Faith in permanent death

[idav]

Yes; we call it "death".

But then food so a worm can live. Life continues horray!

 

[839311]

But you think that belief in an afterlife is different... okay. What's a reason to believe that one exists? And I don't mean just a reason not to completely reject the idea, but a positive reason based on actual logic or evidence that suggests not only that it's not completely impossible but that it's a more reasonable belief than the alternatives.

Well, there is really only one alternative, isnt there? And, Ive already gone over them in quite some detail throughout this thread. I dont really want to repeat much of it again, so I will try to throw in ideas that I havn't mentioned yet to make my case heavier below.

You just said that there are many unknowns. How do you assess the probability of the different options you gave in order to figure out which ones were more and less probable? And how do you come to conclusion that it's highly probable that at least one is true?

Ahhh, now you've stepped in your own *****. Your accusing me of assessing probabilities when you dismiss them alltogether? I atleast acknowledge that I don't know.

As for assessing probabilities, here is where we just have to use our own abilities to reason to try to figure out if ideas seem likely or not. Like I said, I think option 5 is highly unlikely. For one thing, this option more or less assumes that options 1 and 2 aren't true, which they might be. Second, it assumes that consciousness is a kind of floating, indestructible lifeforce which remains after we die, which I doubt is true, since I think that consciousness is indeed tied to the brain. But, I think its still possible that it could be the floating kind of energy that would be required for option 5 to be true. Those are some of the reasons why I consider this option unlikely.

Option 1. Im assuming your as familiar with the arguments against gods existence as I am. I personally doubt that the laws of physics are such that they would make gods existence a 'default setting'. It seems like an extreme stretch to think this is the case. Not impossible, but highly unlikely. Which doesn't mean God couldn't have evolved out of lesser forms, much like we have.

Option 2. We are well aware of the potential of technology. We dont yet know how high we can ascend. As I see it, though, a simulated reality should be possible and in the future may prove not too difficult to accomplish. Manipulating the 5 senses may be easier than we think.

Options 3 and 4. Ive gone over these in pretty good detail already. We simply don't know enough about the nature of the cosmos to be able to say with absolute certainty. But I feel like I have to stretch myself to accomodate the possibility that options 3 or 4 wouldn't happen - assuming options 1, 2, and 5 wouldn't - for the reasons weve already discussed.

 

[839311]

we can say with a large confidence that an afterlife probably doesn't exist.

Who is we?

 

[PolyHedral]

Who is we?

Anyone who is working from scientific principles, rather than memetic self-replicators.

 

[Willamena]

Who is we?

Mathematicians.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, there is really only one alternative, isnt there? And, Ive already gone over them in quite some detail throughout this thread.

No, you haven't.

You've gone a fair bit into possibilities that you argue can't be excluded, but you haven't really given any justification for why they're more believable than not believing in an afterlife at all.

Ahhh, now you've stepped in your own *****. Your accusing me of assessing probabilities when you dismiss them alltogether? I atleast acknowledge that I don't know.

The problem is with the consistency of your argument. You acknowledge that you don't have a good idea of the probabilities involved, but you still feel confident enough in them to say that they're high.

OTOH, for my position, I only need to acknowledge that nothing suggests that an afterlife exists. It's not a matter of some estimate of probability.

As for assessing probabilities, here is where we just have to use our own abilities to reason to try to figure out if ideas seem likely or not. Like I said, I think option 5 is highly unlikely. For one thing, this option more or less assumes that options 1 and 2 aren't true, which they might be. Second, it assumes that consciousness is a kind of floating, indestructible lifeforce which remains after we die, which I doubt is true, since I think that consciousness is indeed tied to the brain.

If consciousness is tied to the brain, then when our brains die, our consciousness dies, and all five hypotheses you gave are false.

 

[839311]

It seems to me that you're putting the cart before the horse, then. Doesn't it make sense to define what "you" is before you start hypothesizing about where "you" might go when "you" dies?

No, because what happens at death is of great interest to us. Thats why were having this discussion to begin with even though we don't really know what consciousness is.

But your "swooping God" hypothesis assumes that God can distinguish between them.

Yeah. Whats your point?

So... it's possible that we don't need a soul to live, walk, talk, interact with people, etc.? Why assume that anyone has a soul at all, then?.

Well Im alive, so thats pretty good evidence to make the guess that my fellow humans are alive too. I hope you don't disagree.

Okay - so both Old Steve and New Steve have separate souls, and when Old Steve's soul is scooped up, God replaces it with New Steve at the exact moment of the injury?

This is starting to sound very Rube Goldberg-esque.

If God exists and has as much power as many people think he might, ie omnipotence, then I would think this would be easy for him.

I don't know what you're trying to say here.

Its the 'your hairs are all numbered argument'. Hes going to assemble you later even if every atom of your consciousness is scattered throughout the solar system.

The dream part - What I meant is that if you cease to exist at your death, but then are reassembled and conscious again, that the time inbetween, the time that you were dead, would be like having a dreamless sleep. We seem to have no sense of the passage of time at all.

"Why would you expect something like this?

Cyborg super brains of the future" would still corrode, or at the very least, not be able to function beyond the heat-death of the universe. Living a long time is still not immortality..

The corrosion thing might easily be solved. The heat-death of the universe might be overcome in some way as well through technology. There are probably no small numbers of ways this could be done. But Ill mention one, that humans create a closed system somewhere in space and recycle all the energy to support a limited number of brains-in-vats. It all depends on how much faith you have in technological advacement.

"Even if it were true, I don't think it's relevant. Say the universe goes through cycles and everything plays out again exactly like it did this time. Is the "you" in that future universe really "you", or is it more like your clone? There's nothing connecting "current you" to "future universe you", so I think it's more appropriate to say that "future you" is more like a copy or a clone.

Well, if it plays out exactly like it does this time, then yes, you would be you again. Its completely irrational to think that if this scenario would play it exactly the same that any element of it would be different, including consciousness. You can call it a copy or a clone, thats fine, as long as that copy or clone has your identical consciousness.

Well, no. There are other possibilities:

- God exists, but he just doesn't bother to imbue you with a soul that lives beyond your death
- God exists, but he decides to get rid of Heaven after a while
- We're all the simulation of an advanced civilization, but even though they're really good at simulating reality, they haven't figured out how to conquer death.
- There is a cosmic conciousness, but we're not part of it.

Your right about other possibilities. I should have said that I think that is the only reasonably likely situation under which we would permanently cease to exist. The God possibilities are indeed possible, though, but I think highly unlike. Im hopeful and fairly sure, that if he does exist, hes not a jerk that would do those things. I highly doubt he would. The third one doesn't guarantee it. You still have eternal return to work with, or the continued recycling of matter and energy so that you would have a kind of artificial eternal return situation, where your consciousness would die but would be eventually reassembled by this advanced civilization. Option 4 doesnt guarantee it either. This option is a stretch to begin with so I don't want to think about this one anymore, Im getting mentally tired answering this post as it is. :thud:

Wait - didn't you argue for the exact opposite of this when you argued for "eternal return"?

No, I think you just misunderstood what I meant. Im not really sure what makes you say that.

What makes it "you"?

I could ask you the same question and get the same reply. But obviously, something makes me me, because here I am.

Consciousness is our term for a pattern. This pattern relies on energy and matter, but it's not only energy and matter.

The best analogy I've been able to come up with is symmetry: say you lay out a handful of objects in a symmetrical pattern; you have symmetry. Scoop the objects into a bag and you'll have lost the symmetry, even though you may have every atom of matter that you had to begin with.

Or think of a book: if you burn it carefully, you might not lose any of the matter or energy in the book, but once the words on the page lose their pattern, the copy of Hamlet (or whatever) ceases to be Hamlet. Your collection of soot, carbon dioxide and water vapour is not a copy of Hamlet, even though it once made up a copy of Hamlet.

