CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Do You Believe There Is Any Form Of Life After Death?
I'm afraid I don't believe it, although, since time and distance are both relative, you will always be alive from the perspective of somewhere else in the universe.
I've had several paranormal experiences during my life so I know there is something there but I don't know what it is. I'm just an observer. I don't think ghosts are alive therefore I don't consider being a ghost being alive after death. There is a presence there but not a life. On the other hand, what the hell do I know anyway? I just have my opinion.
I've had several paranormal experiences during my life so I know there is something there but I don't know what it is. I'm just an observer. I don't think ghosts are alive therefore I don't consider being a ghost being alive after death. There is a presence there but not a life. On the other hand, what the hell do I know anyway? I just have my opinion.
I was absolutely petrified of ghosts and the paranormal when I was a kid. But with no direct experiences then as soon as I hit about 19 or 20 I stopped believing in it all. These days I find horror films based on the paranormal really boring, whereas as a kid they would absolutely frighten the crap out of me.
I have had a few strange experiences, but nothing which is outside the realms of logical explanation.
At 16 I had an out of the body experience which seemed very real to me at the time. In hindsight however it did happen shortly after I had smoked pot for the second or third time ever.
I used to go ghost hunting as a teenager with a few pals of mine, back when I still half-believed in the paranormal. A few strange events there, like seeing a man walking through a field in the middle of nowhere at 3am. But I'm fairly sure it wasn't a ghost, just a farmer.
In fact, thinking back, there is possibly one event in my life which I can't explain rationally. That isn't necessarily to say a rational explanation doesn't exist for it, mind you.
When I was really young, maybe 9 or 10, my parents went out and they must have taken my brother with them because I remember I was in the house alone. It was the middle of the daytime otherwise I'd have probably been afraid, but I remember going upstairs to use the bathroom. When I came out, my parents' bedroom door was to the far left of me. It had been fully closed because I checked it on the way up, but as I came out of the bathroom I watched the door actually open from a closed position and creak eerily ajar.
I still remember at the time that it sent me into an absolute panic and I raced down the stairs. No windows were open anywhere in the house so it was very strange. It never happened again so eventually I just put the memory to one side.
Yeah, I do. I don't think the bodies we are in are our only form, and there's been some strange things that are hard to explain. It's one of those things that is hard to solidly prove and is more belief born from personal experience and from other's experiences.
In your case the inquiring mind ponders the question, is there life before death?
That's not the inquiring mind I'm afraid. That's the low IQ mind which cares about nothing outside of money and power, and comes here only because it is jealous of those which do. Have a nice day.
I don't believe it. I believe our conscienceness is biological, not spiritual.
Fair enough. I don't think consciousness is understood at all, by anybody. Even if its causes are physical, does that necessarily mean than consciousness itself has to be physical?
Reading my argument again today - I probably sounded more confident than I intended. I do consider myself an agnostic atheist, some things we just cannot know, and probably will never know. And life after death, and whether our consciousness is physical or not are one of those things that I'd never intentionally have a confident opinion on, it would always be; this is what I lean towards as being the truth.
That said, Ill respond to your response - if the causes of consciousness are physical, does that mean that the consciousness itself has to be physical.
Honestly I can totally get on board with that, we aren't robots, we aren't controlled by our instincts. On the contrary we analyze everything, not just factors that are relevant to our survival, we analyze ethics as well.
So in that regard, there is something about us humans (and other species) where you could argue that this doesn't make sense biologically, because biologically we should only be concerned with survival and procreation.
However!!! I would still argue that if something has biological causes, then that thing will still die when the cause has died. If something has physical causes, then it depends on those causes to stay active.
Reading my argument again today - I probably sounded more confident than I intended. I do consider myself an agnostic atheist, some things we just cannot know, and probably will never know. And life after death, and whether our consciousness is physical or not are one of those things that I'd never intentionally have a confident opinion on, it would always be; this is what I lean towards as being the truth.
Absolutely. Same applies to myself.
Honestly I can totally get on board with that, we aren't robots, we aren't controlled by our instincts. On the contrary we analyze everything, not just factors that are relevant to our survival, we analyze ethics as well.
So in that regard, there is something about us humans (and other species) where you could argue that this doesn't make sense biologically, because biologically we should only be concerned with survival and procreation.
I agree, although in absolute fairness those things remain all a lot of people are interested in. At least if we expand procreation to cover pleasure generally.
However!!! I would still argue that if something has biological causes, then that thing will still die when the cause has died.
I don't think that statement is necessarily true. Computers and AI for example have biological causes, and it is only a question of time before we can make exact digital copies of a person's underlying personality traits. Coupled with cloning, which we can already do, then if an identical personality inhabits an identical body what then?
