Because we've all been instantiated, so to speak. So a process to instantiate us exists. This, right there, destroys the theory that death must necessarily be the end of us.
You're entire argument seems to confuse possibility with probability. I'm not arguing that death definitely is the end of us, just that the evidence seems to support that conclusion over and above your position of continuance.
I never implied continuity. Merely that whatever process that took people from unordered matter into thinking conscious entities could happen again to us. Black box the process. You've had no counterarguments to this other than saying that it sounds awfully dubious.
So, without continuity, in what way can you say it's "us". You've offered nothing I can see in support of this claim (which seems to be central to your overall claim).
Ah, but I'm not talking about the copy who appeared on the spaceship. I'm talking about the copy on the planet. Would you (as that copy) actually beam up? Or walk into the annihilation beam after a copy of you was accidentally made up in space?
Personally, i'd likely not walk into it, because as far as I can tell, my consciousness depends on my specific neurons - I would cease and a copy (which thought it was a continuation of "me") would continue on the ship.
Where did that consciousness come from? We don't know.
We do - the evidence points strongly in the direction of it arising from our neurons/brains. The question is exactly how it arises, and that is being investigated (contrary to your claims otherwise).
What happens to the consciousness that is annihilated? We don't know.
Yet the evidence seems to strongly suggest that the consciouness "ceases", because it requires the brain (as far as we can tell).
We know it exists, and that's all that matters.
And yet you still want to claim that it will somehow continue or reappear after the brain, which as far as we can tell is required for that consciousness, is "destoryed".
Is it logically possible that our consciousness will be "re-instantiated", "continue" or otherwise survive death?
Sure it is.
Is it possible in reality?
Maybe, we don't know for sure.
Is it probable/likely in reality?
It doesn't to be given our present knowledge and evidence.
What you need do (and have thus far failed to, it seems) is support this logical possibility as physically probability with arguments and evidence. Failing that, I see no reason to think that your claim is likely/probable, and therefore no reason to accept it (nor a reason why you do).
There doesn't need to be continuity, merely that the "us" that is experiencing this conscious life appears again on the stage.
if there is no continuity, how can you claim some shared identity between the two conscious events?
Since you mentioned Tipler in the other thread, let's consider the fact that all of this could just be a giant simulated reality, as various other philosophers (like David Chalmers) have speculated.
And the evidence supporting these claims are?
A nice thought experiment, but as far as I can tell, there is no reason to think they obtain in "reality".
Again, the analogy with a computer simulation fails because there is no reason to think it is the case.
And even so, to claim that the contents at a specific address (or however you want to point to an instance) would make the "I", regardless of the contents of that structure seems nonsensical.
Without some kind of identity "mapping" between "I-now" and "I-future", which you've not indicated for your general thesis, there seems no reason to take said thesis seriously.
At best, it's a guideline for developing hypotheses. It certainly doesn't allow us to reject evidence.
What evidence would that be?
As I see it, the evidence supports both our hypothesis, and mine is simpler, so why give yours preference?
As I said, atheists have a terrible time dealing with existence.
You've said it a number of times, but you still haven't supported the claim.
Atheism implies non-existence (in various ways and meanings of the word).
As far as I can see, atheism only implies a denial of or lack of belief in god or gods. Even if we substitute "materialism" or "naturalism" where you use "atheism", the implied non-existence you claim still doesn't seem to follow.
The very simple, very unarguable fact that we exist is therefore grounds for rejecting atheism.
Only if such a claim followed from atheism (which is doesn't).
Therefore the claim that non-existence must necessarily be the end of us is against the evidence.
You have a very strange view of "the evidence". You give no indication that any sort of continuity exists between this hypothetical future consciousness and ourselves, and there are reasons to think that no such thing exists (ie. reliance upon a specific brain, for example)
There's several analogies that might make sense.
Thought experiments are all well and good, but there is no indication that any of the things you mention are possible.
As far as the star trek analogy is concerned, "I" would wake up after being beamed, but I'm not sure it would be the same "I" who was anhilated earlier (though I'm sure it would profess that it was), especially given the possibility of the original still existing (their experiences would diverge instantly, and they'd be "different" people, surely)
Your analogies ALL seem to rely upon copying a specific neural pattern, something which you've given no indication of happening with your "general" scenario of some conscious experience at some unknown time in the future through some unknown mechanism/process.
I wonder why I'm skeptical of you claims:-)
Indeed. The fact that we could go from a meaningless collection of atoms to a conscious entity with an inner life seems nonsensical, incoherent, and lacking correspondence with science.
There is a difference between not having an explanation currently, and an explanation being impossible. You seem to think the latter, but have given no reason to think that this is the case (especially as there are hypothesis being explored).
But it's happened to all of us. So we MUST reject the notion that once we become a meaningless collection of atoms again after we die, that we'll never reappear, so to speak.
You're going well beyond the evidence (again).
If you were talking about Botlzmann brains, or some other hypothetical observer(s) fluctuating into existence, then you may have a point (though the lack of continuity between "us" and the future consciousness would be a serious issue for your claims of them both being "us").
However, you don't seem to be talking about such things (or even some kind of computer simulation, such as Frank Tipler, I think, lays out in one of his fanciful "science" books).
