RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,790
Posts: 5,471,037
Members: 25,037
Currently online: 690
Newest member: Skelch

TrekToday headlines

Shatner Book Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Nov 20

Trek Original Series Slippers
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Hemsworth Is Sexiest Man Alive
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Trek Business Card Cases
By: T'Bonz on Nov 17

February IDW Publishing Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Nov 17

Retro Review: The Siege of AR-558
By: Michelle on Nov 15

Trevco Full Bleed Uniform T-Shirts
By: T'Bonz on Nov 14

Wheaton Buys Wesley Crusher Hoodie
By: T'Bonz on Nov 14

People’s Choice Award Nominations
By: T'Bonz on Nov 14

Quinto: Not Internally Homophobic
By: T'Bonz on Nov 14


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Lounges & General Chat > Miscellaneous

Miscellaneous Discussion of non-Trek topics.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 18 2013, 06:49 PM   #241
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: What Happens After Death

^ Sounds almost like you are trying explain how people just got it wrong for all those thousands of years, it seems by claiming implicitly that what they thought was going on according to definition #2 was really going on according to definition #1. Just proving that would be at least someone's life work, right there. Part of my resistance is I don't want such an implicit claim to slide by; it really needs to be proven. Trouble is, I doubt it can be. Why not just stick to relatively less loaded and more neutral terms, such as "consciousness"?
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2013, 07:39 PM   #242
thestrangequark
Vice Admiral
 
thestrangequark's Avatar
 
Location: Brooklyn
Re: What Happens After Death

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
^ Sounds almost like you are trying explain how people just got it wrong for all those thousands of years, it seems by claiming implicitly that what they thought was going on according to definition #2 was really going on according to definition #1. Just proving that would be at least someone's life work, right there. Part of my resistance is I don't want such an implicit claim to slide by; it really needs to be proven. Trouble is, I doubt it can be. Why not just stick to relatively less loaded and more neutral terms, such as "consciousness"?
Oh, I'm not being implicit at all. I absolutely contend that what people believed was going on in definition #2 was all along caused by definition #1, and I absolutely contend that people just got it wrong for thousands of years. And there is nothing surprising about the notion that people could have gotten something wrong about nature for thousands of years...there are innumerable examples of how getting it wrong is a definitive part of our own nature as humans. For thousands of years we thought illness was caused by imbalances of humors rather than pathogens. For thousands of years the Egyptians thought the mind was based in the heart and that the brain's job was regulating body temperature. For thousands of years we thought everything was composed of four elements. We thought fossils were inherent patterns of nature and not the remains of ancient organisms. We thought mental illness originated in the uterus. We thought the heavenly bodies were gods. If people are good at anything, it is getting it wrong for thousands of years. To believe that a claim has weight or value just because people have believed it to be true for thousands of years is a logical fallacy: the Appeal to Antiquity (a form of the Appeal to Popularity).

As for proof; specifically because of Occam's razor, the burden of proof is not on me to disprove the claims of those who believe in paranormal souls, it is on them to prove. The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim that is contrary to, or most at odds with reality, and the more new assumptions about reality such a claim requires, the more evidence is required to support it. "Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence," and all.

So while I cannot necessarily prove there is no paranormal soul (and this refers back to my earlier post about unfalsifiable claims), that doesn't really matter, because nature doesn't call for a soul to even exist. On the other hand, as I said before, if one wants to argue the existence of souls other than just another term for 'self' or 'consciousness', then one must create a whole new reality in order to fit them in. And again, just because something cannot be disproven, that's not a very good reason to believe in it.

As for why I don't stick to the unloaded term...the conversation is about afterlife and souls, why would I use another word?
__________________
thestrangequark

The Enterprise is my TARDIS.
thestrangequark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2013, 08:33 PM   #243
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: What Happens After Death

Sorry for the confusion, but I think you do have a burden of proof. To assert your claim that people got it wrong and your new definition is the right one, you have to slog through all the ancient and medieval philosophers' work, to be certain that your revised definition really captures what they were talking about, whatever misconceptions they had aside, and you have to be sure that there isn't something else that is valid, which their definition encompasses but yours does not.

Otherwise, and this is the key point, you can't assert that your version of it is really a correction, as opposed to something similar but also something else entirely.

Additionally, it's as if you wanted to redefine God as, say, the Big Bang. Doing that doesn't get you anywhere, and moreover things remain mired in the superstitious. It seems a bizarre and needless thing to do.

