How do believers respond to the following criticism of the afterlife?

[Neildown]

I must agree with Blacksword. This argument is very interesting.

 

[Sair]

You have missed the point. You assume our lives have no eternal, transcendent significance even though you cannot justify that belief.

I don’t believe eternal, transcendent significance is required for us to live happy, fulfilling lives. In an evolving universe, how can any single entity or type of entity be said to have eternal significance, and why would such significance be desirable? Humans are hardwired to tell stories, and we all like to think we have a starring role in the drama of our lives - who really wants to consider that they will die and become insignificant? But such feelings are based upon arrogance and self-absorption. They are not born from a genuine consideration of all that it might mean to live forever.

Your argument is the one that is based on ignorance. I don’t claim to know how matter and energy produce thought and intention. I don’t believe it is possible but if some one could demonstrate beyond all doubt how it has happened I would accept it whereas you have stated dogmatically:

“Life is absurd, and there was no reason any of us had to exist.”

For what reason did any of us need to exist? Do you have some documentation that tells you your existence was predetermined for a specific purpose? A certificate signed by God? I don’t know precisely how matter and energy produce thought and intention either, but we do at least know they exist and make up our bodies, whereas no-one has ever demonstrated - nor explained how it would even be possible to demonstrate - an immaterial entity that ensouls a person and lasts forever. So my argument is not so much based upon ignorance of how something might happen, but is more an argument from the complete absence of anything that could be mooted in support of the alternative proposition.

I am very well aware you appreciate the great advantages of living in a supposedly godless domain. It enables you to become absolute mistress of your body…

There would be many other things I could be doing if I were ‘absolute’ mistress of my body - if I believed in a transcendent, all-governing soul, I might expect to be able to do more things with my physical body. If I were not subject to physical laws and limitations, I ought to be able to just walk out my front door and fly to work, rather than climbing into my car and driving. As always, you assume that everything comes back to sex - how very Catholic!

You cling eagerly to the notion that death leads to oblivion - without a jot of evidence - because it gives you absolute freedom to choose how to live. You have admitted religion was an obstacle in your way…

An obstacle to making sense of my experience of the world, certainly. And you cling to belief in an afterlife without a jot of evidence, so, really, we’re in the same boat with that one. I simply prefer not to depend upon some eternal significance for my self.

Why are you assuming I am not satisfied with what I have? I am certainly not satisfied with what millions of people don’t have… Belief in justice is absurd if you stake everything on this life.

Why? I would have thought the pursuit of justice would become all the more urgent and pressing if we only have one chance to get it right.

Does earthly, physical life explain itself? Is it consistent with belief in truth, goodness, freedom, justice or love? Or can you explain them away in terms of physical events?

Concepts are abstract ideas we have evolved to speak and communicate about certain states of affairs in the physical world. So, yes - we explain our own lives in ways that reflect physical reality. Truth, goodness, freedom, justice and love are just empty words without their physical expression.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t believe eternal, transcendent significance is required for us to live happy, fulfilling lives. In an evolving universe, how can any single entity or type of entity be said to have eternal significance, and why would such significance be desirable?

You are assuming that everything - including truth - is transient and reducible to physical phenomena…

Humans are hardwired to tell stories, and we all like to think we have a starring role in the drama of our lives - who really wants to consider that they will die and become insignificant? But such feelings are based upon arrogance and self-absorption. They are not born from a genuine consideration of all that it might mean to live forever.

If humans are hardwired to tell stories your story also falls into that category! Why should it be exempt?

Your argument is the one that is based on ignorance. I don’t claim to know how matter and energy produce thought and intention. I don’t believe it is possible but if some one could demonstrate beyond all doubt how it has happened I would accept it whereas you have stated dogmatically:

“Life is absurd, and there was no reason any of us had to exist.”

For what reason did any of us need to exist?

Your question implies the answer! To be reasonable! Otherwise why are you bothered about reasons?

Do you have some documentation that tells you your existence was predetermined for a specific purpose?

If your existence is purposeless you are irrational. Reasoning is a purposeful activity.

I don’t know precisely how matter and energy produce thought and intention either, but we do at least know they exist and make up our bodies, whereas no-one has ever demonstrated - nor explained how it would even be possible to demonstrate - an immaterial entity that ensouls a person and lasts forever. So my argument is not so much based upon ignorance of how something might happen, but is more an argument from the complete absence of anything that could be mooted in support of the alternative proposition.

Your argument is based first and foremost on your direct knowledge of your immaterial thoughts and perceptions - and on the fact that your mind is an immaterial entity which enables you infer the existence of matter and energy. That is our primary datum and sole certainty.

I am very well aware you appreciate the great advantages of living in a supposedly godless domain. It enables you to become absolute mistress of your body…
There would be many other things I could be doing if I were ‘absolute’ mistress of my body - if I believed in a transcendent, all-governing soul, I might expect to be able to do more things with my physical body. I were not subject to physical laws and limitations, I ought to be able to just walk out my front door and fly to work, rather than climbing into my car and driving.