You seem to be saying that at some stage, some other consciousness might (will?) come into being, and that there is some means of assigning identity between it and me/you, while providing absolutely no notion of how that could be the case, against the evidence that it would not be the case.
It seems to me that parsimony/Occam's razor leads us to accept no such continuation of identity likely/possible, provisional on further evidence. You seem to take the complete opposite stance - accept the less parsimonious hypothesis unless it's shown to be false. That seems an irrational position to take.
To the contrary, really. I said we can black box the entire process. We have no idea how we have gone from being a meaningless collection of atoms to entities with an inner life, but we don't need to.
I think, for you to claim it is possible "again", means you need more than simply "it happened before".
The fact that this process is possible means that it is possible to happen to us again, even if the future us won't have any knowledge of our current life, or even resemble us in remotely similar ways.
Sorry, this statement is incoherent - if the future "us" doesn't resemble the current "us", in what sense can it even be suggested that both share some form of identity?
You've failed to provide any meaningful sort of continuity between these two hypothetical "consciousness" events.
The question to ask is if it is the same one, or a different one.
If it is the same pieces in the same arrangement, then for most intents and purposes, it would be the same "I" - it at least, would claim some kind of continuance from the "deconstructed I".
Would it's fellow lego soldiers consider it "the same"? No idea.
If we could create a duplicate of a person at the molecular/atomic level, would we consider them the same person? If we destroyed the original at the time of duplication?
To the lego soldier, this is a very important question - will he exist again after he dies?
Your analogy doesn't point to this - it's much more like the case of a duplicate sketched above than your "life after death".
Your "consciousness after brain death" claim seems to require a duplicate of our brains (and bodies, as they're a very important part of the "I") be created sometime in the future by some unknown mechanism/party. You've not supported this (unstated?) assumption with argument or evidence as yet.
Consciousness itself is still just as mysterious to modern science as it was to the ancients.
How consciousness (possibly) arises from the NCCS is still a problem. I wouldn't say it's still as mysterious as it was to the ancients - currently we don't postulate an entirely different realm (with the vast array of attendant difficulties that engenders) to account for it;-)
That's why neuroscience tries to ignore it, and focus instead just on NCCs.
You assume that focussing on neural correlates of consciousness is ignoring consciousness. I (and I assume neuroscientists) would disagree with you.
But we all know that consciousness exists.
We know that it's "like something" to have experiences. That doesn't mean out "folk" conceptions of consciousness are correct:-)
It's quite possible we'll never understand it.
Granted. Your case seems to hinge on us being unable to understand it, and yet understanding it in some fashion (your claims seem to require consciousness, or the "I", to survive the death of the brain, for example). How did you come by that knowledge if, as you claim, we're rather ignorant of "consciousness"?
With you so far - it's exceedingly implausible "sounding".
Except that we know that we've already gone from not existing to existing once.
Fairly uncontroversial there...
Therefore claiming that having it happen to us again is impossible, as atheists do, is contrary to the known evidence.
This is where you're claim fails. It seems there is absolutely no reason to think that it happens again, and you're still not supplying any. The rational position would be, not to claim it's impossible (as you seem to think atheists claim), but that there is no reason to think that it is possible or likely - remain agnostic and accept the null hypothesis - that it does not happen.
sadly for your case, there is evidence AGAINST it happening, such as the mentioned reliance of the mind on the brain - once the brain is "gone" you've given no sensible way that the "I" could some into existence again. You've not only failed to supply supporting evidence for your claim, but have failed to account for the disconfirming evidence presented.
It's actually very simple and easy to understand - atheists just tend to will themselves to not believe it because it's rather unarguable, and casts everything they know into doubt. In fact, I think existence at all provides a very serious problem for atheists, in several areas.
I understand what you're claiming, it's just that it seems nonsensical, incoherent and lacking correspondence with reality.
I'd think that the serious issues with "supernaturalism" make the problems with "materialism"/"naturalism" (which is what I think you mean when you say "atheism") pale into insignificance. Nothing you've mentioned in this (admittedly short) exchange has done anything to demonstrate "a very serious problem for atheists" as you're claiming:-)
As I said, the evidence that we've all gone from nonexistence to existence. The claim that after we die (transitioning back to non-existence) is "it" has the only evidence we possess to the contrary.
Well, since "I" relies rather heavily upon the physical brain, there seems to be no evidence that this "I" will come back again, and you've offered none to support that contention.
Philosophy very often does.
Bad philosophy almost always does. Good philosophy can generally be explained if it sounds like nonsense.
From what I've read of your claims so far, I unfortunately put you in the former category, not the latter.
And the re-emergence!
Because the underlying physical hardware is (barely) disrupted and changed. This is not support for your position (and the experience of "not I()" when under a general would still seem to count against you).
So, can you offer any reason why, in the absence of the same or similar physical substrate on which "I" depends (your brain, for example), there would ever be something which could coherently be thought of as being a "reemergence" of that same "I"?
The "robots" in your example would presumably know exactly what it was that we were experiencing when we experienced consciousness. What they wouldn't know is what it was like to experience it - we have privileged access to our own experiences, but that doesn't mean someone couldn't "read our minds" and know what we were experiencing.
But no, the notion that consciousness doesn't exist because we can't explain it scientifically seems to be a rather contradictory one, because we all (presumably) are experiencing it right now as we read this.
I think you mean't haven't explained it, not can't
Also, Dennett's "Multiple Drafts" hypothesis isn't the only game in town.
There's the Global Workspace theory for a start.
Explain to me why "you" are looking out of your eyes and "I" am looking out of mine. There's no real reason, it seems completely arbitrary, and yet there it is - unarguably so.
The neurons which make contribute to "me" are attached to my eyes, and vice versa? Doesn't seem particularly arbitrary to me, unless you happen to be claiming that the "you" and "I" are something more than, and independent (to a large degree) of the brain
The simple fact of the matter was that before you were born, you didn't exist, and now you do. Atheism has a very hard time dealing with this issue, along with related issues of why there is anything at all.
You keep claiming that atheism has a hard time dealing with this issue (you probably mean materialism/naturalism, rather than atheism), yet I don't see how or why that would be the case.
As for why there is anything at all, we could get into it, but I'm happy with "I don't know, neither do you, but lets keep looking into it", how about you?:-)
Nope. If you really feel like digging through Slashdot archives, you can find plenty of people claiming that they don't exist, that consciousness is just an illusion, and therefore they have no problems claiming that death is nonexistence.
Well, from what I understand it, neuroscience is in the process of showing that our folk concept of consciousness is an illusion "stiched" together by various parts of our brains.
Is that what these people were claiming?
Therefore the burden of proof is on the atheist to claim that, contrary to the evidence, that after we die this process could never happen again.
What evidence, though? You don't seem to be making much of a point. Sure the atoms that make me up could reform into a newborn, but since it seems that "I" am reliant upon the relationships between neurons etc in my brain, then how can you say it would happen to "I"? Different neuronal relationship, different person, different "I"
Note that I'm not claiming anything along the lines of us being us, merely that after you die you might wake up and find yourself looking out of the eyes of a newborn with no knowledge of your previous life, or in heaven, or whatever.
It wouldn't (couldn't?) be you. Your sentence sounds like nonsense to me.
Just that the notion that nothingness "is it" seems to fly in the face of our own personal experience otherwise.
Not really. Been under a general? That seems a reasonable data point for "nothingness" of the "I". If you didn't wake up, you'd never know. Again, your claims of an afterlife being some kind of default position doesn't follow.
By definition, no evidence can really be presented as to what happens after death unless you believe the people who say they've had near-death experiences.
Not really. If there was any way for those in the after life to have an effect on reality, there could (and surely would) be evidence. Think ghosts, angels etc.
Regarding evidence against, I was thinking more about the minds reliance on the brain, and therefore the likely inability for the "mind", and almost certainly what we would refer to as "I" to survive the death of the brain.
If there is life after death, it's not going to be "you" who enjoys it:-)
1 & 2 seem reasonable
3 I have a problem with - Neuroscientists and philosophers of mind are very interested in an explanation. You may treat it as a black box, but many don't. I'm not sure why you think an explanation need not be given.
4 I also have a problem with - have you been knocked unconscious or gone under a general anasthetic? Perhaps you've done meditation until you felt a dissolution of the "self". They'd all seem to provide counter evidence towards your contention here.
5 is a reasonable inference from the evidence - the "we" is dependant on brains. Brain damage can alter and destroy the "I", memories, personality etc. The "I" seems to rely upon the arrangement of neurons etc in the brain. Without the brain, there is no "I".
6 Doesn't seem to be a valid inference from the evidence. When we're "born" and the "I" comes into existence, we're "new" people. Even if you're right, how would the transition from nothingness to existence after death be the "I" that died"?
7 Is a non sequiter.
I feel both Christianity and Reincarnation (various forms of Hinduism and Buddhism, mostly) are both unsupported by the evidence, and nothing you've provided here refutes that. You probably disagree:-)
As I said, it's their only way out on the whole life after death thing. In order to prove our nonexistence after death, they imply nonexistence now.
Nah, the easy way out of the "life after death" thing is simply the lack of evidence supporting it, and the evidence against it (the minds reliance upon the brain, for example).
I don't quite know what you mean by "nonexistence now", but it certainly sounds like you're strawman'ing things.
but only through religion do you see the higher levels of ethical behavior, using the example of giving the jacket off your back to a thief that just robbed you (which were documented cases from both a Catholic church in the middle ages, and a Hindu guy writing around the same time).
I'd be curious to know just why that act is considered "moral"?
I could explain how law in OT times is different from the conception of law that we have these days, and of the difference between moral and ritual law, and how they apply differently to Christians, and how this stance is consistent, and has been consistent for 2000 years, but it's 2AM, and I don't really feel like it.
There doesn't seem to be much that has been consistent about Christianity for 2000 years, so I'd be interested in this explanation of yours.
Also, the OT is a older than 2000 years (some of it quite a bit older). I doubt you can justifiably claim consistency for it's entire duration.
The current ideology that is being taken to the extreme is Atheism.
What are the tenets of this "Atheism" ideology?
As far as I can tell, the total content of "Atheism" is a lack of belief in, or denial of the existence of, a god or gods. Doesn't seem to be much of an ideology to me:-)
Effectively, having been asked why an incredibly unlikely event came about, you have responded "why not?". It's a non-answer, try again.
