Death

[Gurn Blanston]

     Gurn, that was my point, that "negative philosophy" has plenty of philosophy behind it. How else would you know not to be interested?

     

Ah. Well, I've always been at great pains to avoid being categorized as a thinker....   You have to admit, I've been pretty damned successful so far.



----------------
Listening to:
Quatuor Festetics - Hob 03 48 Quartet in f for Strings Op 50 #5 1st mvmt - Allegro moderato

[Elgarian]

I've only just found this edited addition: it seems to me that you 're trying to rig the game in a way that leaves virtually no room for real discussion at all. (I say this not because I have some personal religious axe to grind - I don't - but because even within your terms of reference there are important issues still unresolved which have a bearing on how one might answer.) Worse than this, though, I see no reason to be so unpleasant about being so prescriptive: 'either play along or keep out'. Your point above about context doesn't seem to make any difference, to me. I'll keep out from here on, thanks.

I'm quoting myself here, because Iconito is clearly upset about this response of mine to his instructions about how to respond to this thread. The fact that he's still upset about it persuades me that I've misinterpreted the tone of his post; perhaps it's a language problem, and I made insufficient allowance for it. So: Iconito, I apologise for my part in this misunderstanding. Can we start again with a clean slate? And perhaps, knowing that these misunderstandings can sometimes arise, we can both try to be more aware of that possibility in future?

[drogulus]

I agree it isn't a thing, but it is a state, at least, it is when regarded from outside the box. There's a difference between a dead cat and a living one - and that's a difference in state. What we don't and cannot know is how the situation appears to the cat (unless we are the cat). In the second sentence you're equating 'death' with 'non-existence', but I don't think we can do that, because the lid is closed and we can't open it from outside. Of course one can make a personal decision that 'death' and 'non-existence' are identical; but that's just a kind of Occam's Razor-like choice.

I think there are at least two reasons for regarding the question as unresolvable:

(1) We have no way of knowing what (if anything) is going on inside the box. That's your 'knowledge we don't have' issue.
(2) The question may be absurd - a category error, like your question about whether death is purple, or mine about whether a dog is an elephant or a cow.

However, in my previous post I was putting forward the idea of a subtly different origin for the mistake - one not merely linguistic. I was wondering if the question's absurdity might be due to a failure to grasp certain fundamental properties of reality, arising from the idea of quantum superposition; that is, an error based on a misunderstanding of the nature of existence.

I'm not arguing a point here. I'm just poking around.

    I don't think equating death with the physical process it names is anything other than equating it with itself. If that is a belief it isn't very personal. And the burden falls on those who think death names something else in addition, to show that the contents of their personal decision is something more than that. I don't have that problem since I'm not proposing that when something dies a state is entered into other than the states described by biology and chemistry. The psychological implications of our knowledge that we die is the best way to explore the occurrence of beliefs that attempt to construe additional facts that can't be supported. The holders of beliefs want them to be seen as facts on their own, but they fail to be so understood.

    It isn't informative to say that it's a personal decision to accept the facts of death as facts and beliefs about deaths as beliefs. I've made a personal decision that George Washington was the first President. In addition he was the first President, so I guess I'm OK, but the latter is the controlling fact. I accept known facts about death as known facts, and beliefs about death uncorroborated by facts as what they are, manifestations of the psychology of intelligent beings contemplating a difficult reality.

[drogulus]

     One more thing: It isn't true that we have a terrible time telling the difference between an opinion and a fact. Except when talking about things distant from knowledge, we usually know, or quickly learn, how important facts are to the beliefs people have, and whether beliefs are held because of facts or in spite of their absence. It's not hard to see, because the believers always privilege the "fact" not known over facts in plain sight. This allows belief to reign supreme. "How do you know it's not true?" is what the believers ask, as though the answer "I don't" makes them right. The parallel is obvious with the creationist who wants you to think that problems with a scientific theory justify belief in an unscientific one, not an alternative scientific theory but....the belief dethroned by science!

     We are meant to think that it's a personal belief that death is fully described by a physical description of what happens. Is it also a personal opinion that death is not fully described that way? If so, what beyond personal belief shall we use to decide between them? Couldn't we deal with this "unresolvable" problem by not admitting belief as the controlling factor and limiting our understanding to what conforms to the best scientific descriptions available? Let the beliefs cancel out. What knowledge do we have?

