So if you're remotely logical, you must now accept my conclusion or deny that one needs to exist in order to be harmed. — Bartricks

One is still existing in the act of dying or being killed. I haven't said that being dead is a harm: how could we know, since none of us have been there?

Again, you need to deny premise 1. So make an argument against it.

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

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.

You're trading on a conflation between dying and being dead — Janus

No, it is 'death' not 'being dead' that I am talking about. Christ, I just don't think you're mentally capable of following an argument.

You need to deny a bloody premise of the argument. WHich one? Don't say "ooo, I can't....so here's a different stupid argument that I made up and isn't relevant and that I want to talk about instead".

Which premise in MY argument do you deny, Hugh?

it has to be 1, doesn't it hugh? Because you think 2 is correct. Or has something flashy gone past the window and distracted you? So make an argument against 1.

The term 'death' is ambiguous, and it is that ambiguity you are leveraging for your vapid "argument". 'Death' can mean either 'dying' or 'being dead'. Which one do you want it to mean? It doesn't really matter because your argument only works, is only definitely sound, for its usage as 'dying', and there it doesn't tell us anything that is not common knowledge.

Again, you need to deny premise 1. So make an argument against it. — Bartricks

Premise one is undeniable: as 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; in the former case it will be sound, and in the latter may be sound or unsound depending on whether there is existence following death. Has it penetrated your thick skull yet?

Quick survey. Was Descartes an idiot? — TiredThinker

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:

:razz:

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

Er, what? Is it feeding time in the fishtank? Shall I remind you of the argument? Here it is:

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 think 2 is true. Here you are thinking it is true:

Of course killing someone harms them — Janus

So, that means you have to deny 1, doesn't it?

Where's your argument that 1 is false, Hugh?

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

:100:
Very nicely broken down, a complete waste of time with Bart but very nicely put.

It is indeed a waste of time to replace my argument with stupid ones that I didn't make and that don't make sense.

Here's my argument:

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

That's valid and sound.

Here's a different argument:

1. If DIngo Jones had any training in philosophy whatsoever, then he'd know that you need to address the argument a person made, not a totally different one of your own invention
2. Dingo Jones does not know that you need to address the argument a person made, and not a totally different one of your own invention
3. THerefore Dingo jones has no training in philosophy whatsoever.

Do you see how the soundness (and it is sound, isn't it?) of that argument has nothing whatsoever to do with the soundness of the other?

In a quite brilliant move Hugh defeated Bartricks in the dual by absorbing the bullet Bartricks fired at him with his own head. Dingo clapped and clapped. "Excellent work Hugh! And spilling your brains all over him was a nice touch too!"

:ok:

You lack basic comprehension of logical fallacy, and are a dickhead. — DingoJones

There's no fallacy committed by my argument, Dingy.

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

That's valid.

And the great Hugh, that master of logic, thinks that premise 2 is true and that 1 is true and that 3 is false. How he does that, I really do not know - that's his great skill! Watch in amazement as the great Hugh believes another contradiction. How does he do it? Is it done with mirrors? Does he have a hidden premise up his sleave? Gather round as Batricks gives him valid argument after valid argument and Hugh accepts the premises and rejects the conclusions. No one else can do it quite like he can.....

@Bartricks :rofl: :up:

Hugh — Bartricks

A personal name with Germanic origins.

Meaning: heart, mind!

Compare Xin, also heart-mind in Chinese!

Muchas gracias!

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

The sentence is pointing to something beyond ideas, Tom. — ArielAssante

That's for sure.

I've noticed a few posters don't seem to comment on threads like this (whereof one cannot speak etc.).

There's also a few of the usual overbearing posters commenting from the grave about their knowledge of it.

So, you think that only people who have died should be posting on this thread? You think only someone who has died knows whether we survive it or not? Tell me, do you think one cannot be a cancer specialist unless one has cancer?

RE: Evidence of conscious existence after death.
SUBTOPIC: Reincarnation isn't a falsifiable hypothesis
※→ Ignance, et al,

(PREFACE)

I was I'm my "Principle of Sufficient Reason" (PSR) mode when I spoke (seriously) of the "implications" when opening consideration of reincarnation, and assigning it some level of validity.

There is an undefined relationship between the Faith-Based Concept (F-BC) of "reincarnation" and the potential reality of reincarnation on the Metaphysical level.
Such an argument on the F-BC opens with the implied "divine source." Whereas the Metaphysical approach starts with the deductively valid methodology.

Ignance quoted you in Evidence of conscious existence after death.
was reincarnation ever supposed to be testable by science? because from what Eastern philosophy i have read, it certainly doesn’t seem like it to me, seems like a bit of a way to...
(COMMENT)

The deductively valid methodology of combing through each scientific lead until either the PSR strongly suggests a specific line of inquiry is leading to a biological, chemical, or physics/cosmological solution. - OR - The pursuit of each lead strongly suggests an energy of supernatural origin is the reasonable solution by means of "Sufficient Reason."

In such pursuits, an unusual linkage opens up that is not examined all that often. In ordinary Scientific and Metaphysical approaches, ‘implication’ has a much greater spectrum in its meanings. This becomes important in the greater understanding of reasoning within the constraints of communication of all kinds. Reincarnation, in this regard, raises implications concerning the information. Normally we think that "truth" is universal everywhere in the universe; that 1+1=2 (Base 10) everywhere.


Respectfully,
R

Tell me, why are you equating two clearly different things?

You think that the only people who can know what happens to them after death are those who've died, yes? That was the implication of what you said - that those, like myself, who draw conclusions about what happens to us after death on the basis of reasoned argument, have not acquired knowledge of the matter because we are not yet dead ourselves. Or am I misinterpreting you?

So, do you think that the only people who know about cancer are those who have it? That's the same reasoning, is it not? That to know about cancer, one has to have it.

Yet obviously one can know a lot about cancer without having it. Indeed, someone can know far more about cancer and not have it than someone who has it. It would be foolish to only seek advice on how to treat cancer from those who have had it. (One - one - way to acquire some knowledge about cancer is to have it - and that's also a way of acquiring knowledge about what happens to us after death...one can die...but it is absurd to suppose that's the 'only' way).

There is no reason at all to think that only those who have died know what happens after death, just as there is no reason at all to think that only those who have cancer know about cancer.

The arguments I have provided for life after death are sound. Certainly no one here has raised any kind of reasonable doubt about their soundness (or even seems to know how to set about doing that). if those arguments are indeed sound, then I know what happens to us after death. I haven't died. Yet I know what happens to us: we go to a worse place. For if my arguments are sound then that is indeed what happens to us - and so my belief is true - and I have acquired it in the right manner (by reason rather than by luck).

Compare that to someone who has a near death experience, actually does have an accurate experience of the afterlife, yet when they are revived they consider it a dream. Well, that person has actually experienced the afterlife, yet they do not know what happens to them after death.

So a person can die and not know what happens to them after death, and a person can not die and know what will happen to them after death.

Algebriac geometry, however, is genius though — 180 Proof

:up:

so maybe the distinction is between the scientific view (no brain activity after death etc.) vs the anecdotal view (NDEs etc.)?

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 understand what you mean. It doesn't seem to connect with anything I have said.

You don't have to experience something to know about it.

I don't think it is very reasonable to think that NDEs are veridical experiences as opposed to dreams.

But I do think that we can know that there is an afterlife.

But I do think that we can know that there is an afterlife. — Bartricks

From NDEs?

No. What did I just say? I just said this;

I don't think it is very reasonable to think that NDEs are veridical experiences as opposed to dreams. — Bartricks

What does that mean? That means I think NDEs are not veridical experiences.

So, I think they're not evidence of an afterlife. I think they're evidence that people have dreams.

This may be confusing you because I believe there is good evidence for an afterlife and perhaps you think that this commits me to thinking that any argument anyone gives for an afterlife is a good argument. That is not my view.

Here's an argument for the afterlife that i also think is a very bad one: I have a pumpkin in my fridge. Therefore there is an afterlife. Now, I think that's a shite argument. I believe there is an afterlife. And I believe there is evidence for this - indeed, the evidence is the only reason I believe it. But I don't think the fact there is a pumpkin in my fridge is evidence that there is an afterlife.

So I believe there is good evidence there's an afterlife.

I believe NDEs are not good evidence there's an afterlife.

So I believe there is good evidence there's an afterlife — Bartricks

What is the evidence?

I have already mentioned it in this thread and I am not sure there is much point in repeating it.

send a link

No. If you're too lazy to scroll up and find what I said, then you're too lazy to try and understand anything I might subsequently say. Everything I say is going to sound odd to you.