3 ms·

I have the same conclusions as you, but don't have the confidence to state them so matter-of-factly. There seems a rather large amount of room for "we don't kno

by bumby 3y ago

I have the same conclusions as you, but don't have the confidence to state them so matter-of-factly. There seems a rather large amount of room for "we don't know." And, given that it may not be a testable hypothesis and thus outside the realm of science, there's even room for "we may never know." And before people get in a huff, the same generally goes for the hard problem of consciousness, yet we generally don't go around doubting that others have subjective experience.

taberiand 3y ago
I state it matter-of-factly because I believe the idea of it being supernatural lacks evidence of any sort; there's no reason at all to make that hypothesis in the first place. I feel like the studies (or at least the reporting of the studies) come at the question from the wrong direction - the hypothesis should be that all of these experiences have explanations grounded in the function of the brain and body, because the opposite approach is, as you point out, unfalsifiable. Naturally we don't know, which is why we should assume the explanation that is grounded in reality until it is proven otherwise - especially when the effect of the supernatural answer being true is indistinguishable from the natural answer. If all life after death amounts to in how it affects the living is knowing that the "tunnel of light" is real (but not what lies beyond that), then what use is that information compared to just believing it to be imaginary?
- bumby 3y ago
  I understand your point. And if you also want to take a strictly materialistic worldview, there’s nothing wrong with it. But what’s strange to me is when people take such a hard line in one area but don’t apply the same logic to another. Would you, for example, extend that same logic to claim your loved ones are philosophical zombies incapable of subjective experience? After all, there’s no good proof of the hard problem of consciousness and it’s likely an untestable claim as well. If you reply with “yes, but…” all it really means is you are either cherry picking where to apply the logic or you recognize there are limits to what science can test/prove and there may be elements outside that domain.
  - ericmay 3y ago
    Better yet, consciousness as you’re describing it here is most likely an illusory artifact and evolutionary adaptation, particularly useful for survival and group cooperation. I wouldn’t be so quick to assume about the OP. With that being said I think it’s fair to suggest we can’t prove that others are conscious but we can do a lot more here with science than we can with the alleged afterlife.
    - bumby 3y ago
      I think that’s why it’s generally broken down into the “easy” and “hard” problems of consciousness. Easy in the sense that we can use our existing scientific toolset; hard as in we cannot.
      - ericmay 3y ago
        Sure but as it relates to the after-life there's not even a "hard" problem to speak of because there is nothing we can assert except that maybe it is the same experience as the one before birth. We can't effectively use the tools of science here (at least yet), whereas with consciousness and conscious experience we can at least grapple around the edges.
        bumby 3y ago
        How can we grapple with the edges of the hard problem, except at a philosophical level? To me, that sounds very much like the afterlife debate. I think it just feels different because we each have an innate “feeling” of subjective experience that’s not easy to dismiss.
  - taberiand 3y ago
    I apply the same logic in all cases (as much as any fallible person can), which in your example leads me to assume just as confidently that of course other people have subjective experiences and obviously exist separate to my self. It's the logical conclusion using the same reasoning behind believing the after-life does not exist. I believe consciousness is an emergent property of the of the brain and body, and the associated connections and (physical/chemical/electrical/etc) interactions In that context, subjective experiences exist just as much as anything else does, obeying all the laws of physics. I don't understand why people think the problem is hard, except for hoping and wishing that it is?

by bumby 3y ago

taberiand 3y ago

I state it matter-of-factly because I believe the idea of it being supernatural lacks evidence of any sort; there's no reason at all to make that hypothesis in the first place. I feel like the studies (or at least the reporting of the studies) come at the question from the wrong direction - the hypothesis should be that all of these experiences have explanations grounded in the function of the brain and body, because the opposite approach is, as you point out, unfalsifiable. Naturally we don't know, which is why we should assume the explanation that is grounded in reality until it is proven otherwise - especially when the effect of the supernatural answer being true is indistinguishable from the natural answer. If all life after death amounts to in how it affects the living is knowing that the "tunnel of light" is real (but not what lies beyond that), then what use is that information compared to just believing it to be imaginary?

bumby 3y ago
I understand your point. And if you also want to take a strictly materialistic worldview, there’s nothing wrong with it. But what’s strange to me is when people take such a hard line in one area but don’t apply the same logic to another. Would you, for example, extend that same logic to claim your loved ones are philosophical zombies incapable of subjective experience? After all, there’s no good proof of the hard problem of consciousness and it’s likely an untestable claim as well. If you reply with “yes, but…” all it really means is you are either cherry picking where to apply the logic or you recognize there are limits to what science can test/prove and there may be elements outside that domain.
- ericmay 3y ago
  Better yet, consciousness as you’re describing it here is most likely an illusory artifact and evolutionary adaptation, particularly useful for survival and group cooperation. I wouldn’t be so quick to assume about the OP. With that being said I think it’s fair to suggest we can’t prove that others are conscious but we can do a lot more here with science than we can with the alleged afterlife.
  - bumby 3y ago
    I think that’s why it’s generally broken down into the “easy” and “hard” problems of consciousness. Easy in the sense that we can use our existing scientific toolset; hard as in we cannot.
    - ericmay 3y ago
      Sure but as it relates to the after-life there's not even a "hard" problem to speak of because there is nothing we can assert except that maybe it is the same experience as the one before birth. We can't effectively use the tools of science here (at least yet), whereas with consciousness and conscious experience we can at least grapple around the edges.
      - bumby 3y ago
        How can we grapple with the edges of the hard problem, except at a philosophical level? To me, that sounds very much like the afterlife debate. I think it just feels different because we each have an innate “feeling” of subjective experience that’s not easy to dismiss.
- taberiand 3y ago
  I apply the same logic in all cases (as much as any fallible person can), which in your example leads me to assume just as confidently that of course other people have subjective experiences and obviously exist separate to my self. It's the logical conclusion using the same reasoning behind believing the after-life does not exist. I believe consciousness is an emergent property of the of the brain and body, and the associated connections and (physical/chemical/electrical/etc) interactions In that context, subjective experiences exist just as much as anything else does, obeying all the laws of physics. I don't understand why people think the problem is hard, except for hoping and wishing that it is?