Logic of the Afterlife

Linda,

Are you impaired?

Post 21

Saturday, November 15, 2008 - 2:18pm

Oxford English Dictionary
Soul:
The spiritual or immaterial part of a human or animal regarded as being immortal. - a persons moral or emotional nature or sense of identity..
Spirit:
The non-physical part of a person that is seat of emotions or character; the soul - such a part regarded as a person's true self, and capable of surviving physical death or separation.

Bill, I believe like you that when we die, that's it - finito la musica. However, I don't think we can successfully apply logic when working from these definitions. Luke is still right.

jt

Post 22

Saturday, November 15, 2008 - 2:59pm

To be more precise - the view of the soul, where it is, what it is, varied over the course of the centuries as knowledge gained, thus continually needing revision to survive as a mystical object... and is now postulated, without a shred of evidence, as something that must be apart from the mind, as it is clear the mind dies when the body dies - despite the fact it was the initial proposition of the being...

Post 23

Saturday, November 15, 2008 - 3:00pm

What a funny thread.

Bill - unicorns have 3 hearts and magical blood, so they aren't just horses with horns. Plus, they eat leprechaun grass, which horses never do. And hey, it's no wonder they have no genus. They don't have a phylum, class, or order either -- because they don't relate to other regular animals. They belong to the *magical* animal kingdom. And like other magical animals, you pretty much you define unicorns ostensibly, i.e., by pointing at one and saying "holy shit! A unicorn!" (please don't take me seriously here.)

But seriously, it's wrong to say an afterlife is *logically* impossible. There's nothing I see that's inherently logically *contradictory* in that proposition.

But to borrow a page from philosopher A.J. Ayers, I'd say "afterlife" is almost always cognitively meaningless or is an example of *noncognitivism*: there is no set of circumstances that would unequivocally demonstrate an afterlife.

Moreover, positing an afterlife is even *less* meaningful than positing unicorns because there *are* circumstances that would unequivocally demonstrate unicorns.

Accordingly, it's wrong to say that we have *proven* the lack of an afterlife. That suggests we had some proposition to disprove in the first place. There was no such proposition -- just gibberish.

Jordan

Post 24

Saturday, November 15, 2008 - 5:55pm

Bill: But, again, my point was not that a unicorn qua mythical creature might exist in reality, but that a creature resembling a unicorn might exist in reality. Would you still say you are certain that even that is not true?

Teresa: Yes, because as you've already pointed out, conditions on Mars are not conducive to anything mammalian, thus, I know nothing remotely unicornish could exist there. :)

Personally, while I agree with you, Teresa, I would not use the word "know". I would say "I'm certain". Because you don't actually know this, at least not as I use the word "know".

But we haven't really gotten to the heart of my original question, as I intended it. So I'll try a similar question without mythical beasties.

If someone were to ask me, "Is there consciousness after death?", would it be illogical to answer, "I don't know"?

Because I want to be a truthful person, I say, "I don't know" quite a bit. But I've been told that it's not logical of me to say that I don't know if there's life after death. I maintain that I don't know the answer to that question even if I'm certain that the answer is no. How can that be illogical?

Linda

Post 25

Saturday, November 15, 2008 - 7:30pm

Personally, while I agree with you, Teresa, I would not use the word "know". I would say "I'm certain". Because you don't actually know this, at least not as I use the word "know".

(Is this going to be a discussion about direct experience vs. deduction? Ugh, no thanks.)

I use the words interchangeably. To be certain is to know something, no? Otherwise, what is one certain of? But I can see how they could be viewed as different:

"I'm certain someone is there, but I don't know who!"

There's knowledge on both ends of that sentence.

If someone were to ask me, "Is there consciousness after death?", would it be illogical to answer, "I don't know"?

Because I want to be a truthful person, I say, "I don't know" quite a bit.

Why does this imply truthfulness to you? No offense, but a habit like that implies evasion to me, not truthfulness, and evasion is most definitely illogical.

I maintain that I don't know the answer to that question even if I'm certain that the answer is no. How can that be illogical?

If you don't know, how can you be certain? How does one know but not know at the same time?

Post 26

Saturday, November 15, 2008 - 7:34pm

Linda, how do you know anything?

You observe concrete evidence with your senses and then integrate it conceptually via the basic axioms.

You know that 2+2=4 by observing, for instance, that adding two oranges to a bucket with two oranges yields a bucket with four oranges.

Do you know anything that suggests the possibility of an afterlife?

By contrast, do you know anything that contradicts decisively the idea of an afterlife?

Can you even define exactly what "afterlife" means?

I know you mentioned "consciousness after death," but now you have to define "consciousness" in terms of "conscious of what and by what means?"

Reducing abstract ideas like "afterlife" and "consciousness" back to concretes can clarify thinking here.

Post 27

Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 7:33am

Teresa said, "Linda, Are you impaired?"

That comes across as pretty rude. Was it meant that way?

Perhaps it's a browser problem, but I am having difficulty with this forum. Some of my posts show up quickly. Some don't. My edit never took effect. There isn't what I would call proper threading. I'm not saying that I know best and that it should change to fit my expectations, blah, blah, blah. I'm just saying that I need a bit of experience to get used to the way things happen around here. OK?

Post 28

Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 8:02am

Because I want to be a truthful person, I say, "I don't know" quite a bit.

Why does this imply truthfulness to you? No offense, but a habit like that implies evasion to me, not truthfulness, and evasion is most definitely illogical.

[See? I'm learning... :-) ]

I don't understand your question. I say "I don't know" when I don't know. Period. Someone asks me how to make opera cake. I say, "I don't know" because I don't. Someone asks me the square root of 4,528,452. I say "I don't know." How is that being evasive? And it isn't a habit. It's a response that is common from me because there are many, many things that I don't know. Aren't there quite a few things you don't know?

I maintain that I don't know the answer to that question even if I'm certain that the answer is no. How can that be illogical?

If you don't know, how can you be certain? How does one know but not know at the same time?

It has already become clear that you and I differ on the definitions here, hasn't it? For me, knowing and certainty are not at all the same thing. To me, certainty is more like belief than it is like knowledge. I'm certain that my father-in-law voted for McCain because of things he has said to me, but I don't know that he did. I suppose that this is the area that makes you say "Ugh".

Post 29

Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 10:00am

Linda, I'm so sorry. That was rude. The issue is that you're a new member, and new members are moderated. Your posts don't show up until I approve them. I thought you knew that, but I was wrong.

Post 30

Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 10:17am

I don't think that will be a problem any longer.

Post 31

Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 10:17am

Certainty - noun

1.

the state of being certain.

2.	something certain; an assured fact.

Linda said:

It has already become clear that you and I differ on the definitions here, hasn't it? For me, knowing and certainty are not at all the same thing. To me, certainty is more like belief than it is like knowledge. I'm certain that my father-in-law voted for McCain because of things he has said to me, but I don't know that he did. I suppose that this is the area that makes you say "Ugh".

<g> No, it makes me say "ah ha!" ;)

To be certain is to assert a fact, not a belief. Can you see where equivocation is causing a problem and conflict? Sure, you can try and make certainty mean something other than what it does, but that isn't an effective method of argument, or of discovering truth. If you're subjective in you're use of concepts, you won't get to any grounded truths. There's nothing that will help you discover any truth that can be applied to your life. It's like grabbing at the air, but calling it a tree branch.

Post 32

Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 10:45am

In Post 17, I wrote, "But, again, my point was not that a unicorn qua mythical creature might exist in reality, but that a creature resembling a unicorn might exist in reality. Would you still say you are certain that even that is not true?"

In post 19, Teresa replied,

Yes, because as you've already pointed out, conditions on Mars are not conducive to anything mammalian, thus, I know nothing remotely unicornish could exist there. :)

Of course, but that was not my question. My question was, would you still say you are certain that it is not the case that a creature resembling a unicorn might exist in reality? In other words, are you still certain that no such creature could exist anywhere else in the universe?

In Post 24, Linda replied,

Personally, while I agree with you, Teresa, I would not use the word "know". I would say "I'm certain". Because you don't actually know this, at least not as I use the word "know".

Later, in Post 28, she explained her meaning as follows: "To me, certainty is more like belief than it is like knowledge. I'm certain that my father-in-law voted for McCain because of things he has said to me, but I don't know that he did."

Oh, I see. You're using the word "certain" to be mean the same thing as "pretty sure." I'm pretty sure my father-in-law voted for McCain, but I don't know for a fact that he did."

But by "certain," we (Objectivists) don't simply mean pretty sure. We mean absolutely certain. You wouldn't say that you're "absolutely certain that your father-in-law voted for McCain, but that you nevertheless don't know that he did," would you?

Equating certainty with knowledge is also the generally accepted philosophical meaning of "certain." As they use the term "certain," philosophers (and not just Objectivists) imply a claim to knowledge. If I claim certainty that it's going to rain tomorrow, I'm claiming to know that it's going to rain tomorrow. If I were not willing to claim that I know it's going to rain, then I wouldn't say that I'm certain of it. At best, I'd say I'm 99% certain, or that there is a 99% probability of rain. Certainty is 100% probability.

- Bill

Post 33

Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 10:48am

In post 23, Jordan wrote,

But seriously, it's wrong to say an afterlife is *logically* impossible. There's nothing I see that's inherently logically *contradictory* in that proposition.

It's logically impossible, because it says that consciousness (a bodily function) can survive the death and degradation of the body, which is another way of saying that consciousness (whose existence depends on a body) can exist independently of a body -- which is a contradiction in terms.

But to borrow a page from philosopher A.J. Ayers, I'd say "afterlife" is almost always cognitively meaningless or is an example of *noncognitivism*: there is no set of circumstances that would unequivocally demonstrate an afterlife.

I agree, but that does not mean that it is cognitively meaningless. If it were cognitively meaningless, one couldn't understand the claim, to begin with, or (not understanding it) dispute its truth. But the claim is clearly understandable; it's just not logically defensible.

Accordingly, it's wrong to say that we have *proven* the lack of an afterlife. That suggests we had some proposition to disprove in the first place. There was no such proposition -- just gibberish.

Not true. It's not gibberish. The claim of an afterlife constitutes an intelligible proposition. It's just that the proposition is false, because illogical.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer on 11/16, 12:09pm)

Post 34

Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 11:16am

In other words, are you still certain that no such creature could exist anywhere else in the universe?

Fine, Bill. If you're going to throw the whole universe at it, fine. There is no way to to know every condition in every corner of the universe. The problem with that is some people will then want to draw some unknown condition into the known, making the existence of a unicorn plausible, when it simply isn't!

Post 35

Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 11:16am

Linda, I'm so sorry.

No problem.

The issue is that you're a new member, and new members are moderated. Your posts don't show up until I approve them. I thought you knew that, but I was wrong.

No, I did know that. After I click on "Post/Preview" on the post-creation screen, the next screen says something about my message being put in the moderator queue. However, I expected that that would mean that my messages would show up, if approved, in the order in which I posted them. That didn't always happen. And my edit still hasn't shown up. The message that I edited now says that it was edited, but my changes were not incorporated, and I don't understand that.

Post 36

Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 11:37am

The message that I edited now says that it was edited, but my changes were not incorporated, and I don't understand that.

Yeah, I know. Nothing showed up on my end to edit, though. Now that you're no longer on moderation status, thanks to Ted and other members here, you can edit your own posts. Keep in mind that posts have a time limit with which you can edit. I forget how long the limit is, but it's less than 24 hours, I think.

If you want to edit a post (or delete a post) that has expired editing, I can do it for you. I'm not always at my computer, so changes like that may have to wait until I'm available to make them.

Post 37

Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 11:42am

Linda,

My guess is that you typed the changes to your message and then clicked the button, above, labeled "Post" - but first you need to click the button, below, labeled "Post/Preview" and then push the "Post" button.

Post 38

Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 12:49pm

My guess is that you typed the changes to your message and then clicked the button, above, labeled "Post" - but first you need to click the button, below, labeled "Post/Preview" and then push the "Post" button.

Hmmmmm... That's entirely possible, but I've already forgotten. I'm using my Sunday brain, unfortunately. :-)

Thanks.

Post 39

Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 1:29pm