Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: A few (more) words on The Hobbit

1304 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 45 46 47 48 49 53 Newer→ Last

  • Steve Parks, in reply to Jacqui Dunn,

    Can you tell me how you did this? Without having died yourself?

    Maybe it’s a case of: on what basis would one conclude otherwise?

    But, Andin, that’s the point. You won’t know until you’re there!

    Yup, I think Occam’s razor is taken too far. Just because you don’t, and can’t possibly, know about something, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It’s just not a subject of scientific inquiry. It can only be speculated about.

    Is this any different to the “is there a God?” issue? Seems the same to me. Maybe we can’t possibly know for absolute-sure that there is no afterlife, but its existence isn’t supported by anything we do know about how the world works. There are a lot of things (probably an infinite number) that we could believe on the basis of “we can’t know [for certain] it doesn’t exist”. Do we take them all seriously? No.
    Most people don’t believes in the tooth fairy, Leprechauns or the Norse gods just because they can’t prove they don’t exist/have never existed.

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1165 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle, in reply to Steve Parks,

    I find the reaction by some to Kyle’s original point oversensitive

    Erm, yes.

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    Is this any different to the “is there a God?” issue?

    Not much.

    Most people don’t believes in the tooth fairy, Leprechauns or the Norse gods just because they can’t prove they don’t exist/have never existed.

    Sure, but those are particular instantiations, random and arbitrary, as Gio says. That's not the same as believing that there could be unspecified things that we could come to know only subjectively, and that some of those things could happen after death. Indeed, to claim to know is to fall into the same random and arbitrary trap - to claim to know that it's as I tend to believe, an end to consciousness, is claiming more than evidence can show.

    Perhaps a good example of an unprovable and yet quite plausible belief might be the existence of aliens. Currently we have no evidence of aliens. Is that sufficient proof that there are no aliens? In absence of any evidence, then thinking that aliens take a particular form is random and arbitrary, probably false. But believing that there could be some somewhere in our universe is not especially crazy.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • Islander, in reply to BenWilson,

    “to claim to know that it’s as I tend to believe”
    #1 matter – a tended belief
    “an end to consiousness”
    #2 matter – an end of consciousness as we understand it

    #3 ” is claiming more than evidence can show”
    well, I can definitely demonstrate an end of consiousness as we understand it by hitting anyone very hard on the head. When you are dead, you have no consiousness whatsoever – take this as a given from someone who is happily descended from greatgranparent cannibals-

    I think establishing lack of any kind of consiousness in human corpses is a very easy matter. (Chewing on them after they've been broiled in an umu-kai is pretty conclusive on that matter.)

    Eastablishing there are no extra-terrestial aliens is almost impossible. (We've never had 'em in a hangi...)

    Big O, Mahitahi, Te Wahi … • Since Feb 2007 • 5643 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    I think establishing lack of any kind of consiousness in human corpses is a very easy matter

    Sure, but establishing that it's not in the corpse is not the same as establishing that it's ceased to exist. If it's gone to an afterlife, the corpse could be irrelevant.

    I don't think so, though. I just still feel very nervous about making sweeping claims about something as poorly understood as consciousness. The "utter death" that I believe in is still a hypothesis, and it's not scientific, because it is logically immune to objective disproof.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • Islander,

    Ben W - I agree that continuity of consciousnss "is logically immune to objective disproof" strictly speaking - except in our human experience on this planet we've never yet found any kind of consiousness separate from some kind of brain - o yes! We've postulated it! (Papatuanuku/Gaia et al.) But you are right: matter unproven-

    Big O, Mahitahi, Te Wahi … • Since Feb 2007 • 5643 posts Report Reply

  • andin,

    Jacqui

    Well I have satisfied myself there is no “there” after life.

    Can you tell me how you did this? Without having died yourself?

    Is that supposed to be funny? If you have any religious affiliations please declare them now. And it would take more time than I have to devote at the moment. If you are genuinely interested I will write it all down at some later date.

    Steve Parks sez

    Pointing out that a certain generalised group were the main beneficiaries of some changes isn’t the same as blaming them.

    Kyle sez

    During the following 25+ years - their peak earning years when people pay the most in income tax, they did not fund the care of their elders as per the social contract that had built up for several decades. Within a few years their parents and grandparents were having to sell their homes to fund their hospital care.

    No, not blaming them for anything, except destroying several decades of an apparent "social contract". Now thats loaded language if ever I read it. And forcing parents and grandparents onto the street. Big, big sweeping generalisations I think you have to agree.

    Ben

    If it’s gone to an afterlife, the corpse could be irrelevant.

    But finding "IT" in a living person has proved absolutely fruitless, so if "IT" is not there in a living person, "IT" most certainly wont be there in a corpse.
    Please define "IT"

    raglan • Since Mar 2007 • 1891 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    But finding "IT" in a living person has proved absolutely fruitless, so if "IT" is not there in a living person, "IT" most certainly wont be there in a corpse.
    Please define "IT"

    We were talking about something pretty vague, hard to ring fence with definitions, but IT was "their soul". Which can't be found physically, alive or dead, according to most kind of dualisms, because it is not in itself physical. But it can be experienced by the person to whom it belongs. Or more precisely, it's the thing doing the experiencing using the body as a proxy.

    I don't really buy the theory, never have, but I can't deny that my own experience of consciousness can easily feel like my "soul" is an actual thing, more than just my brain, which has changed throughout my life. Despite this constant change, I've always been in this particular body, my experience of consciousness is continuous. Yes, there are unconscious gaps, but when I'm conscious, I don't feel that ME is constantly becoming a different person, even though the physical me is doing so.

    So I have to come up with explanations for that to stick to monism. I've done this, but I don't think they're 100% bulletproof. It's quite hard to deny one's own continuous identity, our entire language is built around words that assume it. Possibly it's something we're hard wired to act as though we believe. Or socially conditioned in very subtle ways.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso, in reply to andin,

    But finding "IT" in a living person has proved absolutely fruitless

    Has it now? Because frankly contemporary theories of mind seem pretty convincing to me, and they don't have all that much trouble in talking about consciousness in concrete terms.

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

  • JackElder,

    It’s a feeling of being everything, as in enormous, and yet really tiny – as in one-celled. I described it once to a group of people, and one person approached me later and said she had had the same experience.

    I often get this same feeling, usually when I'm drifting off to sleep. I've had this for as long as I can remember - certainly way back into childhood. I've never really read much into it, other than "This feels interesting". Mind you, I'm normally half-asleep at the time.

    Wellington • Since Mar 2008 • 709 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to andin,

    Kyle sez

    During the following 25+ years - their peak earning years when people pay the most in income tax, they did not fund the care of their elders as per the social contract that had built up for several decades. Within a few years their parents and grandparents were having to sell their homes to fund their hospital care.

    No, not blaming them for anything, except destroying several decades of an apparent "social contract".

    The problem here seems to be interpreting a statement that says "this happened" as saying "these people made this happen".

    "they did not fund the care of their elders as per the social contract" is *not* the same as "blaming them for ... destroying several decades of an apparent 'social contract'".

    Some of us appear to be reading "they" not as a whole generation but as discrete individuals, which naturally can lead to personal defensiveness if you're one of em.

    Thing is, those decisions about funding arrangements, rules and societal expectations were made by politicians, mandated however imperfectly by citizens (including but certainly not limited to the generation in question) and challenged by public discourse and at subsequent elections.

    A collective generalisation about that process does not imply individual agency. Sure, it could be expressed more clearly. Perhaps the statement above could read something like "the previous 'social contract' that taxpayers in their peak earning years would help fund care for older generations was overturned".

    Because that's what happened in this country when the 40 year olds of the Lange government took over from the 60 year olds of the Muldoon one. And we're still seeing the political reverberations with Winston and others now.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Jacqui Dunn, in reply to JackElder,

    Well I have satisfied myself there is no “there” after life.

    Can you tell me how you did this? Without having died yourself?

    Is that supposed to be funny? If you have any religious affiliations please declare them now. And it would take more time than I have to devote at the moment. If you are genuinely interested I will write it all down at some later date.

    It was meant to be taken lightly. Of course you can't tell me - you're obviously very much alive. I was being quite flippant and I'm sorry if it annoyed you.

    ETA: Oops, this was not in reply to you, JackElder, it was to Andin. I was trying to be clever, doing two replies at a time, to different people. I've just found out it doesn't work!

    Deepest, darkest Avondale… • Since Jul 2010 • 585 posts Report Reply

  • Jacqui Dunn, in reply to JackElder,

    I often get this same feeling, usually when I’m drifting off to sleep. I’ve had this for as long as I can remember – certainly way back into childhood. I’ve never really read much into it, other than “This feels interesting”.

    Likewise ditto. I was told it was just my imagination - can't say I agreed at the time. I haven't had the experience lately though.

    Deepest, darkest Avondale… • Since Jul 2010 • 585 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel,

    Solid state data dump...

    Please define “IT”

    the wonderful No Energy Left Behind programme
    I figure I'll end up in the compost division
    light to heat and unusable states
    matter on the way to being
    in no particle place
    spinning down
    sugars and space
    a carbon n ferrous error
    flattened in the 'plasticene' strata

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7953 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Ian Dalziel,

    I'd prefer to end up as ashes and carbon emissions. They'll all come out at some point in the composting process anyway, and I find the idea of using small plots of land containing boxes containing rotting meat rather distasteful. But really, that's a choice to be made by the people dealing with the cadaver. Maybe it would be an actual positive boon if science had its way with it. Not sure, is there really any shortage of cadavers for med-students?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    No, not blaming them for anything, except destroying several decades of an apparent “social contract”. Now thats loaded language if ever I read it. And forcing parents and grandparents onto the street. Big, big sweeping generalisations I think you have to agree.

    Sacha seems to have answered this for me. I'll concede to the sweeping generalisations. But the point I was responding to was a sweeping generalisation about them funding their elder's care, which had a large hole in it.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • andin, in reply to Sacha,

    Because that’s what happened in this country when the 40 year olds of the Lange government took over from the 60 year olds of the Muldoon one. And we’re still seeing the political reverberations with Winston and others now.

    And that time should be highlighted/seared in our minds. The 80's the era of the long lunch, people living "high on the hog". (I think we should give them name the NZStay-at -homes?).
    I heard all about it, caught the tail end, private jets and ....well. And what did the country get, middle men running ex-state assets and prices went up, wages slowly became static. Highlight this as much as you can please, I certainly wont be forgetting it. Thats when I started work on the Time Machine.
    Thanks for that Sacha

    Giovanni

    Has it now? Because frankly contemporary theories of mind seem pretty convincing to me, and they don’t have all that much trouble in talking about consciousness in concrete terms.

    Sorry I wasnt referring to consciousness, yes that is very concrete. I guess it is the use some people put their consciousness to work imagining and thinking it real? (not sure how to say it). I cant really speak for anyone else, or perhaps shouldnt.

    raglan • Since Mar 2007 • 1891 posts Report Reply

  • Islander,

    Actually Sacha, it was Kyle’s squishing together of a WHOLE GENERATION that made me really despise his argument: I point out, yet again, that between 1945 & 1965 there is buggerall commonality. He says “babyboomers"- as the BBC article pinpointed, ‘babyboomers’ were a late invention as a ‘generation.’ It is an artifical label, and just a convenient politcal meme.

    And that answers your interpretation of Sacha's response also- Andin-

    Big O, Mahitahi, Te Wahi … • Since Feb 2007 • 5643 posts Report Reply

  • Carol Stewart,

    Joining in late as ever, there's some interesting material here on Christof Koch's homepage. He and Francis Crick were among the first to approach consciousness as a scientifically tractable problem.

    Wellington • Since Jul 2008 • 830 posts Report Reply

  • Islander, in reply to Carol Stewart,

    Carol S - bookmarked! That site is one I'm going to spend some time on - thank you!

    Big O, Mahitahi, Te Wahi … • Since Feb 2007 • 5643 posts Report Reply

  • andin, in reply to Jacqui Dunn,

    Likewise ditto. I was told it was just my imagination – can’t say I agreed at the time. I haven’t had the experience lately though.

    It is a product of your semi conscious state. As others have said it usually occurs in a semi sleep state. It has been leapt upon by various practitioners in meditative states as being something extraordinary (a window into another consciousness if you will). But thats bullshit.

    And many thanks Islander.
    And thanks to Kyle for offering an apology.

    raglan • Since Mar 2007 • 1891 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel,

    We are the dorks of perception...
    ...and reality is a product of our conscious state
    - and the limitations that that imposes,
    filtered and consensual...

    We are receivers tuned to
    the easy living channel,
    surfing the crest of time waves, among
    the froth obscuring the big picture...
    (I can't see infra red or hear ultrasound
    at a conscious level - but they still exist
    and affect us)

    I think that a Window into another Consciousness
    is a very apt description for observing
    other aspects of our various operating systems
    we just forgot how to code for them...
    :- )

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7953 posts Report Reply

  • recordari, in reply to BenWilson,

    I'd prefer to end up as ashes and carbon emissions.

    As long as you don't end up like this. Dog bites man?

    The 80's the era of the long lunch, people living "high on the hog". (I think we should give them name the NZStay-at -homes?).
    I heard all about it, caught the tail end, private jets and ....well.

    And paid the hired help with boxes of Bollinger. True story.

    AUCKLAND • Since Dec 2009 • 2607 posts Report Reply

  • Carol Stewart, in reply to Islander,

    Islander - you're most welcome. I've just finished reading Matt Ridley's biography of Francis Crick, which is a great read. Crick had an amazingly productive and varied career and turned his attention to the study of consciousness late in his life, in partnership with Koch. He knew it was an elusive concept - but then so was the gene, before the structure of DNA was found.

    Wellington • Since Jul 2008 • 830 posts Report Reply

  • Jacqui Dunn, in reply to andin,

    It is a product of your semi conscious state. As others have said it usually occurs in a semi sleep state. It has been leapt upon by various practitioners in meditative states as being something extraordinary (a window into another consciousness if you will). But thats bullshit.

    I thought myself that it was because my body was very, very relaxed. No thoughts. Near sleep, yet still aware. If I remember correctly, the state when the brain produces a particular type of wave. It is, iirc again, the state that practitioners of meditation techniques are aiming for.

    I'm rather glad you said this, as I suspect I read your earlier response to mine as being aggressive. I'm not withdrawing my apology if I did indeed offend you, but wish I had put my comment in a different way. I don't have any religious affiliations - I don't wish to proselytize, nor to be proselytized - and I certainly wouldn't want to push my personal philosophy and the reasons behind it on anyone.

    My point about your certainty of no afterlife was just that you couldn't possibly know. Many people believe that when the last breath leaves the body, that's it. Nothing more. They could be totally correct. The "I" that wakes in the morning would be gone. But alternatively, some part of the consciousness might survive. It's just that nobody has come back to confirm it yet. So none of us can know what the answer is until we get there. And then, it's a bit late to warn those still around, n'est-ce pas? :))

    I'm going to apologize in advance to any and all students of philosophy for being, possibly, simplistic. (In particular, Ben, who didn't want to be drawn into thinking about all this stuff - sorry, Ben - it must be a bit tedious.) Also for the length of my post. And jacking the thread. (In case anyone notices, I do tend to apologize a lot - I'm told it's a trait NZers have, but maybe it's my age. It's very easy to misunderstand written words as you can't judge by looking at a person's face or hearing their tone, so being ready to offer peace seems a small price to pay if one's stepped over the line.)

    Deepest, darkest Avondale… • Since Jul 2010 • 585 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 45 46 47 48 49 53 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.