4 ms·
What specifically do we know about consciousness and life that's incompatible with this account? It's conventional to assume that living organisms are somehow t
by gradschool 14y ago
What specifically do we know about consciousness and life that's incompatible with this account? It's conventional to assume that living organisms are somehow the vessel of consciousness, but is that assumption strictly mandated by any particular empirical evidence? How would you propose even to frame such an idea as a rigorously testable hypothesis?
- lutusp 14y ago> What specifically do we know about consciousness and life that's incompatible with this account? Nothing but all of it -- the metaphysical account of life after death. > It's conventional to assume that living organisms are somehow the vessel of consciousness ... Yes. What is unconventional is to assume that the consciousness survives the body in a different form. This would be like hypothesizing that all ice cream cones live on in a metaphysical plane after they've melted in this one. Before accepting this idea, I would want to see some evidence that is more than anecdote. > ... but is that assumption strictly mandated by any particular empirical evidence? Nope. Neither is this. > How would you propose even to frame such an idea as a rigorously testable hypothesis? Good question. But the absence of a reasonable answer doesn't support an argument in favor or life after death. The fact that we can't resolve the central question about consciousness in a scientific way, doesn't stand as an argument for expanding the dimensions of our ignorance into new, uncharted territory.