Emotions are part of the way we think. We can't separate them out. We just have to deal with them. — Bitter Crank

Sure, that's why we use logical thinking, deduction / induction and proper argumentation in order to reach conclusions that aren't influenced by our emotions. Same goes for science, which aren't relying on emotions. If people just say their opinions, then yes, they can't get passed their emotions, but philosophy has powerful dialectic tools for arguing passed emotional responses.

1. Was Jesus' resurrection only a work of literature with no physical grounds that such a thing occurred? — saw038

Probably. We also don't know how much of the bible that was meant as stories to deliver a message, rather than accounts of something real. With thousands of revisions throughout history, it's like the telephone child's play, in which you whisper in the ear of one person and that person does the same to the next and so on and then the last person says the message. That, in book form is the bible and that means a lot of stuff has gone missing and got scrambled throughout it's history.

2. Was Jesus' resurrection a true story that transcended the realm of physical laws as we currently perceive them? — saw038

There's nothing that suggests this or supports this.

Another interesting thing is that almost every single well known figure throughout history has numerous accounts of records about their existence, Jesus only has the bible. If we accept that the bible can't prove the validity of itself, since that's a form of fallacy, then the evidence of him even existing seems seriously lacking. Did he exist at all? If we can't use the bible to prove the bible, then there's nothing to prove he existed. What if the teachings were something by a group of people and to make it easier to communicate to others, it was combined into a story of one singular person. The resurrection might then not have been physical, but about the teachings, that some of the group died, but the teachings was resurrected and passed on.

But I can't see any rational things supporting his death and resurrection or even his existence in history. I think the bible is being taken way too literary and that gets in the way of actually knowing what happened during the time of Jesus.

I also think our calculation of time should be counted by the start of civilisation and not a person that may or may not have existed and probably never have been birthed, died or resurrected. This year is the 12018:th year of our civilisation, loosely calculated.

Hehehe, yup, science have made metaphysics kinda irrelevant. We can use it for things that's still hard to prove, with proper logical arguments, but I find most metaphysical ideas today to exist among religious, spiritual people who can only form ideas around their beliefs rather than facts or people who think their personal opinions are facts, but I've rarely seen any proper metaphysical philosophy that don't use scientific premisses and facts.

For me you can't be objective only through a collective, since the collective can be just as corrupted as the subjective. Even more so, the collective can be so corrupted that individuals subjectivity gets indoctrinated into the collective delusion. Practical objectivity, the one which we can define has it's roots in logic and scientific methods, are still not through a transpersonal perspective, since you on an individual level use deduction, induction and proper methods of science to reach a conclusion that has stripped away as much as you can on an individual level, of your subjectivity. It's a process and way of thinking that cannot include subjective thinking, but even then it can be influenced by the individual, that's why we have peer reviews and why we combine findings and research with others. Only when this is done can we reach practical objectivity.

If two people gets to know the definition of a word that is wrong and they both gets the task of defining that word, they will not have an objective conclusion just by combining their subjective opinion of the definition of the word. But if they did research on that word, asked what other people define it as and combine their individual research, they would reach the correct definition of that word and make it objective. It's the process that makes something objective, both on an individual scale and on a collective scale, combining the two makes it even stronger.

As I mentioned before, I view it as probability. You can measure practical objectivity by the probability of it's objectiveness. Scientific findings that have been used in inventions, that has been tested over and over and that shows the same result over and over, with every scientist who does research, coming to the same conclusion over and over, makes for a high probability of practical objectivity.

Then there's the question of objectivity and subjectivity for something impersonal, something that isn't a human agent of perception. A single computer can have a subjective handling of code, but when combined with other systems, fine-tune it into a more correct way since being tested through many types of systems. Therefore, objectivity and subjectivity does not demand human agents to function.

Subjectivity and objectivity seems closer to be about singular perspective vs combined perspective. The singular cannot show the entire truth, but the objective can and with higher probability of objectiveness, the higher level of probability for it being true outside of our perception and anyone's perception.

t is impossible to communicate any real amount of meaning anyway... So why is it important that there are 'clear, basic definitions of words'? There simply are none. — Blue Lux

But that can easily spiral down into nonsense. I get what you're implying, but this is the same as the difference I described between absolute and practical objectivity. If you put how we define words and language to the hypothetical extreme, you undermine any practical use for language as a means of spreading knowledge and progressing understanding. In order for people to actually make progress in both knowledge and practical applications, it's better to have clear definitions of our language, so that communication isn't getting in the way of understanding. Just accepting the extreme that it's impossible to truly communicate true meaning, is not practical and has no application. Its interesting in an academic way, but if we are talking about objectivity and subjectivity, undermining the entire language by saying that trying to define "objectivity" more clearly in language, is futile, makes it almost impossible to continue searching for a good answer.

This is why I think it's good to find clear definitions and if a definition is so unclear that it kickstarts discussions like these, there's clearly the need for better definitions of the concept.

Based on what language define it as. If there aren't clear basic definitions of the language we use, it becomes impossible to communicate or have a discourse about something.

Language evolve, but deconstructing words into oblivion just makes communication impossible.

Why isn't objectivity the polar opposite of subjectivity in your perspective?

I also note that it is a sort of fudge, a sort of denial of uncertainty. Maybe because it's more comfortable? — Pattern-chaser

Not at all :) I think I just feel the need for two levels of the word objective. I.e Absolute objectivity is not dependent on human perception, it exists regardless of our knowledge of it. As an example, we don't know what exists outside the border of the universe. Absolute objectivity challenge us to speculate as far as our minds can stretch on a subject and that is a healthy thing to have. However practical objectivity is what I consider the definition to use in direct opposition to subjectivity for something that, if reaching a practical objective truth, is acting in the sense that it is practical for both discussions and progression of society.

As an example; even though you could use Absolute objectivity to criticise Einsteins theory of relativity, saying that we really don't know of how it works, especially since the work of quantum physics do not apply well to working in symbios with his theory. There's a practical objectivity to Einstein's theory that when balanced against a subjective viewpoint, that disagree with his theory on the basis of only subjective belief, you could argue that Einstein reached an objective truth of the universe that is as close to objectivity that we could reach to at this time. So let's say you are "inventing" the GPS and you have two people arguing about Einsteins theory of relativity. One say that you need to make up for the difference in time-dilation between the earth surface and the GPS satellite in order to have a working GPS function, while the other argues that because no one could objectively say that Einstein was right, it isn't certain that his theory would affect the practical use of the GPS system.

It's clear which one will loose this debate, since we know that Einstein's theory needs to be applied to the GPS system in order to work. The person who argues for the theory say that it's an objective truth about how the universe works and in using the word objective he is challenging the subjective opinion of the other guy. He is using the practical definition of objectivity since the absolute objectivity of the person denying Einstein's theory doesn't have any practical use in any application.

Therefore, the different definitions should exist at the same time. One is for challenging our ideas through speculations we have a hard time proving, the other is for things we can probably prove and that has a practical use for our species.

Another example is that we should hold the discussion about A.I to a practical objectivity, since that opens up for necessary precautions and scientific progress in the field, while absolute objectivity points out that we can't know anything of the consequences of A.I. One is about speculating the ramifications of high level A.I, one is for preparing the world, the science and people for A.I. Both exist in opposition to subjectivity, but practical objectivity is what we use to define rational discoveries and results in opposition to subjective inaccuracies about the world.

I think both can exist at the same time. It's almost like hard determinism and soft determinism, one has more practical value, especially in terms of the justice system. Until the justice system gets upgraded to incorporate new scientific results about crime and punishment, soft determinism suggests that we are accountable for the crimes we commit. The absolute truth to the subject seems more likely to be hard determinism, but it's hard to put that into practice in this regard. So until we have a better system, the soft deterministic solution is to accept everything as causality, except our behaviour and free will.

Same goes for objectivity. We need a practical use of the word together with it's absolute counterpart. The absolute is more true, but unable to exist as a foundation for us in a practical sense.

But your milder definition encourages this misunderstanding. I think this worries me more than any other part of the ages-old debate over objectivity. — Pattern-chaser

And it's a worry that i share with you. But even practical objectivity cannot become subjective, because it's the result of our best efforts to be objective in search for an answer. Using logic and scientific methods. Einstein didn't just invent his theory, he backed it up with logic but even that logic seems illogical at the quantum level, however he still pushed his theory to the level in which it is as objectively true as he could possible make it. So even if practical objectivity is more soft than the absolute, it's still unable to become a subjective opinion, since it needs evidence, logic and rational reasoning behind it.