You've not given any reason to think it is incredibly unlikely apart from your belief. Try again:-)
Unfortunately the neo-darwinian hypothesis of evolution by natural selection of traits arising from random mutation CANNOT account for biology as we observe it.
Be careful of such sweeping statements, someone may ask you to demonstrate it is the case:-)
If you are simply pointing out we have gaps in our understanding then I agree. If you're claiming those gaps = god, then I guess Zeus causes lightning and Poseidon storms at sea.
You probably should be more skeptical of your sources. CMI (and other "creationist" organisations) tend to ignore evidence against their claims, over play the evidence which lends some support to their position, misrepresent research and quote mine, all seemingly driven by ideology and not a desire for understanding.
As a person is our only seriously tenable explanation for the existence of an integrated circuit, so an intelligent agent well beyond humans is our only seriously tenable explanation for the existence of even a single cell.
If you can find me the blueprints of the cell, describe the manufacturing process, show me the design steps, etc (all things we have for the IC), then perhaps you'd have a point. As it is, you are unable even to point to the "intelligent agent" responsible, let alone supply all of the other information. Your analogy fails:-)
I'll recant my whole setup if you can get a cell to arise from non-living components without human intervention. And pay you every cent in my bank account:)
Perhaps you need to read more scientific research into abiogenesis, as you don't seem to have an understanding of the current state. This and
this are pretty interesting to start with.
So again, what is your reasoning process for predicting a rational universe from a non-rational, non-intelligent, impersonal, naturalistic beginning?
To put it simply, what evidence we actually have indicates the universe appears to be open to investigation (through intersubjective empiricism), and as a result of that study there appears to be no rational intelligence behind it, or at least no decent evidence in it's favour.
Agreed, but lets not get ahead of ourselves;)
I don't think we are. You seem to be arguing specifically for an interventionist deity. If that's the case, it would be nice to have the coherence and correspondence to reality of this being presented, else we should surely just ignore the concept?:-)
Would you mind illuminating to me your reasoning process for predicting a rational universe from a non-rational, non-intelligent, impersonal, naturalistic beginning?
It seems to me that a universe which contains regularities (such as this one) would be less complex than one which is irrational/unpredictable/random (Kolmogorov Complexity seems a decent measure)
It could also be the case that things can't be any other way.
Why, on your account, must it be unpredictable/irrational/random without a creator?
For example, we wouldn't expect the paths carved out by a river to naturally form a simple addition circuit.
A terrible example. Given our current understanding of the universe, if it's path did carve out an addition circuit, then that would be irrational (and probably count as some evidence in your favour):-)
When we find a physical circuit that performs an addition, we naturally infer a person built it.
Depends on the circuit, and whether there is a better explanation.
An integrated circuit etc, sure, because we know how to build those, how they work, how they were developed and have been improved etc.
If you're talking about biology, then we also have some understanding of how the "circuit" started, how it works, how it has changed over time. That understanding doesn't involve a person (even a person of dubious, immaterial existence such as your "Creator"):-)
Arguing, as you seem to be, from the regularities of the universe to a creator, only seems to take you to Deism (at best). You'd have a long and difficult (perhaps impossible) road if you're arguing for Theism/an interventionist deity.:-)
How does this supernatural component of our minds (perhaps our entire mind on your account) provide for rationality?
Even if Jesus did rise from the dead, it doesn't mean Yahweh exists, or that Jesus is his son/God. Satan (assuming that being exists) may have caused the resurrection. It could have been any number of things, inculding some unkown, infrequent biological function (Jesus is not the only person claimed to have resurrected you know):-)
which can be reasoned without assuming the Bible to be true, but by testing its claims about the resurrection against history (although obviously not proved in a scientific sense, but then since when was history science).
The evidence supporting that assertion is terrible.
All of the accounts of the events (the gospels) are anonymous, late (40+ years post event), and seemingly written for theological and not historical purposes.
They all diverge in what happened, often contradicting one another.
About all the agree on is an empty tomb, something Paul doesn't seem to mention, and Mark seems to make purely symbolic as opposed to an historic event.
Sorry, you don't get to claim something is "historic" on such poor evidence:-)
The circular reasoning is actually yours.
The reason you believe Yahweh does not exist is that you believe Bible is only a collection of myths, and the reason that you believe the Bible is just a collection of myths is that you don't believe Yahweh exists.
I belief the bible is a collection of myths because that is what it most resembles.
I don't have belief in any god or gods because there doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence to support that belief
How is claiming Yahweh exists because Jesus rose not circular when the only support that Jesus was raised is to be found in...the bible!:-)
But if there is no such being behind the universe, we have no reason to predict a rational universe. In fact, we'd probably predict the inability to predict anything.
Why would you expect that to be the case?
So, in your opinion, which part of the section in italics does not hold?
Basically your assertion that without a personal creator we should expect an irrational universe:-)
And you've still not shown how the supernatural component you've asserted exists gives rise to our rational ability, over and above the rationality we might expect from a physical system:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Because we've all been instantiated, so to speak. So a process to instantiate us exists. This, right there, destroys the theory that death must necessarily be the end of us.
You're entire argument seems to confuse possibility with probability. I'm not arguing that death definitely is the end of us, just that the evidence seems to support that conclusion over and above your position of continuance.
I never implied continuity. Merely that whatever process that took people from unordered matter into thinking conscious entities could happen again to us. Black box the process. You've had no counterarguments to this other than saying that it sounds awfully dubious.
So, without continuity, in what way can you say it's "us". You've offered nothing I can see in support of this claim (which seems to be central to your overall claim).
Ah, but I'm not talking about the copy who appeared on the spaceship. I'm talking about the copy on the planet. Would you (as that copy) actually beam up? Or walk into the annihilation beam after a copy of you was accidentally made up in space?
Personally, i'd likely not walk into it, because as far as I can tell, my consciousness depends on my specific neurons - I would cease and a copy (which thought it was a continuation of "me") would continue on the ship.
Where did that consciousness come from? We don't know.
We do - the evidence points strongly in the direction of it arising from our neurons/brains. The question is exactly how it arises, and that is being investigated (contrary to your claims otherwise).
What happens to the consciousness that is annihilated? We don't know.
Yet the evidence seems to strongly suggest that the consciouness "ceases", because it requires the brain (as far as we can tell).
We know it exists, and that's all that matters.
And yet you still want to claim that it will somehow continue or reappear after the brain, which as far as we can tell is required for that consciousness, is "destoryed".
Is it logically possible that our consciousness will be "re-instantiated", "continue" or otherwise survive death?
Sure it is.
Is it possible in reality?
Maybe, we don't know for sure.
Is it probable/likely in reality?
It doesn't to be given our present knowledge and evidence.
What you need do (and have thus far failed to, it seems) is support this logical possibility as physically probability with arguments and evidence. Failing that, I see no reason to think that your claim is likely/probable, and therefore no reason to accept it (nor a reason why you do).
There doesn't need to be continuity, merely that the "us" that is experiencing this conscious life appears again on the stage.
if there is no continuity, how can you claim some shared identity between the two conscious events?
Since you mentioned Tipler in the other thread, let's consider the fact that all of this could just be a giant simulated reality, as various other philosophers (like David Chalmers) have speculated.
And the evidence supporting these claims are?
A nice thought experiment, but as far as I can tell, there is no reason to think they obtain in "reality".
Again, the analogy with a computer simulation fails because there is no reason to think it is the case.
And even so, to claim that the contents at a specific address (or however you want to point to an instance) would make the "I", regardless of the contents of that structure seems nonsensical.
Without some kind of identity "mapping" between "I-now" and "I-future", which you've not indicated for your general thesis, there seems no reason to take said thesis seriously.
At best, it's a guideline for developing hypotheses. It certainly doesn't allow us to reject evidence.
What evidence would that be? As I see it, the evidence supports both our hypothesis, and mine is simpler, so why give yours preference?
As I said, atheists have a terrible time dealing with existence.
You've said it a number of times, but you still haven't supported the claim.
Atheism implies non-existence (in various ways and meanings of the word).
As far as I can see, atheism only implies a denial of or lack of belief in god or gods. Even if we substitute "materialism" or "naturalism" where you use "atheism", the implied non-existence you claim still doesn't seem to follow.
The very simple, very unarguable fact that we exist is therefore grounds for rejecting atheism.
Only if such a claim followed from atheism (which is doesn't).
Therefore the claim that non-existence must necessarily be the end of us is against the evidence.
You have a very strange view of "the evidence". You give no indication that any sort of continuity exists between this hypothetical future consciousness and ourselves, and there are reasons to think that no such thing exists (ie. reliance upon a specific brain, for example)
There's several analogies that might make sense.
Thought experiments are all well and good, but there is no indication that any of the things you mention are possible. :-)
As far as the star trek analogy is concerned, "I" would wake up after being beamed, but I'm not sure it would be the same "I" who was anhilated earlier (though I'm sure it would profess that it was), especially given the possibility of the original still existing (their experiences would diverge instantly, and they'd be "different" people, surely) Your analogies ALL seem to rely upon copying a specific neural pattern, something which you've given no indication of happening with your "general" scenario of some conscious experience at some unknown time in the future through some unknown mechanism/process.
I wonder why I'm skeptical of you claims
Indeed. The fact that we could go from a meaningless collection of atoms to a conscious entity with an inner life seems nonsensical, incoherent, and lacking correspondence with science.
There is a difference between not having an explanation currently, and an explanation being impossible. You seem to think the latter, but have given no reason to think that this is the case (especially as there are hypothesis being explored).
But it's happened to all of us. So we MUST reject the notion that once we become a meaningless collection of atoms again after we die, that we'll never reappear, so to speak.
You're going well beyond the evidence (again).
If you were talking about Botlzmann brains, or some other hypothetical observer(s) fluctuating into existence, then you may have a point (though the lack of continuity between "us" and the future consciousness would be a serious issue for your claims of them both being "us").
However, you don't seem to be talking about such things (or even some kind of computer simulation, such as Frank Tipler, I think, lays out in one of his fanciful "science" books).
You seem to be saying that at some stage, some other consciousness might (will?) come into being, and that there is some means of assigning identity between it and me/you, while providing absolutely no notion of how that could be the case, against the evidence that it would not be the case.
