4 ms·

> There is absolutely zero scientific, empirical basis for the materialist presupposition that nothing happens after we die. Isn't it more the point that there

by dghf 2y ago

> There is absolutely zero scientific, empirical basis for the materialist presupposition that nothing happens after we die. Isn't it more the point that there is a lack of evidence for supposing that something does happen after we die? Put another way: there is absolutely zero scientific, empirical basis for the materialist presupposition that rocks are not conscious -- other than that rocks give no sign of being conscious, and lack the neurological features that seem, as far as we can tell, to be necessary to support consciousness. Dead people also give no sign of consciousness and also lack those features, at least after a sufficient period of decay. So if those reasons are insufficient, scientifically speaking, to justify an assumption that post-mortem consciousness does not exist, they are presumably insufficient to justify an assumption that rocks do not possess consciousness.

kessog 2y ago
If there is, in your view, a lack of evidence for either position, then why should you default to the less simple position? The simplest position to take would be that there is no change in state and consciousness continues to exist. The less simple position in this case would be to add an additional assumption that the state of consciousness changes - in that it goes from existing, to ceasing to exist.
- dghf 2y ago
  Sorry, why is stasis a simpler position than change? Change happens all the time. Phenomena end. If a match burns out, the simpler assumption is that the flame has gone, not that it persists in some imperceptible fashion. Likewise, if a human body shows no sign of consciousness, and the brain -- which at the very least seems to be heavily implicated in the phenomenon of consciousness -- is showing no activity, it seems reasonable to assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that consciousness is absent: even more so if the brain is decayed or destroyed.
  - kessog 2y ago
    How do you know that change happens all the time? Are you observing all things and all modes of being? We don't go looking for evidence for all things in the same way. When we ask, "is the match still lit?" we can answer that question by observing the match. But that is nothing like the way we go about answering questions about the reality of natural laws, numbers, the room you are in, past events, future possibilities, laws of logic, individual identity over time, causation, memories, dreams, or even love or beauty. with each of these, we don't always attempt to use empirical, visible evidence to prove their existence. Only very specific questions about the physical universe can be answered with the scientific method. By limiting the question of consciousness purely to the observed, physical world, you're making the evidence criteria arbitrarily and impossibly narrow, in a way that you wouldn't for many other types of question. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - this is a fallacy.
    - dghf 2y ago
      > How do you know that change happens all the time? Because ... it does? Things move. The kettle boils and then cools. There's a grey hair that wasn't there yesterday. > By limiting the question of consciousness purely to the observed, physical world, you're making the evidence criteria arbitrarily and impossibly narrow, in a way that you wouldn't for many other types of question. But we attribute consciousness to other human beings in the first place precisely because of physical evidence: their behaviours, expressions, speech acts, etc., and the apparent correlates of those in measured brain activity; and the lack of such evidence is why we don't (usually) attribute consciousness to, say, stuffed toys or mannequins. If it is irrational to assume (provisionally, and pending the possible discovery of further evidence to the contrary) that dead people are not conscious because they don't exhibit such physical evidence, it is presumably also irrational to assume the same of stuffed toys: after all, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
      - kessog 2y ago
        Before I can continue this conversation I'm going to have to ask you to please stop downvoting my responses. It rate limits my account and prevents me from responding. On HN we aren't supposed to just downvote things because we disagree with them, this isn't Reddit and it destroys any possibility of debate. "Because it does" isn't an argument I'm afraid. If you can use "because it does" so can I. In debate this is called begging the question, the question in this case being "how do you know that it does?". This also destroys any possibility of debate. You need to justify your argumentation, otherwise this isn't a debate at all. So again, how do you know that change happens all the time? This is a question of epistemic certitude.

by dghf 2y ago

kessog 2y ago

If there is, in your view, a lack of evidence for either position, then why should you default to the less simple position? The simplest position to take would be that there is no change in state and consciousness continues to exist. The less simple position in this case would be to add an additional assumption that the state of consciousness changes - in that it goes from existing, to ceasing to exist.

dghf 2y ago
Sorry, why is stasis a simpler position than change? Change happens all the time. Phenomena end. If a match burns out, the simpler assumption is that the flame has gone, not that it persists in some imperceptible fashion. Likewise, if a human body shows no sign of consciousness, and the brain -- which at the very least seems to be heavily implicated in the phenomenon of consciousness -- is showing no activity, it seems reasonable to assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that consciousness is absent: even more so if the brain is decayed or destroyed.
- kessog 2y ago
  How do you know that change happens all the time? Are you observing all things and all modes of being? We don't go looking for evidence for all things in the same way. When we ask, "is the match still lit?" we can answer that question by observing the match. But that is nothing like the way we go about answering questions about the reality of natural laws, numbers, the room you are in, past events, future possibilities, laws of logic, individual identity over time, causation, memories, dreams, or even love or beauty. with each of these, we don't always attempt to use empirical, visible evidence to prove their existence. Only very specific questions about the physical universe can be answered with the scientific method. By limiting the question of consciousness purely to the observed, physical world, you're making the evidence criteria arbitrarily and impossibly narrow, in a way that you wouldn't for many other types of question. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - this is a fallacy.
  - dghf 2y ago
    > How do you know that change happens all the time? Because ... it does? Things move. The kettle boils and then cools. There's a grey hair that wasn't there yesterday. > By limiting the question of consciousness purely to the observed, physical world, you're making the evidence criteria arbitrarily and impossibly narrow, in a way that you wouldn't for many other types of question. But we attribute consciousness to other human beings in the first place precisely because of physical evidence: their behaviours, expressions, speech acts, etc., and the apparent correlates of those in measured brain activity; and the lack of such evidence is why we don't (usually) attribute consciousness to, say, stuffed toys or mannequins. If it is irrational to assume (provisionally, and pending the possible discovery of further evidence to the contrary) that dead people are not conscious because they don't exhibit such physical evidence, it is presumably also irrational to assume the same of stuffed toys: after all, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
    - kessog 2y ago
      Before I can continue this conversation I'm going to have to ask you to please stop downvoting my responses. It rate limits my account and prevents me from responding. On HN we aren't supposed to just downvote things because we disagree with them, this isn't Reddit and it destroys any possibility of debate. "Because it does" isn't an argument I'm afraid. If you can use "because it does" so can I. In debate this is called begging the question, the question in this case being "how do you know that it does?". This also destroys any possibility of debate. You need to justify your argumentation, otherwise this isn't a debate at all. So again, how do you know that change happens all the time? This is a question of epistemic certitude.