You could look at it the same way as being a file on a computer. If the computer copies the file but then deletes the original, you still have the file, right?
What I think is that life is a form of energy produced through a process we don't yet understand. Since energy can't be destroyed it can't die as such. That's not necessarily to say it is still alive of course, or in any way conscious, but if life is a form of energy then that is at least possible.
Well I think this discussion has entered a very technical arena that Im not too comfortable in HAHA!
Honestly, I don't know much about AI, so even if I were to have an opinion on robots with personalities and what not, it would probably be very flawed :p
I guess I see the consciousness more of a wired source of energy - does that make sense? The consciousness is not its own source of energy. It's not an endless battery, it has an energy source: the body. When the body dies, there is no energy, and thus no consciousness.
If consciousness was its own energy source then we would be conscious all the time. We would not depend on the body to stay conscious, for example when the body sleeps or faints.
Honestly, I don't know much about AI, so even if I were to have an opinion on robots with personalities and what not, it would probably be very flawed
These things are really interesting to think about though, right? If we learn how to download your exact personality, including all memories until death, into a cloned body, is that still you?
I think the invention of this kind of technology is only a matter of time. Life will begin to feel like a video game in that you will be able to backup regular "saves" of your memories and personality traits.
I guess I see the consciousness more of a wired source of energy - does that make sense? The consciousness is not its own source of energy. It's not an endless battery, it has an energy source: the body. When the body dies, there is no energy, and thus no consciousness.
Yes, that makes perfect sense. Something interesting to consider though is that scientists discovered fairly recently that the brain doesn't die when the body does. It shuts down gradually, in stages. They were able to see electrical activity after death and even culture living cells from dead brains.
If consciousness was it's own energy source then we would be conscious all the time. We would not depend on the body to stay conscious, for example when the body sleeps or faints.
I understand. That's a fair point, but I think in the context we are using the word "consciousness" (i.e. to describe the condition of being alive) we should also include subconscious brain activity. Being asleep or fainting isn't the same thing as being dead after all.
No. Death is "lights out". That's all there is to it. Face it!
Well, this is where it gets interesting, because the brain doesn't die when the body does. It shuts down gradually, in stages. Many scientists have measured electrical activity in dead brains and even cultured living cells from them.
So, the light flickers a little before it goes out completely. That's not surprising. When it's out, it's out.
Sure, it might seem so, but again there are other factors to consider. So far we have only scratched the surface of how the brain works and, when we talk about brain activity, we might conceivably be talking about quantum activity. Quantum reality is a lot different to the reality we experience and it is not bound by the same laws and restrictions. The infamous Schrodinger's cat thought experiment illustrates that, as far as quantum mechanics is concerned, dead is not always dead.
The film Inception scratches a little at the mysteries of dreaming. For example, time does not run the same way in dreams as it does in waking reality. You can spend days locked in dreams while only a matter of hours passes by in waking reality. Dreams are also every bit as real as waking reality while you are actually inside them. That is why it is so difficult for people to lucid dream (i.e. realise they are dreaming while inside a dream).
No, as there is no means by which we could evaluate or even logically infer the afterlife. Just as well, most incarnations of such a concept make additional unsupported claims that just add what is already a seemingly insurmountable burden of proof.
I believe in the inherent reliability of reason and logic, but such a position is neither arbitrary nor unjustified. For starters, you acknowledge the virtues of logical axioms just by communicating(portraying the laws of identity and non-contradiction).
As far as your second response,
Question: Do you believe A
Answer: No
Why: there is no way to evaluate or logically infer A
The implication of the why is that beliefs should be tailored to evidence and reason. I’m unsure how you interpret that to be dissonant from from my answer to the prompt.
I believe in the inherent reliability of reason and logic
So do I, but my belief is that you don't understand what these things actually are or how they should be applied, and are merely using them as word garnish. Indeed, you were kind enough to provide some evidence to justify that belief, so thank you.
there is no way to evaluate or logically infer A
Before we even get the logical problems with your hypothetical conversation, the statement here is not even true. Of course there is a way to logically infer God. God was inferred thousands of years ago and has remained inferred ever since. Hence, your statement flies in the face of thousands of years of documented history and is clearly just flat out wrong. How do you feel about that?
What I sense here is a variation on the good old fashioned No True Scotsman fallacy. That is, unless I believe it, it isn't logical.
The god question is a separate issue, which is amusing because you accuse ME of being dissonant to the prompt, but it’s nonetheless a topic we can discuss.
Absent an understanding of biology, I can infer demons are causing sickness instead of pathogens. Such a conclusion lies a series of unsupported assumptions(existence of demons, agency of said demons, etc). With a sufficient understanding of biology, I can observe/evaluate the presence of pathogens and logically infer their relation to sickness.