This is a heavy claim, heavier than our knowledge of consciousness can support, I think. I would appreciate a mountain of irrefutable evidence, please.

Also, this symmetry idea that your talking about strikes me as having a mystical spin to it. I really have no idea what your talking about when you claim it isnt matter or energy. Sounds like magic to me.

like "souls" and "afterlives", for instance.

The way I see it is Im alive and consciousness, and this is my idea of what a soul is. As for the afterlife, who knows. Maybe there is something. Maybe there isn't. Whether or not you think one option is liklier than another is your choice. Just dont assume one of them, for your own sake.

You presented hypothesis 5 as an alternative to 1 or 2. If you want to argue for 1 or 2, go for it, but you're muddying things if you try to move the goalposts so that 5 is really "5 plus 1".

5 plus 1? I thought I made the distinction between them.

 

[Looncall]

Well, say your right and we didn't exist prior to being born here. Where did we come from? We can just as easily go backwards in time prior to our birth as we can after our death. In either case, we don't exist. Yet, the possibility is there that we can be alive, say, as a human or maybe something else. And then poof! Your born!

I have never seen any evidence that our personas are anything but the configurations of our brains taken together with our histories (stored in our brains).

If you have such evidence, please share it with us. Wishful thinking and superstition don't make the grade.

 

[idav]

If consciousness is tied to the brain, then when our brains die, our consciousness dies, and all five hypotheses you gave are false.

I think the OP is admittedly saying proposition 5 is not necessarily conscious.

 

[839311]

Wishful thinking and superstition don't make the grade.

Do you want to engage in philosophy about the possibilities or not? If you have evidence that eternal return isn't true, then please, present it. Wishful thinking doesn't make the grade.

 

[Looncall]

Do you want to engage in philosophy about the possibilities or not? If you have evidence that eternal return isn't true, then please, present it. Wishful thinking doesn't make the grade.

Life after death is not consilient with what we do actually know about how the universe works. It is up to its proponents to supply evidence.

 

[839311]

Life after death is not consilient with what we do actually know about how the universe works.

We know much less than I think you assume. We don't understand the big bang entirely yet, let alone the quantum world. Consciousness is little understood.

It is up to its proponents to supply evidence.

Not when dealing with possibilities. Thats all we have at the moment, seeing as how little we know.

 

[Copernicus]

It still remains an observable fact that mental states are controlled by the physical condition of a brain. We can induce unconsciousness by physically altering the condition of a brain. The prima facie evidence strongly suggests that brains cause consciousness. Minds are dependent on brains. Hence, the destruction of a brain very probably leads to permanent destruction for the mind sustained by the brain. This is why we believe that there very probably is no such thing as an "afterlife".

 

[Tristesse]

We know much less than I think you assume. We don't understand the big bang entirely yet, let alone the quantum world. Consciousness is little understood.



Not when dealing with possibilities. Thats all we have at the moment, seeing as how little we know.

You're right. Conciousness is not entirely understood. But of what we do know thus far, is that our conciousness is controlled through our brain, which we know dies.

We can throw around possibilities all day, but is there any evidence to back up those possibilities?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We know much less than I think you assume. We don't understand the big bang entirely yet, let alone the quantum world. Consciousness is little understood.

That still doesn't get you to anything that actually suggests an afterlife is real. Why assume it as opposed to any of the vast array of things that we have no evidence for or against, yet we don't assume are real?

 

[Oneatatime]

I don't believe that anything survives brain death because there isn't any to suggest that an individual persists when their brain has died. There is also a distinct lack of reliable communication from those who have died in order for us to address the question with any degree of confidence.

It seems to be that belief in existance after death is the result of many things including religious beliefs implanted as a child or adopted as an adult, a coping technique to deal with the loss of loved ones, an inability to accept or understand non-existance, and the emotional appeal of surviving and being reunited with loved ones. Similar forces are present in many such beliefs like this which can be neither proven nor disproven, or to put more simply are unfalsifiable.

