Comments

  • Is the mind divisible?
    ↪Janus
    divided up into different faculties; thought, emotion, volition, perception a — Janus

    It's not a bunch of faculties. Faculties are had by a thing. Things are not made of faculties.

    Same mistake, Hugh.

    It can't be divided into faculties. It 'has' faculties. See?

    Faculties are always the faculties 'of' something. Faculties of perception, reason and so on, are faculties 'of' a mind.
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ↪Janus
    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.
  • Is the mind divisible?
    ↪Daniel
    ↪jorndoe
    ↪Janus
    You're all very confused.

    The mind is a thing.

    Thoughts are states of mind. They're not things . They're states.

    Likewise, consciousness is a 'state'.

    States are always of things.

    The things that conscious states are states of are called 'minds'.

    There's a big philosophical question over what kind of a thing a mind is.

    But it is a thing.

    If you want to use 'consciousness' and 'mind' interchangeably, then you're just abusing words or you can't understand how consciousness is a state and a mind is the thing it is a state of.
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ↪Janus
    Again, you need to deny premise 1. So make an argument against it.
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    So, I can't see any justification for thinking that being dead is a harm. — Janus
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    Being dead, though, cannot be harmful if being dead is not being anything..If being dead is being in a worse situation than we were in while alive, then death is harmful, to be sure, but we don't know that. — Janus
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ↪Janus
    I haven't said that. Of course killing someone harms them. Even if there is no pain involved it deprives them of life.They are harmed in the act of being killed. Of course once they are dead, if they cease to exist, then there is no longer anyone to be deprived of anything, but that doesn't change the fact that you harmed the person in the act of killing them. — Janus

    So, just to be clear, your view is now that death does harm the one who dies? It's just that earlier you said the precise opposite.

    Here was 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.

    You now accept that premise 2 is true.

    So if you're remotely logical, you must now accept my conclusion or deny that one needs to exist in order to be harmed.
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ↪Janus
    You think killing someone doesn't harm them, yes? That's really silly.
  • Is the mind divisible?
    ↪TiredThinker
    It's indivisible. Half a mind makes no sense. Half a banana, yes. Half a sandwich, yes. Half a mind, no - incoherent

    As all extended things are divisible, the mind is not an extended thing. Our brains can be divided. Our minds cannot be. Thus, our minds are not our brains.

    An indivisible thing has no parts (for if it had parts it could be divided into them). And as such the indivisibility of the mind also implies its eternal existence.

    it should also be noted that the existence of simple, indivisible things can be independently established. For it is manifest to reason that not everything can be made of other things, for then one has to posit an actual infinity of parts, which is incoherent.

    Thus, there are simple things in existence.

    And if we listen to our reason rather than convention, we will find that we are among those simple things.
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ↪TiredThinker
    Our bodies know pain whether it is the end of all for us, or just the beginning. — TiredThinker

    I don't know what that means.
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ↪Janus
    We see death as harmful because it forcibly removes us from what we love, or are at least attached to. — Janus

    No, we see it as harmful because our reason represents it to be. That's why there's a big debate about the harmfulness of death in philosophy.

    And to be clear, you are stating that death is actually not a harm.

    So, killing someone doesn't harm them, yes - that's your view?

    You're welcome to resist my argument by adopting such a silly view. It means you lose.
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ↪TiredThinker
    Not a straight answer.

    I assume you agree that the warning on the bleach implies that drinking it will harm the drinker? I mean the answer is so obvious that only someone on this site would dispute it.

    It's yes.

    And that's the label our reason puts on death. So it is reasonable to conclude that death will be an immense harm to us.

    Yet it wouldn't be harmful if it ended our existence. For what does not exist cannot be harmed.