God is the demon in this scenario, unless you specifically define god per deism or an otherwise non-anthropomorphic version of the concept. It otherwise falls into the same failings of fallacious presuppositions.
I believe in the inherent reliability of reason and logic, but such a position is neither arbitrary nor unjustified. For starters, you acknowledge the virtues of logical axioms just by communicating (portraying the laws of identity and non-contradiction).
What do you mean by "reliability"? Similarly, by: arbitrariness, justification, acknowledgement, and virtue.
I'm fairly certain that I disagree with you here, but it's possible that I don't depending upon how you're using these concepts.
Reliability- I am referring to reason/logic's continued success at providing an actionable means by which I interact with the world around me. They provide a topology by which I can take information from the senses and pair it with deduction and inference to navigate reality. As I point out in my response, the very act of discourse and communication as a whole exhibit an acceptance of base logical axioms; that the parties involved do in fact exist, that the responses contain concepts that are identifiable by their unique properties, and that they can not respond to me and have not responded to me at the same time.
Arbitrary- Without observation and without coherent theoretical argument. That which is asserted absent of reason or evidence can be dismissed with equal reverence to both.
Justification- articulately warranted by the reason and evidence.
Acknowledgement- in this context the term refers to an acceptance or application(of logical axioms). I acknowledge the validity of the boat when I use it to get me across a body of water.
Virtue- in this context the term was used as "the capacity of". I drove here by virtue of a motor vehicle, for example.
Thanks for clarifying. I can now say with greater confidence that I do disagree with your position, and better articulate why.
I believe in the inherent reliability of reason and logic, but such a position is neither arbitrary nor unjustified.
The reliability of reason and logic is predicated upon the further reliability of sensory perception; one can only conclude that reason and logic provide actionable means to interact with the world by relying upon one's perception that they function in this way. That this perception is itself reliable is not obviously true.
The perceived success of reason and logic in providing actionable means to interact with the world also grounds that reliability in one's subjective realm of experience. This falls well short of establishing that reason and logic are inherently reliable.
There are at least some cases where reason and logic obviously fail at providing actionable means with which to interact with the world around us. The Problem of Induction (Hume), for instance, suggests that we cannot reasonably or logically engage in casual thinking.
Given the above, I think that believing in the inherent reliability of reason and logic is both arbitrary and unjustified. There is no coherent theoretical reason to trust perception and it cannot logically be invoked as proof of itself. The evidence for the reliability of reason and logic being arbitrary and unjustified, that conclusion is likewise afflicted.
I don't see that as a reason to reject or personally devalue the seeming reliability of reason and logic. But I do think it makes any greater claim overextended, with the consequence that we even become overly committed to reason and logic in practice.
For starters, you acknowledge the virtues of logical axioms just by communicating (portraying the laws of identity and non-contradiction). & I acknowledge the validity of the boat when I use it to get me across a body of water.
Although one may engage certain logical axioms as though they were true I do not think that engagement necessarily entails a further acknowledgment of those logical axioms as true. I don't see a necessary connection between acting as though something were true and believing that that thing is true.
I actually do not believe that boats exist, yet in my everyday behavior I do not carry this epistemic conviction around at the fore of my thoughts. When I use the boat I am not acknowledging that it exists, but enacting an impression of a boat existing as though it did. If I seriously reflect on the matter my epistemic nihilism repudiates the boat even as I experience myself as being upon it.
The reliability of reason and logic is predicated upon the further reliability of sensory perception
Since individuals humans are subject to biological reality, one can absolutely have a compromised means of perception. This is partly why I make reference to the topology of logic and reason, wherein subjects can benefit from layers of evidence, inference, deduction to be more likely to come to correct conclusions. But even if everyone hypothetically suffered from the same degree of sensory malfunction, a priori truths like 1+1=2 would still be correct, which to me represents one example of inherent reliability.
The Problem of Induction (Hume), for instance, suggests that we cannot reasonably or logically engage in casual thinking.
Can you expound on this for me as this doesn't seem to quite match my understanding of the problem?
There is no coherent theoretical reason to trust perception and it cannot logically be invoked as proof of itself.
An argument can be coherent without being correct, which is why I wouldn't call all incorrect positions arbitrary. With that said, would you still assert that no coherent argument can be made to trust perception? I do accept that logic is itself a presupposition, but I don't see any scenario where I have a discussion without applying that which logic entails lest we have no capacity to even communicate.
I don't see that as a reason to reject or personally devalue the seeming reliability of reason and logic. But I do think it makes any greater claim overextended, with the consequence that we even become overly committed to reason and logic in practice.
