying to keep speculation about the origin of our universe out of this.

Well I don't know what the universe is fundamentally like. What do you mean by information?

Discrete (or digital) information which is a series of bits. What I mean by a bit is one of two states like 1 or 0, yes or no, on or off.

 

[nebulaJP]

You would be wrong. When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a positive claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa).

This was basically answered in posts 3, 4 and 15 but I will repeat it. First, I had no idea what "burden of proof" meant when I was writing the OP. I have already conceded on this point so you're preaching to the choir here.

Second, this isn't an argument from ignorance because I am not claiming there is an afterlife. It doesn't follow that if the universe is made of data it means there is an afterlife. The only implication is that, upon death, survival of the mind is possible whereas with a physicalist model it's impossible.

My argument is only that there is no reason to believe X won't happen - not that there being no reason to believe X won't happen is proof that X will happen.

Often physicalists, rather smugly, will talk about how an afterlife is impossible and I am saying this notion is due to their erroneous conception of reality. My view isn't woo, it's science. In post 29 I explained how the scientifically reproducible double slit experiment proves that our reality is made of data (specifically, probability distributions).

 

[Giberoo]

By data or information I mean digital information, a series of bits. There is nothing that can't be described by a series of bits.

I want to make quite sure I understand you here...

You are saying the only thing I can be sure exists is my brain and sensory receptor. I perceive the world through my senses, which sends 'data' to my brain.

If I see a table, the table actually only exists as 'data' traveling from my eyes to my brain and not as an actual independent object as and of itself. Have I got it right so far?