    Thus, the conclusion that follows is that our deaths will not end our existence. We will survive our deaths. It won't be nice, but we'll survive them.
  • Deserving and worthy?
    ↪180 Proof
    You think it does mean it's a concept? Jeez. Below the level.
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ↪Janus
    I have come across some ideas along the line that death is harmful in that it is a deprivation of life. I don't buy that because if there is no afterlife, then there is no one to be deprived of anything. So, I can't see any justification for thinking that being dead is a harm. — Janus

    Again, the evidence that death is harmful is that our reason represents it to be. Why do you think that philosophers try and explain the harmfulness of death otherwise?

    And it isn't about dying. Lots of things are harmful and their harmfulness can be explained.

    Death - the point at which one is no longer here - is the event whose harmfulness is self-evident yet hard to explain (or hard to explain if we are no longer anywhere).

    Pointing out that something else is harmful is just ignorant and off topic. It's like saying "but being punched is harmful. So there".

    Death is self-evidently harmful. And that's not just my reason making such representations, it's everyone's including yours - it's why you try and avoid it, yes?

    And it also seems self-evident that you need to exist in order to be harmed.

    Hence if one dogmatically thinks that we cease to exist altogether at death, one has a problem.

    Hence the literature.

    But you don't have a problem if you just follow reason, for then you conclude that death does not cease our existence, but rather transfers us into a worse plane of existence.

    See?
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ↪Janus
    Sigh. Yes, most contemporary philosophers do not believe in an afterlife. Which is why they think there is a puzzle about why death is harmful.
    They try and explain how it would harm you despite you not existing at the time. And they fail and point this out to one another.
    And it isn't dying - there's no puzzle about that. It's death. Not dying. Death. Christ.
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ↪Noble Dust
    My advice is to not give advice, unless sought. It's rather pompous.

    So again, my bottle of bleach has this written on it: danger! Do not drink. What does that imply - that drinking it will benefit me or harm me?

    My reason says of death: danger, avoid dying. What does that imply about it?
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ↪180 Proof
    3 does follow from 1 and 2. So there's that.
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ↪Janus
    I'm familiar with Epicurus' idea that we cannot be harmed by death if we are nothing when dead. We can certainly be harmed by dying though, which alone is enough to explain peoples' fears — Janus

    Eh? It's not about fear. If Tom - who has no fear of dying for he's just watching a bird eat a fly and isn't thinking about anything in particular - is shot in the back of the head, he's harmed by that.

    Epicurus thought he wouldn't be harmed.

    Most philosophers - including this one - think that's nuts, for it is about as clear to our reason as anything that death is harmful.

    Indeed, it is more evident to reason that death is harmful than that being harmed requires existence, so if the two really are in conflict then it is the existence condition that should be rejected, not the harmfulness of death.

    Yet the existence condition is very plausible - it seems self-evident to reason (not 'as' self evident as the harmfulness of death, but still powerfullly self-evident).

    Hence the puzzle. Hence the vast literature.
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ↪180 Proof
    Here is another:

    1. My mind is indivisible
    2. My body is divisible
    3. If something is divisible it is not also indivisible
    4. Therefore my mind is not my body
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ↪180 Proof
    Dr. Bartricks, you will make the fucking case. — 180 Proof

    This is one argument:

    1. If the annihilation of my body will be harmful to me, then I will exist when it happens

    2. If I exist at the same time as my body is annihilated, then I am not my body

    3. Therefore, if the annihilation of my body will be harmful to me, I am not my body

    4. The annihilation of my body is harmful to me

    5. Therefore, I am not my body.
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ↪Noble Dust
    And my advice to you is to engage with the arguments and stop giving advice.

    Now, tell me, what do you make of the advice on my bleach? It says "do not drink'. Does that imply it'll harm me or benefit me.

    Engage with the argument
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ↪Noble Dust
    And my advice to you is to stop giving advice and engage with the arguments. Which you've yet to do.
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ↪Noble Dust
    And my advice to you is not to give advice, but to engage with arguments in good faith and not, as you did, by simply asking inane questions that you had no interest in the answer to. That's my advice to you: stop advising people.
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ↪Noble Dust
    My advice is to not disparage your interlocutors. — Noble Dust

    Is that a kind of condiment?
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ↪Janus
    Yes Hugh. There's a vast literature on the topic. Books and books and books.