You are evading the fact that you have chosen to become absolute mistress of your body - within the obvious limitations of life on earth - by rejecting any form of higher moral authority. You once declared that you alone should decide what you do with your body…

As always, you assume that everything comes back to sex - how very Catholic!

A non sequitur. You are the one who would put having lovers before your husband if he should ever change his mind about polyamory…

You cling eagerly to the notion that death leads to oblivion - without a jot of evidence - because it gives you absolute freedom to choose how to live. You have admitted religion was an obstacle in your way…

An obstacle to making sense of my experience of the world, certainly.

“my” is the key word…

And you cling to belief in an afterlife without a jot of evidence, so, really, we’re in the same boat with that one. I simply prefer not to depend upon some eternal significance for my self.

It would be more consistent to prefer not to depend upon any eternal significance for your** body**. How does the self come into your scheme of things?

Belief in justice is absurd if you stake everything on this life.

Why? I would have thought the pursuit of justice would become all the more urgent and pressing if we only have one chance to get it right.

The very fact that you believe in justice at all belies your materialism. How do you account for it scientifically?

Does earthly, physical life explain itself? Is it consistent with belief in truth, goodness, freedom, justice or love? Or can you explain them away in terms of physical events?

Concepts are abstract ideas we have evolved to speak and communicate about certain states of affairs in the physical world. So, yes - we explain our own lives in ways that reflect physical reality. Truth, goodness, freedom, justice and love are just empty words without their physical expression.

So those words never refer solely to what occurs in your mind? If that is the case we must be mindless bodies. How do you reduce truth to tangible reality?

 

[Sair]

You are assuming that everything - including truth - is transient and reducible to physical phenomena…

What is true of my experience may not be true of yours. You assume universal truth, but have no way of demonstrating it. The ultimate philosopher’s paradox is that the only absolute truth appears to be that there is no absolute truth. And of course truth is transient - the world changes. It was once true to say (had there been any speaking being to say it) that ‘dinosaurs exist’. Now that is not true. Truth is a function of the correspondence of statements to observed reality.

If humans are hardwired to tell stories your story also falls into that category! Why should it be exempt?

My story is not exempt. Like yours, it is a way of making sense of my life and my experience. That I am more comfortable with the idea that my life is not part of a grand cosmic drama, and wish to incorporate observed reality rather than imaginary entities, is all that sets my story apart from theistic mythology.

Your question implies the answer! To be reasonable! Otherwise why are you bothered about reasons?

You presuppose that someone had the prior intention that we should evolve reason.

If your existence is purposeless you are irrational. Reasoning is a purposeful activity.

But it does not follow, again, that there was prior intention for us to be reasonable. That we are capable of reasoning at all is a product of our evolution - an unplanned, undirected process.

Your argument is based first and foremost on your direct knowledge of your immaterial thoughts and perceptions - and on the fact that your mind is an immaterial entity which enables you infer the existence of matter and energy. That is our primary datum and sole certainty.

Or so Descartes believed. But he also believed other animals worked by clockwork, so he’s hardly immune to questioning. The fact of the matter is that sensory experience is prior to awareness and thought - by the time we are capable of the latter, we already have a store of sensory experience from which to construct our thought patterns. Neurological experiment demonstrates that electrical impulses in the brain precede conscious awareness of decisions. Through what means do you propose to demonstrate that minds are immaterial? Have you ever observed a mind absent physical components?

You are evading the fact that you have chosen to become absolute mistress of your body - within the obvious limitations of life on earth - by rejecting any form of higher moral authority. You once declared that you alone should decide what you do with your body…

As should all people. But you seem to think that without your God, such decisions become a simple matter of pursuing desire, rather than taking into account the social relationships that affect all of our ethical decisions.

A non sequitur. You are the one who would put having lovers before your husband if he should ever change his mind about polyamory…

So you chose to read into my argument. But you approach polyamory with a monogamous mindset, just as you see atheism as a diminished theistic worldview.

It would be more consistent to prefer not to depend upon any eternal significance for your** body**. How does the self come into your scheme of things?

Part and parcel of the same entity. My body will die, my self will dissipate.

The very fact that you believe in justice at all belies your materialism. How do you account for it scientifically?

‘Justice’ is a concept - a shared understanding of certain states of affairs in the physical world. It is one of the most fundamentally and highly evolved facets of human social interaction. Even our hairier cousins, such as chimpanzees and wolves, have a rudimentary sense of fair play.

So those words never refer solely to what occurs in your mind? If that is the case we must be mindless bodies. How do you reduce truth to tangible reality?

Again, truth is a measure of the correspondence of a statement or a symbol to observed reality. It is not an ineffable, inscrutable entity with an independent existence in some realm of Platonic ideal forms.

 

[tonyrey]

You are assuming that everything - including truth - is transient and reducible to physical phenomena…

All human experience is based on the same basic truths, e.g. that we exist.

The only absolute truth appears to be that there is no absolute truth.

There are plenty of absolute truths, e.g. the fact of existence.

And of course truth is transient - the world changes.

The truth that the world changes does not change!

It was once true to say (had there been any speaking being to say it) that ‘dinosaurs exist’. Now that is not true.

It is an immutable, eternal fact that dinosaurs existed.

Truth is a function of the correspondence of statements to observed reality.

1. Correspondence is intangible.
2. Not all reality can be observed by the senses.
3. Truth does not always refer to physical reality.

If humans are hardwired to tell stories your story also falls into that category! Why should it be exempt?

My story is not exempt. Like yours, it is a way of making sense of my life and my experience.

Is your ability to make sense of your life produced by things which cannot make sense of anything? That would be the ultimate conjuring trick!

That I am more comfortable with the idea that my life is not part of a grand cosmic drama, and wish to incorporate observed reality rather than imaginary entities, is all that sets my story apart from theistic mythology.

Are you an imaginary entity? Can you observe your self?

You presuppose that someone had the prior intention that we should evolve reason.

You presuppose that intentions are produced by things which lack intentions…

That we are capable of reasoning at all is a product of our evolution - an unplanned, undirected process.

The ultimate conjuring trick! How do you define reasoning?

Your argument is based first and foremost on your direct knowledge of your immaterial thoughts and perceptions - and on the fact that your mind is an immaterial entity which enables you infer the existence of matter and energy. That is our primary datum and sole certainty.

Or so Descartes believed.

You haven’t explained why he was mistaken.

But he also believed other animals worked by clockwork, so he’s hardly immune to questioning.

Don’t you believe animals are biological machines?

The fact of the matter is that sensory experience is prior to awareness and thought - by the time we are capable of the latter, we already have a store of sensory experience from which to construct our thought patterns.

The apparent priority of sensory experience does not account for the ability to interpret it. How do you think “thought patterns” are constructed? By purposeless neural impulses?

Neurological experiment demonstrates that electrical impulses in the brain precede conscious awareness of decisions.

That is the inevitable result of the physical transmission of consciousness.

Through what means do you propose to demonstrate that minds are immaterial?

Through what means do you propose to demonstrate that minds are material? Can you observe them with scientific instruments?

Have you ever observed a mind absent physical components?

Yes and so have you! Have you heard of qualia?

You once declared that you alone should decide what you do with your body…

As should all people.

How do you reach that conclusion?

But you seem to think that without your God, such decisions become a simple matter of pursuing desire, rather than taking into account the social relationships that affect all of our ethical decisions.

When and how do social relationships affect your ethical decisions?

You are the one who would put having lovers before your husband if he should ever change his mind about polyamory…

So you chose to read into my argument.

You have stated that **you alone **have the right to decide what to do with your body.

But you approach polyamory with a monogamous mindset, just as you see atheism as a diminished theistic worldview.

I regard polyamory and atheism as inadequate interpretations of love and reality.

How does the self come into your scheme of things?

Part and parcel of the same entity. My body will die, my self will dissipate.

What is your self?

The very fact that you believe in justice at all belies your materialism. How do you account for it scientifically?

‘Justice’ is a concept - a shared understanding of certain states of affairs in the physical world.

So it excludes states of mind?

It is one of the most fundamentally and highly evolved facets of human social interaction. Even our hairier cousins, such as chimpanzees and wolves, have a rudimentary sense of fair play.

How is the law of the jungle related to fair play?

How do you reduce truth to tangible reality?

Again, truth is a measure of the correspondence of a statement or a symbol to observed reality.

Truth is the unobservable correspondence of a belief to observed or unobserved reality - if observation is taken to mean observation by the senses.

It is not an ineffable, inscrutable entity with an independent existence in some realm of Platonic ideal forms.

It is certainly not a scrutable product of inanimate objects!

 

[Sair]

All human experience is based on the same basic truths, e.g. that we exist.
There are plenty of absolute truths, e.g. the fact of existence.

Our existence is a temporal truth, not an absolute truth that obtains at all times in all places - we have not always existed, and, as seems most likely, won’t always exist.

The truth that the world changes does not change!

But again, our world has not always existed. Therefore we are again speaking of a temporal truth.

It is an immutable, eternal fact that dinosaurs existed.

As it will be an immutable, eternal fact that you and I existed for a certain amount of time. But it is not demonstrably true to say that we will exist for eternity, any more than it is true to say that dinosaurs (if we discount the possibility that there appear to be good reasons to reclassify birds as dinosaurs) now exist. Once again, these are not absolute truths - true for all times and all places. They are temporal truths, dependent upon time and circumstance.

1. Correspondence is intangible.

Hardly. It can be observed and quantified.

1. Not all reality can be observed by the senses.

Such reality as is not observed by any sense can just as easily be claimed not to exist and dismissed as unimportant.

1. Truth does not always refer to physical reality.

Perhaps not a concrete, solid reality. Some truths refer to symbols, for example. But these are still objects or states of being in the context of physical reality.

Is your ability to make sense of your life produced by things which cannot make sense of anything? That would be the ultimate conjuring trick!

So you’re saying that a brain is a thing incapable of making sense of anything? That the complex interactions of millions of neurons and the electrical impulses produced and received by them could by no means construct patterns and pathways and store information?

 

[Sair]

Are you an imaginary entity? Can you observe your self?

You are assuming that I consider my self as an entity separate from my physical body. I do not.

You presuppose that intentions are produced by things which lack intentions…

Ultimately, yes. Electrons lack intention. Particles of matter lack intention. But that is when one considers them in isolation, rather than in the context of the complex interactions that lead to biological systems.

How do you define reasoning?

Processing information about the world. How do you define it?

You haven’t explained why he was mistaken.

For a start, he ignored the fact that the physical body precedes the ability to think.

Don’t you believe animals are biological machines?

Not in the manner of Descartes, who thought that all their interactions were mechanical rather than biological, and who endorsed live vivisection of dogs in the belief that their cries of pain were nothing different to the chiming of a clock, for example.

The apparent priority of sensory experience does not account for the ability to interpret it. How do you think “thought patterns” are constructed? By purposeless neural impulses?

By neural impulses responding to sensory information.

That is the inevitable result of the physical transmission of consciousness.

I thought you’d already decided that consciousness was not physical…

Through what means do you propose to demonstrate that minds are material? Can you observe them with scientific instruments?

As I’ve already alluded to neurological experimentation, the answer to the above ought to be obvious.

Yes and so have you! Have you heard of qualia?

Not such that they exist independently of any living, physical entity.

When and how do social relationships affect your ethical decisions?

The (very) short answer is that it is necessary for my own well-being to maintain harmonious relationships with others, hence it is necessary for me to care for their well-being. I cannot depend upon anyone with whom I lack a relationship of trust. Reciprocity is part and parcel of being a social animal.

You have stated that **you alone **have the right to decide what to do with your body.

When have I stated that this is my right alone? It is ultimately my responsibility, certainly, but I am not the only one affected by what I decide to do with my body. I just don’t consider it necessary to apply to any divine being for permission to make such decisions.

I regard polyamory and atheism as inadequate interpretations of love and reality.

Whilst I, in turn, regard monogamy as an unwarranted restriction on our capacity for love and community-building, and a gloss upon the reduction of the family to a mere economic unit; and I regard theistic belief, with its emphasis upon a personal god, as an attempt to constrain reality into an anthropocentric box.

What is your self?

My self is me - understood as a complete entity. My conscious awareness of my physical body.

So it excludes states of mind?

States of mind are physical states of affairs.

How is the law of the jungle related to fair play?

What do you take to be the ‘law of the jungle’? Wolves and chimpanzees, amongst other social animals, have been observed to behave in ways that indicate that they have an understanding of agreed-upon boundaries and social rules that must be observed in order to maintain harmonious interaction within a group. Wolves, for example, will exclude a member of their pack from play if that member does not abide by the expectations of the others, or plays too rough. What would you call this other than a rudimentary sense of justice?

Truth is the unobservable correspondence of a belief to observed or unobserved reality - if observation is taken to mean observation by the senses.
It is certainly not a scrutable product of inanimate objects!

Are you saying that correspondence and relationships are separate and distinct entities from the objects between which such correspondence and relationships exist? That they are not perfectly observable functions of the objects themselves? If a magnetised nail exerts a pull upon iron filings, is not this an observable relationship? Correspondence, in linguistic terms, requires a number of observable and quantifiable steps. There must be objects or states of affairs about which we may wish to communicate; there must be symbols that represent such objects or states of affairs - either spoken or written symbols (and both speech and writing are physical phenomena); there must be agreement amongst those who use the symbols that these symbols represent certain things and not others. If correspondence is unobserved, it is meaningless and might as well not obtain.

 

[tonyrey]

You are assuming that I consider my self as an entity separate from my physical body. I do not.

Therefore self = body.

You presuppose that intentions are produced by things which lack intentions…

But that is when one considers them in isolation, rather than in the context of the complex interactions that lead to biological systems.

So permutations of particles magically produce intentions…

How do you define reasoning?

Processing information about the world. How do you define it?

Creative hindsight, insight and foresight into reality

For a start, he ignored the fact that the physical body precedes the ability to think.

The fact that an undeveloped or damaged brain is incapable of expressing thought does not imply that it produces thought any more than it produces consciousness or free will.

Don’t you believe animals are biological machines?

Not in the manner of Descartes, who thought that all their interactions were mechanical rather than biological, and who endorsed live vivisection of dogs in the belief that their cries of pain were nothing different to the chiming of a clock, for example.

Nevertheless you believe in a mechanistic universe in which all activity is caused by molecular events.

How do you think “thought patterns” are constructed?

By neural impulses responding to sensory information.

By neural impulses responding to sensory information which have no insight into what they are doing…

That is the inevitable result of the physical transmission of consciousness.

I thought you’d already decided that consciousness was not physical…

It is related to - not caused by - physical organisms.

Through what means do you propose to demonstrate that minds are material?

As I’ve already alluded to neurological experimentation, the answer to the above ought to be obvious.

Then you reduce the mind to the activity of the brain - and cannot claim to be a pantheist.

Yes and so have you! Have you heard of qualia?

Not such that they exist independently of any living, physical entity.

But they are not reducible to physical events…

When and how do social relationships affect your ethical decisions?

The (very) short answer is that it is necessary for my own well-being to maintain harmonious relationships with others, hence it is necessary for me to care for their well-being.

So ethics is reducible to physical needs?

You have stated that you alone have the right to decide what to do with your body.

When have I stated that this is my right alone?

You stated that you are a feminist who wishes (i.e. has the right) to level the playing field…

It is ultimately my responsibility, certainly, but I am not the only one affected by what I decide to do with my body.

But if there is disagreement you are the one who thinks you decide!

I just don’t consider it necessary to apply to any divine being for permission to make such decisions.

You presuppose that you **choose **to make decisions…

I regard polyamory and atheism as inadequate interpretations of love and reality.

Whilst I, in turn, regard monogamy as an unwarranted restriction on our capacity for love and community-building, and a gloss upon the reduction of the family to a mere economic unit; and I regard theistic belief, with its emphasis upon a personal god, as an attempt to constrain reality into an anthropocentric box.

In your scheme of things love is an illusion like free will. You attempt to constrain reality into a physical box in which persons are reduced to impersonal events.

My self is me - understood as a complete entity. My conscious awareness of my physical body.

Awareness is not an entity. For you the self is merely a concept - like truth or purpose - and a concept is no more than neural activity.

States of mind are physical states of affairs.

A very dogmatic statement! How do you** know **that?

What do you take to be the ‘law of the jungle’? Wolves and chimpanzees, amongst other social animals, have been observed to behave in ways that indicate that they have an understanding of agreed-upon boundaries and social rules that must be observed in order to maintain harmonious interaction within a group. Wolves, for example, will exclude a member of their pack from play if that member does not abide by the expectations of the others, or plays too rough.

The law of the jungle applies to animals which are not members of the same species - or often not in the same pack.

What would you call this other than a rudimentary sense of justice?

A conditioned reflex in your scheme of things!

Are you saying that correspondence and relationships are separate and distinct entities from the objects between which such correspondence and relationships exist?

They are not separate entities but intangible relationships which cannot be reduced to observable properties. You put the whole of reality into one category: that which is material and detectable by the senses. You overlook the **intangible **reality of persons, facts, principles, relations, numbers, concepts, values and purposes.

If correspondence is unobserved, it is meaningless and might as well not obtain.

Correspondence is not observed with the senses but with the intellect. Knowledge consists of abstract concepts, not words or things. Or do you think it is mechanical like that of a computer? That would really reduce all human activity to a programme which relegates all your independent thought - and feminism - to a purposeless concatenation of physical events…

 

[Sair]

Correspondence is not observed with the senses but with the intellect. Knowledge consists of abstract concepts, not words or things. Or do you think it is mechanical like that of a computer? That would really reduce all human activity to a programme which relegates all your independent thought - and feminism - to a purposeless concatenation of physical events…

From what are these abstract concepts constructed? By what are they controlled? If not neural impulses, then what? You presume that matter and energy are not capable of giving rise to conscious intent, so leap to the conclusion that there’s something ‘immaterial’ at work (of which more later), when at present, we don’t even know all the capacities contained within matter and energy. When - if - we ever have exhaustive knowledge of physical particles and forces, then it will be time to look beyond them if we still lack for explanations.

Furthermore, abstractions must be abstracted from something in order to have any meaning whatsoever. Without the physical events, there would be no abstractions either. Meaning requires reference.

Which is why, when people claim that life is meaningless without eternity, I am inclined to agree - life simply is; it is not a representation of something else.

On top of this, when people refer to ‘immaterial’ things, I tend to take it as a sidestepping of the fact that we don’t yet know how certain things occur, in the sense that we lack an understanding of the physics at work, straight to an insistence that we cannot know - and that the people claiming ‘immaterial’ existence don’t want to know, don’t want to have their illusions of magical substance shattered. Usually, they use the word ‘immaterial’ to mean ‘undetectable’ - I wonder if they realise that by saying so, they are also claiming these immaterial things to be completely ineffectual also, since by their effects, they would be detectable. The problem with claiming ‘immateriality’ is that there is no point of reference - it’s merely a statement of what something is not.