As a term used in discussions, I think the practical use of objectivity in opposition to subjectivity, is for when someone presents a subjective opinion and you say it's not objective. What you mean is that the opinion hasn't gone through proper deductive or inductive procedures for it's conclusion, or it hasn't been tested in research or through pure logic, so you use the word objective to describe the opposite of what they provided. Even though it's not absolute, it's a way to use language to distinguish opinion from what can be described as the truth closest to our level of perception, i.e the objectivity that is practical for us as a species in our progression into the future.

The first section (the one you quote) was about the previous poster, not you.
The later sections adressed NDEs, you clearly skipped that part and instead thought that everything revolves around you and your brilliance as a philosopher.

Previously in this thread I adressed your inductive arguments, which have a few problems. You never adressed those, so I now summarized every argument I had in that regard, I guess you couldn't handle it.

But now you continue with unnecessary ad hominems and hostility and for one that says you know how philosophy works, this hostile post just showed how you really don't know how to do it. So it's hard to take you seriously with that level of childish behaviour.

In a forum, everyone can chime in and discuss and I did that, adressing both your arguments and others. If you believe every post in here revolves around you, you don't know shit about how forums work. The previous pages of discussion evolved from the NDE discussion and you wanted to get back to NDEs which I did and you clearly didn't care to read.

Besides you wouldn't know higher level philosophy if it jumped up and bit you on the ass. — Sam26

Get off your high horse. Your arguments aren't solid, I adressed them many times and you didn't even care to counter-argue, which is the point of a dialectic and not to act like a spoiled child.

But I guess what you just wrote is the level of philosophical debate you are after so I will leave you with your childish behaviour. Pathetic.

I need time to go through the entire document, but I initially don't know why morality is mixed into the idea of immortality. A baseline morality seem much more likely to revolve around well-being, of the self and others (without seperation). From there, moral principles can be set and evolve according to better understanding of the human condition.

I can see how immortality may give us perspectives on moral values that we fail to see in our mortality.

Cooperation however seem only needed when the individual needs the group. If the individual can survive without the group, they tend to isolate more from the group. There are some good inputs found in the Netflix show Altered Carbon on this subject. An immortal individual who gains power and wealth, would be almost infinitely powerful and wealthy the longer that individual lives. And the impact of living forever might also create apathy against other people, since losses have happened more times than one lifetime and the impact of personal losses might loose it's strength the more it's experienced. This detachement from humanity may be the greatest threat to our humanity than anything else immortality could give us.

Another thing about immortality is that most of our culture, expressions, art, way of life, revolves around life and death. If you take away death, then our entire culture would change and what is important, valued, pursued etc. would become totally different.

Therefor it's hard to see any morality formed by immortality, if that morality has parameters set by what we value today as mortals in our culture. If the moral values change with immortality, we cannot predict what morals becomes because of it.

However, this might have been off topic, since I've not yet read the full document, so I'm not arguing against anything said.

It's fine, I have no intentions with continuing a philosophical argument with someone who can't provide a proper argument. As I said, this is a philosophical forum, not a theological or spiritual, arguments need to keep their premisses and conclusions as clean s possible. Even when they don't work, in a dialectic, the opposing side is meant to improve your own argument by challenging it. However that requires proper deductive and inductive reasoning. A total misunderstanding of science and how basic physics and biology work as the foundation for the conclusion leads no where and after pointing out all the problems over and over there's still no improvements. I'm new here so I believed this place to feature a bit higher level dialectics than other places online, but it seems there's people here as well who can't properly do philosophical discourse.

However, in my loooong posts I think I've laid forth the argument about NDEs and why there's little or even any evidence to suggest NDEs show that consciousness can continue after death or that life after death exists. My basic premisses for this revolved around first, how the neurons work and what likely happens when we die, i.e if all neurons show higher activity at the moment of death (proven by EEG tests on dying patients), the likely scenario is that the experiences function much like dreams with all engines burning. Since the perception of time is different in dreams than normally, experiences that in reality lasts for a few seconds before the neurons completely shut off, could feel like long lasting experiences. So time through these experiences cannot account for them having their consciousness exist during death, they would most likely remember it so, but do not have any input during the actual death part. Second, no evidence show that anything exists after a person has died, there's no brain activity and energy, which the previous guy misinterpret as some kind of spiritual life force, is just body heat dissipating from the body. There's nothing that shows anything else than the body shutting down, much like a computer shutting down, all the hardware failing and the software can't work without the hardware. Third, people have tendencies to hold what's comfortable closer to them than actual truth, so people are more biased towards something like spirituality or religion even when there's no evidence or anything to suggest it to be correct. This means people who generally are intelligent gets biased towards irrational belief and start putting together conclusions assuming their premisses to be true, when they aren't. In order to argue about NDEs properly, we need to look coldly at the facts and not use fantasy, belief, spirituality and religion as any foundation for it, if people can't do it, they will never reach a rational answer for this topic. Fourth, people can experience similar experiences if the same parameters are set in motion. This is also the foundation of the Multiple Discovery theory, i.e that if similar knowledge and experience exists for different people, they can come up with the same invention or discovery, since their line of thinking has the same pre-existing influences. In the case of NDEs, the similarities between accounts told by survivors would then basically be about people having similar experiences and therefor we see the same things when our neurons fire off at the moment of death. Studies have shown that NDE accounts differ between cultures and their culture's influence on the individuals, influence the experience during an NDE. This further points to the experience being the product of a dream like state at the moment of death. We dream about what exists in our life, if most of us live life in similar ways as everyone else, we have influences to these NDEs that are similar. Fifth, NDE accounts are rarely specific in detail, they are closer to describing a dream and when we try to remember something we have a hard time remembering, we fill in gaps. If someone saw a shadow figure, they might remember them as a relative, even though it was just a shadow. People do this all the time with real memories, but the abstract nature of dreams and NDE descriptions are far more likely to cause such distortions of what was actually experienced. Sixth, people tend to view intelligence as something other than natural evolutionary step, when nothing suggest otherwise. To view our intelligence as something spiritual or higher than nature is an arrogant egotistical viewpoint, i.e it's assuming that our consciousness is more special than anything in nature therefore we are higher than nature in that regard. Nothing points to this, our brains are no different from any other animal and when we die, we die just like other animals, so does everything we have in our brain, meaning the neurons making up our consciousness.

Conclusion for this is first that NDE experiences cannot prove anything about consciousness leaving the body, consciousness exiting the body and existing when the body and neurons are dead. It also cannot prove life after death or anything supernatural. It doesn't matter how many people gets interviewed, the data is flawed by the nature of what happens to these people and their inability to realize the physiological trauma the brain goes through. Therefor the only way to measure this is to invent something like an EEG that could register brainwaves in a room rather than just attached to the patients head. But that's a test made out of the premiss that our consciousness is higher than nature, which nothing points to.

I see no value in NDEs, since they are too subjectively flawed as experiences and there's nothing that can be used as facts for a proper scientific conclusion. If an argument cannot be presented without including spiritual new age, religious beliefs, lacking concept of what science is, misunderstandings of scientific facts or presented as pure fantasy statements, then it becomes a circular argument in which no one with that state of mind would reach any better understanding or conclusion. If you aren't able to change your view on the subject when going through a proper dialectic, and still continues to argue for something out of pure belief or subjective conviction, then you will go around in circles, being stuck in that belief.

If someone could present an argument for the validity of NDEs in the search for an answer to consciousness after death, that actually makes logical and reasonable sense, I will challenge my own argument, but so far I've only been met with ignorance to the premisses I've presented and a lack of understanding of what they actually mean or a lack of general understanding of basic science. I do not accept spirituality as part of metaphysic philosophy, not in 2018 when we have years of scientific research, facts and discoveries to inform us in our discourse.

