liquideyes said:

Precisely, this is my whole point. In a way I am saying: "How do you know that the scientist won't just pick up your brain and plug it into a different jar?"

 

Because, at the end of the day, if anyone actually lived there lives based on these reductionist theories, they wouldn't bother getting up in the morning (why bother when either a)Some mystic being could wipe out your entire existence or Some stupid scientist could plug you into a different programme)

 

I think now we should get involved in a discussion of the relative merits of "real" philosophy, and "practical" philosophy (which may serve some "functional" "purpose" in the "observed, practically demonstrable, but no way proovable" "real" world)

i knew capn_jack would stir this up, lol.

I see what you're saying, Blink, but...

 

Blink said:

Because, at the end of the day, if anyone actually lived there lives based on these reductionist theories, they wouldn't bother getting up in the morning

We're not talking about how people should live their lives. We're talking about what happens after death. I fully agree with you that my "reductionist" outlook paints a fairly bleak picture of life, if you start applying it on a day-to-day basis. But in discussing death and the afterlife, I think reductionist theories are wholly applicable and relevant.

 

I think now we should get involved in a discussion of the relative merits of "real" philosophy, and "practical" philosophy (which may serve some "functional" "purpose" in the "observed, practically demonstrable, but no way proovable" "real" world)

"Real" philosophy, as you put it, is the only type of philosophy which is of any value when discussing anything outside of our present living state.

Scream said:

i knew capn_jack would stir this up, lol.

 

Stiring up what?

liquideyes said:

I see what you're saying, Blink, but...

We're not talking about how people should live their lives. We're talking about what happens after death. I fully agree with you that my "reductionist" outlook paints a fairly bleak picture of life, if you start applying it on a day-to-day basis. But in discussing death and the afterlife, I think reductionist theories are wholly applicable and relevant.

"Real" philosophy, as you put it, is the only type of philosophy which is of any value when discussing anything outside of our present living state.

 

I was actually commenting on the "Jars in a scientist lab" theories, which are applied to "real life", so if you would care to re-address my comments in the context in which they were made

Blink said:

I was actually commenting on the "Jars in a scientist lab" theories, which are applied to "real life", so if you would care to re-address my comments in the context in which they were made

Fair point!

 

As I recall, the discussion went something like this:

 

* a comment on whether science can or cannot "prove" what happens to the brain after death;

* a prolonged discussion about whether there is such thing as "proof" (trigonomety, oranges etc!)

* the "reductionist" argument against proof (brains in jars!)

 

So I thought we were still talking about "proof" in the context of what happens after death. And I think we need to be reductionist if we're going to discuss what happens after death, unless someone here has first-hand experience.

Capn_Jack said:

Scream said:

i knew capn_jack would stir this up, lol.

 

Stiring up what?

 

cus i know your views on death and dying and i know a lot of people would not see it in your way.