[Iconito]

I'm quoting myself here, because Iconito is clearly upset about this response of mine to his instructions about how to respond to this thread. The fact that he's still upset about it persuades me that I've misinterpreted the tone of his post; perhaps it's a language problem, and I made insufficient allowance for it. So: Iconito, I apologise for my part in this misunderstanding. Can we start again with a clean slate? And perhaps, knowing that these misunderstandings can sometimes arise, we can both try to be more aware of that possibility in future?

I’m from Argentina and my wife is from Venezuela. I can’t tell you how many times we had an awkward moment because of some word or expression that happens to be totally inoffensive to one of us but highly insulting or rude to the other; and of course we both speak Spanish! So here, with my timid English, this kind of misunderstandings is almost inevitable. I find myself typing “I’m sorry” and “what I really meant to say was...” all the time (Luckily I don’t post that much  )

Of course, I’m the only one to blame for these misunderstandings. It’s my responsibility to make sure I say what I mean to say the way I mean to say it. I don’t expect people to tolerate everything I say, no matter how offensive, just because English is my second language... But, on the other hand, when I make a mistake (when my English betrays my intentions) and I apologize and try to explain what I really meant, I do expect people to, at least, give me the benefit of the doubt.

So, when I realized my OP here came out rude and disrespectful, I did my best to apologize and explain myself, but this effort didn’t seem to do anything for you, and I felt, well, a little frustrated (“Frustrated - Adjective - suffering from frustration; dissatisfied, agitated, and/or discontent because one is unable to perform an action or fulfil a desire”. Yes. That’s the word  )

Of course I accept your apology. I’m a little ashamed I ended up making a big deal out of this... but I’m glad we could clarify this issue, and gladder still that this gave me the opportunity to see what a fine person you are. Not everybody would have done what you so graciously did. It’s a privilege to have people like you on this forum planet.

Cheers!

[Elgarian]

And the burden falls on those who think death names something else in addition, to show that the contents of their personal decision is something more than that. I don't have that problem since I'm not proposing that when something dies a state is entered into other than the states described by biology and chemistry.

I'm not proposing anything other a lack of knowledge, and indeed in all the discussions we've had (whether about religion or death), my basic position is to advocate agnosticism as the minimal philosophical position. There's no possibility of our resolving this issue (I mean, between you and me), because I think your a priori limitation of the possible states to those 'described by biology and chemistry' is philosophically crippling (see my signature). This doesn't trouble you because you discount the value of the philosophical process. Those two world views aren't intellectually compatible, so no matter how long we exchange comments, the outcome is inevitable.

[Elgarian]

Not everybody would have done what you so graciously did.

Well, your response is more gracious than mine; so I think we have a happy outcome, here, unless we ascend into a spiral of ever increasing graciousness.
Cheers to you too.

[knight66]

No...you first.
No sir, please, you first.
No gracious sir, you go first.
No! I could not possibly go before you, do please go first.

Meanwhile, seven die in the raging fire as two nice fellows give precedence to one another in escape.

Good manners cost nothing....usually.

Mike

[DavidW]

The moderator is tired of good behavior... FIGHT! FIGHT! for his amusement.

[Papageno]

To embrace ideal beauty means death.

[Iconito]

No...you first.
No sir, please, you first.
No gracious sir, you go first.
No! I could not possibly go before you, do please go first.

Meanwhile, seven die in the raging fire as two nice fellows give precedence to one another in escape.

Good manners cost nothing....usually.

Mike

The moderator is tired of good behavior... FIGHT! FIGHT! for his amusement.

Mike’s anomalous behaviour is understandable... Moderators have to moderate. It’s in their program, you see? They’re like terminators. When people start being polite, locking their own threads if they turn nasty, voluntarily closing their accounts and leaving the forum in the middle of the occasional sour discussion, well, moderators just go bananas... This is one of the many reasons why banning the M was a huge mistake...

Well, your response is more gracious than mine; so I think we have a happy outcome, here, unless we ascend into a spiral of ever increasing graciousness.
Cheers to you too.

No no... Enough graciousness already. We are sounding borderline gay. 