By the way, I suggest you google naturalistic pantheism before telling me what philosophies I can and cannot claim…

 

[tonyrey]

Correspondence is not observed with the senses but with the intellect. Knowledge consists of abstract concepts, not words or things. Or do you think it is mechanical like that of a computer? That would really reduce all human activity to a programme which relegates all your independent thought - and feminism - to a purposeless concatenation of physical events…

From nothing but our thoughts, feelings, perceptions and our interpretation of our thoughts, feelings, perceptions!

By what are they controlled?
If not neural impulses, then what?

By our mind. Don’t you have **any **control over your thoughts and conclusions?
You presume that matter and energy are not capable of giving rise to conscious intent, so leap to the conclusion that there’s something ‘immaterial’ at work (of which more later), when at present, we don’t even know all the capacities contained within matter and energy.

You assume matter and energy produce the mind even though there is not one jot of evidence that they do. Co-existence does not entail causality.

When - if - we ever have exhaustive knowledge of physical particles and forces, then it will be time to look beyond them if we still lack for explanations.

Why do you always begin with impersonal objects rather than your personal experience? Where do all explanations originate?

Furthermore, abstractions must be abstracted from something in order to have any meaning whatsoever.

They are abstracted** entirely** from mental posits! No one has direct knowledge of physical objects.

Without the physical events, there would be no abstractions either.

Without mental events there would be no abstractions whatsoever. A person with no sense experience would still have the capacity for thought and feeling but would be unable to communicate. Physical entities and events are mental posits **not **primary data. Q.V. Quine was a physicalist but he admitted that physical entities and events are mental posits **not **primary data.

Meaning requires reference.

Meaning implies insight into subjective reality…

Which is why, when people claim that life is meaningless without eternity, I am inclined to agree - life simply is; it is not a representation of something else.

Life is meaningless without mental posits!

On top of this, when people refer to ‘immaterial’ things, I tend to take it as a sidestepping of the fact that we don’t yet know how certain things occur, in the sense that we lack an understanding of the physics at work, straight to an insistence that we cannot know - and that the people claiming ‘immaterial’ existence don’t want to know, don’t want to have their illusions of magical substance shattered.

With equal facility - and greater cogency - I can say that people claiming ‘material’ existence don’t want to know, don’t want to have their illusions of magical substance, i.e. matter, shattered…
BTW Physics is based on metaphysics - without which it wouldn’t exist. It presupposes that reality is intelligible, orderly and predictable.

Usually, they use the word ‘immaterial’ to mean ‘undetectable’ - I wonder if they realise that by saying so, they are also claiming these immaterial things to be completely ineffectual also, since by their effects, they would be detectable. The problem with claiming ‘immateriality’ is that there is no point of reference - it’s merely a statement of what something is not.

Your sole point of reference is your mind and its contents from which you infer the existence of matter and energy. “Material” means “detectable” by the senses and interpreted by the intellect but you don’t have to be a detective or need a detector to know what you’re experiencing!

By the way, I suggest you google naturalistic pantheism before telling me what philosophies I can and cannot claim…

If it is identical with physicalism it is a distortion of the original meaning of the term. Reverence for nature has nothing to do with metaphysics or science. It is a religious attitude which replaces God with Nature whereas traditional pantheists like Spinoza equated God with Nature. He was a neutral monist - like Bertrand Russell - and recognised the reality of both mind and matter.

 

[Pieman333272]

On another thread of mine, one criticism held against belief in the afterlife goes as follows:

I found the analogy pretty convincing. How would you, as a believer, respond?

You can watch the movie again and again. When you die, without any afterlife or fulfillment, you’re gone forever. No second chances, no replays or rewinds, no sequel. Same with books, except that you can also make a book “last forever” by applying it to your life.

 

[Sair]

Therefore self = body.

Self=body, because there would be no self without the body. Where and in what fashion would you exist absent your body?

So permutations of particles magically produce intentions…

Not magically - explicably, at least in theory. According to your belief, such things are necessarily mysterious and violate natural laws - therefore magic is your province, not mine.

Creative hindsight, insight and foresight into reality

From what do you derive these things other than immediate experience of physical reality? From sensory (name removed by moderator)ut stored as memory in your brain?

The fact that an undeveloped or damaged brain is incapable of expressing thought does not imply that it produces thought any more than it produces consciousness or free will.

I think I can confidently say that an undeveloped or damaged brain is quite capable of directing the other parts of the body to express such thought as it produces. In cases of damage to the thinking components of the brain - as opposed to those controlling muscle movement, for example - such thought is profoundly different to what it would be if the thinking parts of the brain were functioning in their usual fashion.