First, everything is energy, whether tangible or intangible (or an activity). Therefore, you need to check your definition. — BrianW

There's nothing wrong with my definitions. You assume energy in terms of a spiritual definition. Find me any evidence that suggest that consciousness and life is energy, other than in homeopathy, spirituality, new age and other forms of fantasy. Energy is nothing so exotic and complex as a consciousness. Matter and energy makes up the universe, so in that sense everything is energy or matter, but when you assert energy to be life and be consciousness, you are creating a definition of energy that isn't there, i.e you are assuming your premisses to be correct in order to support your conclusion, i.e a basic fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

Second, you need to google 'the scientific method'. — BrianW

No, you should do this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Karl Popper advised scientists to try to falsify hypotheses, i.e., to search for and test those experiments that seem most doubtful. Large numbers of successful confirmations are not convincing if they arise from experiments that avoid risk.

----

Third, just because consciousness doesn't fit your profile of science doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Does the mind exist? — BrianW

Stop doing straw man fallacies. No where did I say that consciousness doesn't exist or that the mind doesn't exist. But you seem unable to listen to logic here. As I described, the consciousness and the mind of a person exists because of the neurons, and the formation of neurons are the basis for the consciousness we have. This is the current scientific theory of the consciousness. There is no evidence for consciousness existing outside of the parameters of our biology and there's no evidence to suggest that our consciousness continue on after we die and our neurons shut down. If you want to dispute this and argue for this being able to happen, you have to put forth an argument that actually makes logical sense through proper argumentation. And stop making straw mans.

If everything was 'physical', do you think doctors wouldn't have dissected the brain and found the mind and psyche? — BrianW

They have, it's called the brain and neurons. What scientists still research is how everything works, but there are few who believe in some mystic idea about how the consciousness work.

It's why this discussion belongs in metaphysics or spiritual or religious philosophy. Else, we would be talking about the physical. — BrianW

Metaphysics have been generally replaced by science over the course of the last hundred years. There are few serious philosophers who argue metaphysics outside of the facts provided by science. As for spiritual and religious philosophy I do not count those as philosophy, since they dismiss logic and rational reasoning in their argumentations. Religion/spirituality is religion/spirituality, not philosophy. If you are to reason in a philosophical manner, you need to keep your arguments correct and avoid fallacies, otherwise you aren't practicing philosophy. And calling something religious philosophy is just another name for "I want to argue without having proper facts or logic to back it up". Religious beliefs is irrelevant for a philosophical dialectic, even the old christian monks knew this and tried to focus on Aristotles way of reasoning, even though they were believers.

Problem today seem to be that too many just don't care to have logic or proper argumentation for their ideas, they just spew them out without caring to back them up. I call that sloppy to say the least.

All it does is caution people not to be too quick to judge without as much consideration as possible, a proposition which I'm deflecting back to you. — BrianW

No, it caution people not to be biased to their own conclusions, which was my point. If you turn what others say into your own interpretation to fit the narrative you are doing fallacies once again.

I'm looking into consciousness the same way I would look into mind or psyche. If you can't, don't blame it on being un-scientific. — BrianW

But you have no science and no facts to back up anything you say. What you think about it, what you believe is totally irrelevant. You do not possess the truth just because you believe it is the truth, that is delusional.

Why can't you make a proper argument with facts and logic deduction/induction for this topic? You are just arguing against everything, making things up to fit your narrative. Without a proper arguments based in facts and proper deduction/induction you have nothing other than religious/spiritual belief and that isn't even close to enough to support your conclusions.

This isn't a theological forum, it's a philosophical one.

If everything is energy, then life and consciousness would also fall in that category. — BrianW

This statement is a still a fallacy. Energy and matter is what makes up the physical universe, life and consciousness are not energy, they are product of matter and energy, something that evolved from it and they are driven by it, but they aren't it themselves. You are making a general premiss seem connected to a very specific conclusion, which it isn't. Just because life is fueled by energy, doesn't mean life is energy and therefor life exists after death. The energy that is left after death is just thermal heat, there's nothing conscious or living about it. This misunderstanding of what energy is cannot be a premiss for the conclusion, because it's a misunderstanding of what energy is.

It's like saying; "If the sky is blue, and my shirt is blue, then my shirt is also the sky", it's a fallacy.

Also, thermodynamics does not prove that 'energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed'. If it can, show me. — BrianW

And energy isn't living or is conscious so this doesn't support the conclusion that any life or consciousness exist after death. You use this misunderstanding of energy and thermodynamics as a premise for your conclusion I'm afraid.

As to 'life after death', there is no definitive proof of what happens or doesn't happen but there is a logical argument that life (or the energy configuration commonly referred by that name) could not only be defined by the limits of the vibrations we interact with. — BrianW

This is in no way a logical statement. You are assuming premisses to support the conclusion. The most logical inductive conclusion, based on actual science of thermodynamics, energy, matter and biology clearly points to there being no life after death or consciousness existing after death. You can't assume to be right in order to be right, it's like using the bible to try and prove that the bible is true.

I'm saying it is illogical to presume that life is limited within the rates of vibration of osmium (the densest solid - just googled it) and gamma rays (the highest frequency known yet). It is very logical to suppose lower and higher vibrations exist and in relation to lives like ours just as we now know there are gamma waves in the brain. And it may be that 'life after death' is just an energy relationship which we have not yet discovered. — BrianW

You are making up correlations and conclusions based on premises you either assume correct or invent to fit the narrative. There's nothing in this that has any basis in science at all and cannot be used to make anything logical whatsoever. You can't just link different matter with different forms of radiation, connect this to how our brain works and reach a conclusion that you call logical. In what way is this a rational argument?

Science is not supposed to claim that what it knows is everything to know. Life after death is about possibilities not definitives. — BrianW

Science is science, it's a method to reach a conclusion that is based in evidence. Everything else is belief and while it's fine to believe, it cannot ever be used to prove or disprove anything. This topic isn't about spiritual ideas, it's a philosophical dialectic about the existens of life after death or consciousness after death. In this regard, it's irrelevant what people believe, what cannot be proven isn't logical or correct. The most logical and reasonable conclusion is the one that follows what facts that actually exist.

If you don't understand the facts, if you don't know what energy, matter and how the brain works, you can't make a conclusion based on premisses roted in that misunderstanding. That equals an error in the argument.

What you're referring to is not the scientific method. I think you're the one who's got things twisted. Are you implying Newton worked to disprove gravity? — BrianW

Newtons discoveries were not made according to modern methods of scientific research. The methods of science have evolved for over 500 years. Have you have heard of Karl Popper? This is the scientific method derived from his epistemology and in any form of dialectic this should be the primary method in order to not get biased towards a certain assumed conclusion.

Once a principle is proved, it can never be disproved. As to the inability to disprove something, it is just that - inability. It does not become proof of anything. — BrianW

What are you talking about? You have a hypothesis, you use Karl Poppers method of trying to disprove it and from that derive a conclusion that has been put through what he proposed as the process of falsification. It's standard practice in many areas of science, especially theoretical ones, in which you are limited in physical testing.

----

Belief and subjective ideas without any support in science cannot ever prove things like life after death or consciousness existing after death. Any claim that it can is a fallacy and in my opinion it's not philosophy anymore because it's impossible to have a proper dialectic if the arguments aren't properly formed or backed up. Assuming the premise correct in order to reach a true conclusion is a basic fallacy and impossible to argue against since there's nothing to argue against. If your conclusions are based on false premisses, then any attempt for me to counter this argument forces me to assume you are correct, when you haven't proven anything to be correct.

If you want to argue for life after death and consciousness after death you need a proper argument, with true premisses, everything else is irrelevant. Subjective belief and opinion isn't philosophy when it comes to modern metaphysics.

But if the transphenomenality of consciousness was never created how could it end? — Blue Lux

What if there is no death? Only a disintegration? — Blue Lux

None of this has any foundation in science. The reason we get consciousness is a combination of pre-programmed genetics that form the starting point of a human and then the neurons grow through sensory input, experience, motor functions and so on. There's nothing before life and when we die, those neurons decompose like a computer hard drive corroding with rust that can't be read or written to. To suggest that consciousness exists on some other realm or state of the universe cannot be proved and have no foundation in philosophy if it can't be argued properly. If you have the hypothesis that consciousness exists somewhere else and that consciousness continues after death, you need to lay forth an argument in support of that. Just throwing out ideas is not philosophy, at least not from where I stand.

