|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 08/02/2004 : 06:28:14 [Permalink]
|
astropin wrote:quote:
If you have zero evidence that something exists then logically you should suspend belief until some evidence arrives.
Then I suspend judgement on whether or not you have 17 arms. Is that reasonable? Or should I apply a little logic to what I know about human beings, and conclude that you probably only have two, like most other people?
That's what we're talking about here: should our knowledge of the universe end with the evidence, or can we make inferences (and/or generalizations) from the evidence to learn something about those things for which we have no evidence yet?
That's how science works, after all. Given a small set of evidence, and some inferences based upon that evidence, we can make predictions about what should happen if those inferences are correct. We can then test those predictions, generating new evidence - evidence which we didn't have before - during those tests. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2004 : 11:36:02 [Permalink]
|
Ricky....Dave....you will have to forgive my last post. I must have been operating on one hemisphere when I wrote it. I myself posted in this thread about absence of evidence. I don't know, I seem to be having a hard time describing this one. You wouldn't suspend judgment on whether or not I have 17 arms. You wouldn't really consider it at all unless some evidence presented itself that I do in fact have 17 arms. I don't really consider the existence of God(s), P.M.C. or someone's invisible dragon....until some very strong evidence appears which tells me I may want to reconsider my view. Does that make more sense?
Adam
|
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2004 : 15:23:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
<snip>
..."there is no evidence to support <Jesus and his resurrection from the dead>".
<snip again>
The NT gives us pleanty of skeptical responses to Jesus resurrection
What's the point of introducing the New Testament and its fictional(?) characters in this thread?
I think the question is pretty clear.
1)P.M.C isn't possible. --> basically only requires 1 assertion in order to be true.
2)P.M.C is possible. --> requires several assertions fulfilled before it holds true.
Occam's Razor suggest that #1 is most likely to be correct. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 08/02/2004 15:23:44 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2004 : 16:56:24 [Permalink]
|
Adam, if by "consider" you mean "give serious thought to," I would agree, mostly. I have, of course, given lots of thought to many hypotheticals. P.M.C. is one I've considered very deeply in the past couple weeks, and I've come to the conclusion that it's probably doesn't exist. God, too. In fact, due to this very thread, I must now plop myself firmly in the "atheist" camp, whereas before this thread, I much preferred to think of myself as an agnostic (but that was mostly vanity).
And I will - most likely - spend the rest of my life as if P.M.C. doesn't exist, as if gods don't exist, as if Ricky's invisible dragon doesn't exist, and as if you've got just the two arms, whether or not these things are true. Unless I - as you said - get some evidence that they are not, my life will continue along as it has. If none of these things make a dent in our observations about the world, then, for all intents and purposes, they do not exist. They don't even exist in a scientific sense, since science only deals with things one can measure. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2004 : 17:10:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Posted by Dr Mabuse: I think the question is pretty clear.
1)P.M.C isn't possible. --> basically only requires 1 assertion in order to be true.
2)P.M.C is possible. --> requires several assertions fulfilled before it holds true.
Occam's Razor suggest that #1 is most likely to be correct.
Occam's razor is not always correct.
quote:
Posted by Dave W: Given the evidence we have to date for the function of the brain in relation to consciousness, and the complete lack of evidence we have for its fate after death, coupled with a complete lack of the necessity of the hypothesis that consciousness survives death, I infer that consciousness ends with the termination of brain function. Precisely like you've inferred the non-existence of god.
quote:
Posted by Dave W: Your evidence-only argument, Dude, is absolutely correct, if you only want to pay attention to the evidence. However, to limit yourself to the evidence with regards to P.M.C., when you expand your views to include logical inference with respect to god(s), is an inconsistent application of methodology. I want to know why you do so, when your only apparent argument also lacks an evidenciary basis (that P.M.C. is somehow comparable to living consciousness).
It's not inconsistent, and I've been trying to explain why for like a week....
I can't think of any new way to state what I'm trying to say.... everything I say ends with Dave W assuming that I'm trying to make some case for John Edwards style consciousness after death.
If you can't understand the difference between observable phenomenon and pure speculation.... I can't say anything else that will help.
In the case of every other observable phenomenon we are aware of, we would not accept the conclusion "it just disappeared" in any circumstance. Yet, that seems to be what you are accepting in the case of human consciousness.
Human consciousness is a clearly obsevable phenomenon. When the body dies what happens to it?.
My point, from the get-go, has been that there is no evidenced answer to this question. And, that to assume only two possible options (afterlife or extinguished) is fallacious. Any claim that is made without evidence can, and should, be dismissed. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2004 : 17:55:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Occam's razor is not always correct.
So? Can you name something that is always correct?
And anyways, as we have said before, Occam's razor is what you use when you have nothing else to go on, when the evidence for two things are equal (0 = 0).
quote:
If you can't understand the difference between observable phenomenon and pure speculation
Surely you are not saying that P.M.C. is an observable phenomenon. Just because it exists when we are alive has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it exists when we are dead. There has been no observation made on the topic at hand.
quote:
In the case of every other observable phenomenon we are aware of, we would not accept the conclusion "it just disappeared" in any circumstance.
How about an image displayed on a screen? Surely it didn't just disappear did it? So where do the images go when you turn off your computer? (Just a joke, I am not saying that you think such a thing happens, just pointing out a flaw in your "it just disaapeared" senario)
quote:
Human consciousness is a clearly obsevable phenomenon.
If we were talking about a human while he was alive, this would be relavent.
quote:
And, that to assume only two possible options (afterlife or extinguished) is fallacious.
Is there a third or fourth? What are they?
quote:
Any claim that is made without evidence can, and should, be dismissed.
Then we can not decide on bigfoot, or god, or any other thing that has no evidence to it. Things that do not exist will NEVER have evidence for or against them. Its that simple, you can not show the non existance of something. That is the reason why Occam's Razor exists. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2004 : 18:51:11 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote:quote:
Occam's razor is not always correct.
Which is why, I'm sure, that Dr. Mabuse said that Occam's Razor suggests that one of the possibilities is more likely to be correct. To suggest that anyone here has stated that the Razor can categorically make decisions for us is a straw-man, Dude.quote:
It's not inconsistent, and I've been trying to explain why for like a week....
It still is inconsistent, because there is no evidenced answer to the question "does a god exist," but you've concluded that none do.quote:
I can't think of any new way to state what I'm trying to say.... everything I say ends with Dave W assuming that I'm trying to make some case for John Edwards style consciousness after death.
Not at all. I really don't understand where that impression comes from.quote:
If you can't understand the difference between observable phenomenon and pure speculation.... I can't say anything else that will help.
Pure speculation: "god exists."
Pure speculation: "consciousness continues after death."
Observed phenomenon: "living people tend to exhibit consciousness, but not all do."
Observed phenomenon: "brains cease to function upon death."
Speculation matching all observable phenomena recorded to date: "consciousness ends with death."
Speculation matching all observable phenomena recorded to date: "god does not exist."
Do I pass?quote:
In the case of every other observable phenomenon we are aware of, we would not accept the conclusion "it just disappeared" in any circumstance. Yet, that seems to be what you are accepting in the case of human consciousness.
No. I do not "accept" the conclusion "it just disappeared" anymore than I accept the conclusion "my car just broke" when in fact, it is only the battery which has. From everything we can observe today, consciousness is brain activity. When brain activity ceases, consciousness appears to end. Unless you think that when you turn off your computer, its volatile memory "just erases."
Look, you appear to be arguing that because we don't know the mechanism through which consciousness is created, we cannot state for sure what happens to it when a person dies. You're right. But such is the nature of science. There's a lot of stuff we don't know, but logic allows us to make reliable (though sometimes mistaken) statements about them anyway, and hopefully those statements match reality when we develop the technology and/or expertise to test the predictions. Science could not function well if we could not make reliable statements about things for which we have no evidence.
Just because we cannot test predictions about consciousness and death right now doesn't mean that every inference must be equally speculative.quote:
Human consciousness is a clearly obsevable phenomenon. When the body dies what happens to it?.
My point, from the get-go, has been that there is no evidenced answer to this question.
Does the lack of evidence necessarily mean that all logical and tentative conclusions must be equally invalid?quote:
And, that to assume only two possible options (afterlife or extinguished) is fallacious.
Is that what you really think, even after I wrote at least one paragraph on how we have no evidence for how consciousness might continue (and thus comparing consciousness pre- and post-death is itself invalid)? I am led to believe you are no longer reading these posts with any care.