Nevertheless you believe in a mechanistic universe in which all activity is caused by molecular events.

And yet I find molecules - and the atoms and subatomic particles from which they are composed - to be wondrous objects, and unrestricted by the limitations our human ignorance and arrogance would foist upon them. You seem incapable of considering matter as anything other than completely inanimate particles. Lack of human-type intention does not render matter and energy inanimate - they are dynamic in ways we are barely beginning to appreciate. Which is why your classification of some aspects of our reality as ‘immaterial’ - and by extension, immune to investigation by scientific means - strikes me as premature and presumptuous.

By neural impulses responding to sensory information which have no insight into what they are doing…

I doubt the particles involved, individually, have any insight. But it is not the particles themselves, but their interactions, that produce the effect we experience as insight - or so I suppose. This is obviously a provisional assumption, subject to investigation. However, you have yet to demonstrate that nonphysical substance (whatever that may be) can interact in any way whatsoever with physical substance, and therefore, how the former could have ‘insight’ into the latter is kind of a moot point.

So ethics is reducible to physical needs?

What other needs have we? Remember that you are addressing someone who considers all of reality to be physical. It is of no use to you to claim that our need for love, acceptance, companionship, intellectual stimulation and so forth has no foundation in physical reality.

You stated that you are a feminist who wishes (i.e. has the right) to level the playing field…

At what point have I stated explicitly that I am a feminist? I believe that men and women have equal entitlement to happiness and personal fulfilment, but I do not believe that the particulars of such needs are specific to a person’s sex. Each person finds their own best fit - with or without the cultural imposition of gender roles.

 

[Sair]

But if there is disagreement you are the one who thinks you decide!

As a self-controlled agent, responsible for the matter of my own body, there is no-one else who can decide, ultimately, what I do with it - though others may restrict the range of possible options. It does not follow that my own perceived interest must be foremost in my consideration, nor that my self-generated thoughts are the only ones bringing their influence to bear upon my decision. You seem to think that a lack of belief in an ultimate personal being leads to complete self-absorption, but my experience is that once we cease trying to satisfy this being - which often is merely a conceptual manifestation of personal pride - then we open ourselves to the interests of the rest of the world, and realise they are as important as our own.

You presuppose that you **choose **to make decisions…

If the process that leads to consciousness of a decision takes place in my brain, who else could be said to ‘make’ the decision? But I do acknowledge the importance of circumstance and experience in the decision-making process. I still don’t see how this is distinct from ‘me’ making the decision - unless one assumes a Cartesian view of the conscious mind as an entity independent of all else.

In your scheme of things love is an illusion like free will. You attempt to constrain reality into a physical box in which persons are reduced to impersonal events.

Love is most certainly not an illusion, but a visceral, physical experience, a process that influences all aspects of behaviour. How is a person reduced to impersonal events when the person is constructed of physical events? You have an artificially elevated notion of what a person is if you presume we are independent of the environment in which we exist.

Awareness is not an entity. For you the self is merely a concept - like truth or purpose - and a concept is no more than neural activity.

Self is the process of conscious awareness applied to one’s own body. What do you mean by ‘no more’ than neural activity? To what do you suppose neural activity is limited, when we have yet to learn all there is to know about the nature of neural activity? What else is there to intervene in this process?

The law of the jungle applies to animals which are not members of the same species - or often not in the same pack.

As it applies to humans - who readily kill members of other species, and members of the same species who look different or think differently, often without thinking they are doing anything wrong. If memory serves, history records various popes endorsing crusades against Muslims, just because they believed differently to Christians. It is only very recently that we have come to understand that altruism may extend to those outside our tribal groupings - which would suggest that such feelings are not innate or transcendent, but a response to circumstance.

You put the whole of reality into one category: that which is material and detectable by the senses. You overlook the **intangible **reality of persons, facts, principles, relations, numbers, concepts, values and purposes.

And you assume that these things have an existence independent of physical reality, though you have yet to demonstrate that you know enough about physical reality to cordon off a section of reality that is necessarily nonphysical. I would suggest that if you removed the existence of tangible, physical reality from the reckoning, the above concepts would prove to be meaningless. In which case, either you must acknowledge all discernible reality to be of one kind - physical - or that any intangible reality must arise from - and be dependent upon - tangible, physical reality.

 

[tonyrey]

As a self-controlled agent, responsible for the matter of my own body, there is no-one else who can decide, ultimately, what I do with it - though others may restrict the range of possible options.

Self-control is an illusion if the self is no more than a body which functions according to natural laws.

You seem to think that a lack of belief in an ultimate personal being leads to complete self-absorption, but my experience is that once we cease trying to satisfy this being - which often is merely a conceptual manifestation of personal pride - then we open ourselves to the interests of the rest of the world, and realise they are as important as our own.

