atheistic dualism

F

Frank M.

Registered Member
Hello.

I am an atheist, but not a materialist. I am a dualist. I believe that I will survive death. But I do not know in what kind of state I will survive in. Maybe I'll survive in some 'dreamless sleep' until I am reincarnated. Maybe I'll survive as some fully active and conscious being. Whatever the case may be, I believe that I will survive death.

Are there any other atheists, here, who have similar beliefs?
 
Re: atheistic dualism - ARE YOU SURE?

Originally posted by Frank M.
Hello.
I am an atheist, but not a materialist. I am a dualist. I believe that I will survive death. But I do not know in what kind of state I will survive in. Maybe I'll survive in some 'dreamless sleep' until I am reincarnated. Maybe I'll survive as some fully active and conscious being. Whatever the case may be, I believe that I will survive death.

Are there any other atheists, here, who have similar beliefs?
Click to expand...


Dualism means the belief that there are two equal and independent powers at the back of everything, one of them good and the other bad, and that this universe is the battlefield in which they fight out an endless war.

The catch: These two powers, or spirits, or gods-the good and the bad-are supposed to be quite independent. They both existed from all eternity. Neither of them made the other, neither of them has any more right than the other to call itself God. Each presumably thinks it is good and thinks the other bad. One of them likes hatred and cruelty, the other likes love and mercy, and each backs its own view. Now this is like saying that we happen to prefer the one to the other--like preferring beer to wine. If "being good" meant simply joining the side you happened to prefer, for no real reason, then good would not deserve to be called good. So we must mean that one of the two powers is actually wrong and the other actually right.

But the moment you say that, you are putting into the universe a third thing in addition to the two Powers: some law or standard or rule of good which one of the powers conforms to and the other fails to conform to. And this standard, or the Being who made this standard, is farther back and higher up than either of them, and He will be the real God. In fact, what we meant by calling them good and bad turns out to be that one of them is in a right relation to th real ultimate God and the other in a wrong relation to Him.

You can also make the same point in a different way. Starting from the bad Power, it must be a being who likes badness for its own sake. But in reality we have no experience of anyone liking badness just because it is bad. The nearest we can get to it is in extreme cruelty, such as the WTC destruction. But people are cruel for one of two reasons--either because they are sadists, that is, because they have a perversion which makes cruelty a cause of sensual poeasure to them, or else for the sake of something they are going to get out of it-money, power, or safety, in the here-and-now, or their idea of the afterlife.

A great thinker has said: "You can be good for the mere sake of goodness; you cannot be bad for the mere sake of badness."

Badness cannot succeed even in being bad in the same way in which goodness is good. Goodnes is, so to speak, itself: badness is only spoiled goodness.There must be something good first before it can be spoiled to badness.

Examples: Normal sexuality (deemed good by God) vs. sadism, which can be explained as perverted from the normal, and not vice-versa. This Bad Power, must have good things to want and then to pursue in the wrong way: he must have impulses which were originally good in order to be able to pervert them. He is part of the Good Power's world: he was made either by the Good Power or by some power above them both.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
dualism has multiple meanings

Hello BevKay.

Please check a dictionary or two. Dualism has multiple meanings.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

Dualism

1. The condition of being double; duality. 2. Philosophy The view that the world consists of or is explicable as two fundamental entities, such as mind and matter. 3. Psychology The view that the mind and body function separately, without interchange. 4. Theology a. The concept that the world is ruled by the antagonistic forces of good and evil. b. The concept that humans have two basic natures, the physical and the spiritual.


I am using the word 'dualism' in the second sense, and in the fourth sense (part B).
 
Last edited:
Hi Frank,

Welcome to sciforums.

I am an atheist and a Materialist, note upper case M, to distinguish from those that are greedy and possessive, as opposed to the philosophy.

Usually atheism and Materialism are closely connected since most atheists reject theism because of its irrationality (lack of proof), and that also applies to dualism.

Buddhists are atheists (have no belief in gods) but are certainly dualists, so you are in good company. Note that dualism is the common basis for every religion – a belief in an afterlife.

So while you believe you will survive death, is it really a belief or is it really a hope? For any belief to have any practical merit and to be rational it needs to be based on a proof. Do you know why you believe you will survive death? What encouraged you to reach that conclusion?

Cris
 
Hello Cris

>So while you believe you will survive death, is it really a belief or is it really a hope?

Partly a hope, of course. But the main reason is that materialism, in my view, is not capable of explaining me. Sure, materialism can account for the body, but I see no prospect of materialism actually being able to account for me. So, one could say, it is the failure of materialism that leads me toward dualism.

