What do rationalists think about the afterlife?

Adam Zerner

I've read a fair amount on Less Wrong and can't recall much said about the plausibility of some sort of afterlife. What do you guys think about it? Is there some sort of consensus?

Here's my take:

Rationality is all about using the past to make predictions about the future.
"What happens to our consciousness when we die?" (may not be worded precisely, but hopefully you know what I mean).
We have some data on what preconditions seem to produce consciousness (ie. neuronal firing). However, this is just data on the preconditions that seem to produce consciousness that can/do communicate/demonstrate its consciousness to us.
Can we say that a different set of preconditions doesn't produce consciousness? I personally don't see reason to believe this. I see 3 possibilities that we don't have reason to reject, because we have no data on them. I'm still confused and not too confident in this belief though.
Possibility 1) Maybe the 'other' conscious beings don't want to communicate their consciousness to us.
Possibility 2) Maybe the 'other' conscious beings can't communicate their consciousness to us ever.
Possibility 3) Maybe the 'other' conscious beings can't communicate their consciousness to us given our level of technology.
And finally, since we have no data, what can we say about the likelihood of our consciousness returning/remaining after we die? I would say the chances are 50/50. For something you have no data on, any outcome is equally likely (This feels like something that must have been talked about before. So side-question: is this logic sound?).

Edit: People in the comments have just taken it as a given that consciousness resides solely in the brain without explaining why they think this. My point in this post is that I don't see why we have reason to reject the 3 possibilities above. If you reject the idea that consciousness could reside outside of the brain, please explain why.

I've read a fair amount on Less Wrong and can't recall much said about the plausibility of some sort of afterlife. What do you guys think about it? Is there some sort of consensus?

Here's my take:

Rationality is all about using the past to make predictions about the future.
"What happens to our consciousness when we die?" (may not be worded precisely, but hopefully you know what I mean).
We have some data on what preconditions seem to produce consciousness (ie. neuronal firing). However, this is just data on the preconditions that seem to produce consciousness that can/do communicate/demonstrate its consciousness to us.
Can we say that a different set of preconditions doesn't produce consciousness? I personally don't see reason to believe this. I see 3 possibilities that we don't have reason to reject, because we have no data on them. I'm still confused and not too confident in this belief though.
Possibility 1) Maybe the 'other' conscious beings don't want to communicate their consciousness to us.
Possibility 2) Maybe the 'other' conscious beings can't communicate their consciousness to us ever.
Possibility 3) Maybe the 'other' conscious beings can't communicate their consciousness to us given our level of technology.
And finally, since we have no data, what can we say about the likelihood of our consciousness returning/remaining after we die? I would say the chances are 50/50. For something you have no data on, any outcome is equally likely (This feels like something that must have been talked about before. So side-question: is this logic sound?).

It is a simple case of parsimony.

The brain and the physical world in general are sufficient to explain consciousness, so therefore any assumptions beyond that get a complexity penalty.

And...that's the only reason. All your "possibilities" are indeed possible... but improbable. I don't reject the idea that consciousness could theoretically reside outside the brain, but it's much more parsimonious to assume it does not.

I've read a fair amount on Less Wrong

If so, I take it you already understand about parsimony and its importance for hypothesizing, since there has been a good deal of discussion about that. Additionally, as a neuroscience major you have sufficient background to at least agree that consciousness could theoretically be an entirely physical phenomenon. You've got all the background information you need to make the required inferences.

So for my own curiosity, do let me know: Was reading above sufficient to cause you to alter your belief, and do you now know that consciousness probably (more probably than "50/50") is an entirely physical phenomenon which centers around the brain?

Edit: Reading your other comments, you still don't get parsimony.

Hypothesis 1: I have only two left toes.

Hypothesis 2: I have only two left toes and own a bunny rabbit hat.

1 is more parsimonious than 2. It's not 50/50.

Hypothesis 1: The brain is enough to explain the evidence of consciousness

Hypothesis 2: The brain is enough to explain the evidence of consciousness, but there are additional things which are also conscious, only we can't observe them.

1 is more parsimonious than 2. It's not 50/50.

The brain and the physical world in general are sufficient to explain consciousness

The problem is that they aren't, as Richard explains here.

0Adam Zerner12y

This is my position - http://lesswrong.com/lw/k8a/what_do_rationalists_think_about_the_afterlife/awx0.

-29

What do rationalists think about the afterlife?

-29

-29

-29

What do rationalists think about the afterlife?

-29

-29