Falsifiability

[Sanoy]

Or the mind moves from one to the other, the new body being created on a "just in time" basis. I'm sure that none of us knows here below how any of this works. All I am trying to tell you is that, for me, the scientific notion that the mind is an emergent property of the brain does not cause me any concern.

That's fine, you can believe what you like about it. It's not as if it was a matter of essential doctrine.

If the mind can move from one to the other, then the other is not the mind yes? Because the body can't move into the other body, so there must be something else moving to the other. And isn't this resurrection supposed to happen toward the end? If that is the case it's not really just in time, but much later. Lets talk about this because the two beliefs seem in conflict.

 

[Sanoy]

You could get other people to check your results. If they get the same results as you, then it's probably reality. After all, if what you experienced was a hallucination or something, then why would they get the same results as you?

Hi Kylie. I would need a a premise that covers other people as well. This is under the "brain in a vat" thought experiment. So basically all I have are observations of my own consciousness and a priori reasoning.

 

[Kylie]

Hi Kylie. I would need a a premise that covers other people as well. This is under the "brain in a vat" thought experiment. So basically all I have are observations of my own consciousness and a priori reasoning.

I'm not aware of any way to falsify the "brain in a jar" idea. We have to make certain assumptions. One of them is that the world we experience reflects some reality, some objective world that exists independent of us.

 

[Sanoy]

I'm not aware of any way to falsify the "brain in a jar" idea. We have to make certain assumptions. One of them is that the world we experience reflects some reality, some objective world that exists independent of us.

I'm not aware of a way either. That last part is what this section was about - having a premise from which our conclusion about the world follows.

 

[Kylie]

I'm not aware of a way either. That last part is what this section was about - having a premise from which our conclusion about the world follows.

Of course, I see no good reason to assume that we are brains in a jar, and the assumption I suggested is also reasonable. Thus, my original comment to you stands.

 

[Speedwell]

If the mind can move from one to the other, then the other is not the mind yes? Because the body can't move into the other body, so there must be something else moving to the other. And isn't this resurrection supposed to happen toward the end? If that is the case it's not really just in time, but much later. Lets talk about this because the two beliefs seem in conflict.

I'm in no mood to dispute Protestant doctrine with you this morning, I don't care what you believe and I feel no need to defend my belief to you in what is in fact a digression from the OP. If the mind is an emergent property of the physical brain than an identical mind will emerge from an identical brain and an identical brain will have the same memories stored in it as the original thus providing continuity. As to the resurrection, that only happens "later" in Earth time; no time at all need pass for the dead--not a problem for the timeless being who created us.

You'll have to be satisfied with that. Concocting a "rational" justification for faith beliefs is to my mind a bootless task and faintly disgusting to me as well.

 

[Sanoy]

I'm in no mood to dispute Protestant doctrine with you this morning, I don't care what you believe and I feel no need to defend my belief to you in what is in fact a digression from the OP. If the mind is an emergent property of the physical brain than an identical mind will emerge from an identical brain and an identical brain will have the same memories stored in it as the original thus providing continuity. As to the resurrection, that only happens "later" in Earth time; no time at all need pass for the dead--not a problem for the timeless being who created us.

You'll have to be satisfied with that. Concocting a "rational" justification for faith beliefs is to my mind a bootless task and faintly disgusting to me as well.

I'm not asking you to defend your theology, I'm asking you to explain how the theology you list as a reason to believe the mind cannot exist independently from the body is consistent with the claim.

How is what you describe from emergence any different than a clone? According to your explanation the promise of Christ is wrong. We DO die, and a clone takes our place. Even worse - a clone takes our punishment! Is that really what you believe Speedwell, can you really walk this fence coherently?

 

[Sanoy]

Of course, I see no good reason to assume that we are brains in a jar, and the assumption I suggested is also reasonable. Thus, my original comment to you stands.

Sure, there is no good reason to assume we are brains in a jar, OR that we are not brains in a jar. To rationally hold that we are not brains in a jar, one must assert a premise from which that follows. So what premise are you asserting that allows the conclusion to follow for you?

 

[Kylie]

If the mind is an emergent property of the physical brain than an identical mind will emerge from an identical brain and an identical brain will have the same memories stored in it as the original thus providing continuity.

Would it? Could there be random interactions that can't be accounted for? Something akin to Brownian motion, for example? Couldn't these produce divergences between the the original brain and a duplicate of it?

 

[Kylie]

Sure, there is no good reason to assume we are brains in a jar, OR that we are not brains in a jar. To rationally hold that we are not brains in a jar, one must assert a premise from which that follows. So what premise are you asserting that allows the conclusion to follow for you?

Well, for a start, assuming that I am a brain in a jar and everything I see of the universe is a simulation/hallucination/etc does contradicts all information available to me.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm not asking you to defend your theology, I'm asking you to explain how the theology you list as a reason to believe the mind cannot exist independently from the body is consistent with the claim.

How is what you describe from emergence any different than a clone? According to your explanation the promise of Christ is wrong. We DO die, and a clone takes our place. Even worse - a clone takes our punishment! Is that really what you believe Speedwell, can you really walk this fence coherently?

LOL! You really don't get it, do you. There is nothing necessarily rational about Christian faith; we don't have to "figure out" how it works. If you think you need to believe that the mind exists separately from the body in some magical way, go ahead and believe it. I don't think it is and see no need to make that opinion "coherent" with what you think my faith beliefs should be.

 

[Sanoy]

LOL! You really don't get it, do you. There is nothing necessarily rational about Christian faith; we don't have to "figure out" how it works.

That doesn't really answer my question. Is Christ mistaken and we cease to exist while a clone is created to receive either eternal life or our punishment? Pick a side of the fence today, because those who ride it only ever fall to one side of it.

 

[Sanoy]

Well, for a start, assuming that I am a brain in a jar and everything I see of the universe is a simulation/hallucination/etc does contradicts all information available to me.

Yes but that information could itself be part of the simulation/hallucination. In other words using it would be circular reasoning.

 

[Speedwell]

That doesn't really answer my question. Is Christ mistaken and we cease to exist while a clone is created to receive either eternal life or our punishment? Pick a side of the fence today, because those who ride it only ever fall to one side of it.

No, Christ is not mistaken. Either you or I might be, and you have ruled out the possibility that it can be you, so it must be me. Okay, so the mind exists independently from the body in some magical way. What does that get you?

 

[Sanoy]

No, Christ is not mistaken. Either you or I might be, and you have ruled out the possibility that it can be you, so it must be me. Okay, so the mind exists independently from the body in some magical way. What does that get you?

Do you now believe that the mind can exist independently from the body or are you being hypothetical. What that gets you is a coherent process where identity persists the lack of a body. Theologically it also seems to be what Christ describes in not fearing those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Along with many other verses.

If not I don't think your ontological belief about minds is consistent, or coherent, with your religious belief about the resurrection, and your confirmation of Christs promises. Unless you posit minds separately there is no semantic language available to speak of anything other than clones of ourselves while we cease to exist. If you disagree than show me how me how it is in any way coherent.

 

[Speedwell]

. What that gets you is a coherent process...

Coherent to whom?

If not I don't think your ontological belief about minds is consistent with your religious belief about the resurrection, and your confirmation of Christs promises.

Consistent? Why should it be? Do you really think faith beliefs require rational justification?

 

[Sanoy]

Coherent to whom?
Consistent? Why should it be? Do you really think faith beliefs require rational justification?

Why should Christs promises be consistent with reality? Because if they aren't that would make Him a deceiver. That is pretty shocking to hear from an espoused believer.

I think belief should be warranted, and I think biblical faith refers to trust, not unwarranted belief.

Since you have no coherent justification in what you gave for #2, I guess your only rational reason is a consensus of scientific opinion. Though, thats really unsurprising that a group with a commitment to a naturalistic conclusion would commit themselves to a naturalistic conclusion. Such a consensus of opinion is more of a tautology than a reason it seems.

 

[Kylie]

Yes but that information could itself be part of the simulation/hallucination. In other words using it would be circular reasoning.

But we have nothing else to go on. Like I said, it's one of the assumptions we have to make. I'm freely admitting that it's an assumption - an assumption based on all available evidence, but an assumption nonetheless. You can't really turn around and complain because it's an assumption, because I'm not pretending that it's anything else.

 

[Speedwell]

Why should Christs promises be consistent with reality?

That's not what I said. What I implied was that they need not be rationally coherent.

Because if they aren't that would make Him a deceiver.

I never said they weren't.

That is pretty shocking to hear from an espoused believer.

False incredulity does not become you.

I think belief should be warranted, and I think biblical faith refers to trust, not unwarranted belief.

Yes, it is becoming clear that you can't hold a faith belief if you can't find rational justification for it.

Since you have no coherent justification in what you gave for #2, I guess your only rational reason is a consensus of scientific opinion. Though, thats really unsurprising that a group with a commitment to a naturalistic conclusion would commit themselves to a naturalistic conclusion. Such a consensus of opinion is more of a tautology than a reason it seems.

If you like, that is my only "rational" reason, sure.

 

[Sanoy]

That's not what I said. What I implied was that they need not be rationally coherent. I never said they weren't. False incredulity does not become you.

Yes, it is becoming clear that you can't hold a faith belief if you can't find rational justification for it.

If you like, that is my only "rational" reason, sure.

What you said was why should they be consistent, referring to my statement on Jesus's promise and your ontological claims about mind. If Jesus is making a claim about reality that is not rationally coherent then Jesus is not being coherently rational. Whether the claim is 'Jesus isn't consistent with reality', OR 'Jesus isn't being rationally coherent', it still leaves Jesus as either mad, or lying. Either is incredibly shocking to hear.

Rational is definitely under quotes there, because it's essentially a tautology.