MrAbomination wrote:

You didn't insult me, I just find the way you word things incredibly funny. I can't help but to think of a 20-something guy, sitting indoors with a scarf around his neck and wearing a beret. I'm not very smart, I absolutely agree with you. I don't have a fantastic grasp of the English language either. And maybe most importantly, I'm simply not enough of a pretentious arsehole to argue with your kind of folk online or in real life. See? That doesn't look very mature, does it? I'm not a good enough man for this stuff. So I wait for Aris to explain these things rationally, patiently and respectfully and then I just agree with him.

You have an incredibly entertaining imagination. On the comment of you being a pretentious anal-hole if you were to argue with me, I find it quite funny. Because you just said you absolutely agree with me and that I didn't insult you. So where does the argument come from?

But fair enough. Let's wait this famed person, Aris. I look forward to metting him/her.

Killerteddybear wrote:

I wonder what makes you so sure.

Well I suppose there is one way to find out, any volunteers?

Sophist wrote:

Killerteddybear wrote: I wonder what makes you so sure. Well I suppose there is one way to find out, any volunteers?

There is? Tell me more.

Killerteddybear wrote:

MrAbomination wrote: Killerteddybear wrote: MrAbomination wrote: There's no way to be certain obviously, that would just seem like the most logical course of events. Your brain activity ceases and your consciousness will be gone. But what is consciousness, if you can put your finger around it? Someone may argue that it is a metaphysical thing. Yes, your brain activity ceases to exist. But these two components to your answer I am afraid I find quite unsatisfactory. Your use of the word logical is a little unimpressive to me. Because people make logic their own and subject it to their own judgement (therefore making it subjective). So if there is no way to be certain as you have said, which many will agree, then your comments the rest of the way frustrate the comments prior and make it a priori. Especially in respect to materialism. Pfffbrbrbr. I literally can't think of a single response that wouldn't be crass and incredibly insulting, so I'm not going to say anything. I'll wait for Aris to argue this out and then ride his coattails. I'm a tough guy, I can handle it. I also beg the question of why you can't think of anything that is not not insulting as of the moment. Perhaps it means you have nothing productive to say which in turns means I either may be right or you just can't seem to muster up (or sustain) a mutual and mature/challenging conversation. I literally have no idea where I insulted. But if it's coat-tails you shall wish ride, then by all means, wait for that interpaller.

Speak of the devil and he doth appear We've met already, if you recall. I'm not sure I want to get very much into this argument, though. I suppose the basics points would be that

• it's obvious: the standard arguments for the survival of something beyond death are based on the premise that we can't observe what survives (does something we can't observe exist? Not to us; perhaps to other dead people it might). Claimant provides proof for existence claims; default position is that something doesn't exist until proof is provided.
  
• everything we have (and can) observe is material; no one has conclusively observed anything material that resembles a personality of a person after that person has died
  
• most of the evidence seems to point in the direction that the mind cannot exist without a live body, that it doesn't exist separate from the body
  
• even if the mind were not material, it's interactions with matter would be observable and that could've alerted us to the presence of the immaterial, and so far there is no such observation
  

If people are starting summon me, maybe I should re-evaluate my pricing.

Aristostomias wrote:

Sophist wrote: Killerteddybear wrote: I wonder what makes you so sure. Well I suppose there is one way to find out, any volunteers? There is? Tell me more.

What's the old gag on dualism er.....oh yeah.

"Let's break ourselves down to the smallest possible sub-atomic particles (that we can currently measure). First one to find a mind particle, wins!

By the way, you're going first."

/boomtish.

Aristostomias wrote:

Speak of the devil and he doth appear We've met already, if you recall. I'm not sure I want to get very much into this argument, though. I suppose the basics points would be that it's obvious: the standard arguments for the survival of something beyond death are based on the premise that we can't observe what survives (does something we can't observe exist? Not to us; perhaps to other dead people it might). Claimant provides proof for existence claims; default position is that something doesn't exist until proof is provided.

The default position? Dark matter does not exist in that case and scientists should stop wasting their time believing it exists, and looking for it?

Aristostomias wrote:

everything we have (and can) observe is material; no one has conclusively observed anything material that resembles a personality of a person after that person has died most of the evidence seems to point in the direction that the mind cannot exist without a live body, that it doesn't exist separate from the body even if the mind were not material, it's interactions with matter would be observable and that could've alerted us to the presence of the immaterial, and so far there is no such observation

Materialism (the religion of) is not about seeking where the evidence points... materialism is about having blinkers on that points you in only one direction.

former atheist C.S.Lewis wrote:

Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice? Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God?

Aristostomias wrote:

If people are starting summon me, maybe I should re-evaluate my pricing.

You sure they aren't looking for refunds?

Longloadr wrote:

Aristostomias wrote: Speak of the devil and he doth appear We've met already, if you recall. I'm not sure I want to get very much into this argument, though. I suppose the basics points would be that it's obvious: the standard arguments for the survival of something beyond death are based on the premise that we can't observe what survives (does something we can't observe exist? Not to us; perhaps to other dead people it might). Claimant provides proof for existence claims; default position is that something doesn't exist until proof is provided. The default position? Dark matter does not exist in that case and scientists should stop wasting their time believing it exists, and looking for it?

Are you suggesting that there is no observational evidence for dark matter?

Longloadr wrote:

Aristostomias wrote: everything we have (and can) observe is material; no one has conclusively observed anything material that resembles a personality of a person after that person has died most of the evidence seems to point in the direction that the mind cannot exist without a live body, that it doesn't exist separate from the body even if the mind were not material, it's interactions with matter would be observable and that could've alerted us to the presence of the immaterial, and so far there is no such observation Materialism (the religion of) is not about seeking where the evidence points... materialism is about having blinkers on that points you in only one direction.

And entertaining non-material causes is courting ghosts. Perhaps gravity is not the curvature of spacetime: maybe it's just flocks of angels pulling things together? And maybe Casper, the friendly ghost, and anti-Casper are really involved in the Standard Model particles interactions. Maybe light is a mischievous djinn that, depending on whether it's being observed or not, decides to act like waves or particles. Perhaps there really is a demonic murderer behind every shower curtain, and a monster under the bed, an evil spirit in an unlit nook.

There is plenty of room for your favorite ghosts in the world ; but so long as they remain unobservable, they are beyond science's ability to comment (and I'd regard them as non-extant). Materialistic causes we can observe; others probably not.

Longloadr wrote:

Aristostomias wrote: If people are starting summon me, maybe I should re-evaluate my pricing. You sure they aren't looking for refunds?

If they are, then I definitely have to re-evaluate my pricing.

Sophist wrote:

Aristostomias wrote: Sophist wrote: Killerteddybear wrote: I wonder what makes you so sure. Well I suppose there is one way to find out, any volunteers? There is? Tell me more. What's the old gag on dualism er.....oh yeah. "Let's break ourselves down to the smallest possible sub-atomic particles (that we can currently measure). First one to find a mind particle, wins! By the way, you're going first." /boomtish.

I might be able to find out what happens, but not the living -- unless the mind particle is actually observable...

Neener-neener-neeener.

Aristostomias wrote:

I might be able to find out what happens, but not the living.

Hence my tongue in cheek remark about volunteers. We'll all find out, (well actually "we" won't find out crap-all if it's materialism/nihilism ) when we find out and kick our respective buckets.

Till then, we can keep being good Protagoreans.....er, scientists.