tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post4629117963965804396..comments2024-01-03T15:34:49.620+00:00Comments on Ian Wardell: Philosophical Thoughts: A Response to The Myth of an AfterlifeIan Wardellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05999029760897196102noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-16165226399693415462023-05-22T09:14:21.303+01:002023-05-22T09:14:21.303+01:00I've only just discovered that a couple of com...I've only just discovered that a couple of comments of mine hadn't been published, as they were automatically designated as "spam". So I've just said they're not spam, and they have now been published (I thought they had appeared??). It's the comment just above this one and the one starting: "Edited to add: OK, it won't allow me to post my comment as it is "too long"".<br /><br />I've only just found this spam folder. Why the heck would it label those 2 comments as spam?? Ian Wardellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05999029760897196102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-11130838797456959522023-04-17T13:40:18.516+01:002023-04-17T13:40:18.516+01:00Sorry if I'm abrupt, but I do really think not...Sorry if I'm abrupt, but I do really think nothing is being achieved, and I didn't intend responding again anyway, not to your arguments at least (if you had replied to me on your own blog, I wouldn't have bothered). It's time-consuming, and I'm currently writing a blog post on whether colours, sounds and smells exist out there in the external world (I see no reason they shouldn't). In fact, I shouldn't have bothered commenting on your blog post in the first place. Ian Wardellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05999029760897196102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-59492794560078840342023-04-17T13:01:54.378+01:002023-04-17T13:01:54.378+01:00Well, that certainly doesn't look like a welco...Well, that certainly doesn't look like a welcome mat, so I will move on and not hijack your blog. I could, of course, respond, and you could respond with an even longer reply, but that can quickly escalate into an enormous waste of time, and neither of us want that. <br />And so we pass in different directions, like two groups of people rushing past each other in a corn maze, both knowing that the people going the other way will get nowhere, for we have been there. We each know we are the one heading forward. ;)<br />I plan to further expand on my views at my blog -- https://mindsetfree.blog/ -- in the future. I will let you know.<br />Take care and enjoy this life (which is the only life I think we get). <br />Merlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15658862937797971226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-17286177095636037752023-04-17T10:18:21.746+01:002023-04-17T10:18:21.746+01:00Part 4
OUR CAUSALLY EFFICACIOUS CONSCIOUSNESSES
...Part 4<br /><br />OUR CAUSALLY EFFICACIOUS CONSCIOUSNESSES<br /><br />Finally, your last paragraph… You really have gone off on a tangent here! I was pointing out that we are *immediately* acquainted with our own causal agency. I gave the example of my ability to communicate my own thoughts via my currently typing out such thoughts. I could have equally mentioned, instead, any other voluntary movement of my body. For example, if it were not for the causal powers of my mind or self, I would never get out of bed in the morning. That is to say, the four fundamental forces – gravitation, electromagnetism, the weak and strong nuclear forces – are *insufficient by themselves*. What is also required is an effort of *will* on my part. <br /><br />Now, of course, you might *disagree* with this and advance arguments (although I don’t see how you could), and that would be one thing. But to suppose I’m making some other point entirely, about language, is jus' bizarre. Least of all that I’m saying something about souls telepathically conveying information! <br /> <br />Besides which, what on earth could telepathy have to do with conveying my thoughts in the words I type? Telepathy seems to me to involve conveying an emotional resonance to others (not info *per se* as you claim), and such an ability is very weak in our embodied states (otherwise it wouldn’t be controversial). I have learnt the English language, at least to a certain degree of proficiency, so am able to convey my thoughts in written English, at least whilst I am embodied. In the afterlife realm, should it exist, I imagine that communication there will be telepathic rather than using words (spoken or written) with our telepathic ability vastly enhanced since it is no longer “filtered” by our bodies. <br /><br />OK, as I said at the beginning, I only responded to you due to this being my blog. The problem is I’m spending time typing this, and again I suspect that you simply won’t comprehend anything (and this isn’t only you, but applies to most skeptics). So this is it from me.<br />Ian Wardellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05999029760897196102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-3440296742784581512023-04-17T10:15:42.856+01:002023-04-17T10:15:42.856+01:003rd part
THE LANGUAGE ISSUE
Now getting on to yo...3rd part<br /><br />THE LANGUAGE ISSUE<br /><br />Now getting on to your comment above.<br /> <br />Language is a *learnt* skill. It’s not an intrinsic ability of the soul, unlike, for example, thinking. When I am born I do not comprehend English (although it is very possible that I did have this skill but which I had now forgotten). <br /><br />It’s like learning how to cycle without falling off your bike. If our essence is a soul, should it also be impossible to lose this skill or ability with brain damage? Should I still have this ability to cycle in the afterlife realm despite there being no cycles there or a need to cycle? Why? <br /><br />One loses the ability to see clearly if one’s glasses are fogged up, even though glasses play no role in the creation of our vision. So you need to advance arguments for supposing brains and consciousness are different, that in this case brains *create* consciousness rather than merely affecting it. I’ve already provided my arguments above for preferring the affecting hypothesis.<br /><br />You ask *how* the brain affects us in this manner. You would no doubt also ask about how brain damage can affect the intrinsic capacities of selves and souls like thinking, memories etc. <br /><br />Is this supposed to be more problematic than asking how brains *create* consciousness? How is it? Indeed, it seems to me that brains creating consciousness is far more problematic since, as I point out above, the latter is a far greater and implausible task taking into account that we have no conceivable mechanism as to *how* consciousness is created. Of course, many skeptics attempt to circumvent this problem by claiming that consciousness doesn’t really exist, or almost as ludicrous is the idea that consciousness isn’t what it seems, but is actually *quite literally* a material process. But, as I have argued in this blog, this is simply nonsensical.<br />Ian Wardellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05999029760897196102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-40371134760847109882023-04-17T10:10:49.998+01:002023-04-17T10:10:49.998+01:002nd part
THE EYEGLASSES ANALOGY
Before addressi...2nd part<br /><br />THE EYEGLASSES ANALOGY <br /><br />Before addressing what you say in the comment above, I just want to address this eyeglasses analogy. Regarding this you say in your blog in response to me:<br /><br />//“When glasses fog up, one is still alert but loses input from the world. So your analogy completely falls apart”.// <br /><br />This and your other brief comments on the analogy are wholly without any relevance whatsoever. They simply do not address the issue of whether brains might merely *affect* consciousness rather than creating it and neither does anything else you say. And this is what skeptics always do, basically avoid the issues and say something wholly irrelevant when I put forward an argument. I could play the same game so that when a skeptic of an afterlife compares consciousness to a candle and the oxygen in the air producing a flame, I could harp on all day long about how candles and flames differ from brains and consciousness. But how the heck would that show that brains don’t create consciousness?? Of course, it doesn’t. <br /><br />Indeed, this tactic by skeptics reminds me when I was at Sixth Form college when I was 17 years old explaining that the way the galaxies move apart from each other is via the space-time continuum *itself* expanding and carrying the galaxies with it. I forlornly tried to convey this idea via an analogy of dots painted on a balloon and blowing up the balloon. Someone (an individual who gave me a hard time at that college), said what happens when the balloon pops, does the Universe explode. And he made other dismissive remarks about how balloons differ from the Universe. But all this was of course absolutely irrelevant to the point I was trying to convey.<br /><br />I just thought it was him, being obnoxious. But each and every time skeptics draw on the same tactic. They don’t *seriously* engage with the ideas I express, but indulge in silly word games. They say nothing substantive against my position. <br /><br />Anyway, essentially there are 2 possibilities:<br /><br />a) The brain *creates* consciousness<br />b) Consciousness is fundamental with the brain affecting consciousness whilst one is embodied.<br /><br />My position is that “b” is to be preferred for the following reasons.<br /><br />1. Both hypotheses explain why the mind is affected by the brain.<br /><br />2. It is far *far* easier to merely *affect* something rather than to create something (See “Part 5. Dysfunctional brains lead to impaired minds” in my “The Many Fallacies of "The Soul Fallacy"”). <br /><br />3. Brains merely affecting consciousness is consistent with the commonsensical notion of the self whereas brains creating consciousness has to hold that a persisting self is an illusion (see both my “The self or soul as a mental substance” and my “Do we die when we teleport?”). <br /><br />4. Brains merely affecting consciousness is consistent with an afterlife, whereas brains creating consciousness isn’t. But we have a huge amount of diverse evidence suggesting an afterlife e.g. NDEs and deathbed visions and other peculiar phenomena near the end of one’s life, certain types of apparition, children apparently recollecting previous lives etc.<br /><br />Ian Wardellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05999029760897196102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-15731344206567315992023-04-17T10:08:39.189+01:002023-04-17T10:08:39.189+01:00(Edited to add: OK, it won't allow me to post...(Edited to add: OK, it won't allow me to post my comment as it is "too long". It would have been helpful to have specified the word limit. OK, I'll try splitting into 4 parts. First part below.)<br /><br />This is essentially continuing the conversation that Merle and I had in the comments on his own blog that can be found here:<br /><br />https://mindsetfree.blog/dare-to-question/is-there-life-after-death/?fbclid=IwAR3MHAfgTC4GSr-vAE9achds4hQNesKBxkDT_kvTivHVzvQY0ITRsSVv6Kw#comment-737<br /><br />As I said in my last communication Merle, it doesn’t seem to me that you are understanding my arguments at all, and hence further elaboration seems to be a waste of time and effort for both me *and* you. Shifting the conversation from your blog to my own blog does *nothing* to change this.<br /><br />Whereas I am happy to have some sort of conversation where either myself or the person I am communicating with might profit in some manner -- perhaps precipitate new avenues of thought in one or both of us that neither of us has previously entertained -- it seems to me that any conversation on this topic is of no avail if this is simply not being achieved. <br /><br />And for that reason, despite this complete misunderstanding of my stance, I was tempted to leave it at that. Indeed, I definitely wouldn’t have responded if you had not commented in my own blog. <br /><br />Ian Wardellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05999029760897196102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-75432425463500013422023-04-16T01:11:33.023+01:002023-04-16T01:11:33.023+01:00Ian,
How can a soul account for the fact that the ...Ian,<br />How can a soul account for the fact that the ability to use language is lost after certain cases of brain damage? You offer two answers, neither of which look adequate to me.<br /><br />First, you suggest, "an appropriately dysfunctional brain might serve to merely inhibit language ability."<br /><br />How would that happen? The brain is obviously communicating well with the thing you call the soul. So how is the brain stopping the soul from making sentences? Is it some kind of sabotage? That makes no sense. <br /><br />I think even you see a problem with this, because you quickly switch to a second explanation: "even if this were not so, I assume souls would communicate via telepathy rather than language, so it is not entirely clear to me why souls should have a language ability in the first place. This being so, it does not seem problematic for those who subscribe to survival to grant that the brain might well enable our language ability."<br /><br />And here you seem to be giving away the farm. For if the soul is just telepathically transmitting information, and not putting the message into words, how is it that you said at my blog that you knew "in a most immediate sense" that you were experiencing your "consciousness affecting my body right now in the form of the words I type out!" So which was is it? Is the soul making the sentences, or is the soul merely transmitting telepathic signals that the brain turns into words? If you say the soul forms the sentences, how does it lose that ability when the brain gets damaged? But if you say the brain is making the sentence, why do you say you experience the consciousness making the sentences? Merlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15658862937797971226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-82659368019175163292020-04-28T10:57:07.196+01:002020-04-28T10:57:07.196+01:00A Holographic Universe & description of heaven...A Holographic Universe & description of heaven.<br />John,<br />Thanks for sharing this very interesting information with me. It certainly makes sense to me. The Anthropic principle alone should be enough for skeptical scientists to understand that the laws of physics and mathematics are the laws of God's own Mind. Kevin Williams<br />James Gates, Ph.D., a theoretical physicist at the Univ. of Maryland said: “If the simulation hypothesis is valid, then we open the door to eternal life and resurrection and things that formally have been discussed in the realm of religion.<br />Our Creator created linear space-time which is essentially controlled electrical energy in the form of light that has existed eternally. Checkout on YouTube: A fractal universe.<br />Time and space must exist before a matter can be created, and only an animate entity can conceive of space-time; this prerequisite must be a stabilized and uniform condition before a matter can form, thus, monotheism is a Truth. A stable space-time and the Universal Laws of Physics did not happen by chance.<br />On Jan. 17, 2000 at 2 pm, while crossing a river bridge in Burswood (Perth, Australia) on my bicycle, I observed a velvet-textured beige pearl covering the sun. Within the entity, there were containers in the shape of elongated, seven-pointed Koch snowflake fractal crystals immersed in a white misty light traveling in a ten o'clock direction. I later deduced that the light flashes on the inner space of the crystals were of a binary language conversion pertaining to the senses of all mortals, that is, a holographic universe.<br />Nicola Tesla believed that crystals were living entities ....writing: “In a crystal, we have clear evidence of the existence of a formative life principle, and though we cannot understand the life of a crystal, it is nonetheless a living being.”<br />If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency, and vibration" -Nikola Tesla.<br />Scientists decided that to prove that reality was not, in fact, simply an illusion, they had to discover the “point particle”, and this would be accomplished with innovations like the Large Hadron Collider.<br />By discovering the "Point Particle" scientist were able to prove that reality was, in fact, an illusion. Through the data, they received from The Hadron Collider (LHC) which was built to smash particles together then monitor the outcome. By doing this, scientists were able to make some incredible discoveries. According to research conducted through the particle accelerator, they could see that the physical world is not as physical as we think it to be. Reality is, in fact, an illusion. We are only surrounded by energy.<br />Natalie Porter 16 April 2018 In Life, Metaphysics<br />"The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence."<br />~Nikola Tesla<br />-------------------------------------------------<br />What Heaven looks like, which I witnessed in the sky above the banks of the Swan River, Perth, at dawn on 31 July 1998.<br />In the garden, flowers and grass were clearly visible, they pulsed in the surrounding low light, infused by an inner light. Their colours were magnificent but totally new to me with a spectrum much broader than that on Earth.<br />https://youtu.be/NxyHih5YvzQ (Mandelbrot Fractal Zoom)<br />--------------------------------------------------------<br />Universal Truths<br />Preserve and protect all Life, and maintain the universal environment and peace.<br />Every being has the right to freedom within the legal structure, but they should respect the natural rights of all life forms.<br />Aspire to the gains that love, integrity, compassion, humility, moderation, civility and tolerance will bring.<br />Promote and provide for justice, fairness, equality, rationalism as well as laws that sustain peace and harmony.<br />Exalt and appreciate the Creator’s love and creation.<br />First touchable hologram. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaPysrfiXjc<br />John Berbatishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06593718812359252726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-17239636047798625822019-10-20T19:15:39.645+01:002019-10-20T19:15:39.645+01:00I've never had a mystical experience. But I e...I've never had a mystical experience. But I essentially agree. <br /><br />PS Only just seen your comment along with a few others. Never got any alerts by email. Sorry about the delay.Ian Wardellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05999029760897196102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-15107952062028770212019-08-24T16:33:31.121+01:002019-08-24T16:33:31.121+01:00"The common view is that something that makes..."The common view is that something that makes me up will survive, that I will have eternal life, that I will be reincarnated, or that my soul will go to heaven. The things that are essential to me as an individual consciousness are my beliefs, my hopes, my dispositions, my emotional reactions, and my memories." ( from The Myth Of An Afterlife ).............anyone who's had any truly mystical experience knows it is quite the reverse. Beliefs, hopes, dispositions, etc are no more 'me' than my clothes are. This is readily apparent in those epic dreams where we can be another character living another life....yet the consciousness is the same fundamental self. The core of our being is actually very simple, pure awareness, and everything else is just accumulated baggage.Peter Stanburyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11396943075152591134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-39438353767834070992018-11-20T18:16:16.640+00:002018-11-20T18:16:16.640+00:00OK, a fourth comment:
Now, of course, they might ...OK, a fourth comment:<br /><br />Now, of course, they might think my argument doesn't establish that it is incoherent, but the point is I am not attacking a straw man. Moreover, if Keith thinks my argument fails, then this should have been addressed in the book. But, in fact, this problem is completely ignored. To repeat, this whole tome is almost entirely divest of any philosophical arguments.Ian Wardellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05999029760897196102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-58748836594545279342018-11-20T18:09:14.507+00:002018-11-20T18:09:14.507+00:00I should have added that Keith Augustine is the ma...I should have added that Keith Augustine is the main contributor and editor of this book.Ian Wardellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05999029760897196102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-66612169283951086352018-11-20T18:06:17.087+00:002018-11-20T18:06:17.087+00:00First of all, it's certainly true that there i...First of all, it's certainly true that there is no argument that the self doesn't exist. What the various authors do is *conflate* the self with one's *present* psychological proclivities. So they certainly don't argue the self is an illusion or doesn't exist. Nor do they argue for their conception of the "self". Indeed, the entire book is virtually absent any philosophical arguments. Hence, how could I criticize any such argument since it doesn't exist? What I do, of course -- which is plain for anyone who's actually read my review -- is that I argue that their conception of the "self" does not do justice to our innate feelings. Also, I did not say in my review (either the 5000 or 13000 versions) what he alleges I said in double quotes.<br /><br />Re Epiphenomenalism. This is a dualist position which holds the brain creates a non-material consciousness but that this consciousness is wholly causally inert. I do not attack this position per se, rather I argue that consciousness *necessarily* is causally efficacious, at least in influencing the direction of our thoughts. Moreover, I stress that my argument cannot be circumvented by identifying consciousness with the underlying correlated neural activity. So, regardless of whether materialism is true or dualism is true (or indeed any other stance on the mind-body problem), the neural activity cannot account for the direction of our thoughts when we reach valid conclusions. Hence consciousness *in and of itself* and not just the correlated neural activity must have at least *some* causal efficacy.<br /><br />So yes, this rules out epiphenomenalism, and it rules out materialism too (although note I have an even more compelling argument against materialism in an earlier section of my review). But they don't have to maintain they are epiphenomenalists (I doubt most of the authors know what this word even means), nor do they have to maintain they are materialists. The point being that some of the authors deny the causal efficacy of consciousness *in and of itself* and maintain the neural activity is sufficient. But, as I argue, this is incoherent. 3/3<br />Ian Wardellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05999029760897196102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-82023072573624858672018-11-20T18:05:25.265+00:002018-11-20T18:05:25.265+00:00Let's take a look at his last comment:
Keith ...Let's take a look at his last comment:<br /><br />Keith Augustine said:<br /><br />//"[Y]ou attack the idea that the self is an illusion (something similar to what Weisman endorses , but that no other chapter comments on one way or the other). Since there is no argument anywhere that "the self doesn't exist in the first place and thus can't survive" in The Myth of an Afterlife, one wonders why you criticize that straw-man argument in your reviews. Similarly, you frequently attack epiphenomenalism--even though no contributor endorses epiphenomenalism anywhere in the volume. You criticize the lack of in-depth diving into the mind-body problem, even though every solution to the mind-body problem (including substance dualism) is compatible with the thesis that having a functioning brain is a necessary condition for having conscious experiences, putting the burden on you to say why this volume would need to address it given that nothing that the volume DOES argue for is incompatible with any particular mind-body solution. Instead of saying why (something you could easily do succinctly if you actually had a reason why), you just assert that it is utterly ridiculous to say the volume doesn't need to address the mind-body problem in more depth than it already does (even when I have addressed this claim directly in the Journal of Parapsychology link that you found). And on and on".// 2/3Ian Wardellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05999029760897196102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-87444294029213363742018-11-20T18:04:18.020+00:002018-11-20T18:04:18.020+00:00Keith Augustine has extensively commented under my...Keith Augustine has extensively commented under my review on Amazon.com but has said virtually nothing about it, and where he does address it he alleges I've said things when I've said no such thing. Instead, he concentrates on attacking me as an individual. Hence, his allegation that I am quarrelsome, that I am a troll, that I am a narcissist who simply wants people to view my blog to boost my own ego, that I have mental health issues, and so on. In other words, he's engaging in character assassination; trying to besmirch my reputation so that people will not take my arguments so seriously.<br /><br />If one reads his comments under my review, there is virtually nothing in his comments that actually address what I say. His comments are purely an attempt to foster doubt on my review. He could have attempted to do this by actually engaging with the arguments I make. But he recognises that this might be a rather difficult task. 1/3Ian Wardellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05999029760897196102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-84286789940135320782018-05-01T18:48:56.139+01:002018-05-01T18:48:56.139+01:00But I still find that this argument is not enough ...But I still find that this argument is not enough to persuade skeptics.Hải Dươnghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06181106470068444553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-6605594387356942242018-05-01T18:48:41.877+01:002018-05-01T18:48:41.877+01:00But I still find that this argument is not enough ...But I still find that this argument is not enough to persuade skeptics.Hải Dươnghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06181106470068444553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-6403194757689739082018-04-28T06:44:03.835+01:002018-04-28T06:44:03.835+01:00Nice Nice Hải Dươnghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06181106470068444553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-46872142187518728142018-04-10T23:22:13.790+01:002018-04-10T23:22:13.790+01:00I am glad you reviewed it. Full disclosure: I'...I am glad you reviewed it. Full disclosure: I'm one of those people who hope with all that I am that the meatbot view of the Skeptics is wrong. You give good reasons to keep the journey and discovery alive.Steve Sneadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16329316296600151103noreply@blogger.com