I know full well that most physicalists act as if there are objective moral principles - even though they don’t believe there are. You implied that if your husband changed his mind about polyamory you would stick to your guns. Your choices seem to be determined by what you believe you are entitled to do regardless of any external authority…

You presuppose that you choose to make decisions…

If the process that leads to consciousness of a decision takes place in my brain, who else could be said to ‘make’ the decision? But I do acknowledge the importance of circumstance and experience in the decision-making process. I still don’t see how this is distinct from ‘me’ making the decision - unless one assumes a Cartesian view of the conscious mind as an entity independent of all else.

You believe your brain - which functions according to natural laws - makes the decisions so that “you” must be a programmed biological computer.

In your scheme of things love is an illusion like free will.

Love is most certainly not an illusion, but a visceral, physical experience, a process that influences all aspects of behaviour.

What exactly is that experience?

How is a person reduced to impersonal events when the person is constructed of physical events?

You amount to a collection of physical events if you don’t have a mind of your own… What else is there?

You have an artificially elevated notion of what a person is if you presume we are independent of the environment in which we exist.

It is a basic legal presumption that we are not totally dependent on our environment.

Awareness is not an entity. For you the self is merely a concept - like truth or purpose - and a concept is no more than neural activity.

Self is the process of conscious awareness applied to one’s own body. What do you mean by ‘no more’ than neural activity?

I mean exactly that!

To what do you suppose neural activity is limited, when we have yet to learn all there is to know about the nature of neural activity? What else is there to intervene in this process?

Whatever else we learn about it we know that it functions according to physical laws and cannot infringe the law of conservation of physical energy - which eliminates free will and self-control.

The law of the jungle applies to animals which are not members of the same species - or often not in the same pack.

As it applies to humans - who readily kill members of other species, and members of the same species who look different or think differently, often without thinking they are doing anything wrong. If memory serves, history records various popes endorsing crusades against Muslims, just because they believed differently to Christians. It is only very recently that we have come to understand that altruism may extend to those outside our tribal groupings - which would suggest that such feelings are not innate or transcendent, but a response to circumstance.

The issue is not what people have done but what they should have done and should do, the origin of justice and belief in justice.

You put the whole of reality into one category: that which is material and detectable by the senses. You overlook the intangible reality of persons, facts, principles, relations, numbers, concepts, values and purposes.

And you assume that these things have an existence independent of physical reality, though you have yet to demonstrate that you know enough about physical reality to cordon off a section of reality that is necessarily nonphysical.

Hasn’t it occurred to you that you have yet to demonstrate that you know enough about physical reality to cordon off every other form of reality and to make it the measure of all things - even though there is not one jot of evidence that matter can explain itself! I’m astonished you cannot understand it is a metaphysical conjuring trick only surpassed by the scientific hypothesis that everything is conceivably derived from nothing…

I would suggest that if you removed the existence of tangible, physical reality from the reckoning, the above concepts would prove to be meaningless.

With one fell swoop you think you have disposed of spiritual reality! How do you get out of your mind?

In which case, either you must acknowledge all discernible reality to be of one kind - physical - or that any intangible reality must arise from - and be dependent upon - tangible, physical reality.

I acknowledge nothing of the sort. You think you can explain the whole of reality in terms of its least significant contents: purposeless particles which have - supposedly - magically endowed themselves with the power to understand and control themselves. You are using your intelligence to explain it away as an unintelligent process! The supreme irony is that you claim the removal of physical reality would make everything meaningless when it is the removal of spiritual reality which would transform you into an irrational lump of tissue which happens to exist for no reason whatsoever…

 

[GEddie]

Excuse me, Tony: why does she need to “get out of her mind”???

And she does have some partial points: nonphilosophers would tend to agree that our “self” is our body; that only in relation to death is there a distinction. Neoplatonism is just as oversimplistic as is physicalism. Even with a mind distinct from “your body,” if you had NEVER had physical perceptions to understand or remember, you’d have nothing at all to think about!

ICXC NIKA.

 

[tonyrey]

Excuse me, Tony: why does she need to “get out of her mind”???

And she does have some partial points: nonphilosophers would tend to agree that our “self” is our body; that only in relation to death is there a distinction. Neoplatonism is just as oversimplistic as is physicalism. Even with a mind distinct from “your body,” if you had NEVER had physical perceptions to understand or remember, you’d have nothing at all to think about!

ICXC NIKA.

We are all in the egocentric predicament. If the mind is equated with the brain we are no more than biological machines…

 

[tonyrey]

We are all in the egocentric predicament. If the mind is equated with the brain we are no more than biological machines…

I should add that if we are embodied persons made in the image and likeness of God we have spiritual truths to think about… Consciousness, free will, insight, intuition and inspiration are not natural phenomena but aspects of supernatural reality.