This is perhaps where some of the broader discussion on this prompt comes into play, particularly in regards to my use of the word believe. I believe in the inherent reliability of reason and logic would seem to me to just be a rewording of your above statement of it seeming inherently reliable(barring the fallibility of the senses). I specifically use the word believe to reflect a level of confidence in a position for which a claim of absolute certainty would be hubris as I am certainly fallible. I am curious about your statement about the potentiality of being over-committed to logic and reason, and wonder what that entails in a practical setting?
Although one may engage certain logical axioms as though they were true I do not think that engagement necessarily entails a further acknowledgment of those logical axioms as true.
This is where I get quite dissonant with your perspective. Are you debating with me? Are you making arguments? Are those arguments themselves and not other arguments? Yes to any of those would seem to me to entail the truth of base logical axioms by definition. I'm sure I just inadequately comprehend you on this issue.
I have some contentions that I withheld barring my rereading of a couple particular works, I mostly just feel the need to get a better understanding on your perspective here.
Ah, well, cripes. Your most recent comments suggest that my earlier remarks were largely not responsive to your position. Foremost, I mistook your original statement as a harder epistemic claim that you intended it to be. I did not appreciate that your use of "believe" was expressing a softer seemingness. I've adjusted my response accordingly, and am laying aside a fair bit of my earlier commentary as confusing or irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Refined Response
For subtly different reasons than before, I doubt whether the seeming inherent reliability of logic and reason can be logically or reasonably believed (i.e. as non-arbitrary and justified belief). I do think that the seeming non-inherent reliability of logic and reason can be logically or reasonably believed, and I think there are practical implications to this distinction.
If logic or reason should in any instance prove impractical for engaging existence then we cannot logically or reasonably believe that logic and reason are seemingly inherently reliable. They would seem to be unreliable in at least that one instance and this defeats inherency.
Logic and reason are given to us by perception not only as reliable but as phenomena in the first place. To logically and reasonably represent logic and reason to ourselves and to practice both we must minimally act as though our perception of their reliability is itself reliable. Otherwise, we have no logical or reasonable reason to believe in even the seeming existence of logic or reason, much less their seeming reliability.
There is no logical or reasonable reason to suppose that our perceptions of and about logic and reason are true or correct. Worse, because the existence and seeming reliability of these phenomena are given to us by our perception we cannot use either logic or reason to prove anything about our perceptions of logic and reason (doing so would be circular and would invalidate the very thing we are seeking to validate). Indeed, the very notion of 'proving perception' becomes incoherent because the notion and practice of proof comes after perception; if we doubt the perception then we must doubt the ontological existence of proof in the first place.
Insofar as not being able to accept the existence of logic and reason and not being able to regard them as reliable is impractical, we have good cause not to be agnostic about the reliability of our perceptions about logic and reason. But that agnosticism is precisely what logic and reason would compel. So, we have a highly significant instance of logic and reason not being reliable. Consequently, we cannot logically and reasonably believe that logic and reason are seemingly inherently reliable.
With Respect to Communication
I think what communication (and other action) demonstrates is the seeming inherent inescapability of perception, the content of which sometimes includes logical axioms. This does not to me suggest anything about the reliability (inherent or otherwise) of those logical axioms or any other content.
With Respect to Applications
My preceding analysis is one way in which I think your position over-commits to logic and reason, since logic and reason would lead us to an agnosticism that denies us our seemingly useful instruments in our seeming existence. That's still rather abstract, though, and what I meant by my original remark was a bit more everyday.
I'm generally doubtful about the utility of logic and reason in our lives, particularly with respect to our everyday existence and interactions. We're not foremost reasoning or logical beings, and I don't think that's always or even usually something that harms us (though certainly there are cases where it does). Logic and reason set high cognitive and behavioral bars that just don't seem necessary or desirable in many cases. Sure, I want my surgeon to be logical and reasonable in the OR. If my friends were like that constantly over trivial things like ice-cream flavor selections or preferred walking routes I think I would find it annoying. And I'll out myself for a chaotic neutral and say sometimes being unreasonable is eminently satisfying.
P.S. I believe that I addressed your original position and clarifying remarks adequately this time. I did not do my usual line-by-line reply format, since I led us a bit astray in my confusion over your position, so please let me know if I dropped anything significant that you would like me to take up again.
The reliability of reason and logic is predicated upon the further reliability of sensory perception
You idiots are infuriating. Why do you write so much twaddle when you don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about? One plus one equals two is not "predicated upon the further reliability of sensory perception". That is because one plus one equals two is logic, as I have already explained if you'd bothered to read the thread, and predictions and/or interpretations of reality come about through experience (i.e. use of the senses).
There is some form of life after my death, insofar as what I regard as my body will decompose and convert to other forms of life, but that life is nothing to do with my conscious self which is annihilated in death.