1. If death harms the one who dies, then the one who dies must exist at the time
2. Death harms the one who dies
3. Therefore, the one who dies exists at the time. — Bartricks
You're trading on a conflation between dying and being dead — Janus
Again, you need to deny premise 1. So make an argument against it. — Bartricks
Not at all. Dubious assumptions / distinctions simply undermined his conclusions (e.g. substance dualism, pineal gland, machine animals). Algebriac geometry, however, is genius though. :nerd:Quick survey. Was Descartes an idiot? — TiredThinker
Again, you need to deny premise 1. So make an argument against it.
— Bartricks
Premise one is undeniable: is it is in the form of "if...then". It is premise two, and the conclusion that follows from it which may or may not be sound depending on whether by "death" you mean dying or being dead. Has it penetrated your thick skull yet? — Janus
1. If death harms the one who dies, then the one who dies must exist at the time
2. Death harms the one who dies
3. Therefore, the one who dies exists at the time. — Bartricks
Of course killing someone harms them — Janus
You're trading on a conflation between dying and being dead
1. If dying harms the one who dies, then the one who dies must exist at the time
2. Dying harms the one who dies
3. Therefore, the one who dies exists at the time (of dying).
There: fixed for you. And it is uncontroversial.
1. If being dead harms the one who is dead, then the one who is dead must exist at the time
2. Being dead harms the one who is dead
3. Therefore, the one who is dead exists at the time.
In this form the argument tells us nothing about whether the dead person exists, so whether the argument is sound or not depends on that big "if" in the first premise. The alternative argument is:
1. If being dead harms the one who is dead, then the one who is dead must exist at the time
2. Being dead does not harm the one who is dead
3. Therefore, the one who is dead does not exist at the time.
Both valid arguments, both of which cannot be sound, the determination of which is sound depends on knowledge we do not possess. — Janus
1. If death harms the one who dies, then the one who dies must exist at the time
2. Death harms the one who dies
3. Therefore, the one who dies exists at the time. — Bartricks
You lack basic comprehension of logical fallacy, and are a dickhead. — DingoJones
1. If death harms the one who dies, then the one who dies must exist at the time
2. Death harms the one who dies
3. Therefore, the one who dies exists at the time. — Bartricks
Hugh — Bartricks
The sentence is pointing to something beyond ideas, Tom. — ArielAssante
o maybe the distinction is between the scientific view (no brain activity after death etc.) vs the anecdotal view (NDEs etc.)? — Changeling
I don't think it is very reasonable to think that NDEs are veridical experiences as opposed to dreams. — Bartricks
So I believe there is good evidence there's an afterlife — Bartricks
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.