Faith in permanent death

[839311]

atheists? is that what you mean?

I mean anyone. Anyone might ignore the possibilities, whether its atheists or buddhists or muslims or whoever.

what did you mean by truth when you said:

considering what? both possibilities of an open and closed system...?

As well as the other options I listed in the OP. I think they are plausible. Some more likely than others.

By truth I mean simply that, truth. If you have figured out that there are only 2 possible answers to a problem, you'll know that one of them is right, or true. Another person might only be aware of one of the possible answers. If he doesnt study the second possibility, and if that possibility turns out to be true, then he hasn't even had a glimpse of truth.

 

[waitasec]

By truth I mean simply that, truth. If you have figured out that there are only 2 possible answers to a problem, you'll know that one of them is right, or true. Another person might only be aware of one of the possible answers. If he doesnt study the second possibility, and if that possibility turns out to be true, then he hasn't even had a glimpse of truth.

but you see i don't....
there maybe more than 2 possibilities, i don't know...no one does.

 

[839311]

Now, you can view it as pseudo-science, but I tend to think of it as inferred. This is how Buddhism looks at the view of science and their spirituality.

I think its a plausible view.

Now as far as consciousness goes, there are theories, and they are theories, but sound theories that say that it is an emergent property that is produced from a quantum level through superpositions. This is called Orch-OR and it has been gaining ground over the past 15 years. It relies on non-locality and entanglement for the collapse of the wave function in superpositions.

Im not familiar with it. Is it worth the read?

 

[839311]

but you see i don't....
there maybe more than 2 possibilities, i don't know...no one does.

Well I was talking about a situation in which you would know for sure that there are only two possibilities. In this case, there would be no maybe about it.

 

[Otherright]

I think its a plausible view.



Im not familiar with it. Is it worth the read?

Yeah, it really is, but you have to be into neurology to get it. Its is bogged down with technical jargon, but you can look it up all the same and get the jest of it.

 

[freethinker44]

It strikes me as a bleak, doomed, hopeless reality.

Reality being the key word. Sometimes life isn't a fairy tale. The truth will still be the truth no matter how much suger you pour on top of it. I like my truth unsweetened.

 

[atanu]

There are two core themes that seem to be held true by many people of science (I am a man of science myself). The two themes are:

• Consciousness is product of brain structures. Before evolution of these brain structures there was no consciousness and there will not be any after destruction of the same structures.
• Brain is just a computer that humans can replicate

To me, it is major scientific breakthrough that a created product (consciousness) is unravelling its own source. My friends here tell me that this is not ridiculous but is perfectly possible.

Although I cannot fathom how a product of brain structures will unravel the intricacies of brain structures and their origin, I provisionally accept these two.

If the above two thoughts are correct, then surely a man can be replicated (and perhaps have been replicated) and thus Afterlife is not impossible.

 

[Koldo]

There are two core themes that seem to be held true by many people of science (I am a man of science myself). The two themes are:

• Consciousness is product of brain structures. Before evolution of these brain structures there was no consciousness and there will not be any after destruction of the same structures.
• Brain is just a computer that humans can replicate

To me, it is major scientific breakthrough that a created product (consciousness) is unravelling its own source. My friends here tell me that this is not ridiculous but is perfectly possible.

Although I cannot fathom how a product of brain structures will unravel the intricacies of brain structures and their origin, I provisionally accept these two.

If the above two thoughts are correct, then surely a man can be replicated (and perhaps have been replicated) and thus Afterlife is not impossible.

My replicate is not me.

 

[atanu]

My replicate is not me.

Why? If we agree to the concept that consciousness is entirely emergent from physical material, then it must be replicable fully - in principle. Why not? But to me, that is science fiction and material of movies. One may however ask, if a particular consciousness is not replicable even when you replicate the brain fully, then the consciousness must be something more than the measurable material property?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2519016-post25.html

Yes, particular ego consciousness is composed of the subject-object free substratum consciousness superimposed by results of sensual functions. But the notion that consciousness itself is product of matter is ridiculous. If it is a product then there cannot be any basis of science, which uses this created product to investigate the creator-source. Has any character out of a novel or a film investigated its author/director?

Self reference itself means that there is a Self before any other thing.

 

[atanu]

This is mostly for atheists, but open to anyone who believes that once we are dead, we're dead. That's it. We will never be alive again for the rest of eternity. We simply cease to exist, completely and permanently.

I come across this belief quite often among atheists. I view this belief as faith-based. Its also one of the most pitiful faith-based positions that I have ever come across. It strikes me as a bleak, doomed, hopeless reality.

With all of the possibilities out there which suggest eternal life, including.....

1) That there are god like beings who plan to take care of us beyond death.
2) That this reality of ours is a computer simulation, and after our lives here we will move on to different programs. Simulated reality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3) The idea of eternal return. Eternal return - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
4) An idea similar to eternal return, but where the system is not closed and our consciousness energy floats around through infinite space and once in a while becomes part of a living being.
5) Seeing as how consciousness is so little understood, we can speculate as to the nature of this energy:

a) It is indestructible and survives physical death, so you will continue to experience being alive, perhaps in a very basic way, with no thoughts or senses, just this rudimentary awareness. This might actually not be a pleasant thing, but I suppose its possible, maybe. Eventually, your consciousness may become part of another living being and you'd get back higher senses and intelligence.
b) An idea where there is a cosmic consciousness. Cosmic consciousness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

​

.....why have you decided to put your faith in the idea that when we die we permanently cease to exist?

