Our mind after we die?

[Rhubarb]

I think you’re conflating a few things - mind, self-identity, identity, the self, and sense of self. These are distinct ideas.

You are also presupposing the existence of a soul. And I get it, Catholic forum and all. But that’s not something that I will grant. So if you’re positing the existence of this entity (and you must be because you’re explanation of what happens to the mind when the brain is damaged) you must provide the evidence. The burden of proof isn’t on me. I’m open to hear why I should believe in a soul. I know it might seem like I’m deadset against it. But I just haven’t heard anything convincing yet.

So yeah. You say I’m presupposing materialism. I say I’m not, in this case I have no better explanation or evidence to think otherwise.

 

[RandomAlias]

But I just haven’t heard anything convincing yet.

Perhaps you can be either convinced or unconvinced depending on what you believe to be the nature of God.

If you believe that God exists, and created us, and loves each of us individually, then it may follow that God desires us to live eternally with him, and I think this requires that a non-material essence of our personhood exists and remains after death. That essence is the soul.

If you do not believe that God loves each of us individually, then there is no reason to suppose that he wants us to live eternally, and there would be no necessity for us to have a soul.

 

[IWantGod]

Whether or not i can provide evidence is irrelevant. You have no evidence for your presupposition,. Your presupposition of materialism does not follow from the evidence. All that is evident is that when the brain shuts down it no longer functions; this in it self tells us nothing about the fate of the mind in terms of its existence. To suggest that the mind ceases to exist is to simply make an unsupported assumption. In other words at most you can be agnostic about the matter. You don’t know, because you don’t know what the ultimate nature of reality is and neither do you know what the mind is

 

[BlackFriar]

At which point the shackles of imperfection will be removed and you will be yourself again, yet without the bounds of any earthly impediment.

Not really, this is Platonic Christianity and was rejected around C13 when Aristotle’s more compatible understanding of the relationship of body and soul was adopted by Roman Catholicism.

You will not be “yourself again” until you are reunited with your body.
In fact a disembodies soul is not rightly called a human being at all - though its obviously a human soul.

We do not know what conscious life means for a departed soul.
All thinking requires a material “phantasm” supplied by the biological brain.
This does not mean our mind is biological. It isn’t, its spiritual.
But we need the brain to think in a human way.
Likewise with material memories, we need the biological brain in a similar way.

This does not mean the spiritual soul cannot think or cannot have some type of memory.
But we don’t know what that means as such thinking, willing, remembering is like we know it Scotty. It isn’t fully “human”.

Aquinas posits God would need to supply some special environment for the soul’s mind to work properly in the disembodied state. In other words, we don’t have a clue so far as Aristotle’s philosophy of soul and body is concerned.

 

[pocaracas]

You have no evidence for your presupposition,

There is no evidence for any other presupposition, is there?

Your presupposition of materialism does not follow from the evidence.

oh, so you have evidence that leads to something else?.. please share it.

To suggest that the mind ceases to exist is to simply make an unsupported assumption.

I have no knowledge of any mind that goes on existing past brain death.
After millions and millions of dead people, not one of those minds (neglecting anecdotes) has made it past death… why would it not be a reasonable assumption to make?

You don’t know, because you don’t know what the ultimate nature of reality is and neither do you know what the mind is

Oh… solipsism, gotcha!

 

[IWantGod]

I have no knowledge of any mind that goes on existing past brain death.

After millions and millions of dead people, not one of those minds (neglecting anecdotes) has made it past death… why would it not be a reasonable assumption to make?

Why would it not be a reasonable assumption?

The mind is unlike any physical object we sense.

And also, because you don’t know what you are talking about. You’re reasoning is that you don’t sense anything beyond the physical therefore there probably isn’t anything beyond the physical. But i wouldn’t expect you to sense anything but physical objects. Why would your brain pick up on non-physical entities? To say you have never seen a soul, and therefore there is none, is circular at best. Thus your reason for thinking they are not there isn’t based on reason or evidence, but rather it is base on your beliefs about reality which is fine so long as you admit that instead of making the faulty claim that science affirms your belief . Epistemologically speaking, at most you should be .agnostic about what happens to the mind when the brain stops functioning because you don’t know the nature of what it is, you only know that you have one. Science has only revealed a relationship between the mind and the brain, a functional relationship and not necessarily an existential dependence.

 

[pocaracas]

You’re reasoning is that you don’t sense anything beyond the physical therefore there probably isn’t anything beyond the physical.

I like how you put the probably there… but that is absolutely correct, you know?

Epistemologically speaking, at most you should be .agnostic about what happens to the mind when the brain stops functioning because you don’t know the nature of what it is, you only know that you have one.

Agnostic, yes, but that doesn’t mean that one has to attribute equal 50/50 probability to both cases.

Science has only revealed a relationship between the mind and the brain, a functional relationship and not necessarily an existential dependence.

And what’s wrong with attributing greater probability to the scenario that equates those two?

 

[IWantGod]

And what’s wrong with attributing greater probability to the scenario that equates those two?

I don’t know why you equate blind physical processes with intentionality and subjectivity (as into say they are identical in nature), but whatever your reason is you cannot say that its supported by the evidence because the evidence is not there scientifically or logically… It just your belief. You have a commitment to materialism.

 

[pocaracas]

I don’t know why you equate blind physical processes with intentionality and subjectivity

Because I have no reason to think otherwise.

you cannot say that its supported by the evidence because the evidence is not there scientifically or logically…

There is also no evidence for the opposite, is there?

It just your belief. You have a commitment to materialism.

Matter actually exists in real space… it kinda helps with the credibility.

 

[IWantGod]

Because I have no reason to think otherwise.

You have no reason to think that blind physical processes are not identical in nature to that which has intentionality and subjectivity? You can’t be serious. You really can’t see a problem with that?

 

[pocaracas]

You have no reason to think that blind physical processes are not identical in nature to that which has intentionality and subjectivity? You can’t be serious. You really can’t see a problem with that?

I have no reason to think that there is anything but blind physical processes.

 

[IWantGod]

I have no reason to think that there is anything but blind physical processes.

Well then i guess you don’t exist. I didn’t realize i was talking to blind physical processes all this time.

 

[pocaracas]

pocaracas:

I have no reason to think that there is anything but blind physical processes.

Well i guess you don’t exist. I didn’t realize i was talking to blind physical processes all this time.

Why would that mean I don’t exist?

And you can thank me later for coming to that realization.

 

[Rhubarb]

I say “I have no evidence the mind can exist after death.” You say “But what about the soul!”

You are suggesting the existence of this teapot. It’s your job to back it up.

You also keep saying I have no evidence of my “presupposition” I’ve said my evidence, which has lead me to believe this way. Which is the opposite of a presupposition.

We have minds, and brains. These appear to be distinct. But when we damage our brain, our mind suffers. When we alter our brain, our mind changes. If we drug our brain, our mind is affected. Our brain can be damaged, which affects our mind, but that damage can heal, and our faculties return.

And thanks to good old fashioned abductive reasoning, I am concluding that the mind is dependant on the brain.

 

[Kei]

When we say resurrection from the dead, know we mean a glorified body. It’s different from your current body.

 

[IWantGod]

I say “I have no evidence the mind can exist after death.” You say “But what about the soul!”

You are suggesting the existence of this teapot. It’s your job to back it up.

You also keep saying I have no evidence of my “presupposition” I’ve said my evidence, which has lead me to believe this way. Which is the opposite of a presupposition.

We have minds, and brains. These appear to be distinct. But when we damage our brain, our mind suffers. When we alter our brain, our mind changes. If we drug our brain, our mind is affected. Our brain can be damaged, which affects our mind, but that damage can heal, and our faculties return.

And thanks to good old fashioned abductive reasoning, I am concluding that the mind is dependant on the brain.

The problem i see here is that you are equating a functional dependency with an existential dependency. The one does not follow from the other. We have evidence for a functional dependency. We don’t have evidence for an existential dependency. You simply believe that the brain and the mind are identical in nature.and therefore existentially dependent on one-another without evidence, and there are rational reasons to think that a materialistic concept of the mind doesn’t make logical sense. That’s why there is a mind-body problem in philosophy and its not something you can just shrug off with skepticism…

 

[Rhubarb]

Again, I have given evidence as to why I think the way that I do. Argue back with counter-evidence. So please, do go on about the mind-body problem and this functional dependency-existential dependency distinction. As my philosophy of mind professor would say… “You are making a claim, so you owe me an explanation.”

 

[IWantGod]

Again, I have given evidence as to why I think the way that I do. Argue back with counter-evidence. So please, do go on about the mind-body problem and this functional dependency-existential dependency distinction. As my philosophy of mind professor would say… “You are making a claim, so you owe me an explanation.”

The problem here is that you think that you have good reason to think that a functional dependency is the same thing as an existential dependency, and you don’t. Pointing out a functional dependency is not evidence. Its just evidence of a functional dependency.

 

[Rhubarb]

So then give me a counter-argument. You’re just saying “nuh-uh” over and over again, like you’re repeating canned apologists’ lines without understanding the content of the debate.

 

[IWantGod]

A functional dependency does not necessitate an existential dependency. Do you have reason to think otherwise?