I'm not proposing anything other a lack of knowledge, and indeed in all the discussions we've had (whether about religion or death), my basic position is to advocate agnosticism as the minimal philosophical position. There's no possibility of our resolving this issue (I mean, between you and me), because I think your a priori limitation of the possible states to those 'described by biology and chemistry' is philosophically crippling (see my signature). This doesn't trouble you because you discount the value of the philosophical process. Those two world views aren't intellectually compatible, so no matter how long we exchange comments, the outcome is inevitable.

I used to be an agnostic... It seemed the most logical position. We don’t know if there’s a God, we don’t know if there’s an afterlife, etc... But then I realised that’s not really a “position”. It’s a FACT that we don’t know those things. So what does it mean to be an agnostic? To acknowledge that fact? Big deal... Anyway, this discussion is way out of topic, as I clearly and impolitely stated in the OP. For the purposes of this thread, the damn cat is dead for good.  (On the other hand, there must be no more than half a dozen “on topic” replies here, so... never mind...)

[knight66]

As a mod, I really am expected to make sure I earn my fat fees. We decide whose turn it is to prompt a fight, then someone else gets the commission from having thrown a bucket of water over the protagonists....have to make up that pension pot somehow. 

Mike

[Elgarian]

It's a FACT that we don't know those things. So what does it mean to be an agnostic? To acknowledge that fact? Big deal...

But it is a big deal. It's the difference between an open door and a closed one. Between an acknowledgement of possibility, and the denial of it.

[Iconito]

As a mod, I really am expected to make sure I earn my fat fees. We decide whose turn it is to prompt a fight, then someone else gets the commission from having thrown a bucket of water over the protagonists....have to make up that pension pot somehow. 

Mike

But it is a big deal. It's the difference between an open door and a closed one. Between an acknowledgement of possibility, and the denial of it.

Perhaps as a matter of courteousness? It’s kind of polite to say “of course I have an open mind and acknowledge the possibility of [whatever]”... But other than that, I don’t see how it makes any difference. It’s just stating the obvious: We don’t know. Fact. There’s the possibility of, someday, knowing. Fact. If tomorrow they discovered incontrovertible evidence for, say, the afterlife, then the afterlife would become a known fact, and everybody would accept it as such, no matter what they thought before.

And I don’t think there are much people who deny the possibility... Well, I don’t know, actually, but anyway, I think denying the possibility doesn’t make a lot of sense...

[Elgarian]

And I don't think there are much people who deny the possibility

I was meaning something far more fundamental than just a kind of courtesy comment. I've met a lot of people who express certainty about their beliefs, either theistic, or atheistic, and I'm always astonished by their lack of awareness of the uncertainty of all that we think we know. I suppose I'm advocating the Socratic notion of wisdom as an awareness of our own ignorance - not in the polite sense that you suggest, but as a fundamental philosophical premise.

[Iconito]

I was meaning something far more fundamental than just a kind of courtesy comment. I've met a lot of people who express certainty about their beliefs, either theistic, or atheistic, and I'm always astonished by their lack of awareness of the uncertainty of all that we think we know. I suppose I'm advocating the Socratic notion of wisdom as an awareness of our own ignorance - not in the polite sense that you suggest, but as a fundamental philosophical premise.

I know! I was just (tongue in cheek) trying to find a useful application for what I defined as a trivial acknowledgment of facts (we don’t know the things we don’t know, we might, someday, know them, and yes, we might be wrong in what we think we know) Now, leaving my silly sense of humor aside, and although I can say nothing about the people you met, I guess there are indeed people who seem to fail to make this “trivial” acknowledgement. Poor souls, let’s leave them out of this

I used to regard certain questions as impossible to answer and stay in “I-don’t-know mode”. In fact, I believed in (let me borrow your words here) the uncertainty of all that we think we know so, ultimately, I was in “I-don’t-know mode” about pretty much everything, like “Uh, I don’t know, dude... Maybe we’re living in the Matrix”

Now consider this:

Q. Real skeptics are agnostic; you have strong opinions and beliefs. How can you call yourself a skeptic?

A. The word 'skeptic' derives from the Greek word skeptikos (thoughtful or reflective), and a skeptic is often thought of as an inquirer, one who carefully considers things. Philosophical skepticism comes in two flavors: the Pyrrhonists and the Academic Skeptics. The former focused on providing ways to cast doubt on any proposition. Their main concern seems to have been to refute any dogmatism by demonstrating that there can be no absolute certainty. The most radical maintained that one cannot even be certain that nothing is certain. The Academic Skeptics were not as radical and argued for a mitigated skepticism and maintained that while absolute certainty is impossible, some propositions are more probable than others.