I think there is some aspect in the irrational usage according to #2 that could be valid but which is not captured by your rationalization in #1, or I might not care as much. Ancient and medieval philosophers got a lot wrong, but they were still, by and large, just as intelligent as we are.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2013, 08:54 PM   #244
137th Gebirg
Rear Admiral
 
137th Gebirg's Avatar
 
Location: Who is John Galt?
Re: What Happens After Death

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
I believe that when a person dies, they either go to Heaven or Hell. I don't mean to ruin all this scientific talk, but the OP did ask what we believe happens after death.
I was under the impression that the way it works is that, when we die, our souls remain in the body until the Rapture described in Revelation, when we all rise and are judged at the Second Coming. THEN we depart to our final destinations. ...As I recall the Scripture, anyway...
__________________
Gebirgswick - Ind, Tra, Sec & Env.
137th Gebirg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2013, 08:56 PM   #245
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: What Happens After Death

The title of the thread is "What happens after death" ie what actually happens, your grown up fairy stories are your personal take on it, but not what the title asks for.
__________________
"But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake."
Chemahkuu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2013, 08:57 PM   #246
137th Gebirg
Rear Admiral
 
137th Gebirg's Avatar
 
Location: Who is John Galt?
Re: What Happens After Death

And since nobody REALLY knows for certain, with irrefutable proof, anything goes!
__________________
Gebirgswick - Ind, Tra, Sec & Env.
137th Gebirg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2013, 09:38 PM   #247
thestrangequark
Vice Admiral
 
thestrangequark's Avatar
 
Location: Brooklyn
Re: What Happens After Death

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Sorry for the confusion, but I think you do have a burden of proof. To assert your claim that people got it wrong and your new definition is the right one, you have to slog through all the ancient and medieval philosophers' work, to be certain that your revised definition really captures what they were talking about, whatever misconceptions they had aside, and you have to be sure that there isn't something else that is valid, which their definition encompasses but yours does not.
No, you're still using the Appeal to Antiquity as the foundation of your claim. There is no validity in a claim just because it has been believed by many people over a long period of time. As I demonstrated with the examples in my previous post, we have a habit of getting things wrong a lot more often and for a lot longer than getting things right. The burden of proof is still on those who are making new assumptions about reality.
Otherwise, and this is the key point, you can't assert that your version of it is really a correction, as opposed to something similar but also something else entirely.
Except that my assertion is not made to correct previous beliefs, it just happens to do so. It is an observation based on scientific experimentation. My assertion makes no new assumptions about reality, it simply states what has thus far been observed (there are no souls, there is no afterlife).

As an analogy, imagine that I did not know that the Ancient Egyptians believed that the heart was the center of the mind and the brain was a cooling system. Imagine I wanted to figure out which organ produced the mind, so I conducted a series of observations and experiments that showed me that stimulating, changing, or damaging the brain causes changes in thought and personality, but changes to the heart and other organs do not change thought and personality. From these experiments I concluded that the brain is where the mind is generated, and the heart is not. Would you say that this conclusion is wrong because for thousands of years many people believed the mind came from the heart? Bearing in ming that Hypothetical tsq has no knowledge of the Egyptian belief, would you consider her hypothesis as an attempt to correct that belief? If Hypothetical tsq were to meet an ancient Egyptian and he asserted that the heart is the organ of the mind, then would not the burden of proof is upon him?

For another analogy, take Russell's Teapot. Russell said there is a magical teapot in orbit around the earth that is undetectable by any instrument or technique, and this teapot magically affects human activity. Russell added something to nature by claiming there was a teapot, and so the burden is upon him to prove the teapot. Likewise, by claiming there are souls, you are adding something to nature, and so the burden of proof is on you.

Additionally, it's as if you wanted to redefine God as, say, the Big Bang. Doing that doesn't get you anywhere, and moreover things remain mired in the superstitious. It seems a bizarre and needless thing to do.
You're begging the question, in other words, your conclusion is in your premis. I am not redefining the soul, I'm describing natural phenomena that have been mistakenly described as the soul. People used to believe that giraffs were the result of a camel mating with a leopard. Recognizing that the giraffe is a distinct species does not change the animal, it just improves our understanding of it.