If you accept the philosophical (later scientific) assertion that, 'energy (life) can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed', then the bottom line becomes there's life before birth and after death. The better question would be: "What kind of life is it?" — BrianW

Energy is just energy, consciousness is not energy and energy is not "life" as you put it. You don't get another consciousness from other people when you feel the warm radiation from their bodies, do you? Heat is energy distribution. When we die, the energy that we've gotten from sun radiation, the food we ate, the stored fat in our bodies etc. slowly leaves us as heat radiation, electrons in our brain goes into this heat and then dissipates into lower states of energy that can't be felt as heat anymore. Entropy does it's thing, but the energy that leaves us is neither life or consciousness. Believing that is a radical misunderstanding of what energy is.

In earlier times, before 'science' became the by-word for everyone trying to explain reality, the weight of a person's theories were measured in how logical they were and not necessarily on proof. Science would like to refute that, but then I ask: "If science is okay with the postulate that 'energy can neither be created nor destroyed... ' does it mean it has tested all the energy in existence and therefore has undeniable proof of that? Literally, that's a resounding NO! So, then, perhaps the answer to 'life after death' is not in the proof we may or may not have, but in how logical it would be for the presence or absence of that life after death. — BrianW

I feel that you have a great misunderstanding of what science is or what the scientific method is. There's tons of research into the laws of thermodynamics. You are arguing against this science without any logical reasoning and no insight into how it actually works. A scientific theory means that it's proven, if it weren't proven you wouldn't be able to write on the computer you do now, since the whole reason we have technology as we do, is because we have used these theories to create such technologies. Science have proven what you argue it hasn't. If you don't understand the science, it doesn't mean it isn't a proven theory or doesn't exist. Your misunderstanding of what energy is, that through science that has been proven, and the result is a lot of the technologies you use in the modern world, then argue that the science is wrong. What you are doing is the begging the question fallacy and the assumed premises also assumes that the science is wrong, which it isn't.

I refuse to believe there is a beginning or an end to transphenomenal being. I think in death it disintegrates to reform into something else, and depending on the formation that manifests this transphenomenal soup, another separate identity forms. — Blue Lux

Your belief is your own, however, if we are doing serious philosophy on the subject, it demands more. Even the religious monks like St. Aquinas needed to try and create a logical reasoning behind their argument for God. Just throwing out ideas is not philosophy, subjective experience is not philosophy. It's a starting point, but it needs a correct argument, otherwise it's impossible to have a philosophical dialectic, since it's just opinions. If you have a hypothesis, you need to support it with solid premises that are true and not assumed true.

I think the theosophical explanation of reincarnation and evolution of life is better than the others. — BrianW

But without logical reasoning and with fallacies in reasoning it's just religious belief.

The unity I refer to is LIFE. It is the principle underlying everything we mean by truth or reality. Theosophy is more a mixture of the various religious principles. — BrianW

You still need a solid argument, otherwise it's just religious belief, spirituality, fantasy and so on. Philosophy requires serious thought, not just subjective belief and that's the end of it. I think the scientific method is also a very good way of thinking, meaning; you don't try and prove your idea, you try and disprove it, by any means necessary. If you cannot disprove your idea, however much you try and however someone else tries to do it, it then becomes proven, rational and logic in it's form.

None of us here have died (and remember it). — Michael Ossipoff

But that doesn't equal that there is. It just points out that there's no one able to witness it. However, if you use all the data, research and do an inductive argument with Occam's razor in mind, the conclusion is that it's most probable that there isn't anything after death. Everything therefore points to claims of an afterlife to be false. If we are to compare probabilities, there's little to support an inductive argument for the existence of an afterlife or consciousness existing after death. It's important to not get biased to the want and need of an afterlife and instead look at it with cold precision.

Of course you never experience the time when your body has completely shut-down. Only your survivors do.
. — Michael Ossipoff

But that is not sufficient as evidence for ay afterlife or surviving consciousness. Many of the survivors experiences can be explained through how the neurons work. Just focusing on the descriptions of survivors is extremely insufficient as evidence of anything.

You’re taking a Literalist interpretation, when you speak of whether or not you’re still there at the time when, from the point of view of your survivors, you’re gone. — Michael Ossipoff

I only speak of that which I can rationally explain through existing evidence and logic reasoning. Anything else is delusions and fantasy. If we are to prove there's something after death or a continuation of out consciousness, we need more than just survivors description of their experiences. As I pointed out with my analogy about being drunk, there are biological functions that create similar experiences between humans because we consist of essentially the same functions. Therefore, the similarities between survivors experiences cannot be used as evidence for the existence of consciousness after death, since the similarities of these experiences may just be the consequence of what the brain does when it shuts down, how the neurons fire at that moment. Just like people recall that in the event of an accident, time seem to slow down, the subjective perception can create wild experiences under the right conditions. So the experiences by survivors of near death experiences are more likely to be the product of such processes in our brain. Attaching them to some supernatural explanation does not have any solid ground as an argument, since it assumes the premise is correct before the conclusion.

Of course,

As I’ve pointed out in other threads, there’s no such thing as “oblivion”. You never arrive at or experience a time when you aren’t.
.
You’d agree that death is sleep, and that that sleep becomes deeper and deeper. …but with you never reaching a time when you aren’t. …though you become quite unconscious, in the sense that there isn’t waking-consciousness. — Michael Ossipoff

Of course you never experience oblivion and you don't, when you are dead, you are dead. I do not agree that death is sleep, when you are dead, your body is just dead meat, getting consumed by the bacteria that you lived in symbios with before. It's nothing more than what happens when you shut down the computer, with the added effect that this "computer" starts to decompose and starts breaking down the inner functions so that turning it on again is impossible. You wouldn't say that a computer is still "experiencing input" or anything when it's shut off, so why would we humans? To argue that we humans and our consciousness is more special than anything else in this universe is a bit arrogant by our species. Our brain and body, our mind works just as anything else, which means that there's nothing when we die, everything is gone and after our neurons have decomposed all those moments are lost (like tears in rain).

The explanation for the experiences that survivors talk about can made through the example of the accident I mentioned, in which people say time slows down. If all neurons fires at once, our perception of time can be stretched and they might recall spending a long time with all of those experiences, when they in fact only experienced it at the short moment of time when the neurons fired off before the brain shut down. Much like with REM sleep, in which we can sense that a long time has past but the actual sleep time was just a few minutes. Our perception of time in our delusions are different than experiencing reality fully awake, but there's nothing to prove any supernatural about this.

When you die, the neurons most likely fires on all cylinders, putting you through a very unique experience, unlike anything you've ever experienced. Then the brain shuts down and you are gone. If the body can be revived in that moment, before the decomposing has started, it is sometimes possible to turn "this computer" on again. If that happens, the experience that can be recalled is the experience when all neurons fired on full cylinders and recalling it would indeed sound like a profound experience. However, the emotional impact of these experiences should not influence how we measure if these are supernatural or natural consequences of our dying brains.

What kind of instrument-readings were you expecting? :D …with instruments like in Ghostbusters?
.
From the point of view of the investigators, the animals that died are quite dead.
. — Michael Ossipoff

And so are the humans that they've measured at their moment of death. So far, there's no evidence of anything leaving the body, existing outside of the body or any sign of consciousness existing after the moment of death. We are no different from animals and suggesting this is a bit arrogant of us. We didn't evolve to supernatural beings that transcend into something else, we are meat and bones, biology and genes just as much as any other species on this planet. Our evolution just brought us a way to analyse our surroundings to survive better and the byproduct was intelligence. There's nothing that points to anything else.

Well, if someone is the kind of person who is expected to go to Hell, would he be hoping that there’s an afterlife? — Michael Ossipoff

I think that is kind of irrelevant since there's no proof of anything after death, so his choice of belief is irrelevant to proving anything about an afterlife.

In the East, there’s the expressed goal of an end to lives, a time when reincarnation isn’t needed and doesn’t happen. — Michael Ossipoff

Nirvana is exactly what happens after we die, there's nothing for us, we are gone. Anything else is desperation in face of this oblivion. It's a dark concept that there's nothing and that leads to people desperately trying to find comfort in other concepts. It's so intense that we make up fantasies about something else happening after we die, but nothing points to it and time and time again, it has been impossible to prove. In the East, they get the concept of Nirvana correct, but not the reincarnation part. It's better to view reincarnation or better yet, the eternal recurrence concept as a way of life, but when we die it's over.