    It's all to do with a puzzle presented to us by Epicurus.

    He thought death could not be a harm to us, for we do not exist and yet we would need to exist in order to be harmed by it. As he put, where death is, we are not, and where we are, death is not.

    The puzzle is that he's obviously wrong. Virtually no philosopher accepts his conclusion. Why? Because our reason represents our deaths to be extremely harmful to us.

    The puzzle is why they'd be harmful to us if they end our existence.
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ↪Noble Dust
    My advice is that you should stick to buttering thoughts and stop dispensing advice to people who can make their own minds up about what to do with their time.
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ↪TiredThinker
    You have not answered my question about the bleach. The bottle says "danger! Do not drink" What conclusion should I draw - that drinking it will benefit me or harm me?
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ↪TiredThinker
    I prefer to not think they’re merely dreams because people consider them far more profound and in a way that changes their perspective basically for life. No everyday dream I might have does that. And certainly none have informed me of anything. — TiredThinker

    Descartes had a dream in which someone gave him a melon and then he had another one about a big book. He decided that it was a message from God that he had knowledge inside him that needed to give to the world and thus that he needed to give up being a soldier and devote himself to philosophy.

    People are inspired by dreams all the time. And perhaps they can sometimes be a source of information. I mean, Descartes' dream gave him accurate beliefs about himself.

    But that does not alter the fact that these near death experiences seem, on any sober assessment, to be dreams. That's the more reasonable thesis.
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ↪Noble Dust
    No, it's just you seem to understand how a dictionary can make representations but not how our reason can.
    I suggest understanding our reason to be a kind of dictionary. That may help. And now you can understand what I mean when I say that our reason represents death to be a harm to us.
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ↪Noble Dust
    Shouldn't you not be surprised that I'm supposedly having difficulty understanding you? — Noble Dust

    No, on the contrary, I am now very much with you, or at least earlier you. You seem to have changed sides and now have no trouble with a dictionary making representations and it is I who finds this hard to comprehend given that the dictionary lacks a mouth.

    Maybe this new you should go back and read afresh my argument and engage with it properly.
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ↪Janus
    Apparently it's only your "reason" that "tells" you all these things; I've never heard any such nonsense from anyone else. — Janus

    Is there a big literature on the harmfulness of death, Hugh?
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ↪Noble Dust
    I think I was very clear. And I am surprised you are having difficulty understanding me when you yourself had trouble understanding how our reason can make representations.
    I find I am sharing your difficulties.
    Now, this dictionary thingy - how can it tell me about relishes if it lacks a mouth?
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ↪Noble Dust
    No, the dictionary needs one else how can it tell me anything?
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ↪Noble Dust
    Well, how does it tell me what relish means without a mouth? I can't find its mouth.
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ↪Noble Dust
    How? Does it have a mouth?
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ↪Noble Dust
    But how could I learn from it? Does it tell me things? And i know what relish is. I have a jar of it.
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ↪180 Proof
    How?

    And, without a spatiotemporally discrete body, what differentiates you from not-you?     — 180 Proof

    If you exist yet your body does not, then you are not your body, yes? A stopped clock only tells the right time twice a day, so let's go for the double
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ↪Noble Dust
    That's a link to a dictionary, not an explanation of how you can apply relish to an activity.

    And how can a dictionary tell me anything - how can it make representations? I do not understand. But perhaps I am missing something.
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ↪Noble Dust
    Well, a relish is a kind of pickle. And to relish something is to apply that pickle to it. Yet to read a post is an activity. And so what I am confused by is how one can apply a pickle to an activity. Can one butter a thought?
  • Evidence of conscious existence after death.
    ↪Janus
    'Our faculties of reason" don't represent death to be anything at all, because we have no knowledge of it. — Janus

    Question begging.
Home » Bartricks