>For any belief to have any practical merit and to be rational it needs to be based on a proof.

Come on... that's a standard that many everyday beliefs don't even meet. Like putting money on a stock or getting on a passenger airplane. I have no proof that the stock I purchase will go up and I have no proof that the passenger airplane that I am going to ride in is safe. But in each case, I believe so.

And I think that the standard you set is quite impossible. A belief that is proven (a proof) is no longer a belief but a fact. A belief is what we have *before* we have the facts or the proof.

You probably believe that materialism can fully account for the mind-body problem. I believe otherwise.
 
Frank,

But the main reason is that materialism, in my view, is not capable of explaining me.

OK, so you need to define what is meant by ‘me’. I assume here you see yourself as something separate from your body, as a soul or a spirit, or suchlike. Or more specifically something immaterial. The main concerns here are –

1. Where does this spirit reside?
2. How can something immaterial interact with something material?
3. Why do you think your brain patterns aren’t sufficient to define you?

Come on... that's a standard that many everyday beliefs don't even meet. Like putting money on a stock or getting on a passenger airplane. I have no proof that the stock I purchase will go up and I have no proof that the passenger airplane that I am going to ride in is safe. But in each case, I believe so.

All rational people make decisions based on proofs, let’s call then deductive conclusions, or significant evidence (almost proof), let’s call them inductive conclusions.

For example people invest in stocks because they have some evidence to indicate they would make a profit. The more evidence that can be mustered then the greater the chance that such inductive reasoning will result in a profit. If no one ever made a profit by buying stocks then no rational person would continue to invest in stocks.

The same applies to aircraft travel. You have significant evidence that shows overwhelmingly that air travel is safe. You choose to travel by air because the risk is very low, and you know that from known evidence (in this case based on inductive logic).

But a belief in an immaterial spirit is not based on any evidence, since there is none, let alone any proof. So while I am sure you make most decisions in your life based on some evidence, like the above, on the matter of death you choose to depart from normal reasoning. That is what I find confusing.

And I think that the standard you set is quite impossible. A belief that is proven (a proof) is no longer a belief but a fact. A belief is what we have *before* we have the facts or the proof.

I think you are confusing some concepts here, and if you don’t mind too much I’d like to correct you a little. One believes in a proposition or a specific claim. It is the proposition or claim that is subject to proof and not the belief. A rational belief is where one believes a proposition that can be supported by logical reasoning, which in turn requires facts. When the claim cannot be supported by facts and hence fails logical reasoning, then a continued belief in such a claim is technically irrational.

You probably believe that materialism can fully account for the mind-body problem. I believe otherwise.

What problem? The brain is equal to the mind.

So in conclusion: Beliefs are either rational or irrational depending on the proof, facts, evidence involved, or lack thereof. Or put another way, you cannot know that something is true unless you have some evidence and preferably a deductive proof. If you claim to know that something is true but cannot prove or otherwise support your claim then you are irrational (outside of reason). It is this latter point that applies to your belief in an afterlife.

Cris
 
:( CRIS!
"The brain is equal to the mind. "
Aww, you can't be serious.
I am not a dualist. I am a materialist (maybe not in the strict sense). Such statements will cause some misunderstandings and those may in turn cause prejudice.
Brain and mind cannot be the same. One reason is a dead brain is still a brain, but harbours no mind anymore.
The brain is a material entity, the mind is an informational entity. And here is the clue: information itself is not material, but is structuring of matter/ energy. Hence information nicely falls into the materialistic worldview.

Frank,
I completely understand your poblem with materialism. But please understand that materialism is not :"The brain is equal to the mind."
Since information has the possibility of self-reference, something as a consciousness can in fact originate in a materialistic worldview.
I skipped some steps here, but I guess everybody can fill them in.

Merlijn
 
Merlijn,

"The brain is equal to the mind. "

Aww, you can't be serious.

Yes quite serious. The problem you have is that you are considering the mind as if it were something separate from the body. The brain represents an electrical and bio-chemical apparatus whose matrix represents a number of ever changing patterns that we have named thoughts and memories. Another name for these thoughts and memories is the mind. Hence there is no difference between the brain and the mind, perhaps if anything the result is viewed from a different perspective, but the concepts are identical. But the brain and the mind are completely material.

Brain and mind cannot be the same. One reason is a dead brain is still a brain, but harbours no mind anymore.

No, you are not being consistent, you have not added the qualification in both places. A dead brain is the same as a dead mind. If the brain can no longer function then the mind can no longer function, since they are one and the same. The mind isn’t something that wanders around in some mysterious void by itself.

If you damage a brain then the mind suffers. They are indistinguishable.

The brain is a material entity, the mind is an informational entity.

So are you implying that the brain does not contain information? That clearly is not true, since we know that patterns of neurons and synapses hold memories, which we can clearly call information. Where is the information held within the mind entity if it is not in the brain? The brain is clearly the informational entity, and if you substitute the word ‘mind’ instead of ‘brain’ you achieve the same result.

And here is the clue: information itself is not material, but is structuring of matter/ energy. Hence information nicely falls into the materialistic worldview.

Your have contradicted yourself. Matter and energy are material, so if information is composed of this material then the result must be material. It follows then that information is purely material. You have concluded this yourself “ information nicely falls into the materialistic worldview”, but that directly conflicts with your first statement “information itself is not material”.

Information is purely material. What you call information is the way your brain has formed neural patterns created by the stimulation of your sense organs. Those material organs have received that information through such material means such as light and sound.

Since information has the possibility of self-reference, something as a consciousness can in fact originate in a materialistic worldview.
I skipped some steps here, but I guess everybody can fill them in.

I have no idea what that means. I think you missed a few too many steps; you do indeed need to fill them in since what you said makes no sense.

I hope you now agree that the brain is the same thing as the mind, and what you think of as consciousness is also the same thing as the brain.

Frank, Merlijn,

Your mind and your consciousness are purely the neural and chemical patterns that comprise the brain. They are all one and the same thing.

I challenge you to demonstrate how they can be anything different.

Cris
 
Cris,
whith all due respect. I do not believe it is your place to lecture me on these matters! This is my field of speciality. I am a cognitive psychologist (that is the study of human information processing described in functional terms, which includes perception-action coupling, memory and other higher cognitive functions, etc.) with a speciality in 'philosophy of mind and cognition'.

the brain is a biological substratum, it is a family of neural systems that are located in te cranium.
the mind is a loose term that mostly means the information that is held in the 'working memory', consciousness, or is another name for the collection of higher cognitive functions.
The mind is what a functioning brain gives rise to. The neural system is an "information processing device" (again speeking loosely) and the mind is a part of the information processed by the brain.

Now I will do the quoting thing:

"The problem you have is that you are considering the mind as if it were something separate from the body. "
No, I am not saying that at all!
However, I do know the difference between an anatomical concept an an informational. (you may make out for yourself where the stress in that sentence lies ;))

"The brain represents an electrical and bio-chemical apparatus whose matrix represents a number of ever changing patterns that we have named thoughts and memories. Another name for these thoughts and memories is the mind."
I am not at all impressed. Here is where you go wong.
Even in the connectionist view of cognition (which apparently you support) this will not hold. the brain is the (what you like to call a)matrix, which processes the information. The patterns with which it does so do indeed change. However, it is not the patterns of the matrix, but the patterns of activation of the elements within the matrix that we would like to call memeory or thoughts. Luckily our brain does more that just that.

"A dead brain is the same as a dead mind. If the brain can no longer function then the mind can no longer function, since they are one and the same. The mind isn’t something that wanders around in some mysterious void by itself. "
A dead brain is the same as a dead brain. A dead mind does not exist.
And again: no I do not believe our mind wanders around in some mysterious void, or has a special sphere of existence. No spooky stuff.

"If you damage a brain then the mind suffers. They are indistinguishable. "
If your damage a leg then the walking suffers. They (leg and walking) are indisguishable.
Ermm... no
How do you like the analogy?
Maybe some insight on the true nature of "mind and matter" is daunting now. Note that walking does not have a special sphere of existence, and is not a mysterious entity.

"So are you implying that the brain does not contain information? That clearly is not true, since we know that patterns of neurons and synapses hold memories, which we can clearly call information. "
The brain contains very much information. Since information is the structuring of matter and/or energy. The brain is a highly structured anatomical entity.
But memory and other higher cognitive functions are the information in (i.e. the structuring of) the neural energy. Of course, neural information cannot exists without neural substratum. that is obvious.

"You have concluded this yourself 'information nicely falls into the materialistic worldview', but that directly conflicts with your first statement 'information itself is not material'. "
Well, information is a physical entity, not a material one.
(this is a reference to R. Landauer (1999) "Information is a Physical Entity" Physica A, Vol.263, pp. 63-67).
Do not get 'material', 'physical', and 'materialistic' mixed up!
Mind is materialistic, physical. not material. Let alone "purely material."

"What you call information is the way your brain has formed neural patterns created by the stimulation of your sense organs. Those material organs have received that information through such material means such as light and sound. "
I do not need to comment on this, exept the following: not all information processed by the brain comes from stimulation of sensory organs. Think of dreaming, hallucinating, etc.?

"Since information has the possibility of self-reference, something as a consciousness can in fact originate in a materialistic worldview. "
This is to say that mind is information and is referential; more properly: mind is an intentional entity. the information is about a tree, an arm, a bird, a plane, superman, Knights that say 'Ni!', and what have you. Here is the crux: information can also refer to istelf. For example: "This sentece is about itself."
In the same manner, I believe, can consciousness / self-awareness originate. This however is a matter of debate in the philosophical community. I must admit that.

"I challenge you to demonstrate how they can be anything different. "
I think I have done just that.

Yours,
Merlijn
 
Merlijn,

You seem to be trying to explain dictionary definitions rather than debating ideas, we are talking at cross-purposes. Your precision is fine but somewhat out of place. But I can see why you would object to Mind=Brain with such a pedantic perspective; you’ve assumed I meant the literal definitions rather than the concepts. Remember the underlying context of the topic – spirits and souls – and put my assertion in that arena. Nevertheless I’ll work with your definitions and re-state the assertion more clearly.


the brain is a biological substratum, it is a family of neural systems that are located in te cranium.

the mind is a loose term that mostly means the information that is held in the 'working memory', consciousness, or is another name for the collection of higher cognitive functions.

The mind is what a functioning brain gives rise to. The neural system is an "information processing device" (again speeking loosely) and the mind is a part of the information processed by the brain.


Consciousness. My dictionary describes this as a part of the mind that is aware of a person’s self. This is another loose term, but I want to dismiss the term here since it is a part of the mind and I want to focus on the single term ‘mind’. We could debate this I suspect but the issues are very subjective and not entirely relevant to the topic.

From your statements I think we can conclude that the mind is entirely encompassed by the brain (while it is alive). Or in other words the continued functioning of the mind is entirely dependent on the continued correct functioning of the brain.

The issue that Frank raised was what is it that constitutes ‘me’. Or in other words what is it that defines the nature of a self-aware person, ignoring for the moment the physical shell of the body.

Put another way: Is me-ness governed by a non-material entity that controls the mind or is the mind entirely physical/material. Note: the terms physical and material are usually interchangeable in such a debate. I’ll use the term ‘material’ here to represent everything that is other than non-material/supernatural.

My assertion is that clearly the brain is material and since the mind is entirely encapsulated within the brain then the mind is also material. Or in other words me-ness is defined by a material mind and not an immaterial (supernatural) entity and the material brain is the direct cause of the mind.

The phrase Mind=Brain that has been used in a number of places on this site is used to represent that one to one relationship between brain and mind. My challenge, which you misunderstood, was to demonstrate that the mind (me-ness) is somehow immaterial and is not directly linked to correct brain functioning.

I think I can show that anything that can be described as me-ness is the direct result of brain activity, and that there is no need to devise the concept of an immaterial entity.

I hope that brings us back onto the topic.

Cris
 
This does bring us back to trhe topic, Cris,

Why is are you suddenly so pedant, Merlijn?
Because I get sick of it that when you are an expert in the field of mind and cognition nobody respects you for it, nobody gives you authority. And the reason for that is probably because I am expert in a field of study so close to us. Apparently it is ok to think everybody has as much insight on these matters: we are talking about ourselfs aren't we?
Now you may understand why I have (nearly) never posted in the "Intelligence & Machines" forum. It's just too frustrating.

The problem is that, the errors I am accused of; the problems others have concearning my ideas; and at best the doubting of my knowledge on the subject, have until now all proven themselves to stem from my debating partners' lack of knowledge. This was different when I worked at the university.
Of course not everybody would agree with me. But that's fine, since they respected my knowledge and opinion. They knew where I was coming from and they understood what I was talking about.

I do use the definitions as they are used by other experts in the field. I simply cannot comply to the definitions that the 'people on the streets' use.
When, for example, an astrophysisist talks about relativity, I assume that person does not use the same definition as the common man. And behold, all kinds of spiritual leaders suddenly want to give a kind of scientific air to their babbling by introducing Einstein's relativity. Cris, surely you know what I am talking about.

Furthermore, I always thought that a correct, and at least consistent, use of terminology, is essential to a discussion. But apparently you think I was wrong about that. Mea culpa.

I do remeber the topic of the tread. My post was to show that materialism is not the stupidity that many believe it to be. Maybe I was wrong again.
Do you really think that by stating such not-thought-through nonsense as "the brain equals the mind" will do anybody any good? Because you are a very well respected member of Sciforums, some might even start to believe such crap.
And frankly, I think you have been the one in this thread who has been talking in a pedantic manner.

So, let me again bring back the subject of the thread:
Frank M. there are some very large (I believe even insusuperable) problems with the Dualistic worldview. This is because it ultimately leads to philosophical inconsistencies. I.E. if the mind is something non-physical, it cannot interact with the physicall world, unless you introduce some magic into your ideas on the subjcet. We materialist refuse to do that.
To our opinion this was Descartes fallacy. He believed he mind interacted in some mystical manner with the physical world through the pinealgland.
I can very well understand you concearns. Materialism at first glance does not seem to be able to harbour something as exotic as the mind or consciousness. But in fact it can. Here is how:
Information is a physical entity: it is patterns in light, carved in a stone, pressure waves in the air, etc. When that information is received, the elements of the pattern can be braught into relation with oneanother and become meaningful for the recipient.
Here is an analogy: through a internet connection some computer recieves a long binary string. This string is 'processed' and becomes 'meaningful' for te computer, which will start to do some more calculating at that point.
Mind is an informational entity. Not like there are binary stings running through it, but the pattern of activation of the brain holds the information, part of which we like to call mind.
Information is referential. It referes to other things. Here is the crux: information can also refer to istelf. For example: "This sentece is about itself."
In the same manner, I believe, can consciousness / self-awareness originate. It's only quite more complex.

I believe this all means that it is nearly impossible for the mind to live on after the brain has gone dead. Unless there is some, yet unknown phenomenon that makes all the information active in the brain as well as the stored information somehow survive.
Again a computer analogy: if a computer is suddenly shut down and let to decay (or is burned, smashed with a hammer, whatever) how would you bring about the reincarnation of it's processes?
I think it just is not possible for the mind to survive the brain's death. Maybe by mind-uploading, but I think that will never be achieved.

Merlijn
 
Merlijn,

Please accept my apologies, I had not really intended to criticize. And I’m not so bright, I’m just restating in my own words parts of discussions at sciforums that have gone before. For example groundwork for the brain=mind concept was described at some length last year, and to which you would not have seen. My mistake was not to adequately lay down that preliminary reasoning again. It is tiring sometimes to keep returning to old debates and restating what was fought over before.

I see myself as a student here and am by no means an expert in these matters.

From your last statements I think I can see that we are both very much on the same page regarding materialism, at least in the essentials.

Take care
Cris
 
Hi Cris,
Aren't we all students for life?
I also apologise for the agressive tone I have used. I only get so much frustrated, as I have said. I am an expert in this field, and it would be nice if sometimes people would recognise that. It is always easier for people to recognise an expert in mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc.
I am not jealous for me not being an expert in one of those fields, I am jealous for the respect that they get I we (philosophers of mind and cognition) do not.
But things have turned ouyt right, because I am again writing a paper again. :) Has been a while.

Merlijn
 
Merlijn,

Awright, good for you.

I wish you well and hope you can make a productive dent in an often misunderstood area.

Cris
 
My two cents

I'm an athiest, however I don't believe I will survive death, but I found a friend of mine she was, a deist who says to me "matter once created can't be destroyed it just changes form" as an athiest, I couldn't disagree with her, however I never did find any objection to her speculations.

Simply put we may after all survive death in some form or another, I would like to come back as Bill Gates' son!!.
How about you?
 
Hopefully you'll die well after Bill Gates can produce new children.

Anyway, the matter one's body is made of may still exist after their death, but to what extend can you still call that matter (when is has been consumed by flames or worms) the same person?
I.E. can you say: "I would like to come back as Bill Gates' son!!."?

Merlijn
 
Ah! but she did not mean the body,

Originally posted by Merlijn
Hopefully you'll die well after Bill Gates can produce new children.

Anyway, the matter one's body is made of may still exist after their death, but to what extend can you still call that matter (when is has been consumed by flames or worms) the same person?
I.E. can you say: "I would like to come back as Bill Gates' son!!."?

Merlijn
Click to expand...

Here is what her point of view, somewhat was, it's been a while.