At this forum, at least one poster has expressed that he doesn’t want there to be an afterlife or reincarnation.

So you’re greatly over-generalizing when you say that everyone is hoping for an afterlife. — Michael Ossipoff

Of course I'm generalizing, since it's impossible to account for every single persons will. There are those who want to swim naked in a pool of hot sauce, does that mean you can't propose that no one wants to bathe in hot sauce? It's semantics, the general idea is that most people wouldn't want things to just end, therefore, the concepts of an afterlife emerged throughout history.

You keep referring to the “Supernatural”. The Supernatural consists of contravention of physical law in scary movies about werewolves, vampires, murderous mummies, etc.
.
Usually it’s just the Materialists who speak of “The Supernatural” (contravention of physical law) and seem to want to attribute beliefs about that, to non-Materialists. — Michael Ossipoff

I consider religion to be supernatural belief. Afterlife and the continuation of the mind is derived from religious and spiritual concepts. Wild metaphysical philosophy is hard to argue with today since science has for the most part taken over it because of it's superior methods to reach proven results. Supernatural in this sense is what afterlife and mind after death is, since there's no evidence for it and concluding there to be such things without evidence or logic is more akin to the belief in ghosts, heaven etc. which is supernatural. Metaphysics should not stray from logic and rational reasoning, if so, it becomes fantasy and delusional that disregards facts.

A computer couldn’t care less if it gets turned off. — Michael Ossipoff

And a human couldn't care less when he's dead. And caring about dying or living proves nothing about an afterlife. The functions of the brain, mind and body resembles a computer in software and hardware, we are no special than the universe we live in. What we think about life and death does not change how life and death works. This is concepts that humans invented, not something that exists just because we say so.

I'm adressing these arguments then.

First, a high number of testimonials gives a better picture of the events in question. So the greater the number the more likely we are to get an accurate report, but not necessarily, i.e., high numbers don't always translate into accurate testimonial evidence, which is why one must also consider other important factors. — Sam26

If the process of dying is the same for everyone, does the testimonials not just describe that same process in it's subjective experience? Example: Everyone who drinks alcohol can describe the same consequence of being drunk, does that mean something supernatural exists or just that the process of getting drunk is the same? Same goes for near death experiences. If the process is the same, the testimonials should look similar or the same to everyone. The tunnel with people at the end of it would be the same if the same process of the dying brain is the same. You can induce similar experiences in people if you create the same conditions for them and the small variants might be because of the differences in memory and identity of the one experiencing them. Testimonials does then not equal any existence of the supernatural.

Second, seeing the event from a variety of perspectives will also help to clear up some of the testimonial reports. For example, different cultural perspectives, different age groups, different historical perspectives, different religious perspectives, different times of the day, and even considering people with different physical impairments (like the blind) will help clear up some of the biased and misremembered reports. — Sam26

Yes, but some experiences we have are rooted in the biology of being a human. These shouldn't be mixed up with experiences that happens between all cultures and people for being supernatural, the conclusion is just that we share some experiences based on our physical and neurological existence as humans.

Third, is the consistency of the reports, i.e., are there a large number of consistent or inconsistent reports. While it is important to have consistency in the testimonial evidence, inconsistency doesn't necessarily negate all of the reports. When dealing with a large number of testimonials you will almost certainly have contradictory statements, this happens even when people report on everyday events. Thus, one must weed out the testimony that does not fit the overall picture, and paint a picture based on what the majority of accounts are testifying to. It doesn't necessarily mean that what the minority is saying is unimportant, only that accuracy tends to favor what the majority are reporting. — Sam26

But this still doesn't account for experiences based on basic similarities between humans by their physical and neurological makeup. We are more similar to each other than we are different, meaning that under certain conditions we experience the same things and would report the same when asked. It doesn't prove that there is something after death.

Fourth, can the testimony be corroborated by any other objective means, thereby strengthening the testimonial evidence as given by those who make the claims. — Sam26

In essence, you mean backing up the testimony with external evidences? Yes in that case.

Fifth, are the testimonials firsthand accounts, as opposed to being hearsay. In other words, is the testimonial evidence given by the person making the claim, and not by someone simply relating a story they heard from someone else. This is very important in terms of the strength of the testimonials. — Sam26

If the experience can't be proven to be something supernatural, it doesn't really matter if it's a first hand accounts. Yes, it makes it stronger than hearsay, but if the first hand testimony can't be proven to be an experience of supernatural form, it cannot prove anything about consciousness existing after death.

Each of these five criteria serve to strengthen the testimonial evidence. All of these work hand-in-hand to strengthen a particular testimonial conclusion, and they serve to strengthen any claim to knowledge. If we have a large enough pool of evidence based on these five criteria we can say with confidence that the conclusion follows. In other words, we can say what is probably the case, not what is necessarily the case. — Sam26

Unfortunetely, testimonial accounts cannot be used as evidence and cannot lead to a conclusion. It can be in support of evidence, but it cannot be used as evidence since there's no correlation between it and with the truth or falseness of the claim of consciousness existing after death. You need to be able to measure that consciousness exists without the neurons. If a person gets his brain destroyed and you could measure the existence of his consciousness in the room after it, that would be evidence. However, how such proof would be attained is impossible to say, if it's even possible to measure.
Testimonials of near death experience does not prove anything in of themselves. They only provide accounts of experiences linked to the experience of death, meaning, they might say something about what happens to our consciousness while the brain is dying and shutting down. It's an interesting thing, but it does not prove anything about the consciousness existing after death or transcending to any afterlife.

Unfortunetely no, since I wanted to add my input on the matter when I saw it, so I only read the original post for this. If what I've been writing about has already been adressed I'm not taking away anything from that, I just wanted to add to it. Sorry if it felt like ignoring arguments, that wasn't the intention. :smile:

But even so, more spiritual arguments keeps coming under this subject, which ignores the scientific arguments, so I'm still waiting for any deductive/inductive reasoning for the existence of consciousness after death, which I have never really seen. Metaphysics have essentially been replaced by science during the last hundred years so I usually find it hard to see philosophy argue metaphysics rationally in modern times. It becomes more spiritual and disregarding true dialectics.

The collective, as I see it, has no existence; the most I could cede is that it is an average of viewpoints — Anthony

How is it viewpoints if each individual use deductive reasoning? If a thousand people use deductive reasoning to reach the same conclusion, that should be considered an objective truth by the definition of the word. Any other definition reduce the use of the word into nothing. If you view it as absolute objective, meaning any form of observation equals subjectivity, even if a collective where almost all individual conclusions have mathematical logic and all conclusions are the same without them knowing of each others conclusions, then the word objective has no meaning or purpose in language anymore because it cannot be used. If anything I would suggest that objective is used by my definition of it and that your definition is called absolute objectiveness, which refers to a cosmic objectiveness outside the realm of human perception.

many people treat science and peer review like God, all the way up to the point of personification of it: e.g.: "the science says/tells us...." ...which is essentially like "God spoke to me; God told us..." Like the transcendent belief in a God that can be found nowhere, so it is with collective beliefs. The collective consensus clearly even violates the scientific policy of requiring evidence for a thing to exist: e.g. where is it? — Anthony

I think you misinterpret what I actually mean by the scientific process. What I mean is that the scientific method is the closest form of method we have to reach an objective truth. It's not like saying "God told us" if we have evidence that support a claim, measurements made by many separated scientists to reach a conclusion without subjective opinions.

The collective consensus clearly even violates the scientific policy of requiring evidence for a thing to exist: e.g. where is it? — Anthony

I never said that the collective consensus should come to a conclusion without evidence, I said that the collective in individual separation from each other, doing deductive reasoning, would reach the most objective conclusion possible when evidence is missing. If evidence is clear, each individual would through the scientific method reach a conclusion and when compared to other findings, if these checks out, the collective of scientists that individually reached the same conclusion through the evidences they found, have by consensus reached an objective truth by the definition of the word (at least by the definition of the word as in how we use it in our language).