However, nothing in particular follows from accepting that apodictic claims are impossible to demonstrate. It does not follow, for example, that because nothing is certain one should suspend judgment on all claims and believe nothing. Nor does it follow that because nothing is certain one should follow the customs and traditional beliefs of one's society. Nor does it follow that because nothing is certain any belief is as good as any other belief. Nor does it follow that because nothing is certain every belief is an equal act of irrational faith. Though each of the above inferences has been drawn by various people, none of them is a valid logical inference from the proposition “nothing is certain”.

My choosing to believe some things and not believe others is not a direct consequence of my philosophical skepticism. I accept that nothing is certain, but the only thing that seems to follow from that is that none of my beliefs are absolutely certain, i.e., without possibility of error. Probabilities are the best we can hope for and probabilities seem to be sufficient for daily living and for science.

(Quoted from The Skeptic's Dictionary’s FAQ)

That pretty much sums up my current position (with the added benefit that I didn’t have to struggle to phrase it ) So, most likely, there’s no afterlife... BTW, what do you think are the implications (of there not being an afterlife) to your life? (Hey, I had to at least try to get back to topic! )

[Elgarian]

I guess there are indeed people who seem to fail to make this "trivial" acknowledgement. Poor souls, let's leave them out of this

I'm thinking of the kind of attitude found among 19th century scientists that science had the world pretty well sorted out; that all we needed to do was to go on making measurements, and eventually we'd tidy up the loose ends. There are still many people who adopt that attitude today, even though, for those 19th century scientists, the floor was about to fall out of their world of absolutes in the shape of quantum mechanics and relativity. I'm not talking about a few poor souls; I'm talking about a vast culture of misplaced certainty in the findings of 'science as philosophy', a culture so deeply embedded that most of its victims aren't even aware that they're part of it. (In saying this, I ought to point out that I'm a physicist myself, and I'm aware of the immense value of science while also being aware of its philosophical limitations.)

My difficulty with the 'probability' argument is that while indeed we do live our lives on that basis (I plan my activities assuming that the sun will rise tomorrow because it seems very probable), we usually have no way of assessing the probabilities when it comes to philosophical issues. This is crucial when we realise that in many ways we're blinkered by the intellectual systems we impose upon the world in order to persuade ourselves that we understand it. That (partly) raises the need for the kind of agnosticism I'm talking about, which includes the awareness that our most valued world models may be (indeed, almost certainly are) misleading us. In the particular case of science we can be  certain that it is misleading us philosophically, because of the exclusions it makes as part of the premisses for its methodology (see the quote in my signature).

So I don't see agnosticism (I use the word in its widest sense) as some kind of passive defeatism; rather, I see it as an active mode of being in which one attempts to be alert to the unexpected. In the specific case of death (to get back at last to your topic), I think our ignorance is complete. When Jill dies, I know what that means in terms of what happens to Jill from my point of view. But I have no way of conceiving what it means for Jill, except on the single behaviouristic assumption that things are exactly what they seem from my observations, and that there is no Jill any more.

So I can't answer your question in the terms that you want. Like everyone else, I live my life on the assumption that I'm still going to be around tomorrow, and so far my assumption has been justified. One day I'll come unstuck, but I can have no certainty about what that entails, though that particular kind of sheer unknownness seems scary.

[Iconito]

Well, Elgarian... If it boils down to both you and I being aware of the fact that we can’t know for sure if the cat (let’s wish Jill a long and happy life ) is as definitively dead as it seams, but I’m happy to assume it is so (in the absence of any evidence pointing in any other direction), while you choose to remain agnostic, well, I guess we can call it a day and move on.

But, even so, I know nothing about that “vast culture of misplaced certainty in the findings of 'science as philosophy'” you are talking about, so I guess the context for much of what you say in your post is lost to me. Could you point me to some book or website where I can learn more about this culture?

[Elgarian]

Could you point me to some book or website where I can learn more about this culture?

