fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2181 ]

[ SECRET POST #2181 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2181 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 100 secrets from Secret Submission Post #312.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 2 - too big ], [ 1 2 (again) - repeat ], [ 4 - trolls ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

It's not.

Like I get you think this is some tremendously insightful agnosticism because you can't like know know man.

Yet,

in all meaningful reasonable fashions we do know.

The thing that constitutes you as a self contained person breaks down and becomes part of everything else.

while I agree with your last point, honestly-- I DO think that's what happens after we die-- we really can't know one way or the other. And it's uncool to act superior no matter *what* it is you believe, because we could all be wrong. Look me up after you're dead and maybe we'll chat about it, who knows.

So you reject absolutely the idea we can make any categorically true claims then?

I do not think this is a road you want to be going down.

Why not?

We genuinely can't say we 'know' anything about the afterlife because so far, we haven't been able to both enter the state to acquire data and then return to share our findings. All our 'knowledge' about it isn't actually knowledge, but merely supposition based on what we personally think is likely, given what we know about the world as we experience it.

So no, we cannot make categorically true statements about the afterlife, not until we have a provable dataset regarding it.

Of course, as you intimate, it is arguable that we can't make categorically true statements even then, given subjective vs objective reality, and the question of how much of anything is actually real or just a phantom of our perceptions. And that is a thornier set of issues, and maybe one that doesn't have much practical bearing when it comes to surviving daily life.

However, even if you don't reject the idea of categorically true statements altogether, rejecting 'true' statements regarding something which we genuinely have no data on is still not unreasonable. Regardless of what we think is likely about what happens after death, until we have proof, it still doesn't count as knowledge. So it is not disingenous to say we know nothing about it, and thus cannot make categorical statements regarding it.

Saying we don't know anything about the afterlife is not the same as saying we can't know anything at all. We don't have to go all the way to 'NOTHING AT ALL IS REAL' just because this one specific issue is one we genuinely do not have data on.

I'm slightly confused why you would think we would.

What do we not have data on?

You seem to make this comparatively minor quibble under the assumption we know nothing of the afterlife because we have not personally perceived it happening to us, which is true in a fashion.

We do, however, have rather vast knowledge of exactly what happens to the human body when you die, what causes consciousness, and so forth. Empirically whilst our understanding of the human body is far from perfect, we have a strong grasp on it as a system, and leading to the creation of what we perceive as 'us' - a distinct biological entity.

Unless you're suggesting a pineal gland, I fail to see how we don't therefore have knowledge of what happens after we die?

We don't have empirical data on "souls." That's the issue on which the question of an afterlife hinges, and biological and psychological studies on what constitutes the physical consciousness haven't supplied a thorough answer for what constitutes the spiritual consciousness (or, if you're cynical/practical, what makes us want to believe so badly that we have a spiritual consciousness). That's currently a matter of philosophy.

You won't get far trying to argue your point. You almost surely aren't going to change anyone's mind here!

Ah.

So yes, you're arguing a mind/body dichotomy.

Empirical science has given us as I mentioned a fairly solid idea, at the edges of what constitutes sentience. I'll admit, in many ways it is a black box - but absolutely everything we've found about it, points towards being a base system mired in the real world.

Nothing has at any point every reasonably pointed towards any other possibility.

We have a significant body of evidence supporting one side, and nothing supporting the other.

It's not a 'philosophical truth' as it were, but then again, very little is and by all standard measures of 'knowledge' we do know.

And I'm perfectly happy arguing my point to no effect, I'm a philosophy grad, that's basically what I did for three years :3

I wasn't the AYRT, just so you know! Now I am, though.

Anyway, you can also think of it as a mind/body/"soul" trichotomy.

We have a vast knowledge of what happens to the body when it dies, correct. Unless I've missed something vast recently, we do NOT have conclusive knowledge of what causes consciousness, since as far as I've read, people are still arguing over what counts as even the definition of what consciousness is, how it emerges from biological functions, and whether or not it is possible for consciousness to emerge from non-biological systems. Again, depending on which definition of consciousness you're using.

We do not know what a person experiences as they die. We do not know if there is a component of consciousness that is not tied to biology, since we're still trying to tie down the parts which are, and a negative is an exceptionally difficult thing to prove. So we cannot definitively state, as yet, that there isn't a portion of consciousness that is not dependant on biological function, or what that consciousness might experience after biological functions stop. All our studies on consciousness thus far have been tied to humans, and living ones at that. We have no data regarding anything else.

Do you have the capacity to prove to me the exact conditions required for the emergence of consciousness? Do you have the capacity to prove to me that there is no component of what we call consciousness that is not biological in origin? Do you have the capacity to prove to me that there is no part of the human consciousness that continues experientially after biological cessation?

If you do, I know of several whole scientific communities, neurologists and psychologists among them, who would be very glad to hear from you.