If you subscribe to the existence of collectives, you can say they exist in different provinces of variable human groups: culture, religion, politics, economics, military, or any authoritative doctrine which asks of complete unquestioning obeisance. — Anthony

If a collective use individual subjective truths based on the group they belong to, in order to reach a conclusion, that is not what I described. If each individual use a deductive reasoning, meaning, they clearly need correct premisses in order to reach an individual conclusion that is then compared to others conclusions to reach a consensus. If you are within one of these groups and you do not follow procedur, the group will not reach an objective truth. Example of this is when in a group of religious belief, each individual truth is that God exists and comparing to the others the objective truth would be that God exists, but this is false, since all the individual conclusions are based on individual belief, not deductive reasoning for the existence of God. So there is no objective truth as a conclusion of that collective. To try and be objective, means you open the doors for the collective to reach an objective truth. Trying means, by any means at your disposal, minimizing your subjective input on the matter. This is essentially what scientists do, they try to use logic, math, research, tests, more tests and so on, to reach as close to an objective truth as they can individually do and then this research goes into duplication by others to verify that this conclusion is correct regardless of the individual.

This is what I mean by the usefulness of the definition of the word, objective. If the word instead is defined as absolute objectivity, it does not have any viable use in our language, because it has no purpose anymore. And if you render the term "objective" useless, by arguing that everything is subjective, you are essentially opening a can of worms that nothing can be proven.

This absoluteness of these terms, the absoluteness of how we define things, makes it impossible to practically define the difference between proven facts/truths and subjective viewpoint. It then becomes a slippery slope in which everything can be said to be subjective and therefor nothing is true. If that were the case, we wouldn't have had the technology we use to write all of this on. If science wouldn't have been able to find objective truths, we couldn't build things based on those scientific findings.

Inventions exist, therefor knowledge of objective truths exists.
Without objective truth, we couldn't invent something with precision.

Where is the evidence of any collective? Evidence is the ultimate authority of science. — Anthony

And this isn't something I've said. Quite the opposite. If evidence exist, going through the scientific method, that would equal an objective truth in the end, as close as we can get to it in the parameters of our perception. The second best, is by deductive reasoning and logic reach conclusions that the collective also reaches. Example of that is theoretical physics, in which a lot of the theories and hypotheses doesn't have evidence, but instead deductive logic through math. Many do the same math problem to reach the same conclusion and others continue with duplication and if reaching the same conclusion, strengthens the objectiveness of the proposed truth. This is the core of what I said and the more that does this and comes to the same conclusion, the stronger that truth is in it's objectiveness. As I mentioned, it's more about probability than absolutes, because absolutes renders the term unpractical in language. If a conclusion has 99,999% probability of being an objective truth, that is and should be considered true objectiveness for human perception and the use of the term.

Ok with an afterlife or ok without an afterlife? I feel comfort in there not being an afterlife, since I accept it and live life by it. To live life and come to a conclusion that there isn't any afterlife at the end would be more horrific than living life as if it ends completely. As I mentioned, it's emotionally more comforting to think that there is an afterlife, but it's a delusion, the bliss of ignorance. It's seducing to comply to the idea of an afterlife since it's comforting, but comfort is not truth and accepting truth as it is and finding true comfort within truth rather than in delusion has a greater strength as a foundation for life than anything else.

Being ok with an afterlife is somewhat of a non-question since being ok without an afterlife is the more emotionally demanding. To be ok with the existence of an afterlife is like being ok with me living tomorrow, and the next day and the next. It has no real value other than just being. But being ok with that I won't live tomorrow demands of me to find a much more complex and demanding emotional foundation to exist on. That is the hard route, but I rather go by truth, than by comfort, rather be as true to existence as I can than live in ignorance in order to shield myself from the truth.

Stretching the evidence and the conclusions and scientific findings in order to support the concept of an afterlife is acting like Don Quijote. If you are thorough in any other field of science, but stretch the evidence thin whenever you adress the concept of an afterlife, you are acting ut of comfort and not truth. Do not assume the premises to be correct in order for the conclusion to be correct. If the premises clearly doesn't show any evidence for an afterlife, there isn't any and any notion of there being one is a delusion out of comfort, not out of truth.

There's no solid evidence for consciousness surviving death. There's no solid evidence that it doesn't. However, given what we know about everything else in nature and the universe and psychology, we can argue that there's a very strong inductive argument against the consciousness surviving without the body.

First off, there's nothing that separates us from other animals other than higher cognitive functions. This higher function is the result of evolution and the byproduct of this evolution is our ability to think in abstract ways. This can lead to illusions of us being of a higher existence than animals, but in essence we are not, no data support that we are. Therefor, we are like animals and animals consciousness should therefor also continue after their death. Animal tests on this does not show any data that support that this is the case.

In psychology and neuroscience there's strong hypotheses about what happens when we die. The trauma that the body and brain goes through at the moment of death most likely fires off all the neurons in our brain in order to try and kickstart everything. This process resembles seizures and REM states, meaning if all neurons are firing, you might get a large flow of memory data scrambled together, like in dream sleep. This is why people can provide witness reports of events that they experienced at the moment of a near death experience. However, there's no correlation with those reports and anything actually supernatural.

We humans also have a tendency to be biased to what comforts us. Most of us have had deaths around us in our life and it's easier for us to cope if we believe that our friends and family are in a better place. However, this is a false comfort based on our need to overcome grief and cannot be used in an argument for the survival of the mind after death. We don't know if it's true, but we want it to be true and the "want" is so great that even the most intellectual mind can be teased into believing in an afterlife. This is probably why there are so many scientists that still believes in some religion, even though they are trained to view big questions with the scientific method.

We are therefor extremely afraid of death without an afterlife. It's a concept that is the most terrifying we can think of. That everything we were, everything we are goes right into the trash can, like a hard drive that fails to boot and you realize that everything you had on it is gone. But everything points to that being the truth. Therefor I think many have a missed opportunity in which they believe in an afterlife and therefor does not care for this life. If you know and understand that everything ends with all your memories destroyed and all the knowledge you had gathered, gone, then you might care for leaving that knowledge behind. We do it with our kids, but we can also do it, like we do it here, writing it out, expanding our thoughts and ideas, sharing them. Too many live their life in a closed space, waiting for an afterlife that probably never comes. That is the depressing waste of a life.

The only thing that could be considered close to a consciousness surviving death would be our gut bacteria. Researchers have found that our way of thinking might be influenced and work in symbios with our gut, i.e the bacterial makeup of our intestines. When we die, these bacterias are the first to eat us from the inside, they live on, feeding on the corpse and if there was any kind of consciousness that they make up with us, that's the only thing that exists after death, however, that might be considered "life" and not the supernatural energy we think of as consciousness after death.

The easiest way of thinking about our life is to compare it to a computer. It's turned on, with a blank hard drive. It has a boot up system that functions as our motor cortex, the things that makes us move as a body, but we have no mind, no memory to drive our identity. So we install an operating system, the basic genetic makeup of who we are, based on previous data from our parents. In that operating system, we gather information, we fill up the hard drive. Some hard drives are larger than others, some have problems, some have software errors and some have hardware errors. But the longer the computer is running and the more work it does, the more information is stored and the more it can do. The more programs installed, the more capabilities it has. Then the fans cooling the system gets broken, the cooling paste for the processor starts lacking, we patch it up, we try to keep it going, some drives start failing, corrupting data, it can't remember stuff well, remember stuff scrambled and with errors. Until one day, the drive fails, the processor fails, the power fails, and the life it had is dead, all data gone, corrupted, corroded. Others cannot access it, it's gone, but some of the data was uploaded, some information got saved to the network and others can gather around this info and use it going forward. But the drive will never work again, it is gone and that's that.

This analogy has one silver lining, if we are speaking in materialistic terms. If we find a way to remove the hard drive before it gets corrupted and we find a way to make it work in another system, we could potentially move consciousness from the body. However, our consciousness and the structure of our neurons are one and the same. This is why uploading our mind into a computer as in transhumanism only works as a copy, the original still remains. The copy might believe it was "moved" over to the computer system, but it wasn't. The best example of this in a story is Ghost in the Shell (anime), it both shows the only way to use a human mind in a robot body, in the way of actually moving the brain into another body, but also, the uploading and syntheses that happen in the end clearly states a new form, not that the others were moved. They died to create a new synthesis, which is a new life form, not the old, essentially the child.