Again, the notions of gods and souls are unnecessary. We can explain things without them, and to accomodate them, we must add unnecessarily complicated new assumptions about reality.
ETA: A better analogy might be Santa Claus. Imagine you have never heard of Christmas. You observe that treats left out overnight are eaten, and gifts appear under the tree in the morning. You have no knowledge of the myth of Santa, so next Christmas you conduct an observation, and watch as the parents eat the cookies and leave the gifts. Later you learn that the kids believe that a magical figure called Santa is responsible. You remember your observations and think "Oh, Santa, along with all his magical powers, was made up to explain phenomena the kids didn't understand." I look at souls and think, oh, there's the mythology people invented to explain what they didn't understand. Their mythology has no relevance to my observations.

I think there is some aspect in the irrational usage according to #2 that could be valid but which is not captured by your rationalization in #1, or I might not care as much. Ancient and medieval philosophers got a lot wrong, but they were still, by and large, just as intelligent as we are.
When have I claimed that they were less intelligent? One of my major points is that it is human nature to get things wrong. Fortunately, we developed a tool that works pretty darn well to counteract that nature: science.
__________________
thestrangequark

The Enterprise is my TARDIS.

Last edited by thestrangequark; September 18 2013 at 09:56 PM.
thestrangequark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2013, 10:09 PM   #248
Mr. Laser Beam
Fleet Admiral
 
Mr. Laser Beam's Avatar
 
Location: The visitor's bullpen
View Mr. Laser Beam's Twitter Profile
Re: What Happens After Death

137th Gebirg wrote: View Post
Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
I believe that when a person dies, they either go to Heaven or Hell. I don't mean to ruin all this scientific talk, but the OP did ask what we believe happens after death.
I was under the impression that the way it works is that, when we die, our souls remain in the body until the Rapture described in Revelation, when we all rise and are judged at the Second Coming. THEN we depart to our final destinations. ...As I recall the Scripture, anyway...
No, every Protestant denomination I'm aware of (mine included - I'm Lutheran) teaches that the soul goes immediately to its final destination upon death.
__________________
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Mr. Laser Beam is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2013, 10:28 PM   #249
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: What Happens After Death

thestrangequark wrote: View Post
I'm describing natural phenomena that have been mistakenly described as the soul.
Yeah, and that, in its entirety, is exactly all I said that you had a burden to prove, since you are making that claim. All the other stuff you've brought up, such as accusing me of appealing to tradition, evidently you've done so because you've utterly missed my point there. What I said was, to assert that claim which I've quoted, as a thesis, there is actually a lot to check, and doing so would occupy a diligent researcher for a lifetime. I'm certainly skeptical that your notion of soul encompasses all of what the ancients meant when they said soul, immortal and incorporeal aside.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19 2013, 12:26 AM   #250
137th Gebirg
Rear Admiral
 
137th Gebirg's Avatar
 
Location: Who is John Galt?
Re: What Happens After Death

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
137th Gebirg wrote: View Post
Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
I believe that when a person dies, they either go to Heaven or Hell. I don't mean to ruin all this scientific talk, but the OP did ask what we believe happens after death.
I was under the impression that the way it works is that, when we die, our souls remain in the body until the Rapture described in Revelation, when we all rise and are judged at the Second Coming. THEN we depart to our final destinations. ...As I recall the Scripture, anyway...
No, every Protestant denomination I'm aware of (mine included - I'm Lutheran) teaches that the soul goes immediately to its final destination upon death.
Hmmm... Perhaps I'm thinking of the Catholic dogma.
__________________
Gebirgswick - Ind, Tra, Sec & Env.
137th Gebirg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19 2013, 12:37 AM   #251
thestrangequark
Vice Admiral
 
thestrangequark's Avatar
 
Location: Brooklyn
Re: What Happens After Death

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
thestrangequark wrote: View Post
I'm describing natural phenomena that have been mistakenly described as the soul.
Yeah, and that, in its entirety, is exactly all I said that you had a burden to prove, since you are making that claim. All the other stuff you've brought up, such as accusing me of appealing to tradition, evidently you've done so because you've utterly missed my point there. What I said was, to assert that claim which I've quoted, as a thesis, there is actually a lot to check, and doing so would occupy a diligent researcher for a lifetime. I'm certainly skeptical that your notion of soul encompasses all of what the ancients meant when they said soul, immortal and incorporeal aside.
No, you're still the one utterly missing the point. And please, do show me where I've made an Appeal to Antiquity or Appeal to Popularity. I'm afraid it is impossible, as I have not, where I have pointed out explicitly and obviously that your claim is rooted in the Appeal to Antiquity (and it continues to be even with this latest post). You still don't get that the outrageous claim is not that there is no soul, but that there is. I'm sorry, but this is fairly basic stuff -- I must be explaining it poorly. Maybe this will explain it better than I can:


