A Lone Thought

Today I had a good conversation with an atheist friend of mine on religion and later on philosophy - specifically, the nature of consciousness and the essence of free will. This was a tricky conversation from the start. The religion conversation was easy - why does Christianity fail so hard. And I was able to rattle off all the little bits and pieces I knew - the fact that the Jews don't accept Jesus as the messiah, all the prophecies he failed to fulfill, the contradictions in his birth narrative, the incoherency of why Jesus even had to save us, and how evolution singlehandedly dismantles Christianity at the core. Stuff I know a fair bit about. Philosophy on the other hand, not as easy.

In transitioning from one discussion to the other, my friend posed to me the question of what happens when we die. I withheld judgment of course, simply stating I don't know. Cos I don't! He said I had to have some theory, and we had a quarrel over what definition of theory he was trying to use. He said it was theory in the scientific sense... wouldn't he mean hypothesis then?

I said to him, "well, I dont see any reason to suggest we would have another life anywhere else; and why would we? There is no such thing as a soul." I wasn't in the mood for semantics. The soul doesn't exists in the same vain unicorns don't.

He said that was boring, to which I replied it may be, but that didn't make it any less true. Interestingly enough he then told me he believed there was such thing as a soul. I consider him a pretty rational guy. He's into science, but not really into it into it.

I had previously read of the ridiculous nature of supposing there was a soul, in particular whether it contains our memories or not? If the person replies yes, then they're exactly where I want them. We know memories are stored all over the brain, and if the soul contains them too, then it's just a copy of whatever occurred in our brain. Which would mean, that when we die, it's not our soul that goes off to heaven, it's an exact replica of our memories and experiences! It's not us though - it's a clone! Unfortunately my friend said the soul didn't contain our memories, it just had access to them.

Rather, my friend defined the soul similar to something I would call consciousness. The strange thing inside our minds that allows us to have things such as free will (assuming there is such a thing). As the argument went on, it became pretty clear to me his definition of soul was exactly the same, or pretty close to my definition of consciousness. But when I said to him he was just calling soul what I called consciousness he strongly objected, saying they weren't the same thing and I was wrong. Researching the terms I was using to try and justify my position (I was continually telling him I didn't know the answers to his questions, clearly stating I wasn't qualified to talk about them), thanks to Wikipedia, I learned he had made an equivocation fallacy.

Consciousness is a difficult term to define, because the word is used and understood in a wide variety of ways, so that it frequently happens that what one person sees as a definition of consciousness is seen by others as about something else altogether. Consciousness may involve thoughts, sensations, perceptions, moods, emotions, dreams, and self-awareness. It is variously seen as a type of mental state, a way of perceiving, or a relationship between self and other.

Right off the bat I could see why we were having such a hard time getting a shared understanding. It was a hard term to define. My friend was defining it as the state of being awake. When you're not awake, you're unconscious. I wasn't sure if this was the same type of consciousness or not, but had I read all of the opening paragraphs to the Consciousness article I would've saved myself 20 minutes of pointless arguing.

In common parlance, consciousness sometimes also denotes being awake and responsive to the environment, in contrast to being asleep or in a coma.

Consciousness sometimes also denotes. There were two definitions. He had equivocated one with another. This made me feel slightly smart. It's not easy being able to remember all the various types of fallacies, so it felt good to be able to say "bam. I see wat u did thar."

When I pressed him to actually tell me what the soul is he gave me mixed definitions. First he said it was part of the brain, then said it was energy. Then he said it was supernatural, and after that said it interacts with our brain somehow. I later questioned him on his failure to properly define it, and he admitted he didn't really know what it was. He just knew it existed.

After much back and forth not really getting anywhere, I sprang him with the burden of proof. In a sense it was a last ditch attempt to "win" the debate after throwing a paragraph at him that justified my position, which neither he nor I really understood. Regardless, the burden of proof was on him. In a sense he could've claimed the burden of proof was on me too. As I was making counter claims for my explanation for how and why we have free will. I attempted to explain it to the best of my ability, however feel I inadvertently failed.

We later revisited the conversation with me springing him with "what is the subconscious then?" Which then rendered the conversation at a stale mate with him asking me to "explain" how consciousness and subconsciousness arive at the decisions they make. Cause and effect! I then became curious as to how we even know the subconscious exists in the first place? My guess is it can be inferred from some other brain activity or something. Regardless, I could not answer his question and the conversation soon moved onwards.

The philosophical questions aside, there was one thing I wanted to know of him - did he believe there was an afterlife. The best I could get out of him was "if you knew we were just gonna end, like, when we die - that's it - would you wana believe it? I'm trying to think of alternatives, because it doesnt seem right that it ends that way"

More wishful thinking, and an appeal to emotion. Ironically I had just given Wikipedia's article on the appeal to emotion to him after he summed up his position on the soul. I find Wikipedia's say on this quite amusing really.

Appeal to emotion is a fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient's emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument. This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including:

* Appeal to consequences
* Appeal to fear
* Appeal to flattery
* Appeal to pity
* Appeal to ridicule
* Appeal to spite
* Wishful thinking

So true. Jumping on his assertions there must be some sort of purpose, we dived into science, where I used a bit of the anthropic principle, and evolution, to show the claim there there is some sort of purpose is a silly one. All the events that have lead up to our existence are events of pure chance. The universe didn't have to be "finely tuned" this way. The earth didn't have to be suitable for life. Our species didn't have to survive - most other species that have ever lived didn't. Many (most?) conceived babies self abort due to some sort of abnormality. Where do you see any signs of purpose!

Regardless of our disagreements, it was a fascinating, stimulating conversation - one I wish I had more often. I may not be into the same sorts of stuff as everyone else is, but when someone asks me something I know a lot about, providing they're interested, a very lengthy conversation will soon follow. Good stuff.