So, in conclusion, there's nothing to suggest there's an afterlife, nothing to suggest that anything supernatural happens at the moment of death. Our consciousness works close to how a computer works and the same rules apply to us as anything else in the universe, meaning when we fail, we are gone. The probability that our consciousness keeps on existing after our death is minimal to non-existing and most suggestions that it does seem rooted in the deep fear of death and the deep need for the comfort of it's concept. However, if we're drawing up a deductive or inductive argument around this, there's little to support any claim that our consciousness can exist after death or go on to any afterlife.

We are of meat and matter, we are of neurons with electrons, we are that of a machine fearing non-existence so much that we deny our existence as it is. The greatest delusion of our species.

Isn't this primarily based on languages that hold vastly different structures from each other and grammar that is different? I mean, I'm from Sweden so I speak both Swedish and English, their structure and grammar is pretty much the same and I can bounce between them quite easily. However, people who've learned languages like Mandarin, which has an entirely different structure and verbal handling, that's where one might find differences in the thinking process.

However, I agree that the most common idea about this is the one about a painter speaking and writing with visual words, the musician in words that revolves around sound, the wine-taster about taste and so on. However, is that a product of the mind or might the interest have been fueled by the language, i.e when interests were forming, did the language used influence what path an individual took?

There's many interesting hours can be spent discussing objectivity, but semantic differences aren't part of that. — Pattern-chaser

I don't mind the semantic discussion, because I think it essentially is about semantics. Without a definition baseline for the word, how do we discuss the parameters of the concept? I think the semantic difference we speak of here is that I view objectivity through the lens of humans using that word to describe absolute truth outside of our perception, but reachable by a scientific method, since we've reached truths that can be considered objective truths in order to, let's say, advance technology. If we didn't have an objective truth, we wouldn't have been able to harness material into different technologies that we have today. If all that research was subjective, nothing would work. So objective is a reachable concept for us, but objective truth for me, requires a collective with a deductive reasoning per individual.

Your definition of objective seems to be more omnipotent, something that is a concept that we humans can never reach by the simple fact that everything is interpreted in order for us to experience anything. So the objective is unreachable, the reality that exists outside of the sensory perception we have.

But I think that even if we are limited in our perception of pure untapped reality, we have already harnessed aspects of this reality in technology and science, which points to us already understanding some objective concepts. A lot of proven theories in science have objective implications all over the universe and that's objectively true for the reality outside of our perception, as well as within our perception.

I hope that clears things up a bit for what I'm trying to reason for here?

Why are numbers so important, here? Shouldn't we be able to discuss objectivity at the individual level? — Anthony

I was defining what the most objective knowledge we can have is. I.e however the individual work, the objective truth is always the one defined by the many if the individual of that group is trying to be objective. "Trying to be objective" is in some ways pretty obvious, it's essentially just like looking up into the sky and say it's blue and not red. If one person says it's red, it's subjective, if one person says it's red and nine others says it's blue, it's rational to deduct that the sky is blue as an objective truth, but the probability is only nine out of ten. The more people that gets in on it, the higher the consensus gets and the higher the probability of objective truth. If one person says it's red, two says it's green and ten thousand other people says it's blue, it's hard to call that not objective as a truth. And while you can say that, yes, it's only that truth in the eyes of our perception, we can only define words within the parameters of our perception and ability to be objective. So the objective definition of the word "objective" should be what we all can agree on being objective, not what is 100% objective outside of our perception. What is then the most pure objective truth out of our perception and concept of how to define that word? Well, that is defining it as the truth with the most consensus around among as many people as possible. The sky is blue, because it's objectively true for all of us, not necessarily for any aliens with other forms of perception.

To define the word objective means that we define it in order to use it, otherwise we need to stop using language since words have to loose of definitions.

But I agree that we should try and define what's objective for the individual, unfortunately I think it's impossible to be objective as an individual, therefor why I wrote what I wrote.

'm sure it's better to keep it to what communicates, what is possible and what isn't, objectively between two people only. — Anthony

For an individual to be objective, the only way I see it possible is to use a deductive way of thinking. You present premises that seem to correlate with what you can pick up with your senses and then you combine many premises to conclude something. But that requires one to be precise and not judge what you examine. Problem is that most of the premises will in pure definition be subjective, so you use subjective premises to conclude something objectively. So can the conclusion be objective? If the deductive method puts forth pure logic, by almost mathematical precision, it might, but it's hard to define a singular individual as being objective.

In essence, I don't think it's possible for a single individual to be subjective, you need a collective to reach objective results and truths.

You suggest that consensus, where we all agree, but we could all be wrong, is the same as objective, which offers a sort of guarantee that something is correct, and accurately reflects reality? — Pattern-chaser

True that all could be wrong, that's why I described it as a rising objectivity with more people in that group. For example, if a field of science comes to the conclusion with a 99% consensus, that is pretty objective and it's hard to find the subjective part in that conclusion, even if it technically isn't pure objectivity. But there is a problem within this binary way of deciphering objectivity.

Thing is, we could argue that there isn't anything that makes us humans being able to be objective, if we're putting the definition of objective to be 100% objective in relation to the objective world. Meaning, through the lens of the unconscious material and purely objective world that exists outside of our concept and perception of it, that is the only thing that can truly be objective, since any observation requires subjectivity.

However, the concept of objectivity is not defined as 100% pure objectivity as in, there isn't a subject mind around to interpret it, but instead a definition of what we see as proven facts outside of our concept and interpretations of it. So, gravity, that things are falling to the ground is objectively true and while we could argue that we don't know that it is true as it's only our interpretation of sensory information, we cannot be 100% sure it's an objective truth. But "objectivity" as we define it isn't about that, it's about the closest we can get to something that we can comprehend as existing outside of our perception and subjective mind. We agree upon gravity pulling objects to the center of the planet, it's an objective truth for us within the framework of the world and universe that we define ourselves within. Therefor, the higher number of consensus among the highest numbers of people who are as objective as they can possibly be with their subjective minds, is what objectivity means to us humans.

Any other definition of objectivity means we need to step outside of being humans, therefor we need to be another form of entity to redefine what objective means.

That's why I defined the scientific process as the closest we humans have got to being truly objective and that form of objectivity should be considered a true definition of the word. Otherwise we open up to defining anything, any knowledge that we have, as subjective and that's a slippery slope down to denying facts in science.

Quality is the condition in which a certain object's function and aesthetic features exceed other objects in the same category according to similar features and principles.

The definition of the quality of a chair is ever changing. A "perfect" chair hundred years ago did not incorporate modern ideas of ergonomic design, so the notion of the "perfect" quality of a chair back then is today considered normal or sub quality compared to what we view quality of a chair today. So quality can only be defined by the parameters of the current time and current designs and in comparison with other objects within this timeframe.

If you compare every chair since the dawn of civilisation, you would certainly find the best looking (although subjective interpretation) and best ergonomically designed chair somewhere. That chair would be of the highest quality of every chair ever built, but never future chairs. By definition, the best chair ever built to the end of time, would be the last chair built for a species that could sit down and based on improving previous designs in function and aesthetic form. However, that is just the purest definition through all time, quality should be regarded of a measurement within the current time and not throughout all time. That's also the only rational use of it's purpose as a word.

"I bought a chair of better quality than before", simply means, it functions better for the purpose of sitting comfortably and as part of my home interior design by the aesthetic properties of current trends in design.

It is certainly hard to define what quality is, since it's pretty subjective, but as a measurement of something better than before in function and form, it's as close to the objective definition of what quality is.

This is essentially Nietzsche. Most interpret that he concluded that God is dead and then proposed a nihilistic way of life, which is far from the truth.

His essential question was, how can we form a new moral framework, now that God is dead. He meant that through the enlightenment period atheism grew stronger and more common and saw that through more knowledge about the world, the less relevant God would be to explain the unexplainable. This would mean that the future would be essentially Godless. If that would happen, that would also mean that other teachings of religion would go undone, in essence the teachings of moral values.
So he tried to bring up a moral framework for how to live life with good morals in a world without established moral framework, i.e he tried to create that moral framework.

One of the most essential things was his idea of eternal recurrence, mostly misinterpreted as actually living in circular time, but it's essentially about the idea of living over and over. If you would live your life, as you live it right now, with every choice and every event exactly as it has happened before, would you find happiness, even in the darkest events of your life? And how would you treat others?

