3 ms·

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 simu

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
    > Yes, I do realize that that is a very western perspective I'd say it's more of a deist[1] perspective, which certainly is firmly rooted in Western culture and philosophical tradition. While it's not that surprising to have it invoked even on HN, assuming it as a given is a bit much. Especially in the context of hard-core empiricism[2] and materialism[3] - which are the other, but also significant philosophical traditions in the West - applied by lisper. Personally, I agree with lisper - it is possible that the afterlife exists, but we have no theory which would explain how it could exist while also matching the observed reality, which leads to the conclusion that, to the best of our current knowledge, it's extremely unlikely that it exists. The same can be said for any other belief not grounded in scientific facts, including flat-earth theory, chemtrails, moon-landing hoax, anti-vaccine guys and so on, which is the point lisper is making. Once you leave the realm of sound theories with valid evidence, you're in a dream-land where you can meet James Bond, God, Donald Duck, Thetans and Xanu, chakra and Aang and Naruto, aliens running the White House and round-earth conspiracy - while different in many respects, they all lie outside of strictly defined empiric reality. But, at this point - as noted in the first paragraph - we're rehashing the centuries-old discussion, and we're bound to this in a much less convincing and refined way than the famous philosophers, so maybe let's give it a rest? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

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
  > Yes, I do realize that that is a very western perspective I'd say it's more of a deist[1] perspective, which certainly is firmly rooted in Western culture and philosophical tradition. While it's not that surprising to have it invoked even on HN, assuming it as a given is a bit much. Especially in the context of hard-core empiricism[2] and materialism[3] - which are the other, but also significant philosophical traditions in the West - applied by lisper. Personally, I agree with lisper - it is possible that the afterlife exists, but we have no theory which would explain how it could exist while also matching the observed reality, which leads to the conclusion that, to the best of our current knowledge, it's extremely unlikely that it exists. The same can be said for any other belief not grounded in scientific facts, including flat-earth theory, chemtrails, moon-landing hoax, anti-vaccine guys and so on, which is the point lisper is making. Once you leave the realm of sound theories with valid evidence, you're in a dream-land where you can meet James Bond, God, Donald Duck, Thetans and Xanu, chakra and Aang and Naruto, aliens running the White House and round-earth conspiracy - while different in many respects, they all lie outside of strictly defined empiric reality. But, at this point - as noted in the first paragraph - we're rehashing the centuries-old discussion, and we're bound to this in a much less convincing and refined way than the famous philosophers, so maybe let's give it a rest? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism