Interaction Problem Involving the Soul and Body

[JonathanL]

Can you prove that?

If my discussion with him regarding this issue is any indication, then no. His whole argument can basically be summed up as:

"There's no evidence that the mind survives the death of the brain, therefore the mind dies with the brain".

If he has any actual positive evidence for his claim he has refused to provide it so far.

[Sparko]

If my discussion with him regarding this issue is any indication, then no. His whole argument can basically be summed up as:

"There's no evidence that the mind survives the death of the brain, therefore the mind dies with the brain".

If he has any actual positive evidence for his claim he has refused to provide it so far.

But revived people reporting afterlife experiences is evidence for the mind surviving death.

[JonathanL]

But revived people reporting afterlife experiences is evidence for the mind surviving death.

[Sparko]

and he cannot show any actual evidence that the mind doesn't survive death. Pretty hard to prove a negative claim.

[JimL]

and he cannot show any actual evidence that the mind doesn't survive death. Pretty hard to prove a negative claim.

Problem is, you can't show any evidence of a self existing mind. Why should we have to prove that something doesn't survive death if you can't show that the something you're talking about even exists in the first place? The negative claim, assertion, is yours.

[Tassman]

That is not true at all Tassman. Once the light is generated by the bulb, it is no longer dependent on the bulb. You can shine a flashlight into the sky, then turn it off and the light photons will continue to travel outwards until absorbed by something. We can see the light of stars that have burned out thousands of years ago.

The light from the bulb continues, but it is not generating more light; it is no longer an active component in creating light. In the same way our lives remain in the memories of those who love us, but our minds are no longer active components.

Can you prove that?

There's no good reason to believe in eternal life, it's an unevidenced theological notion.

There are people who report out of body experiences when they were clinically dead and then revived.

There are many anecdotal accounts of NDE's but no scientifically verified evidence. They belong in the realm of unexplained natural occurrences.

[Sparko]

Problem is, you can't show any evidence of a self existing mind. Why should we have to prove that something doesn't survive death if you can't show that the something you're talking about even exists in the first place? The negative claim, assertion, is yours.

As I said we do have evidence. We have people claiming afterlife experiences when they are revived after being dead. That is evidence, whether you believe it or not. More evidence that you have that the mind doesn't survive death.

Theists 1, Materialists 0

Your turn.

[Sparko]

The light from the bulb continues, but it is not generating more light; it is no longer an active component in creating light. In the same way our lives remain in the memories of those who love us, but our minds are no longer active components.

The generated light lives on though.

Tassman, it is an ANALOGY. It isn't supposed to link up on every single detail. If it did then it would be the actual thing and not an analogy.

I was just correcting your erroneous claim that the light ceases to exist when the bulb turns off. It doesn't.

There's no good reason to believe in eternal life, it's an unevidenced theological notion.

We believe we have lots of evidence. You just don't accept the evidence. And we have a consensus too! So you have no excuse not to believe.

There are many anecdotal accounts of NDE's but no scientifically verified evidence. They belong in the realm of unexplained natural occurrences.

There isn't even any anectdotal evidence that the mind ceases to exist after death so you got nothing. Eye witness testimony is actual evidence, whether you want to believe it or not.

[JimL]

As I said we do have evidence. We have people claiming afterlife experiences when they are revived after being dead. That is evidence, whether you believe it or not. More evidence that you have that the mind doesn't survive death.

Theists 1, Materialists 0

Your turn.

People claim all sorts of things, I remember one recently claiming to have gone to heaven and back, and then of course there are the biblical authors. Besides that you still haven't explained what a mind without a brain is, it makes no sense, I mean literally, it makes no sense.

[Sparko]

People claim all sorts of things, I remember one recently claiming to have gone to heaven and back, and then of course there are the biblical authors. Besides that you still haven't explained what a mind without a brain is, it makes no sense, I mean literally, it makes no sense.

Whether you believe someone is up to you. But it is still evidence. You have absolutely no evidence that the mind doesn't survive death.

[JimL]

Whether you believe someone is up to you. But it is still evidence. You have absolutely no evidence that the mind doesn't survive death.

Don't need to have, since you have no proof that such a thing exists. It's no different then your belief in an invisable omnipresent being. I can't disprove a belief for which, other than your claim, there is no evidence to begin with. There is also no reason to take your claim, in either case, seriously.

[Sparko]

Don't need to have, since you have no proof that such a thing exists. It's no different then your belief in an invisable omnipresent being. I can't disprove a belief for which, other than your claim, there is no evidence to begin with. There is also no reason to take your claim, in either case, seriously.

I have no proof that the mind exists?




Well, in your case that might be true.

[Starlight]

As I said we do have evidence. We have people claiming afterlife experiences when they are revived after being dead. That is evidence, whether you believe it or not.

Well it would be evidence if there was significant agreement among them. But I've read quite a few and they were all utterly different to each other. So as nice as it would be to believe they were true, I had to classify them as dreams instead. People dream regularly when asleep, and it's not generally viewed as evidence that that soul is leaving the body and going on a spiritual journey, it's simply the brain doing some stuff, and NDEs seem to be the same.

[JimL]

Well it would be evidence if there was significant agreement among them. But I've read quite a few and they were all utterly different to each other. So as nice as it would be to believe they were true, I had to classify them as dreams instead. People dream regularly when asleep, and it's not generally viewed as evidence that that soul is leaving the body and going on a spiritual journey, it's simply the brain doing some stuff, and NDEs seem to be the same.

Yep. At one time it was believed that brain activity stopped once the heart stopped, but studies have shown that wide spread brain activity increases dramaticly for a short time just after the heart stops. This would be a cause of NDE illusions in those considered to be clinically dead.

[Tassman]

The generated light lives on though.

Tassman, it is an ANALOGY. It isn't supposed to link up on every single detail. If it did then it would be the actual thing and not an analogy.

I was just correcting your erroneous claim that the light ceases to exist when the bulb turns off. It doesn't.

any

We believe we have lots of evidence. You just don't accept the evidence. And we have a consensus too! So you have no excuse not to believe.

There isn't even any anectdotal evidence that the mind ceases to exist after death so you got nothing.

There is no good reason to think that an immaterial mind is able to function as a separate entity from the material brain. Indications are that it doesn't.

Eye witness testimony is actual evidence, whether you want to believe it or not.