Isn't it more the point that there is a lack of evidence for supposing that something does happen after we die?

Put another way: there is absolutely zero scientific, empirical basis for the materialist presupposition that rocks are not conscious -- other than that rocks give no sign of being conscious, and lack the neurological features that seem, as far as we can tell, to be necessary to support consciousness. Dead people also give no sign of consciousness and also lack those features, at least after a sufficient period of decay.

So if those reasons are insufficient, scientifically speaking, to justify an assumption that post-mortem consciousness does not exist, they are presumably insufficient to justify an assumption that rocks do not possess consciousness.

We don't go looking for evidence for all things in the same way.

When we ask, "is the match still lit?" we can answer that question by observing the match. But that is nothing like the way we go about answering questions about the reality of natural laws, numbers, the room you are in, past events, future possibilities, laws of logic, individual identity over time, causation, memories, dreams, or even love or beauty. with each of these, we don't always attempt to use empirical, visible evidence to prove their existence. Only very specific questions about the physical universe can be answered with the scientific method.

By limiting the question of consciousness purely to the observed, physical world, you're making the evidence criteria arbitrarily and impossibly narrow, in a way that you wouldn't for many other types of question.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - this is a fallacy.

Because ... it does? Things move. The kettle boils and then cools. There's a grey hair that wasn't there yesterday.

> By limiting the question of consciousness purely to the observed, physical world, you're making the evidence criteria arbitrarily and impossibly narrow, in a way that you wouldn't for many other types of question.

But we attribute consciousness to other human beings in the first place precisely because of physical evidence: their behaviours, expressions, speech acts, etc., and the apparent correlates of those in measured brain activity; and the lack of such evidence is why we don't (usually) attribute consciousness to, say, stuffed toys or mannequins.

If it is irrational to assume (provisionally, and pending the possible discovery of further evidence to the contrary) that dead people are not conscious because they don't exhibit such physical evidence, it is presumably also irrational to assume the same of stuffed toys: after all, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

"Because it does" isn't an argument I'm afraid. If you can use "because it does" so can I. In debate this is called begging the question, the question in this case being "how do you know that it does?". This also destroys any possibility of debate. You need to justify your argumentation, otherwise this isn't a debate at all.

So again, how do you know that change happens all the time? This is a question of epistemic certitude.

It’s not me who’s downvoting you.

> So again, how do you know that change happens all the time?

If you’re seriously going to argue that change doesn’t happen —- and happen constantly —- then I don’t know what to tell you. This very thread is evidence of that: first there were no comments, then one, then several. In the process of its creation and consumption, millions of electrons have travelled from device to device, and millions of photons from screen to eyeball, and millions of signals from neuron to neuron. And that’s just from the activities of one small group from one species on one planet. I can’t say for certain that there’s nowhere in the universe in a state of stasis: but certainly locally, things are pretty busy.

With this you haven't given me epistemic justification, you're just telling a story. How do you know that the past happened at all on your criteria of what constitutes reasonable evidence? It isn't material. You can't touch the past, you can't pick the past up and move it. You can't actually observe it at all. If the only evidences we are allowed to use are physical evidences, it's impossible to know that the past wasn't just an illusion. The point is that in your criteria for what constitutes reasonable evidence, knowledge of anything becomes impossible - all things could simply be illusory.

> In that case sorry for the accusation.

No worries.

> With this you haven't given me epistemic justification, you're just telling a story. How do you know that the past happened at all on your criteria of what constitutes reasonable evidence? It isn't material. You can't touch the past, you can't pick the past up and move it. You can't actually observe it at all. If the only evidences we are allowed to use are physical evidences, it's impossible to know that the past wasn't just an illusion. The point is that in your criteria for what constitutes reasonable evidence, knowledge of anything becomes impossible - all things could simply be illusory.

While that's great for stoned conversations at 3am, it's not very useful.

If I'm going to come to any reasoned conclusion about the world at all, I have to make certain working assumptions, most fundamentally that my perceptions, memories, and my powers of reason are all more or less generally reliable (e.g., I'm currently in my kitchen, and not on top of Mount Kilimanjaro; I was born and brought up in 20th-century Britain, not 14th-century Vietnam; if X implies Y and Y implies Z, then X does in fact transitively imply Z). Obviously, these are all subject to the proviso that I may be (and often will be) mistaken in any specific instance.

If I don't make such assumptions -- if I just conclude that I can never know anything about the world, not even provisionally -- then what's the point in doing anything? I may as well just sit here and rot. After all, my life (and my growing hunger and thirst pains) are all just illusions, for all I know.

Finally, if you're going to insist that something as basic as the existence of change needs to be demonstrated with "epistemic certitude" for any debate, then such debate is going to be needlessly prolonged and tiresome -- and arguably in bad faith, as the very existence of a debate is predicated on the existence of change.

