Faith in permanent death

[waitasec]

As Ive already repeated before quite a few times, I don't have faith in it. Ive acknowledged the possibility that this life is all there is. I might die, and that might be that.

so what is so different from this line of thinking than that of an atheist?
since this thread is:

mostly for atheists, but open to anyone who believes that once we are dead, we're dead.

To me, its a mystery that I feel no need to take a definite position on. I think we don't have enough information on the nature of consciousness and the nature of reality to be able to justify taking a definite position.

but you have, or it seems you have when you when you said:

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.

this possibility is just as viable as the other possibilities you posted


it's called agree to disagree... :yes:

 

[atanu]

I do not understand how you arrived here. At the fundamental level of computation, there is no understanding, only execution.

The main point was different -- about the essence of self. You may like to read exchanges between Copernicus and me.
........

About your question:

Spoiler: Analogy

If there is no understanding involved then how can Turing machine be analogous to human cognition? In case of Turing Machine, cognition is actually the cognition of programmer embedded in the machine.

Once you are using Turing machine as an alnalog to human cognition, you must include the whole system into the model, in order to be correct. And in my view, the creator of the machine is not external to the system. Turing machine is a created machine. And if our brain is also a similarly created machine (which I accept is), then the creator automatically comes in -- as analogous to the creator of Turing Machine.

 

[PolyHedral]

If there is no understanding involved then how can Turing machine be analogous to human cognition? In case of Turing Machine, cognition is actually the cognition of programmer embedded in the machine.

No it isn't. At the level of the Turing machine, (rather than a VM running inside the machine) there isn't cognition. The machine simply progresses from one state to another, as a film progresses from one static image to another. Anything we could recognizably call "cognition" is several abstractions "up" from the Machine.

Imagine it this way: cognition is Internet Explorer; the Turing machine is your computer's electronics. The concept of numbers themselves are an abstraction in that context; at that level, there are simply high and low voltages. The voltages are built into numbers by us, the programmers. The numbers are given names and interpretations, and purposes. The purposes are further abstracted, until we have any entire blocks of numbers we call upon as units. We designate some of the units as the operating system because they instruct the computer to load units and execute them. The OS sets up a layer of helper units, for the "programs" it will execute for the user. The programs don't see anything underneath these helper units; they can't affect the system beyond what these units allow them to do, and they will be executed and shut down at the OS's command. Internet Explorer is one such program, but not the only possible one.

And only the voltages exist. Only the voltages can be (directly) measured.

Once you are using Turing machine as an alnalog to human cognition, you must include the whole system into the model, in order to be correct. And in my view, the creator of the machine is not external to the system. Turing machine is a created machine. And if our brain is also a similarly created machine (which I accept is), then the creator automatically comes in -- as analogous to the creator of Turing Machine.

The creator of a Turing machine is completely irrelevent. I could choose a Machine by a dice roll. Am I then its creator? If so, in what way does that affect its function? The function was already established as completely random.

 

[839311]

this possibility is just as viable as the other possibilities you posted.

Then why put your faith in it?

 

[Copernicus]

No it isn't. At the level of the Turing machine, (rather than a VM running inside the machine) there isn't cognition. The machine simply progresses from one state to another, as a film progresses from one static image to another. Anything we could recognizably call "cognition" is several abstractions "up" from the Machine...

I just want to endorse fully what Polyhedral is pointing out here. There is no external "reader" or "understander" in a computing machine. The machine itself is fully autonomous. To the extent that there is an "understander" of data, it is the machine's systemic processes of turning data into information that it can perform higher level calculations with.

 

[waitasec]

Then why put your faith in it?

1st we need to define faith...

faith as in a belief that does not rest on proof or material evidence...? absolutely not.
faith as in loyal to the idea, materialistically speaking, of when our brain stops functioning our awareness does too? yes.
logically this makes more sense to me... my thought process is not capable of settling with a desire for something more, i am convinced by the evidence the physical world has displayed, all things die...

if something more were to happen...fine. however my reasoning is not inclined towards that train of thought...

you seem to be integrating speculation with a personal biased opinion... especially when you label another POV as bleak, doomed and hopeless, without supporting why you believe it to be those things...

why do you have this opinion or why would you think those who do not think of death in the same way you do are adhering to a bleak, doomed, hopeless reality and/or are ignoring the "truth" when you yourself don't know anymore than the next guy?

 

[atanu]

No it isn't. At the level of the Turing machine, (rather than a VM running inside the machine) there isn't cognition. The machine simply progresses from one state to another, as a film progresses from one static image to another. Anything we could recognizably call "cognition" is several abstractions "up" from the Machine.

I beg to differ. Actually, cognition is several layer deeper than the Turing Machine. It is at the root of all these discussions. The ego mind does not acknowledge that.

 

[atanu]

I just want to endorse fully what Polyhedral is pointing out here. There is no external "reader" or "understander" in a computing machine. The machine itself is fully autonomous. To the extent that there is an "understander" of data, it is the machine's systemic processes of turning data into information that it can perform higher level calculations with.

Who says so?

 

[atanu]

Mind-senses see only the observable and thus it sees only the ego self. When thoughts about continuation of life arises, most people only think about the continuation of the ego self, which is transitory even in a single life time. It is a false consciousness. It is seeing the image (the effect) and mistaking the image-effect as the reality. Measurements cannot go beyond this. But experience and insight can dive deeper.

For the ego-self to manifest there has to be a causal self. Ego-self being a created entity does know its creator -- the causal self. However, the ego self is rooted in a causal self-body, wherein ego self vanishes every time we go to deep sleep, putting the externalised mind-senses to sleep. It is a particular combination of desires that produces a particular ego-self, called an individual. The combination of the desires-wishes transform every moment and death of this causal body occurs only on extinction of all desires.

It is possible to meditate and still the mind as in deep sleep and experience the causal self and also the underlying subject-object division free substratum, wherefrom desires and the thoughts in the form of "I" awareness sprout. Meditators know this as Waking Sleep. This experience can alone confirm Buddha's teaching or Advaiic teaching that in reality there is no individual. Individuality is a mental association, with the particular effects.

Dissolution of the causal body is birth of pure consciousness, which is indestructible. Owing to indestructibilty of the pure consciousness that is devoid of any division, the universe is eternal -- whether in diversity or in singularity. Nothing dies since nothing in reality takes birth. It is only the transformation of mental states.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

As for "cosmic consciousness" even as an atheist I have not much of an issue with that hypothesis as there requires a critical level of complexity for consciousness to exist. Any less complex any form of consciousness cannot possibly exist. No consciousness existed at the creation of the universe that was just pure energy in its most simplistic form. Consciousness could never have possibly existed in the primordial universe in a quark electron soup, but is it abundantly self evident it exists now, so it had to emerge somewhere in-between, it is only at a critical point in the universe's evolution that thing called consciousness spontaneously emerged. So consciousness could well be reduced down to a single unifying principle common to all conscious living things. I posit we are initially – before we are born – at one with that principle, so if your parents had never met or even that a certain rocky planet orbiting a rather boring main sequence star in a rather boring galaxy had never existed you would be born somewhere else.

 

[atanu]

Imagine it this way: cognition is Internet Explorer; the Turing machine is your computer's electronics. .

:sorry1:I cannot even imagine IE as having any cognition. And then even If I am able to imagine it, then it is only imagination of me.

The creator of a Turing machine is completely irrelevent.

What?

OK. OK. Let me imagine a future version of computer and IE which will be like humans, fully autonomous and intelligent. Do you mean that such machine will arrive here by Natural Selection? Or will human geeks (gods) design those?

If ever human intelligence replicates some other near human machines, a new breed of creator gods will then take over the reign. Such creators will gloat at the performaces of their created servants and at any beginning of rebellion, will destroy those created beings.
...........

The points are:

1. We do not know whether a machine that will fulfill Turing's criteria will actually be equal to human cognitiion or not? Turing hypothesis is at a best an idea and a hypothesis.
2. The fact is that no Turing Machine has been created.

3. PolyHedral and Copernicus seem to assume that Turing's criteria are enough to define human cognition faculty at behavioural level and they also assume that such a machine is already available.
4. Further they seem to assume that a machine fulfilling all of Turing's criteria exists without any help from existing human intelligence -- as if these machines arrived by Natural Selection.

5. Thus, they conclude: Turing Machines do have cognition faculty same as humans.
6. They conclude: Humans are Turing Machines and nothing more.
&. They also conclude: Turing Machines are self generated and autonomous and do not require any creator/maintainer.
.................

OTOH, I know that I can shut off the IE this moment. And I am doing it now.

(I am not rooting for a man shaped creator God or Intelligent design by such a man shaped creator god. I am pointing out that the IE cognition (emergent cognition) cannot be without a creator god or cannot come up on its own without a intelligent source).

 

[atanu]

----Consciousness could never have possibly existed in the primordial universe in a quark electron soup, but is it abundantly self evident it exists now, so it had to emerge somewhere in-between, -----

If it is self evident now, how do you deduce that it was absent at some point of time? Isn't that an idea, a theory, a thought? Can one let a thought cover up something that is the basis of the thought?

 

[PolyHedral]

My Turing Machine simulator seems to have gone walkies, and I'm too busy to respond to everything ATM, but I did notice this:

2. The fact is that no Turing Machine has been created.

Have a video:
[youtube]cYw2ewoO6c4[/youtube]
‪The LEGO Turing Machine‬‏ - YouTube

 

[839311]

with a desire for something more, i am convinced by the evidence the physical world has displayed, all things die...

Thats fine. People have faith in things because they make sense to them, thats how we function. Your convinced that we will die permanently, I think its likely that there is something after death. We both have our reasons for thinking the way we do about it. But I want you to think more like me.

you seem to be integrating speculation with a personal biased opinion... especially when you label another POV as bleak, doomed and hopeless, without supporting why you believe it to be those things...?

Well, the reason why I think it is bleak, doomed and hopeless is because there is no afterlife, thats clear. In fairness, for the sake of a livelier debate I targeted one of the worst perspectives that people who believe in permanent death can have. I think it is bleak, doomed, and hopeless from one perspective. But I know that this isn't necessarily how people who believe in permanent death feel about this being the only life. Some have much more positive views, like those mentioned in this thread.

why do you have this opinion or why would you think those who do not think of death in the same way you do...are ignoring the "truth" when you yourself don't know anymore than the next guy?

I suspect quite a few people have been ignorant about some of the options outlined in the OP, based on following peoples responses as well as going by the numbers.

As for not knowing more than the next guy, that all depends on who the next guy is. Some people know more than others. Additionally, you'll find Im not the type that will easily accept that Im the guy that knows less, let alone acknowledge lol

 

[jarofthoughts]

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.

When you have exhausted all the other options as baseless and not supported by evidence, you go for the most likely explanation. That is not faith. That is the very definition of rationalism.

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.

I don't feel sorry for myself so why should you?
I'll let the professor explain this for you:

[youtube]IOXMjCnKwb4[/youtube]
‪Tribute to Richard Dawkins: We Are Going to Die‬‏ - YouTube

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.

Unsubstantiated and unsupported by evidence.

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

Unsubstantiated and unsupported by evidence.

3) The idea of eternal return. Eternal return - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unsubstantiated and unsupported by evidence.

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.

Unsubstantiated and unsupported by evidence.

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.​

Unsubstantiated and unsupported by evidence.

b) An idea where there is a cosmic consciousness. Cosmic consciousness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unsubstantiated and unsupported by evidence.

​

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

Because the other options are unsubstantiated and unsupported by evidence.

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.

I don't think I've ever heard an atheist make the 'sales-pitch' that atheism is attractive based on how comfortable it is. Even if I was to try to convince you that atheism is the correct position to hold, and I'm not, I'm not trying to sell you a car here.

A religious person might say, "I believe theres an afterlife, this gives me comfort.

Whether something is comfortable or not is not an indicator of whether it is true or not. If all I was going for was 'comfortable' I might as well shoot up with morphine and be done with it.

But your telling me that when we're dead thats it?