This is, as I have highlighted above, true (albeit there's some minor issues I'd raise).

The fact we don't perfectly understand the system, however, doesn't mean you can make some entirely fantastic claims - and pretend they have any real validity. Which is what your suggestion would be.

At best you're going to manage some sort of consciousness of the gaps, until it's slowly chipped away as science progresses.

Even as it stands, the scientific backing for the idea of the mind as a physical construct tied to the brain is fairly overwhelming, with literally nothing to suggest otherwise.

... I didn't make any suggestion. I was simply pointing out that in the absence of evidence, no posited claim has any more or less validity than any other. If there is a non-biological portion of consciousness, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise as yet, then it may well experience a range of things after biological cessation. We have no data to prove otherwise.

I cannot categorically state that there is a heaven, nor would I. But neither can you, on current evidence, categorically state that there isn't. Whatever anyone experiences after death, if anything, is a void field. There is no conclusive statement possible on current understanding.

If proof emerges later, that will be a different story. But said proof does not exist as yet.

So, no. We cannot make categorically true statements regarding the afterlife. And that was, I think, the whole of my point? I don't remember attempting to make any other, anyway.

We do have proof, is my critique.

As previously touched upon. There is a vast body of evidence of conciousness arising from a fixed physical system created through biological means. A conciousness that we can alter, and interfere with through direct, empirically measurable means.

It is a positive, demonstrable claim that the brain leads to conciousness. No, we don't understand precisely how this occurs - merely that it does.

Knowing how it's created we can then make a positive claim that when it breaks down, this leads to the destruction of conciousness. I fail to see the extent to which this is not evidence backing the claim?

Compared against this we have, what? 'We don't understand it to the point we can completely take apart and rebuild it, or know the precise microscopic details ergo maybe there's a soul'. These aren't equal claims, or worth considering in the same light.

Obviously I'm not saying 'yes there is a one hundred percent undeniable logic gate yes this is true, and cannot be disproved'. Rather that it is almost certainly true, to the point we may as well consider it so in all practical concerns.

What does anything in the body have to do with the possibility of a human soul?

Except that a biological consciousness is the only one we can test, since it's the only one we have means to access. We know a consciousness exists in a brain. But that's all we know. Correlation is not causation. The fact that something might exist in a state we cannot access doesn't mean that thing doesn't exist, just that our means are limited. We cannot rule out other options simply because we don't currently have the means to examine them.

We do not know that destroying the brain destroys the consciousness. All we know is that destroying the brain destroys our access to the consciousness, the form in which we may interact with it. That doesn't mean it's gone, any more than a broken phone means the person on the other side of it has ceased to exist, though we might well assume so if the phone was our only means of contacting them.

If and when someone finds the actual cause of consciousness, the means by which it is created, that will be different. But we're not there yet. We may make assumptions, and they may fit the available evidence, but while we know that there is evidence we are still lacking (and we do), all we have are hypotheses, not facts.

Love this comment, thank you.

Okay, look, I get that you are very heavily invested in the possibility of life after death. A lot of people are, because simply not existing is a scary thought to plenty of people.

However. This pseudo-scientific crap about how "we don't have complete definitive proof yet that there is no consciousness after death, so ridiculous stuff like reincarnation and heaven and the concept of a soul are still on the table, scientifically speaking!" is just that, crap. There's a a difference between scientific theorizing or hypotheses and wishful thinking. Talking about the idea of non-biological consciousness is just that.

Be spiritual and believe in whatever you want, if that's how you want to live your life, just don't pretend anything you believe regarding the afterlife and spirits and such have any basis in science, because they don't.

The AYRT didn't use the words "afterlife" and "spirit" in their comment. (I'm the anon above who mentioned the philosophical idea of the body/mind/"soul" trichotomy, so you can direct your thoughts at me.) I think that their main intention was to poke holes in Ill_Omened's simplistic argument.

There's a lot about our own brains that we don't know. It's incredibly hubristic to assume that our current conception of the biological processes of the brain is the be-all, end-all explanation of "consciousness," since we don't even understand the biological processes fully yet.

Oh, I thought you were the same person.

That's okay -- our writing styles were pretty similar.

AYRT. Sorry, I was away.

Basically, what the anon above me said. I don't have any beliefs regarding the afterlife. I'm agnostic. I'm just not very fond of people saying we have definitive proof of something when, as yet, we do not. It was my understanding that science was based primarily in provable fact. If you do not have proof, you do not have a fact.

We may get proof yet. I'm quite looking forward to it. But we're not actually there yet, is my only point.

You have a seemingly wilful misunderstanding of what constitutes 'proof'.

We don't, for example have 'proof' in the sense you suggest of the existence of gravity. I doubt you are agnostic about gravity though.

This sentence makes no sense to me.

How fucking idiotic do you have to be to not be able to understand what they said?

Thank you.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2181 ]

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject