rationalskepticism.org

darwin2 wrote:Sir, I have never stated that consciousness continues after death. I stated it is possible that it may exist after death. In previous posts I have stated that I don’t know what form consciousness would have if it survived death. All I can say is the form it gets is the form it will have. And that Sir is a scientific statement.

No it isn't, you are making baseless assertions here. First you say that it is merely a possibility that consciousness persists after death. But you know that it "gets the form it will have"? What shape does consciousness have, exactly? How can you possibly make predictions about something you don't even know exists and for which you have zero evidence? How does that work? It certainly isn't science.

There is reason to entertain the notion because it is possible one’s consciousness may survive death(...)

So what? Invisible blue baboons on Saturn is also a probability. My farts becoming conscious entities before they fade away into nothingness is also a possibility. Just because your claim could possibly be true, doesn't lend it any more validity than any other out there claim.

(...)and it is wise to prepare for such a reality.

Why is it wise to prepare for an unproven assertion?

That is a silly irrelevant statement. Who cares if there are no invisible baboons on Saturn?

I think your statement is equally silly. And I care very deeply for unseen celestial primates. However, emotional attachment to an idea doesn't lend it any validity or credibility. Since you cannot provide any more evidence for your claim than I can, why would your statement be less silly than mine?

But if one is wise one should care about one’s death because the scientific reality is that one is going to die and it is a scientific reality that consciousness may survivethe death of the physical body.

No, it is a blind assertion, not scientific reality.

This Sir is a realistic possibility not an absurd one(...)

And other than "Because you say so", why should I not consider yours an absurd statement?

(...)but I do agree it would be a waste of time for science to investigate this possibility now because evidence is totally lacking(...)

So we actually agree that it would be an utter waste of time and resources for scientists to investigate baseless claims?

(...)but science should deal with the possibility that this might occur and should at the very least come up with some reasonable ways to deal with it if it takes place.

Oh, so scientists should investigate the matter? You are not making any sense here.

That would be the ethical thing to do.

Science doesn't deal with ethics, it deals with reality.