When atheists try to explain the attractiveness of atheism to others, some of this attractiveness is lost in the fact that so many atheists believe in permanent death. A religious person might say, "I believe theres an afterlife, this gives me comfort. But your telling me that when we're dead thats it? That sucks!" And thats true. Its a defeatist, hopeless belief. Atheism would be far more attractive to people if it acknowledged the possibility of life after death. I think the rate of deconversions would increase if people were instead comforted with the possibility of life after death even if there is no God.

Actually, I will ask "Who takes birth?"

Egos are transitory and take birth and die as instances of reality. But the reality neither rises nor goes down.

 

[Koldo]

Why? If we agree to the concept that consciousness is entirely emergent from physical material, then it must be replicable fully - in principle. Why not? That is science fiction and material of movies. If a particular consciousness is not replicable even when you replicate the brain fully, then the consciousness must be something more than the measurable material property.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2519016-post25.html

Yes, particular ego consciousness is composed of the subject-object free substratum consciousness superimposed by results of sensual functions. But the notion that consciousness itself is product of matter is ridiculous. If it is a product then there cannot be any basis of science, which uses this created product to investigate the creator-source. Has any character out of a novel or a film investigated its author/director?

Self reference itself means that there is a Self before any other thing.

If we were to be replicated during our lifetime we would not acknowledge it to be us, but rather as a copy of us. As long as we don't share the same consciousness we are separated beings.

If after the experiment you were to be set apart, would you experience life through your replicate? Would you feel what he feels, see what he sees, or hear what he hears? No, you won't. He became another individual.

 

[atanu]

If we were to be replicated during our lifetime we would not acknowledge it to be us.

But that seems actually to be the case, as per the enlightened. It is somewhat like animals fighting with their various mirror images.

 

[Koldo]

But that seems actually to be the case, as per the enlightened.

Enlightened?

It is somewhat like animals fighting with their various mirror images.

As far as i know those animals fight their mirror images because they don't acknowledge it as themselves. They see the images as being of some other animal.

 

[PolyHedral]

There are two core themes that seem to be held true by many people of science (I am a man of science myself). The two themes are:

• Consciousness is product of brain structures. Before evolution of these brain structures there was no consciousness and there will not be any after destruction of the same structures.
• Brain is just a computer that humans can replicate

To me, it is major scientific breakthrough that a created product (consciousness) is unravelling its own source. My friends here tell me that this is not ridiculous but is perfectly possible.

Although I cannot fathom how a product of brain structures will unravel the intricacies of brain structures and their origin, I provisionally accept these two.

If the above two thoughts are correct, then surely a man can be replicated (and perhaps have been replicated) and thus Afterlife is not impossible.

Look into the concept of the Universal Turing Machine. A Turing machine can analyze any other Turing machine, including it's own plans, given enough time.

Afterlife, in the spiritual sense, is impossible if the spirit turns out not to actually exist.

My replicate is not me.

Then your identity criteria are broken.

If we were to be replicated during our lifetime we would not acknowledge it to be us, but rather as a copy of us. As long as we don't share the same consciousness we are separated beings.

Well, yes, he won't be you (object), but he certainly will be you (person).

If after the experiment you were to be set apart, would you experience life through your replicate? Would you feel what he feels, see what he sees, or hear what he hears? No, you won't. He became another individual.

You'd start as you, but you'd become different people as different things happen to you.

 

[atanu]

If after the experiment you were to be set apart, would you experience life through your replicate? Would you feel what he feels, see what he sees, or hear what he hears? No, you won't. He became another individual.

So what you are indicating is that there cannot be two exactly same individuals because they may occupy different time and space and have different experiences, although they have exactly the same brain-senses. What that means? To me it means that an individual is not just the brain but the whole universe of his frame with its meanings and words and memories. And individuals brain is a machine in that.

Then, one must investigate how the individual "I am this" comes up in the whole consciousness-space. In all diverse individuals the sense "I exist" is common. The association with a particular body is effect of limiting function of sense of touch mainly and also of 4 other sense functions. So, the consciousness of "I am this body" is secondary, based on the primary all pervasive sense of "I exist". A mind rooted in "I am" consciousness does not die because of loss of body, since the root of consciousness is not the body.

Created objects all have expiry dates.

 

[atanu]

Look into the concept of the Universal Turing Machine. A Turing machine can analyze any other Turing machine, including it's own plans, given enough time.

Afterlife, in the spiritual sense, is impossible if the spirit turns out not to actually exist.

Turing machines can be replicated. So afterlife is possible -- provided there is a creator of Turing Machine.

Afterlife is meaningless for the spirit because it is unborn.

 

[PolyHedral]

Turing machines are mathematical constructs. They were never created; they merely "exist", and were picked out by Turing for his paper.

 

[atanu]

Turing machines are mathematical constructs. They were never created; they merely "exist", and were picked out by Turing for his paper.

That again is typical of you. You should say that no machine has been created that fulfills all of the Turing's criteria. But we are talking of such a machine being created by you.

So:

A machine created by PolyHedral will satisfy criteria of Turing. Such machines can be replicated. So afterlife is possible (thus we accept a creator).

Afterlife is meaningless for the spirit because it is unborn.

 

[atanu]

Enlightened?

As far as i know those animals fight their mirror images because they don't acknowledge it as themselves. They see the images as being of some other animal.

Have you seen yourself fighting with another guy in your dream? It is the single person who is you and another.

 

[839311]

Have you seen yourself fighting with another guy in your dream? It is the single person who is you and another.

What do you mean the single person is you and another?

This is an interesting idea, how we sometimes perceive through a first-person way but come across others in our dreams. Maybe the other people are not us, but simply thoughts/pictures, distinguishable from the 'conscious' us. Consciousness could very well be localized somewhere in the brain, as opposed to being sort of the whole of the brain - and this idea that you mentioned seems to support that view.