Let me state for the record - I assume there are two possibilities:
A) consciousness ends with the termination of brain activity, or
B) consciousness does not end with the termination of brain activity.
I'd like to know of any other possibilities which might exist beside those two, and how one of those two somehow matches the vastly more-detailed view of John Edward and his ilk. Note that I have, indeed, used the word "afterlife" in previous posts, but only in the most-literal sense: "after life."quote:
Any claim that is made without evidence can, and should, be dismissed.
Wonder-freaking-ful. [Insert rolleyes here.] Now - according to you - I must change back from being an atheist to being an agnostic, since "god does not exist" is a claim (a freakin' "truth statement") made without evidence. I'm doing more flip-flopping here than a sandal. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2004 : 20:01:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Posted by Dave W: Wonder-freaking-ful. [Insert rolleyes here.] Now - according to you - I must change back from being an atheist to being an agnostic, since "god does not exist" is a claim (a freakin' "truth statement") made without evidence. I'm doing more flip-flopping here than a sandal.
According to me, your now intentionally being offensive. My statement, to which you are referring in the above quote, is misquoted by you and taken out of context. I can only assume for the purpose of being an ass. Lets examine what I said within the context I said it....
quote:
Posted by Dude: My point, from the get-go, has been that there is no evidenced answer to this question. And, that to assume only two possible options (afterlife or extinguished) is fallacious. Any claim that is made without evidence can, and should, be dismissed.
Clearly I'm talking about the fate of human consciousness after death. Yet somehow you infer a broad generalized statement and and again manage to bring in "god" and then procede to insult me. Who was accusing me of not reading posts with care?
quote:
Posted by Ricky: Surely you are not saying that P.M.C. is an observable phenomenon. Just because it exists when we are alive has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it exists when we are dead. There has been no observation made on the topic at hand.
The two of you are being deliberately obtuse...
Unfuckingbelievable for a couple of people who claim to understand critical thinking.
Your intentionally dismissing the fact that human consciousness exists and is an observable phenomenon while focusing entirely on the mistaken idea that you think I'm advocating some point of view that allows consciousness to exist intact after the death of the body.
You stupidly (yes, it's the only word that fits at this point) argue that your position (consciousness extinguished upon death) is the only rational conclusion.
You willfully commit the either/or fallacy when considering options for what may happen to consciousness upon death.
And you CONTINUE to conflate god with human consciousness. Despite my best effort to explain why they should not be, and why you cannot consider PMC alone without also considering the fact that human consciousness is clearly observable before death.
I've made the point as best I can, and you two cling to your position like findies to a bible, rabidly defending. You're even using "god" as your defense....
This thread has become incredibly unproductive, and this will be my last post in it. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2004 : 07:17:34 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote:quote:
Your intentionally dismissing the fact that human consciousness exists and is an observable phenomenon...
If you are going to deliberately ignore what I say, Dude, then I am very happy that you've made your last post to this thread. It is obvious that you don't give a rats' ass about what I'm saying, you only wish to distort my position into some laughable straw-man.quote:
...while focusing entirely on the mistaken idea that you think I'm advocating some point of view that allows consciousness to exist intact after the death of the body.
Again, you are so wrong about what I have been saying that it makes me think you are deliberately misrepresenting my views. For what reason, I do not know. It makes no sense, but it's the most-obvious conclusion.quote:
You stupidly (yes, it's the only word that fits at this point) argue that your position (consciousness extinguished upon death) is the only rational conclusion.
A stupid position if I've ever heard one. I'm very glad I do not hold that view. Sure looks to me like Ricky doesn't, either.
Actually, you're the one who claimed that any other view besides "don't know" is unreasonable, illogical, and probably several other adjectives which demonstrate that you think that "your position... is the only rational conclusion." Talk about stupid: you've just insulted yourself, Dude.quote:
You willfully commit the either/or fallacy when considering options for what may happen to consciousness upon death.
Give me another option besides "consciousness ends upon death or it does not." And tell me how either possibility is being caricatured by me into some John Edward style "aprés vie."quote:
And you CONTINUE to conflate god with human consciousness.
Now that is deliberately insulting. As has been explained, the god part of the argument is only a convenient example of your inconsistencies of thought.quote:
Despite my best effort to explain why they should not be, and why you cannot consider PMC alone without also considering the fact that human consciousness is clearly observable before death.
