Originally posted by twhiteheadIt is unlikely to be irrational to remain in doubt, to be uncertain. Too many times humans think they've proved something to a certainty, when the last word isn't in yet. There is a convention people observe through the accepted meaning of certain words that while appearing to mean final certainty has been reached one can also include unspoken a kind of disclaimner or qualifier.
What is irrational is your openness to the possibility of life after death and your belief that it must be experienced for someone to know whether it exists or not. There is simply no rational reason to even consider the possibility.
This is why I said "unlikely" and not "never."
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonwithout any known exception
When a person has a stroke and part of their brain is destroyed, some corresponding part of their consciousness is destroyed -this can be observed. For example, if the part of the brain known to be important for mentally forming words in one’s head is destroyed, then that aspect of consciousness is also destroyed. In this way, all aspects of consciou ...[text shortened]... conclude all of your consciousness is also destroyed when you die -therefore, no afterlife :'(
a qualifier that negates the truth value of your, apparently, logical thought process.
your conclusion may follow from your premise -- but we don't know that your premise is true, and your qualifier leaves the door open. You admit thereby that at this time we don't know of exceptions.
why didn't you say that there could not BE exceptions?
your conclusion should be stated conditionally, therefore, to be a useful communication.
One cannot say you are nuts for thinking what you said -- but you would be ill advised to insist on its truth.
I happen to think we simply do not know the answer to such questions because we cannot know them. Like a sore tooth, we keep pushing them around, but that is no way to cure the problem.
Originally posted by ScriabinI did not claim it was a direct analogy. But it serves the purpose. The claim was that one could not tell whether consciousness continues after death unless the consciousness was directly observed. I do not see why that should be true. Why is it not true for information such as that stored on a hard drive.
there is a false analogy if ever I saw one.
Your hard drive and your brain -- you think they store information or discard it the same way?
And yes I think my brain stores information and discards it in a way very similar to a hard disk, thought the compression algorithms and database structure is very advanced.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI suggest you read up on this.
I did not claim it was a direct analogy. But it serves the purpose. The claim was that one could not tell whether consciousness continues after death unless the consciousness was directly observed. I do not see why that should be true. Why is it not true for information such as that stored on a hard drive.
And yes I think my brain stores information an ...[text shortened]... ilar to a hard disk, thought the compression algorithms and database structure is very advanced.
The brain is a colloid in which how many synapses may take place? How many neural connections are possible?
How is the brain at all comparable to a magnetic disk, an updated version of a phonograph record?
Originally posted by Scriabin….why didn't you say that there could not BE exceptions?
without any known exception
a qualifier that negates the truth value of your, apparently, logical thought process.
your conclusion may follow from your premise -- but we don't know that your premise is true, and your qualifier leaves the door open. You admit thereby that at this time we don't know of exceptions.
why didn't you say that there could ...[text shortened]... hem. Like a sore tooth, we keep pushing them around, but that is no way to cure the problem.
..…
Because my default assumption is always going to be that the simplest hypothesis is by far the most probable.
I assume the simplest hypothesis here is that there are no exceptions NOT JUST merely because there are no KNOWN exceptions but because IF there were an exception then it would beg the thorny question of where would that attribute of consciousness come from if not from the brain!!! -I mean, can a mental attribute came literally from ‘nowhere‘? ( not that I am saying that you are saying this) -I think that would be an unqualified and peculiar assumption.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieExactly! Very simple, but does not sell alot of books...🙂
It seems like you and me are the only ones in agreement here my friend, a 'soul', being a living breathing animated being, inclusive of both humans and animals, thus when God breathed life into Adam he became a living breathing entity, not that he was given a soul, but that he became a living 'soul', or animated creature. That the 'soul', or person ...[text shortened]... ated in scripture
(Ezekiel 18:4) . . .The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.. . .
Originally posted by checkbaiterLol, i know, one needs some sensationalistic journalism, of the type that one may find in a tabloid newspaper, or strangely enough, in some of the posts on the RHP spirituality forum..😀
Exactly! Very simple, but does not sell alot of books...🙂
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonCareful with thoughts like your default assumption, you are bound to cut your own throat like that.
[b]….why didn't you say that there could not BE exceptions?
..…
Because my default assumption is always going to be that the simplest hypothesis is by far the most probable.