" The energy which is your spirit, soul, that which science has not been able to pinpoint it's location your consciousness is a form of matter, which changes after death in form". To what? whell she did not know, however when she put it that way, I was kind of confused and speechless.
 
Originally posted by Cris
Frank,

But the main reason is that materialism, in my view, is not capable of explaining me.

OK, so you need to define what is meant by ‘me’. I assume here you see yourself as something separate from your body, as a soul or a spirit, or suchlike. Or more specifically something immaterial. The main concerns here are –

1. Where does this spirit reside?
2. How can something immaterial interact with something material?
3. Why do you think your brain patterns aren’t sufficient to define you?[/i]


1. The spirit-soul, according the the Bhagavad Gita, resides in the heart, along with an expansion of the the Supreme Being. The spirit-soul is called 'jivatma' (living entity) and the Supreme Lord is called 'Paramatma' (Supersoul).

2. The material nature and the living entities are both eternal. That is to say, they existed before the creation. The material manifestation is from the energy of the Supreme Lord, and so also are the living entities, but the living entities are of superior nature.
Material nature was absorbed in God, and when it was required, it was manitfested by the agency of mahat-tattva, the total material energy.
Similarly the conditioned living entities are also in him, because of their aversion to serving God.
The different manifestations of body and senses among the living entities are due to the interaction of the living entity and material nature.

3. Because your brain is a part of your body, and your brain and body dies, so any information on the body or mind you may have gathered throughout you life, will, along with the body perish. You, the eternal spirit-soul, is eternal like God;
As the embodied soul (living entity) continuosly passes in this body from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change.----------Bhagavad Gita.2:13
Think about it logically, you have the body of a child, then the body of a young man, and then the body of an old man, but you are the same person. Even scientists acknowledge that the body is changing constantly, but it happens so fast we cannot percieve it. So based on that reasoning, it is logical to conclude that when this current body is of no more use, we discard it and accept another body from nature. This is not religion, it is science.


All rational people make decisions based on proofs, let’s call then deductive conclusions, or significant evidence (almost proof), let’s call them inductive conclusions.

I understand where you are comming from, but you have to understand, that the proof is correct.
I would say that rational people make decisions based on reason.


But a belief in an immaterial spirit is not based on any evidence, since there is none, let alone any proof.

There is evidense; eg Bhagavad Gita. 2:13 is reasonable evidence. As far as proof is concerned, that is entirely up to you.
Some people beleive Osama bin Laden is guilty, some don't. What is for sure is, anybody who thinks either way, has done so, ultimately, based on their own reasoning, even if they have decided to jump on a banwagon.



And I think that the standard you set is quite impossible. A belief that is proven (a proof) is no longer a belief but a fact. A belief is what we have *before* we have the facts or the proof.


What problem? The brain is equal to the mind.

Based on your own explanation, can you support that claim with fact?
Click to expand...
 
*Originally posted by Cris
For any belief to have any practical merit and to be rational it needs to be based on a proof. Do you know why you believe you will survive death? What encouraged you to reach that conclusion?*

You're one to talk.
You believe that you will still be alive 2000 years from now, and as a Xerox copy of your brain, yet.
What encourages you to reach that conclusion?

*3. Why do you think your brain patterns aren’t sufficient to define you? *

They may be sufficient.
However, your belief that a copy is sufficient leaves something to be desired.

*If you claim to know that something is true but cannot prove or otherwise support your claim then you are irrational (outside of reason). It is this latter point that applies to your belief in an afterlife. *

By that definition, your belief that you will survive as a Xerox copy of yourself is irrational.

*you are considering the mind as if it were something separate from the body.*

Here is one issue where you appear to have a good point, especially when considered with the concept of "soul."

*anything that can be described as me-ness is the direct result of brain activity, and that there is no need to devise the concept of an immaterial entity. *

Except, of course, for the difference between alive and dead.

*Originally posted by Merlijn
Because you are a very well respected member of Sciforums, some might even start to believe such crap.*

They'd have to be young and foolish.
Besides, Cris often refers to the idea that he doesn't know anything.

*Originally posted by Godless
Simply put we may after all survive death in some form or another*

As a corpse.
Dying is opposite of living.

*Originally posted by Jan Ardena
So based on that reasoning, it is logical to conclude that when this current body is of no more use, we discard it and accept another body from nature. This is not religion, it is science. *

It is religion and it is a particularly inaccurate one, too.
One should consider the circumstances under which such descriptions arise.
It is a perfect description of demon possession.

*Bhagavad Gita. 2:13 is reasonable evidence.*

It is, but of what?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top