Another idea is the one proposed by people like Matt Dillahunty, who propose that morality should have it's basis in the well-being of the self and others combined and changing according to the most rational world views of the time. By this he means that if the baseline for morality is the well being of your self and others, there will be little choice to do anything that actually harms others or does something that is purely selfish in in the end hurts others. If you build on top of that rules that are ever changing but always based in that baseline, you will be open to progressive changes. For example, womens and gay rights have earlier been proposed to be morally wrong, but since science and rationality opposed this and we now live in a world where both rights are considered part of basic human rights, pure atheist morals easily change framework to include that on top of the well being of others. But this moral view also opens up for it to be the reason for progressing moral values as well. To purely argue through this framework with proper discourse may even be the reason why we have women and gay rights included in basic human rights today.

I believe that the reason many have problems with a atheistic rational deductive/inductive moral value system is that they are too influenced by a moral system they've learned to live by, through family or religion they might even have moved away from.

As an example, why do many people, especially atheists, view curse words based on religion, as curse words? The value of these words should not have any meaning to an atheist, but they still use them as curse words, like the word "damn" or "hell". This is because the concept of these words have been learned through their upbringing, it's part of the world they live in and they have problems moving away from this programmed way of behaviour. The same goes with our concept of a moral system. You can learn the moral system through religion, but even if you become an atheist, many have a problem of finding moral outside of religious teachings.

This is probably because many atheists take their morals for granted, instead of actually trying to find a framework for it. But it's not as hard as it sounds if you properly deduce a conclusion through rationality. But most people aren't capable or have the tools to actually do such rational thinking about this subject, so they feel lost. In some ways, that's why philosophy is more important now than ever for these subjects. By estimate, the world will be composed of 50% atheists by 2032 and we need a good framework by then, otherwise the nightmare Nietzsche had about the nihilistic future of an atheistic society might come true.

"The earth is warming, as it has done since the last ice age. This is objective. Where objectivity gets lost is blaming this on humans."

- I feel that you are picking premisses that only support your conclusion here. Through the scientific process you get as close to objectivity as we can get. But you put aside all the other data that support the objective claim that humans affect the climate. Measurements aren't just about temperature, they are about correlations between fluctuations in our climate with events in our history, primarily from the industrial revolution up until today.

Just because someone doesn't understand how to read the data that has been put forward by numerous scientists and doesn't have the knowledge to use that data in order to reach an objective conclusion doesn't mean that the scientific community that has put forward their conclusions is wrong.

"Another way to look at this is, the same swamp people, that brought you the Russian collusion narrative, also brought you the global warming narrative. They are composed of lawyers, intelligence people, media and marketeers, who are very effective in convincing people that a subjective line of bull, repeated enough times, can appear to be objective fact."

- This begging the question. You assume your conclusion is correct by a premise you assume to be correct, but in fact is composed of another fallacy, correlation doesn't mean causation. You could actually say the opposite about this, that the people you bring up have these opinions because they are smarter and have the facts on their side and there's just as much to support that as there is to your false conclusion. This is not a premiss or argument that works, so your conclusion becomes false. You also put aside the fact that climate research has been going on longer than the "Russian collusion narrative" as you call it. By history of this field of science alone, your argument and premiss becomes false.

"The trick for being objective is to know your own subjectivity, so you can filter it out. This skill can be developed through self reflection and research into your own unconscious mind. Science overcomes subjectivity with a group approach, where each member provide checks and balances for each other since scientists can be subjective, when lots of research money is at stake. This is when the subjective sales pitch is needed to compete for the cash."

- Agreed on the scientific process, but it seems you are concluding that because scientists need funds in order to do research, they create false conclusions in order to get funds, which isn't supported by any premisses that are correct. One thing is that things like climate change has been in research by numerous institutes around the globe, all with different means of doing research. Some instituts have been getting funds without the need of appealing to investors so their findings aren't biased by fundraising processes.

The fact that you choose this subject is strange under the discussion of objectivity and subjectivity, since the scientific community has a large consensus about humans affecting the climate. It's in more consensus than a lot of work in the field of physics and gravity.

If you want to discuss objectivity vs subjectivity, you might want to pick something that aren't focused on political ideology, since what you put forward doesn't have any premisses that support any conclusion in this discussion. Humans affecting climate change has been proven by the scientific community and by 97% consensus which is very high in the world of scientific research. Conclusions by people who aren't involved in this field of science should be careful to dismiss this, since THAT is pure subjectivity and subjectivity out of ideology.

Therefor, the conclusion you draw based on the subjects you chose are a pure subjective opinion about the level of objectivity the science have, it's not an objective opinion about the level of objectivity the scientific community has.

The argument can be boiled down to this.

1. You need to have education and knowledge of climate research in order to properly and objectively analyze the data together with other scientists in this field. Without knowledge of the process and science in this field, you cannot come to any viable conclusion.
2. Climate change scientists are in high consensus about humans affecting the climate.
3. Climate change scientists are too spread across the globe and works under too many different economical processes to be viably blamed for any conspiracy in getting research funds. Such a conspiracy also demands that all scientists have the driving force of earning money, that none of them have the drive force of wanting to reach a true conclusion in this field.
4. Those who oppose the conclusion that humans affect the climate does not have proper education or knowledge in the field.
5. Those who oppose the conclusion that humans affect the climate often use fallacy arguments and purely ideological ideas to back up their conclusions, rather than looking at the science.

Conclusion: The most objective conclusion you can do as a person that aren't educated in the climate field of science is to listen to the consensus of the scientists. To instead listen to those who oppose, the ones who does not have any education, those who use fallacies in all their arguments and put forth claims of a unproved conspiracy would be truly irrational and subjective. If a politician agrees with the scientific consensus and you do not agree with that politicians ideological position, it's not the scientists who are wrong when you don't agree with that politician, that's called guilt by proxy. Not believing in the science because politicians you don't agree with, agree with that science, does not equal the science to be wrong. So using arguments that focus on who agrees with the scientific community as a basis for why the science is wrong, is a subjective ideological conclusion, not an objective one. So you are using pure subjective premisses and arguments on the subject of subjectivity and objectivity, which makes a bit of a mess to your reasoning.

An object existing objectively means it exists without an observers existence. To be objective means putting forth an argument or statement that is focused on the actual facts rather than the interpretations of those facts.

Example: There is a painting of a flower in a room. Ten people gets the task of going into the room and then come out and write down a description of what they saw in that room. All of these descriptions become a subject interpretation of the fact (the painting of a flower). But the sum of all those interpretations is the objective viewpoint. I.e a single person cannot hold a purely objective opinion or viewpoint, but a collective can, as long as the interpretations are presented, as close as they individually can, to be objective.

If you increase the numbers of the group from ten to hundred or a thousand and so forth, the objectivity becomes greater. This is why the only real way to be objective is through the scientific method. Relying on as objective observations as possible, tests that shows answers that aren't influenced by subject views and combining many studies and peer reviews to come to a combined objective conclusion.
Another method is through pure logic, in which a rational argument cannot be false since it follows logic and if broken breaks logic rather than a subjective viewpoint. But such arguments are limited in what they can describe, for example, math solutions are mostly objective, meaning they can't be changed through subjective means.

Another perspective is also that objectives and subjectives are constructs of the human mind. For us, objectivity is an illusion because we can only agree on whats true based on our subjective viewpoint, but for the objective world, if it would have had a mind, would view subjectivity as an illusion of skewed interpretation of something solid.

What makes this thing more interesting is when we go down to quantum levels and the behaviour of particles that change whenever we measure them, or becomes objective when we look for an objective answer. However, if we view randomness as based on the scale of the universe, the smaller something gets, the less objective it becomes. You could probably predict the entire future history of the largest objects in the universe, their objective paths, but we aren't small enough either to be free of this, you need to go down to quantum levels in order to start questioning the objective as equal to the subjective. Objective should then be considered a state of probability. But at our scale we exist in a state of measurable high probability, so we can be objective, as long as we use methods external to our subjective views.

However, a single person cannot and will not ever be able to be objective, but we can be objective as a group, if members of that group has the intention of individually being objective through the process.