I've experienced the loss of a loved one and it's a terrible thing but any comfort gained through fantasy beliefs about an afterlife do not make the afterlife or any such beliefs real. I also have my doubts that it does anything to lessen the emotional pain but rather helps the individual rationalise the loss in a way they can understand.

From an evidence point of view there is nothing to suggest that we survive brain death. Instead many assume this is the case and clutch at anything which can be claimed as evidence, regardless of how dubious it is and how much other evidence fails to fit with their assumption.

 

[839311]

It still remains an observable fact that mental states are controlled by the physical condition of a brain. We can induce unconsciousness by physically altering the condition of a brain. The prima facie evidence strongly suggests that brains cause consciousness. Minds are dependent on brains. Hence, the destruction of a brain very probably leads to permanent destruction for the mind sustained by the brain. This is why we believe that there very probably is no such thing as an "afterlife".

You're right. Conciousness is not entirely understood. But of what we do know thus far, is that our conciousness is controlled through our brain, which we know dies.

Ahh, the brain thing again. The brain argument that keeps coming up doesn't address the first 4 options I listed. Might as well give it up, because it doesn't address the issues at all. I happen to agree with you that the brain very probably causes consciousness, although this hasn't been proven. What does that suggest? That this idea has very little bearing on the OP.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ahh, the brain thing again. The brain argument that keeps coming up doesn't address the first 4 options I listed. Might as well give it up, because it doesn't address the issues at all.

Yes, it does:

1. If there is no "us beyond death", then it's a moot point whether any god-like beings are "planning to take care of us beyond death".

4. If consciousness needs a brain, then "consciousness energy" cannot "float around through infinite space".

 

[839311]

That still doesn't get you to anything that actually suggests an afterlife is real.

Sure it does. All the possibilities I listed do to one extent or another, and to a greater extent when taken together.

Why assume it as opposed to any of the vast array of things that we have no evidence for or against, yet we don't assume are real?

Im not making the assumption. As Ive said, I think its highly probable that one of the possibilities in the OP is correct.

Like what, that the universe is infinite? It either is or it isn't, but youll never get conclusive physical evidence. If a discussion of the possibilities can lead us to favor one of the two possibilities, then good. Evidence is unnecessary, and in some cases positively impossible to attain. So we instead use our reason to try to see whether we think the possibilities are likely or unlikely, true or false. Take eternal return for example. Why bother asking me for evidence when you know there is none coming? Instead, use your reason to try to see whether or not its plausible, likely or unlikely.

I would like to see evidence that this is a simulation as well. I would like to see evidence that there are gods. Apart from the kind that is usually provided, which I don't take too seriously. But I must admit that as far as I know Im the one that set the parameters for the simulation to be so darn realistic, so I wouldn't even be able to tell whether Im in a simulation or not. Is it possible, that with an eternity of time in front of me I would choose to live a life in this scenario? Why the **** not. Maybe the usual scenarios get boring after a few eons and I like to throw in something like a life on 21st century planet earth. Might as well. I have an eternity of time ahead of me to try to stay interested and entertained. Maybe, there is a god who created these virtual realities for us to do with as we please. Maybe in the next scenario Im going to choose an extra difficult life for myself lol. Although, if it did turn out that I was in control of the simulation, Id probably hang out in some paradise world, for a while atleast lol.

 

[839311]

1. If there is no "us beyond death", then it's a moot point whether any god-like beings are "planning to take care of us beyond death".

Your underestimating the power of god-like beings here. As far as we know they could easily reassemble our brains even after they die so that they would function in exactly the same way as they did while they operate, with the identical consciousness of that person.

4. If consciousness needs a brain, then "consciousness energy" cannot "float around through infinite space".

Sure it could. It would just be inert until it would find a new brain.