It seems to me that parsimony/Occam's razor leads us to accept no such continuation of identity likely/possible, provisional on further evidence.
You seem to take the complete opposite stance - accept the less parsimonious hypothesis unless it's shown to be false.
That seems an irrational position to take.
To the contrary, really. I said we can black box the entire process. We have no idea how we have gone from being a meaningless collection of atoms to entities with an inner life, but we don't need to.
I think, for you to claim it is possible "again", means you need more than simply "it happened before".
The fact that this process is possible means that it is possible to happen to us again, even if the future us won't have any knowledge of our current life, or even resemble us in remotely similar ways.
Sorry, this statement is incoherent - if the future "us" doesn't resemble the current "us", in what sense can it even be suggested that both share some form of identity? You've failed to provide any meaningful sort of continuity between these two hypothetical "consciousness" events.
The question to ask is if it is the same one, or a different one.
If it is the same pieces in the same arrangement, then for most intents and purposes, it would be the same "I" - it at least, would claim some kind of continuance from the "deconstructed I".
Would it's fellow lego soldiers consider it "the same"? No idea.
If we could create a duplicate of a person at the molecular/atomic level, would we consider them the same person? If we destroyed the original at the time of duplication?
To the lego soldier, this is a very important question - will he exist again after he dies?
Your analogy doesn't point to this - it's much more like the case of a duplicate sketched above than your "life after death".
Your "consciousness after brain death" claim seems to require a duplicate of our brains (and bodies, as they're a very important part of the "I") be created sometime in the future by some unknown mechanism/party. You've not supported this (unstated?) assumption with argument or evidence as yet.
NCCs are not consciousness.
And you know this how?
Consciousness itself is still just as mysterious to modern science as it was to the ancients.
How consciousness (possibly) arises from the NCCS is still a problem. I wouldn't say it's still as mysterious as it was to the ancients - currently we don't postulate an entirely different realm (with the vast array of attendant difficulties that engenders) to account for it ;-)
That's why neuroscience tries to ignore it, and focus instead just on NCCs.
You assume that focussing on neural correlates of consciousness is ignoring consciousness. I (and I assume neuroscientists) would disagree with you.
But we all know that consciousness exists.
We know that it's "like something" to have experiences. That doesn't mean out "folk" conceptions of consciousness are correct :-)
It's quite possible we'll never understand it.
Granted. Your case seems to hinge on us being unable to understand it, and yet understanding it in some fashion (your claims seem to require consciousness, or the "I", to survive the death of the brain, for example). How did you come by that knowledge if, as you claim, we're rather ignorant of "consciousness"?
Indeed. It does sounds quite implausible!
With you so far - it's exceedingly implausible "sounding".
Except that we know that we've already gone from not existing to existing once.
Fairly uncontroversial there...
Therefore claiming that having it happen to us again is impossible, as atheists do, is contrary to the known evidence.
This is where you're claim fails. It seems there is absolutely no reason to think that it happens again, and you're still not supplying any. The rational position would be, not to claim it's impossible (as you seem to think atheists claim), but that there is no reason to think that it is possible or likely - remain agnostic and accept the null hypothesis - that it does not happen. sadly for your case, there is evidence AGAINST it happening, such as the mentioned reliance of the mind on the brain - once the brain is "gone" you've given no sensible way that the "I" could some into existence again. You've not only failed to supply supporting evidence for your claim, but have failed to account for the disconfirming evidence presented.
It's actually very simple and easy to understand - atheists just tend to will themselves to not believe it because it's rather unarguable, and casts everything they know into doubt. In fact, I think existence at all provides a very serious problem for atheists, in several areas.
I understand what you're claiming, it's just that it seems nonsensical, incoherent and lacking correspondence with reality.
:-)
I'd think that the serious issues with "supernaturalism" make the problems with "materialism"/"naturalism" (which is what I think you mean when you say "atheism") pale into insignificance. Nothing you've mentioned in this (admittedly short) exchange has done anything to demonstrate "a very serious problem for atheists" as you're claiming
As I said, the evidence that we've all gone from nonexistence to existence. The claim that after we die (transitioning back to non-existence) is "it" has the only evidence we possess to the contrary.
Well, since "I" relies rather heavily upon the physical brain, there seems to be no evidence that this "I" will come back again, and you've offered none to support that contention.
Philosophy very often does.
Bad philosophy almost always does. Good philosophy can generally be explained if it sounds like nonsense. From what I've read of your claims so far, I unfortunately put you in the former category, not the latter.
And the re-emergence!
Because the underlying physical hardware is (barely) disrupted and changed. This is not support for your position (and the experience of "not I()" when under a general would still seem to count against you).
So, can you offer any reason why, in the absence of the same or similar physical substrate on which "I" depends (your brain, for example), there would ever be something which could coherently be thought of as being a "reemergence" of that same "I"?
The "robots" in your example would presumably know exactly what it was that we were experiencing when we experienced consciousness. What they wouldn't know is what it was like to experience it - we have privileged access to our own experiences, but that doesn't mean someone couldn't "read our minds" and know what we were experiencing.
But no, the notion that consciousness doesn't exist because we can't explain it scientifically seems to be a rather contradictory one, because we all (presumably) are experiencing it right now as we read this.
I think you mean't haven't explained it, not can't Also, Dennett's "Multiple Drafts" hypothesis isn't the only game in town. There's the Global Workspace theory for a start.
Explain to me why "you" are looking out of your eyes and "I" am looking out of mine. There's no real reason, it seems completely arbitrary, and yet there it is - unarguably so.
The neurons which make contribute to "me" are attached to my eyes, and vice versa? Doesn't seem particularly arbitrary to me, unless you happen to be claiming that the "you" and "I" are something more than, and independent (to a large degree) of the brain
The simple fact of the matter was that before you were born, you didn't exist, and now you do. Atheism has a very hard time dealing with this issue, along with related issues of why there is anything at all.
You keep claiming that atheism has a hard time dealing with this issue (you probably mean materialism/naturalism, rather than atheism), yet I don't see how or why that would be the case. :-)
As for why there is anything at all, we could get into it, but I'm happy with "I don't know, neither do you, but lets keep looking into it", how about you?
Nope. If you really feel like digging through Slashdot archives, you can find plenty of people claiming that they don't exist, that consciousness is just an illusion, and therefore they have no problems claiming that death is nonexistence.
Well, from what I understand it, neuroscience is in the process of showing that our folk concept of consciousness is an illusion "stiched" together by various parts of our brains. Is that what these people were claiming?
Therefore the burden of proof is on the atheist to claim that, contrary to the evidence, that after we die this process could never happen again.
What evidence, though? You don't seem to be making much of a point. Sure the atoms that make me up could reform into a newborn, but since it seems that "I" am reliant upon the relationships between neurons etc in my brain, then how can you say it would happen to "I"? Different neuronal relationship, different person, different "I"
Note that I'm not claiming anything along the lines of us being us, merely that after you die you might wake up and find yourself looking out of the eyes of a newborn with no knowledge of your previous life, or in heaven, or whatever.
It wouldn't (couldn't?) be you. Your sentence sounds like nonsense to me.
Just that the notion that nothingness "is it" seems to fly in the face of our own personal experience otherwise.
Not really. Been under a general? That seems a reasonable data point for "nothingness" of the "I". If you didn't wake up, you'd never know. Again, your claims of an afterlife being some kind of default position doesn't follow.
By definition, no evidence can really be presented as to what happens after death unless you believe the people who say they've had near-death experiences.
Not really. If there was any way for those in the after life to have an effect on reality, there could (and surely would) be evidence. Think ghosts, angels etc.
:-)
Regarding evidence against, I was thinking more about the minds reliance on the brain, and therefore the likely inability for the "mind", and almost certainly what we would refer to as "I" to survive the death of the brain.
If there is life after death, it's not going to be "you" who enjoys it
1 & 2 seem reasonable
:-)
3 I have a problem with - Neuroscientists and philosophers of mind are very interested in an explanation. You may treat it as a black box, but many don't. I'm not sure why you think an explanation need not be given.
4 I also have a problem with - have you been knocked unconscious or gone under a general anasthetic? Perhaps you've done meditation until you felt a dissolution of the "self". They'd all seem to provide counter evidence towards your contention here.
5 is a reasonable inference from the evidence - the "we" is dependant on brains. Brain damage can alter and destroy the "I", memories, personality etc. The "I" seems to rely upon the arrangement of neurons etc in the brain. Without the brain, there is no "I".
6 Doesn't seem to be a valid inference from the evidence. When we're "born" and the "I" comes into existence, we're "new" people. Even if you're right, how would the transition from nothingness to existence after death be the "I" that died"?
7 Is a non sequiter.
I feel both Christianity and Reincarnation (various forms of Hinduism and Buddhism, mostly) are both unsupported by the evidence, and nothing you've provided here refutes that. You probably disagree
As I said, it's their only way out on the whole life after death thing. In order to prove our nonexistence after death, they imply nonexistence now.
Nah, the easy way out of the "life after death" thing is simply the lack of evidence supporting it, and the evidence against it (the minds reliance upon the brain, for example). I don't quite know what you mean by "nonexistence now", but it certainly sounds like you're strawman'ing things.
but only through religion do you see the higher levels of ethical behavior, using the example of giving the jacket off your back to a thief that just robbed you (which were documented cases from both a Catholic church in the middle ages, and a Hindu guy writing around the same time).
I'd be curious to know just why that act is considered "moral"?
I could explain how law in OT times is different from the conception of law that we have these days, and of the difference between moral and ritual law, and how they apply differently to Christians, and how this stance is consistent, and has been consistent for 2000 years, but it's 2AM, and I don't really feel like it.
There doesn't seem to be much that has been consistent about Christianity for 2000 years, so I'd be interested in this explanation of yours. Also, the OT is a older than 2000 years (some of it quite a bit older). I doubt you can justifiably claim consistency for it's entire duration.
Oddly enough, it is possible for people to help each other just out of the goodness of their hearts.
Aren't Christians supposed to help other people because Jesus said to?
The current ideology that is being taken to the extreme is Atheism.
What are the tenets of this "Atheism" ideology? As far as I can tell, the total content of "Atheism" is a lack of belief in, or denial of the existence of, a god or gods. Doesn't seem to be much of an ideology to me :-)
Effectively, having been asked why an incredibly unlikely event came about, you have responded "why not?". It's a non-answer, try again.
You've not given any reason to think it is incredibly unlikely apart from your belief. Try again :-)
Unfortunately the neo-darwinian hypothesis of evolution by natural selection of traits arising from random mutation CANNOT account for biology as we observe it.
Be careful of such sweeping statements, someone may ask you to demonstrate it is the case :-)
If you are simply pointing out we have gaps in our understanding then I agree. If you're claiming those gaps = god, then I guess Zeus causes lightning and Poseidon storms at sea.
Here's a start for soft tissue, whale evolution. I'm sure google could help as well :-)
Yes I'm a fan of CMI's website :)
You probably should be more skeptical of your sources. CMI (and other "creationist" organisations) tend to ignore evidence against their claims, over play the evidence which lends some support to their position, misrepresent research and quote mine, all seemingly driven by ideology and not a desire for understanding.
As a person is our only seriously tenable explanation for the existence of an integrated circuit, so an intelligent agent well beyond humans is our only seriously tenable explanation for the existence of even a single cell.
If you can find me the blueprints of the cell, describe the manufacturing process, show me the design steps, etc (all things we have for the IC), then perhaps you'd have a point. As it is, you are unable even to point to the "intelligent agent" responsible, let alone supply all of the other information. Your analogy fails :-)
I'll recant my whole setup if you can get a cell to arise from non-living components without human intervention. And pay you every cent in my bank account :)
Perhaps you need to read more scientific research into abiogenesis, as you don't seem to have an understanding of the current state.
This and this are pretty interesting to start with.
So again, what is your reasoning process for predicting a rational universe from a non-rational, non-intelligent, impersonal, naturalistic beginning?
To put it simply, what evidence we actually have indicates the universe appears to be open to investigation (through intersubjective empiricism), and as a result of that study there appears to be no rational intelligence behind it, or at least no decent evidence in it's favour.
Agreed, but lets not get ahead of ourselves ;)
I don't think we are. You seem to be arguing specifically for an interventionist deity. If that's the case, it would be nice to have the coherence and correspondence to reality of this being presented, else we should surely just ignore the concept? :-)
Would you mind illuminating to me your reasoning process for predicting a rational universe from a non-rational, non-intelligent, impersonal, naturalistic beginning?
It seems to me that a universe which contains regularities (such as this one) would be less complex than one which is irrational/unpredictable/random (Kolmogorov Complexity seems a decent measure)
It could also be the case that things can't be any other way.
Why, on your account, must it be unpredictable/irrational/random without a creator?
For example, we wouldn't expect the paths carved out by a river to naturally form a simple addition circuit.
A terrible example. Given our current understanding of the universe, if it's path did carve out an addition circuit, then that would be irrational (and probably count as some evidence in your favour) :-)
When we find a physical circuit that performs an addition, we naturally infer a person built it.
Depends on the circuit, and whether there is a better explanation.
An integrated circuit etc, sure, because we know how to build those, how they work, how they were developed and have been improved etc. :-)
If you're talking about biology, then we also have some understanding of how the "circuit" started, how it works, how it has changed over time. That understanding doesn't involve a person (even a person of dubious, immaterial existence such as your "Creator")
Arguing, as you seem to be, from the regularities of the universe to a creator, only seems to take you to Deism (at best). You'd have a long and difficult (perhaps impossible) road if you're arguing for Theism/an interventionist deity. :-)
How does this supernatural component of our minds (perhaps our entire mind on your account) provide for rationality?
Yahweh exists because Jesus rose from the dead,
Even if Jesus did rise from the dead, it doesn't mean Yahweh exists, or that Jesus is his son/God. Satan (assuming that being exists) may have caused the resurrection. It could have been any number of things, inculding some unkown, infrequent biological function (Jesus is not the only person claimed to have resurrected you know) :-)
which can be reasoned without assuming the Bible to be true, but by testing its claims about the resurrection against history (although obviously not proved in a scientific sense, but then since when was history science).
The evidence supporting that assertion is terrible. :-)
All of the accounts of the events (the gospels) are anonymous, late (40+ years post event), and seemingly written for theological and not historical purposes.
They all diverge in what happened, often contradicting one another.
About all the agree on is an empty tomb, something Paul doesn't seem to mention, and Mark seems to make purely symbolic as opposed to an historic event.
Sorry, you don't get to claim something is "historic" on such poor evidence
The circular reasoning is actually yours. The reason you believe Yahweh does not exist is that you believe Bible is only a collection of myths, and the reason that you believe the Bible is just a collection of myths is that you don't believe Yahweh exists.
I belief the bible is a collection of myths because that is what it most resembles.
I don't have belief in any god or gods because there doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence to support that belief
How is claiming Yahweh exists because Jesus rose not circular when the only support that Jesus was raised is to be found in...the bible! :-)
But if there is no such being behind the universe, we have no reason to predict a rational universe. In fact, we'd probably predict the inability to predict anything.
Why would you expect that to be the case?
So, in your opinion, which part of the section in italics does not hold?
Basically your assertion that without a personal creator we should expect an irrational universe :-)
And you've still not shown how the supernatural component you've asserted exists gives rise to our rational ability, over and above the rationality we might expect from a physical system :-)