I'm not saying it's impossible to know anything about the world, I'm making an internal critique of your worldview. I'm saying that in your worldview, which seems to be pure materialism, it is impossible to justify epistemic claims about the world. To reduce thousands of years of philosophy to "stoned conversations at 3am" is disingenuous and, forgive me, points to a lack of understanding of the history of philosophy on your part.

These aren't just points I'm pulling out of thin air, I'm simply rehashing dialogues and arguments made by the likes of Aristotle and David Hume - arguments which have not been refuted since, at least in the public domain. I urge you to read about Hume's theory of Induction, and the Is/Ought distinction. You could also do well to read Aristotle's dialogue with the sophists.

>While that's great for stoned conversations at 3am, it's not very useful.

What is "useful" in a purely materialist worldview? How can the objective "usefulness" of something be ascertained in a world where nothing objective exists, since universals and objectivity are in the domain of metaphysics?

> If I don't make such assumptions -- if I just conclude that I can never know anything about the world, not even provisionally -- then what's the point in doing anything?

Exactly! You've hit the nail on the head. In a purely material universe, where to know anything is impossible without "pulling ourselves up by the bootstraps" (so to speak) in terms of metaphysics, there is absolutely no reason to do anything. The universe becomes totally without meaning, aka "Disteleological".

But then this creates a paradox - if everything is meaningless, even the claim that everything is meaningless becomes, itself, meaningless. This is an impossible position to hold, and is self refuting.

So the only other position we can hold is that there are metaphysical concepts, and that they do hold ontological status (they exist) and relate to our universe. To suggest that consciousness, which is as invisible and untouchable as logic, yet has a similar effect on the physical world, isn't one among these metaphysical concepts is absurd.

Personally I believe (but can't prove) that there's more to consciousness than just electrical signals in my brain, but at the same time I'm aware that my physical brain is the organ I do my thinking with, and if it's not in a good state then thinking is a lot harder. Thus it's hard to imagine my consciousness existing separately from my brain. If I didn't have access to the usual apparatus I use to do my thinking with, then what's left?

Perhaps on some level the situation is like a 2-dimensional being not being able to comprehend what it would be like to live in three dimensions.

For your second point, there is a way to prove that consciousness exists - by proving the impossibility of the contrary. If consciousness does not exist in a non-physical space, the very possibility of knowledge at all becomes impossible to reckon with. We could not have any interaction with metaphysical ideas like logic, reason, mathematics and so on. Logic is not present in the material world, yet it is universally applicable to all objects. Mathematical prototypes (eg. The number 7) cannot be found in the particles that make up the physical universe, yet they are found in all objects and are present and graspable in all minds. If the mind was purely matter, these fundamental building blocks for knowledge itself would be inaccessible.

For your 3rd point - I think you are correct. We have no way of knowing exactly what an after life might look like.

Why not?

The potential implications of this take on consciousness are fascinating.

This implies that a perfect computer simulation of a conscious brain would not be conscious, but only appear/pretend to be?

Where does your consciousness come from then? Was it hanging around and jumped onboard your brain when it developed? Will there be enough consciousness units available if we reach 15 billion world population? Or maybe those can reproduce or come into existence from nothing? Hmmm, so they can be created but never destroyed? So are there actually trillions of consciousness units wandering somewhere, like a memory leak for minds? Or maybe it's all about reincarnation, but, what if the earth is vaporized by colliding with another planet? In what beings would all these consciousness units reincarnate into? And what part of you comes from your consciousness in the first place? Is it some vague perception/awareness of existing? Or is it your full mind, with memories, logic, langage and emotions? But then what is the brain doing if it's not the processing supporting these features of the mind? Is it some kind of antenna for beyond-physical communication with the actual non-physical mind? But then what makes the matter in our brain able to perform this communication, special? Could we figure this out and get beyond-physical communication in the lab?

Sorry for this wall of questions, it's just... much more fascinating than the usual boring explanation, where the brain, neurones, axiomes and impulses allow information to flow and be processed so that you can form thoughts and reason about the world and yourself, and where all that processing stops with death and that's it, what was emerging from it can't go on without it.

It is not only a boring description of what happens when you die, it is also very disappointing. I would love for some grand cosmic resolution to my life. But I have troubles believing that it's actually real, as nice as it sounds to me. Wishes of reality, reality of wishes.

Another useful concept is the immanent frame, which is an idea by the philosopher Charles Taylor in his book A Secular Age. The basic idea is that society is increasingly becoming focused on this world (immanent) and losing interest in things outside the "frame", like the afterlife. And so the default assumption becomes something like, "There is no afterlife and only this life matters," even if there is really no scientific or philosophical justification for that belief.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41188210

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism

3. https://ubcgcu.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/taylor-and-imm...

There is no "woo" here - and to imply that there is woo is purely religious, not philosophical.