Interaction Problem Involving the Soul and Body

[JimL]

Well I AM claiming you have NO evidence for the mind not surviving death. So my "anecdotal" evidence trumps your "no evidence"

The fact that there is no sustantiated verifiable evidence is evidence that trumps your anecdotal evidence which is evidence that is basically worthless.

[Sparko]

The fact that there is no sustantiated verifiable evidence is evidence that trumps your anecdotal evidence which is evidence that is basically worthless.

Oh you mean like the "evidence" that Trump is in Putin's pocket?

[JimL]

Oh you mean like the "evidence" that Trump is in Putin's pocket?

I'm not positive he's in Putins pocket or not, I just know he's conspiring with him. Have you heard, Trump has been spreading Russian propaganda. Now why on earth would Trump be spreading Russian propaganda?

[Tassman]

Well I AM claiming you have NO evidence for the mind not surviving death. So my "anecdotal" evidence trumps your "no evidence"

Does the "anecdotal" evidence of unicorns, leprechauns and fairies "trump" those that don't accept the existence of such entities? After all the existence of the Cottingley Fairies was not just anecdotal but had photographic "proof".

https://www.theguardian.com/artandde...000-at-auction

People will sometimes believe whatever they want to believe, including unsubstantiated tales of the mind surviving death.

[Sparko]

I'm not positive he's in Putins pocket or not, I just know he's conspiring with him.

So you think reading anecdotal news articles and conjecture is evidence of a Russian conspiracy? But anecdotal evidence doesn't count on things you don't agree with? How unsurprising.

[Sparko]

Does the "anecdotal" evidence of unicorns, leprechauns and fairies "trump" those that don't accept the existence of such entities? After all the existence of the Cottingley Fairies was not just anecdotal but had photographic "proof".

https://www.theguardian.com/artandde...000-at-auction

People will sometimes believe whatever they want to believe, including unsubstantiated tales of the mind surviving death.

Again, something can be evidence and be wrong. or evidence and be bad evidence. But it is still evidence. In the case of the fairies, the evidence was proven false.

When you can prove that NDE are false then you may have a point that it doesn't count.

get to it.

[JimL]

Again, something can be evidence and be wrong. or evidence and be bad evidence. But it is still evidence. In the case of the fairies, the evidence was proven false.

When you can prove that NDE are false then you may have a point that it doesn't count.

get to it.

And did you need the evidence to realise that fairies weren't real, or did it need be proven to you?

[Tassman]

Again, something can be evidence and be wrong. or evidence and be bad evidence. But it is still evidence. In the case of the fairies, the evidence was proven false.

When you can prove that NDE are false then you may have a point that it doesn't count.

[Sparko]

The burden of proof rests on those making any claim. You need to defend your claim. You claim that the mind does not survive death despite most people throughout history believing otherwise and having evidence of such. You are going against the consensus!

You are the one making the positive claim that the mind doesn't survive death. Prove it.

[Tassman]

The burden of proof rests on those making any claim. You need to defend your claim. You claim that the mind does not survive death despite most people throughout history believing otherwise and having evidence of such. You are going against the consensus!

You are the one making the positive claim that the mind doesn't survive death. Prove it.

[Sparko]

despite strong evidence to the contrary, that the minds of some sentient creatures survive death. Prove it.

You made the positive claim that the mind doesn't survive death. Prove it.

I already gave you evidence for my claim. Let's see the "strong evidence" you mention.

[Tassman]

You made the positive claim that the mind doesn't survive death. Prove it.

My "positive claim" is no more positive than denying the claim that fairies or unicorns exist. There is no good evidence for these claims any more than there is for the mere anecdotal evidence of the mind surviving the death of the brain.

[Sparko]

My "positive claim" is no more positive than denying the claim that fairies or unicorns exist. There is no good evidence for these claims any more than there is for the mere anecdotal evidence of the mind surviving the death of the brain.

But you said "despite strong evidence to the contrary"

So let's see this strong evidence that shows the mind doesn't survive death.

[Tassman]

But you said "despite strong evidence to the contrary"

So let's see this strong evidence that shows the mind doesn't survive death.

[Sparko]

Therefore it is probable that the minds of sentient creatures such as Homo sapiens cease to exist upon the death of the brain. There is no good reason to think otherwise...you have produced no verified evidence to the contrary, merely anecdotal evidence which is subject to many possible natural explanations.

"probable?" "no good reason to think otherwise" That isn't "strong evidence" Tassy.

You mentioned "strong evidence" that the mind does not survive. You haven't provided ANY evidence. You made the positive claim that there was STRONG EVIDENCE. so lets see it. Links to such evidence would be appreciated.