You don't need a book or a website. You (we) are living in it. Consider for example the enormous popularity of the books of Richard Dawkins - as we've discussed elsewhere in this forum. But that's another topic, and old ground.

Just to round off this 'death' discussion, and to try to make my point a little clearer - the difference between our positions comes down to this: you, I think, weigh up the pros and cons, and decide that probably death means non-existence, and choose to live your life according to that assumption. I, on the other hand, am mistrustful of taking appearances at face value; I insist that in a profound sense I really, deeply, don't know, and (so far) can't know; that the ball is still in play, much is still to be discovered, and everything is still to play for.

[Iconito]

You don't need a book or a website. You (we) are living in it. Consider for example the enormous popularity of the books of Richard Dawkins - as we've discussed elsewhere in this forum. But that's another topic, and old ground.

Oh, OK... But then I don’t see many people who adopt today that attitude that Science has the world pretty well sorted out. I rather see the prevalent view is that all scientific knowledge is inherently provisory, and there are a huge lot of things still unknown. I understand Science and Philosophy are two very different departments (as clearly stated by Indiana Jones in “The Last Crusade”  ) so I don’t get how the “Science as Philosophy” thing you mention is supposed to work. I didn’t realize (not yet, anyway) that in many ways we're blinkered by the intellectual systems we impose upon the world in order to persuade ourselves that we understand it (in which ways, and what intellectual systems? Some example would be helpful) When you say “our most valued world models may be (indeed, almost certainly are) misleading us”, I don’t know what world models you propose as our most valued ones, or how you came to the conclusion that they’re almost certainly misleading us. Perhaps you assumed some common ground between us that clearly is not there, since many things you mention don’t resonate with me at all (Sorry if I sound like somebody’s retarded brother. I’m not a physicist. I’m just a guy...) I did my homework on your Whitehead quote

Much philosophic thought is based upon the faked adequacy of some account of various modes of human experience. The final outcome of philosophic thought cannot be based upon the exact statements which form the basis of special sciences.
The exactness is a fake.

(I quoted it here just in case, someday, you change it) I couldn’t find the complete Essay (Is it called “Immortality”? How funny is that, in this thread?  ), but I did find a less butchered quote (I won’t quote it here because it’s rather long, but here’s the link) What I get from that is, basically, that we can’t know anything for sure (I might be oversimplifying a bit ), which is something we agreed upon from the start. But then again, when you say “In the particular case of science we can be certain that it is misleading us philosophically, because of the exclusions it makes as part of the premises for its methodology”, an example of some of these exclusions would really help me.

For the record, we haven’t discussed Dawkins elsewhere in this forum (unless you meant “we” as “we GMGers” rather that “you and I”). I rather think his books are far from enormously popular. The most popular sold some 1.5 million copies (English version. Add a couple more millions for the translations, and I’m afraid I’m being too generous), and I suppose that number has a lot to do with the controversy it generated. The Da Vinci Code sold some 80 million copies. The Harry Potter series some 400 million... I wish we lived in a world were Dawkins (and Science in general) where that popular. But we rather live in the world of Jesus, Allah, Jehova, Buddah and Oprah.

Just to round off this 'death' discussion, and to try to make my point a little clearer - the difference between our positions comes down to this: you, I think, weigh up the pros and cons, and decide that probably death means non-existence, and choose to live your life according to that assumption. I, on the other hand, am mistrustful of taking appearances at face value; I insist that in a profound sense I really, deeply, don't know, and (so far) can't know; that the ball is still in play, much is still to be discovered, and everything is still to play for.

I agree with that summary, except for two things: The first one, I am so mistrustful of taking appearances at face value as you are. The second one has to do with weighting up the pros and cons. In the absence of evidence (as happens with the afterlife, God, etc) there are no pros or cons to weigh up. There is no evidence at all.

But it isn’t reasonable, in my opinion, to give equal probability to “there’s an afterlife” and “there’s no afterlife” when there’s not the slightest piece of evidence suggesting an afterlife in the first place (Here’s when Russell’s teapot comes handy...) If someone came to me and said “They told me at the temple Allah wants me to crash this plane... What do you think?” the last thing that would come to my mind is “well... I can’t be certain this guy is wrong...” It’s a matter of common sense. I think Whitehead would agree. I think you would agree. You may say this is an extreme scenario, but I think the logic should be the same in all cases.