Jet Grind

No problem.

Jinto

Nothing in science is ever proven, however what science can do is accumulate such a large body of evidence in favor of a proposition that no reasonable doubt exists that it is true. I believe that this is the case regarding the nonexistence of an afterlife.

If by "default position" you mean the one that does not include large numbers of unparsimonious elements, this is true. However, there is no precedent in science for this turning out to be the case, nor do I suspect there will ever be.

But if memory not being laid down is enough to stop people from experiencing something, then wouldn't this even more strongly suggest that awareness is a function of the brain (specifically: a function of memory)? In my mind, instances of complete memory loss are the most damning evidence of a strict materialist viewoint, since it is only if your awareness IS nothing more than brain state that simply having no record could lead to experiencing a lack of awareness.

42.

Nowhere357

I agree with everything but the conclusion. My reason is that current physics has no explanation for the existence of awareness (or mind or consciousness) - and it's the nature of this unexplained thing which we are looking at. I would say the probability of any sort of afterlife is very small yet greater than zero.

That's basically what I mean, yes. The default position encompasses current knowledge while employing Occam's razor.

An example from history of a default position being wrong: long ago, a "flat earth" best explained current knowledge without including extraneous details. Another example is that it once was default to consider atoms as indivisible.

There is a slight confusion here - the lack of memory means we can't recall the experience - not that the experience never happened. I agree that awareness seems to be a function of the brain. I disagree that awareness requires memory: awareness + memory gives rise to self-awareness.

I agree that awareness can be considered a function of the brain, and that self-awareness includes the function of memory.

Again I basically agree with this, although there is confusion - it is impossible to "experience a lack of awareness", because awareness IS the experience. Memory loss due to injury, or lack of memory due to no memory being laid down during an experience, means we have no memory for us to recall into our awareness. That is, we would experience no memory, but we still would experience awareness.

The answer to everything?

Jinto

Gah. The board ate my post. Give it back, give it back I say.

Anyway, to summarize what I spent 1800 seconds typing, I'm not at all convinced that the lack of an afterlife is the default position. It seems that the default position is like that of the atom: the soul is indivisible and indestructable, and consequently it must persist in some form after the obviously divisible and destructable body is in fact destroyed. This assumption was all well and good until we ended up showing that the soul, like the atom, could be split. Thus, the continuation of the soul is in fact the default assumption that was disproved by science, not the other way around.

Marduk

“So you don't think that consiousness is a brain-based phenomenon? If so, then you're simply ignoring the facts. I'd reccommend that you read The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker.”

OK I’ll give it a shot, but if it turns out to be one of those meaningless “if your brain is broken, it won’t work right” or “if you stimulate section X then you can simulate experience Y” type nonsense I won’t get very far.

“So you think that life is one big Groundhog Day then? Or am I misreading this?”

Maybe, it doesn’t have to be the same life, or planet or universe, a tremendous amount of time can go by when you are in the ‘off’ state and you will be unaware of it passing. Just like the amount of time that went by before I was born, you will also lose all perspective of when and where you are.

yguy

Balderdash.

"Your brain houses two minds (and maybe more), not one. And they orchestrate into a single personality if -- and only if -- your cerebral hemispheres communicate."

A personality is not a soul. You are confusing perception with consciousness - comparable to confusing the computer with its operator.

"Split brain patients learn very quickly how to keep both sides in communication. Just like Gazzaniga, they talk the words across."

If there are two souls inside that cranium, who is the mediator?

Jinto

yguy, you can sit here and say "no, my consciousness is indivisible." all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that with a simple flick of the knife I can split you in two. Not, of course, that I would want to. One of you is bad enough.

No one. Why would there need to be a mediator?

yguy

Argument by assertion. I'd have one soul with an altered perception of reality. That's all.

Read the quote. Just who is it that "learns how to keep both sides in communication"?

Jinto

And if I remove your brain (assuming this has not already been done), do you have one soul with NO perception of reality? Tell me, if you still have only one soul, then exactly which side of the brain does it get it's input from? Does it know when the left half of the brain is reading something?

They (plural) do, of course.

SimplyAtheistic

We've been over this before with yguy. He maintains there must be an operator for the cerebrum, and he got a healthy spanking in the other thread. He has no basis for his claim and all evidence points to the contrary. Nice try though.
Jake