3 ms·

> overwhelming evidence that there is no afterlife How can you have evidence that something doesn't exist when that thing leaves no evidence? > mind is a func

> overwhelming evidence that there is no afterlife How can you have evidence that something doesn't exist when that thing leaves no evidence? > mind is a function of brain, and when the brain dies, the mind dies with it This is not provable. Suppose there is an infinitely powerful computer system outside of our universe that doesn't influence our universe but knows everything about it. Then it could copy the contents of the brain upon death and run the brain in a simulation. You can certainly not believe in there being an infinitely powerful computer system like this, but it's a claim entirely unrelated to your claim about the brain.

lisper 8y ago
> How can you have evidence that something doesn't exist when that thing leaves no evidence? In the exact same way that I have evidence that the round earth is not a government conspiracy: I have a theory that provides a good explanation for all the available evidence, namely, that the earth is in fact round, and that mind is in fact a function of brain. It really is the exact same situation with respect to provability in both cases. > Suppose there is an infinitely powerful computer system outside of our universe Now you're back in "the government is putting hallucinogens in the water" territory. And, BTW, brain-cloning technology would in no way refute my position. To the contrary, the development of this technology would just be further evidence that mind is a function of some kind of computational substrate that can be understood in purely materialistic terms.
- gbear605 8y ago
  I agree that you have evidence for a theory that there is no soul; I disagree on whether that is evidence against a generic afterlife. Two things could be simultaneously true: First, that the "mind is a function of some kind of computational substrate that can be understood in purely materialistic terms." Second, that there is this kind of an afterlife. An afterlife doesn't require the existence of a soul. It could "just" be another computational substrate that runs the function of the mind. > Now you're back in "the government is putting hallucinogens in the water" territory. This infinitely powerful computer system is just a metaphor for a deity that is omniscient. I could have equivalently said "Suppose there is a deity that knows everything about the universe. Then it could copy the contents of the brain upon death and run the brain in a simulation." If you're going to say that the existence of an omniscient deity is equivalent to hallucinogens in the water supply, then we're not going to convince each other of anything, since I came into this discussion assuming that we were taking a generic omniscient deity as a reasonable given.
  - lisper 8y ago
    I never said anything about a soul. And I never said that mind is a function of "some kind of computational substrate." I said mind is a function of brain, which is a very particular kind of computational substrate with very specific properties, one of which is that it is impossible (given current technological constraints) to make a copy of it. > Suppose there is a deity that knows everything about the universe What difference does it make if you call it a "deity" or an "intelligent alien" or a "government conspiracy" or a leprechaun? Yes, brain-cloning technology is possible in principle (as far as we know) but there is no evidence that it actually exists anywhere. Likewise, a vast conspiracy to produce fake evidence for a round earth is also possible in principle, but there is no evidence for it. These two things have the exact same ontological status. > I came into this discussion assuming that we were taking a generic omniscient deity as a reasonable given. Huh??? Why would you assume that?
    - gbear605 8y ago
      So is your proof that the afterlife can’t exist summed up by “brain-cloning technology is not within current human reach, and there’s no non-human thing out there that could do the brain-cloning”? Because sure, I agree with that statement. In your original comment you were referring to a generic afterlife. Common afterlives discussed involve non-human being(s) to run the whole thing, so I assumed that we could assume the existance of one. Yes, I do realize that that is a very western perspective, but also we’re on a website that is primarily western.
      - lisper 8y ago
        > your proof that the afterlife can’t exist I didn't say that it can't exist, I said that it doesn't exist. Very important distinction. Fusion reactors can exist, but don't. > Common afterlives discussed involve non-human being(s) to run the whole thing, so I assumed that we could assume the existance of one. Again: why on earth would you assume that? People talk about warp drive too, but that doesn't license you to assume that it exists.
      - klibertp 8y ago

lisper 8y ago

> How can you have evidence that something doesn't exist when that thing leaves no evidence? In the exact same way that I have evidence that the round earth is not a government conspiracy: I have a theory that provides a good explanation for all the available evidence, namely, that the earth is in fact round, and that mind is in fact a function of brain. It really is the exact same situation with respect to provability in both cases. > Suppose there is an infinitely powerful computer system outside of our universe Now you're back in "the government is putting hallucinogens in the water" territory. And, BTW, brain-cloning technology would in no way refute my position. To the contrary, the development of this technology would just be further evidence that mind is a function of some kind of computational substrate that can be understood in purely materialistic terms.

gbear605 8y ago
I agree that you have evidence for a theory that there is no soul; I disagree on whether that is evidence against a generic afterlife. Two things could be simultaneously true: First, that the "mind is a function of some kind of computational substrate that can be understood in purely materialistic terms." Second, that there is this kind of an afterlife. An afterlife doesn't require the existence of a soul. It could "just" be another computational substrate that runs the function of the mind. > Now you're back in "the government is putting hallucinogens in the water" territory. This infinitely powerful computer system is just a metaphor for a deity that is omniscient. I could have equivalently said "Suppose there is a deity that knows everything about the universe. Then it could copy the contents of the brain upon death and run the brain in a simulation." If you're going to say that the existence of an omniscient deity is equivalent to hallucinogens in the water supply, then we're not going to convince each other of anything, since I came into this discussion assuming that we were taking a generic omniscient deity as a reasonable given.
- lisper 8y ago
  I never said anything about a soul. And I never said that mind is a function of "some kind of computational substrate." I said mind is a function of brain, which is a very particular kind of computational substrate with very specific properties, one of which is that it is impossible (given current technological constraints) to make a copy of it. > Suppose there is a deity that knows everything about the universe What difference does it make if you call it a "deity" or an "intelligent alien" or a "government conspiracy" or a leprechaun? Yes, brain-cloning technology is possible in principle (as far as we know) but there is no evidence that it actually exists anywhere. Likewise, a vast conspiracy to produce fake evidence for a round earth is also possible in principle, but there is no evidence for it. These two things have the exact same ontological status. > I came into this discussion assuming that we were taking a generic omniscient deity as a reasonable given. Huh??? Why would you assume that?
  - gbear605 8y ago
    So is your proof that the afterlife can’t exist summed up by “brain-cloning technology is not within current human reach, and there’s no non-human thing out there that could do the brain-cloning”? Because sure, I agree with that statement. In your original comment you were referring to a generic afterlife. Common afterlives discussed involve non-human being(s) to run the whole thing, so I assumed that we could assume the existance of one. Yes, I do realize that that is a very western perspective, but also we’re on a website that is primarily western.
    - lisper 8y ago
      > your proof that the afterlife can’t exist I didn't say that it can't exist, I said that it doesn't exist. Very important distinction. Fusion reactors can exist, but don't. > Common afterlives discussed involve non-human being(s) to run the whole thing, so I assumed that we could assume the existance of one. Again: why on earth would you assume that? People talk about warp drive too, but that doesn't license you to assume that it exists.
    - klibertp 8y ago