ETA: The debate discussed in the video is primarily about god, but it is applicable to debating souls.
__________________
thestrangequark

The Enterprise is my TARDIS.
thestrangequark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19 2013, 12:49 AM   #252
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: What Happens After Death

thestrangequark wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
thestrangequark wrote: View Post
I'm describing natural phenomena that have been mistakenly described as the soul.
Yeah, and that, in its entirety, is exactly all I said that you had a burden to prove, since you are making that claim. All the other stuff you've brought up, such as accusing me of appealing to tradition, evidently you've done so because you've utterly missed my point there. What I said was, to assert that claim which I've quoted, as a thesis, there is actually a lot to check, and doing so would occupy a diligent researcher for a lifetime. I'm certainly skeptical that your notion of soul encompasses all of what the ancients meant when they said soul, immortal and incorporeal aside.
No, you're still the one utterly missing the point. You still don't get that the outrageous claim is not that there is no soul, but that there is. I'm sorry, but this is fairly basic stuff -- I must be explaining it poorly. Maybe this will explain it better than I can:
No, sorry, it's you who don't get what I'm saying.

I never said that the claim that there is a soul is less outrageous than the claim that there is not one. That doesn't relate at all to what burden of proof I think you have.

If you've been paying attention, I already said that I don't believe in the classical soul.

One more time, again: The burden of proof is on you to show that your rational definition #1 is a reasonable substitute for classical conception #2, or else why hijack the term soul in the first place to denote #1, when a term like consciousness would probably do better.

The burden is on you to show that, especially since you claimed, at least implicitly, that you are alluding to the same thing that classical philosophers were. It is that very claim, that you are alluding to the same thing, that I'm highly skeptical of, and which requires proof. Clear now?
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19 2013, 12:56 AM   #253
thestrangequark
Vice Admiral
 
thestrangequark's Avatar
 
Location: Brooklyn
Re: What Happens After Death

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
thestrangequark wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post

Yeah, and that, in its entirety, is exactly all I said that you had a burden to prove, since you are making that claim. All the other stuff you've brought up, such as accusing me of appealing to tradition, evidently you've done so because you've utterly missed my point there. What I said was, to assert that claim which I've quoted, as a thesis, there is actually a lot to check, and doing so would occupy a diligent researcher for a lifetime. I'm certainly skeptical that your notion of soul encompasses all of what the ancients meant when they said soul, immortal and incorporeal aside.
No, you're still the one utterly missing the point. You still don't get that the outrageous claim is not that there is no soul, but that there is. I'm sorry, but this is fairly basic stuff -- I must be explaining it poorly. Maybe this will explain it better than I can:
No, sorry, it's you who don't get what I'm saying.

I never said that the claim that there is a soul is less outrageous than the claim that there is not one. That doesn't relate at all to what burden of proof I think you have.

If you've been paying attention, I already said that I don't believe in the classical soul.

One more time, again: The burden of proof is on you to show that your rational definition #1 is a reasonable substitute for classical conception #2, or else why hijack the term soul in the first place to denote #1, when a term like consciousness would probably do better.

The burden is on you to show that, especially since you claimed, at least implicitly, that you are alluding to the same thing that classical philosophers were. It is that very claim, that you are alluding to the same thing, that I'm highly skeptical of, and which requires proof. Clear now?
I have been paying attention, and I get what you're saying, it's just that your logic is completely wrong. That is what you're failing to see.

ETA: I am not asserting that the soul is anything. I am observing that what people think is the soul can be explained as a product of the brain, just as sound is the product of using our vocal cords, and a rhythm is the product of a beating heart.
__________________
thestrangequark

The Enterprise is my TARDIS.
thestrangequark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19 2013, 12:58 AM   #254
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: What Happens After Death

Clearly, we're not going to agree, so let's just drop it and move on.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19 2013, 01:06 AM   #255
thestrangequark
Vice Admiral
 
thestrangequark's Avatar
 
Location: Brooklyn
Re: What Happens After Death

^If you want to...but I don't see why. We can't learn anything from each other if we give up. Winning isn't the sole point of debate, learning is a valid enough reason to pursue the activity.
__________________
thestrangequark

The Enterprise is my TARDIS.
thestrangequark is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.