And did you bother to read my argument for why we have no evidence that consciousness after death is at all comparable to consciousness before death? If you did, you neither agreed with it nor argued against it. You are just repeating your insistence that your view is correct, and not moving your argument forward.
Got news for you, Dude: repetition of a statement doesn't make it true.quote:
I've made the point as best I can, and you two cling to your position like findies to a bible, rabidly defending. You're even using "god" as your defense....
If anyone has been acting like a "findie" [sic], it is you with your repetition of arguments which have been dealt with, your inability to move onto other related points, and your spelling. (Yes, I am insulting you on purpose.) It is your dogmatic adherence to the "fact" that consciousness during life might have something to do with consciousness after death - coupled with your complete and utter incomprehension of what we're trying to say (despite your insistence that you understand) - which is what is causing you problems, Dude.quote:
I can only assume for the purpose of being an ass.
Well, that assume facts contrary to the evidence, since I've told you my motivations for posting in this thread, several times.quote:
Clearly I'm talking about the fate of human consciousness after death. Yet somehow you infer a broad generalized statement...
Yes, the whole sentence "Any claim that is made without evidence can, and should, be dismissed" is a broad and generalized statement. Even though it was made within the context of the fate of human consciousness after death, I am unable to see any reason why it should be limited to the fate of human consciousness after death. Perhaps you could support that: how the principle that "any claim that is made without evidence" should be dismissed is only applicable to the fate of human consciousness after death, and to no other situations at all.quote:
...and and again manage to bring in "god" and then procede to insult me.
If bringing god into this insults you, perhaps you should have declined to answer Ricky's question in the first place.quote:
Who was accusing me of not reading posts with care?
I still do, for the reasons above. I don't see how your statement regarding non-evidenced claims can reasonably be applied only to P.M.C., and not to god, or Ricky's invisible dragon, or Adam's 17 arms. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2004 : 08:55:09 [Permalink]
|
Kil puts on his moderator hat.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it float. Dave and Dude, you are both members of value at this site. This thread pains me. My suggestion is for you to walk away from it at least for a while. Resist those parting shots. At this point they are not furthering the debate and serve no purpose other than to inflame, as far as I can see. I would be lying if I didn't mention how appalled I am at the number of insults being thrown back and forth by two of my favorite posters. You just may have to agree to disagree. God forbid!
I hope I see both of you, and Ricky too at chat tomorrow night. Perhaps we could make this topic the subject of that chat. Sometimes "real time" can be a useful way to hash this sort of thing out. I dunno... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2004 : 09:15:45 [Permalink]
|
Whoa. OK. Lemme see if I can accurately define Dave W's position and Dude's position.
1) Human consiousness exists. Whether part of an eternal part of ourselves which survives death or as evidence of brain functionality.
2) Occams razor says the simpliest explianation is most likely (not always) true.
3) The world is usually myriad shades of grey and rarely black and white. However, the true/false nature of the question of PMC existance (not the form PMC takes, just existance) makes it one of these exceptions.
4) Claims absent evidence such as the existance of "God", "The Invisible Pink Unicorn", Ricky's "Invisible Dragon", or Adam's 17 arms hold the same true/false natures and have the same likelyhood of being true through Occam's razor. (aka not friggin much)
Dude disagrees with some of these claims on what appears to be an emotional level. In one case, being inconsistant with criteria for existance/non-existance of theological constructs. (God, PMC aka soul) No evidence for God, therefore non-existant until evidence appears. No evidence for PMC, therefore nothing conclusive can be said about it.
Tangetal thought: I will say that any combination of "Ricky" and "Dragon" triggers memories of 1970's professional wrestling athelete/actor Ricky "The Dragon" Steamboat.
A this being said, I am a theist and I believe in PMC. I am not stupid enough to say I have proof nor that my belief is the most likely result. It is a psychological need that I have for my consciousness to continue on and a need for mysticism. These harmless beliefs (which are not likely to be proven or disproven within my lifetime) fulfill these psychological needs. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2004 : 10:29:47 [Permalink]
|
My apologies to everyone, especially Dude.
I've got one more angle on why adopting a tentative conclusion regarding P.M.C. is not unreasonable, but will save it for after a suitable cool-down period. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