I assume the simplest hypothesis here is that there are no exceptions NOT JUST merely because there are no KNOWN exceptions but because IF there were an exception then ...[text shortened]... saying that you are saying this) -I think that would be an unqualified and peculiar assumption.[/b]
Better is the default position that got me through law school exams and the bar exam, and a lot of day to day legal work for many years: first eliminate everything that cannot be true; then, whatever is left, however unlikely, has got to be true.
In short, thank you Sherlock Holmes --
I do not think you have defined "attribute of consciousness", nor "mental attribute" such that your assumptions make sense to me.
1 edit
Originally posted by Scriabin….I do not think you have defined "attribute of consciousness",
Careful with thoughts like your default assumption, you are bound to cut your own throat like that.
Better is the default position that got me through law school exams and the bar exam, and a lot of day to day legal work for many years: first eliminate everything that cannot be true; then, whatever is left, however unlikely, has got to be true.
In sh ibute of consciousness", nor "mental attribute" such that your assumptions make sense to me.
..…(my emphasis)
I think I would have been better off having said “characteristics of consciousness"
-I can give examples such as the ability to form words in ones mind or to have a short term memory -I deliberately pick examples like this because they conveniently can be mapped to specific areas of the brain that are known to have those functions.
Originally posted by checkbaiterIn my opinion both these statements are wrong.
I agree wholeheartedly. If, as some say, the soul lives eternally, well, there are fish and animals mentioned in Genesis which have "soul". I believe the word soul simply means "breath life".
The Bible says that God created the same life force, called “soul,” for both animals and man, but it is hard to see that in most English Bibles, because the transl ...[text shortened]... alike in that when they die, their body decays and returns to dust, and their soul dies too.
"..the soul lives eternally.."
and
"..the Bible says people and animals are alike in that when they die, their body decays and returns to dust, and their soul dies too.."
Christ said:
MT 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the SOUL: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both SOUL and body in hell.
The soul (which is separate from the body) does not die at the same time with the body but neither is it immortal in the sense of not being able to die. The soul is only destroyed by God when the time comes.
Originally posted by Rajk999Matthew 10:28
In my opinion both these statements are wrong.
"..the soul lives eternally.."
and
"..the Bible says people and animals are alike in that when they die, their body decays and returns to dust, and their soul dies too.."
Christ said:
[i]MT 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the SOUL: but rather fear him which is ...[text shortened]... n the sense of not being able to die. The soul is only destroyed by God when the time comes.
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell [gehenna].
If nothing else, this verse clearly shows that the soul is not immortal, because it can be destroyed, but let us look at the verse more closely. The context is Jesus Christ instructing his twelve apostles before sending them out to preach the gospel of the kingdom to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt. 10:5 and 6). What he tells them in verse 28 is not to fear men inspired by the Devil, who may kill them, but who can do nothing more to them after that. The following parallel passage helps us understand the above verse.
Luke 12:4 and 5
(4) And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.
(5) But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after He hath killed hath power to cast into hell [gehenna]; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.
In context, verse five refers to the time of judgment of the unjust. It is God whom Jesus wanted his apostles to fear (which in essence is to respect) and to obey more than they would men who might threaten or even kill them. It is God (by way of giving Jesus Christ the authority to judge) who will judge all men and who can also “destroy” them forever in the lake of fire.
Hope this helps...
Originally posted by checkbaiterYou simply repeated what I said in different words... 🙂
Matthew 10:28
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell [gehenna].
If nothing else, this verse clearly shows that the soul is not immortal, because it can be destroyed, but let us look at the verse more closely. The context is Jesus Christ inst ...[text shortened]... l judge all men and who can also “destroy” them forever in the lake of fire.
Hope this helps...
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonbut the brain has the capacity to rewire itself. We don't know the extent of that.
[b]….I do not think you have defined "attribute of consciousness",
..…(my emphasis)
I think I would have been better off having said “characteristics of consciousness"
-I can give examples such as the ability to form words in ones mind or to have a short term memory -I deliberately pick examples like this because they conveniently can be mapped to specific areas of the brain that are known to have those functions.[/b]
We can rewire the brain, ourselves, it appears. Tibetan monks who meditated regularly for many years had their brains mapped to see what their discipline enable them to do that ordinary, untrained people cannot do. It appears that the monks had voluntary control over brain functions that previously were thought to be involuntary functions.
The conclusion was that we don't know as much as we'd like to know about how the brain works.
I'd avoid drawing unwarranted conclusions or making analogies that go beyond what the empirical data supports.