Afterlife

[Capitalist Pig]

There is no afterlife.

[MatthewZ]

Create a model of existence including an afterlife without violating Occam's Razor... GO!

[Bluenoir]

Create a model of existence including an afterlife without violating Occam's Razor... GO!

This.

Untill we see phenomenon that is reliably observable, that suggests a possibility of consciousness after death, then any claims of an afterlife is speculation coupled with wishful thinking.

I know belief in the afterlife it can be emotionally gratifying, it's why the idea is so attractive, but how strongly you want something to be true is irrelevant.

But hey, if real evidence shows up, even if it's only evidence, you bet I would want to investigate.

[Creepy-male]

Create a model of existence including an afterlife without violating Occam's Razor... GO!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]), often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae, translating to law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness, is a principle which generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects.[2]

What is known -- There is no reliable information as to what happens after death to what humans perceive as their consciousness.

Theory 1 -- The consciousness dissolves at death
# of new assumptions = 1

Theory 2 -- The consciousness does not dissolve after death
# of new assumptions = 1

They seem to be both equal with respect to ockham's razor unless you accept what is known first as something different, then belief in an afterlife would require more new assumptions.

[Bluenoir]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor



What is known -- There is no reliable information as to what happens after death to what humans perceive as their consciousness.

Theory 1 -- The consciousness dissolves at death
# of new assumptions = 1

Theory 2 -- The consciousness does not dissolve after death
# of new assumptions = 1

They seem to be both equal with respect to ockham's razor unless you accept what is known first as something different, then belief in an afterlife would require more new assumptions.

But you ARE making an assumption, that assumption is dualism. You actually need to show a mechanism for which consciousness can still exist after death.

Assumption one, consciousness survives death = the implied assumption that there is a mechanism for this to happen, thus making your second assumption.

[Creepy-male]

But you ARE making an assumption, that assumption is dualism. You actually need to show a mechanism for which consciousness can still exist after death.

Assumption one, consciousness survives death = the implied assumption that there is a mechanism for this to happen, thus making your second assumption.

well not precisely, first of all I said that what we perceive as consciousness. So I'm not assuming dualism, I'm being indeterminate. A materialist could argue that what we perceive as consciousness is merely a matter of our brain's functioning. An idealist could argue what we perceive as consciousness is in fact everything. A dualist could argue that it is separate from the material world. Either way, I referred to it as what we perceive as consciousness.

Second I think your bringing bias into it when you assume that a mechanism for survival of the consciousness must be proven. Why doesn't there need to be a mechanism for death of the consciousness?

and remember, what I refer to as consciousness is merely what one perceives it to be in any given case, and not necessarily a view on whether or not it exists as a separate entity from the material world.

death is purely a material process which doesn't affect the consciousness, while even this seems to be a dualist view, consider that it weren't, lets assume materialism, then if this were the case we are unsure whether a person who is dead still has that illusion of consciousness still after the reordering of their biology into a presently classified dead organism -- just because a body is laying there unable to talk or move doesn't necessarily make it lack a sense of consciousness, at least without purchasing another assumption =p. The reason we are unsure is the same reason that I am unsure whether you have a perception of your own consciousness. I can't directly experience how you perceive your consciousness, I can only directly experience how I perceive you perceive your consciousness, or how I perceive my own consciousness... in the same sense, I can't look at a wasted skeleton that is long dead and perceive whether this random assortment of biological material perceives its conscious.

It seems your taking a leap in logic by assuming that a random assortment of biological material perceives its consciousness differently than a human being, at least from the materialist viewpoint.

From the dualist viewpoint its fairly straightforward.....

If you're confused at what I'm trying to get at by now its this....

Whether you assume dualism, materialism, or idealism.... the argument is still the same. It is symmetrical about a shift in philosophy, and dualism/materialism/idealism appear to form a closed set of possible outcomes concerning the existence of a consciousness.

The only thing I would agree with you on, is that my analysis did require the assumption that consciousness is perceivable as something by people, whether or not it truely exists separate from the material world. If that's the case, then all things become 2 steps removed and it drops a level, requiring one to assume a second assumption based on whether consciousness is perceivable or imperceivable.

[Bluenoir]

While im still not convinced, you have actually given me something to think about. I tip my hat to you sir.

In any case, if there is one area were I want to be shown to be misguided, This is it! However, i'm not going to tell myself things, just beacuse it's what I want to hear.

[Capitalist Pig]

I reiterate.

There is no afterlife.