Not really. I'm telling you that I don't know what happens after we die and that neither does anyone else, living or dead. Also, I'm telling you that based on the available evidence, that is the most likely explanation.

That sucks!

I'm sorry that you are so disappointed by the 70-90 years you have to spend in this amazing cosmos and on this wonderful and interesting planet. Perhaps you should look into why that is.

And thats true. Its a defeatist, hopeless belief.

I don't see the world, or my existence in it, as hopeless. Far from it. I love my life and consider myself lucky to have the chance to experience all this. And if, when I die, that's the end of it, then so be it.
Don't get me wrong. I'd love to keep on living, if for nothing else, then to see how all of this turns out. But as I sit here, perhaps a third of the way through my life, I am already luckier than at least 99.99% of all the people who have ever lived. If this was a game, I'd have already won, and I'm not even close to finished playing yet. Why the hell should I complain?

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.

Again, what is comfortable is a poor indicator of whether something is true or not. Also, as for 'deconversions' (Or what you wish to call it. I was never religious, so it wouldn't be a deconversion for me.), I think quality is more important than quantity.

But you really should look into why you think this life is so miserable that you have to look forward to another. Just sayin'... :sarcastic

 

[waitasec]

Thats fine. People have faith in things because they make sense to them, thats how we function. Your convinced that we will die permanently, I think its likely that there is something after death. We both have our reasons for thinking the way we do about it. But I want you to think more like me.

ha ha.
if we all thought alike then there wouldn't be progress.

Well, the reason why I think it is bleak, doomed and hopeless is because there is no afterlife, thats clear.

it's not clear to me...but thats ok...

In fairness, for the sake of a livelier debate I targeted one of the worst perspectives that people who believe in permanent death can have. I think it is bleak, doomed, and hopeless from one perspective. But I know that this isn't necessarily how people who believe in permanent death feel about this being the only life. Some have much more positive views, like those mentioned in this thread.

I suspect quite a few people have been ignorant about some of the options outlined in the OP, based on following peoples responses as well as going by the numbers.

the options outlined in the OP depend on purpose...
i do not think there is a purpose because it is impossible to avoid life's indifference

As for not knowing more than the next guy, that all depends on who the next guy is. Some people know more than others.

i meant, no one knows what happens when one flat lines...

 

[839311]

When you have exhausted all the other options as baseless and not supported by evidence, you go for the most likely explanation. That is not faith. That is the very definition of rationalism.

Why 'go for it'? Why not say that its the most likely explanation, and leave it at that?

I'll let the professor explain this for you:

That was a nice video. Im a big fan of Richard Dawkins. Overall, I think I agree with him moreso than any other person I know of regarding the overall range of opinions he holds.

Unsubstantiated and unsupported by evidence.

Regarding the first 2 options, that depends who you ask. Lots of people experience things that they cannot easily explain. I myself have had an experience that I feel as if I have to stretch myself to think that it wasn't something like another being of some kind that was involved. I could be wrong, but even so, I don't readily dismiss the overall range of what we would call 'supernatural' experiences of other people. I keep an open mind about them, although I do think that if these 'supernatural' experiences are real, the inferences people draw from them are usually unfounded.

Unsubstantiated and unsupported by evidence.

Regarding options 3 and 4. Our part of reality either is an open system or it is not. One of them is true. Ive made my case for eternal return, although the link goes into greater detail than I do here so Id recommend that. As for option 4, I have no idea. There are too many unknown variables, and the list of possible scenarios that we could speculate about could be very, very, very long.

Unsubstantiated and unsupported by evidence.

Regarding option 5. I don't presume to know what consciousness is. As far as I know, it may be something that many of us would be surprised by, such as existing in one of the other dimensions, or on some level of reality that we can't detect, or at a quantum level 20 levels below quarks. The way I see it, we don't know. The brain death argument that has been made leaves me unconvinced. It is a guess, - a good guess, I think - but if it turns out to be wrong then we could say that it was a bad guess and we simply made the mistake of assigning it more credibility than was warranted.

I don't think I've ever heard an atheist make the 'sales-pitch' that atheism is attractive based on how comfortable it is. Even if I was to try to convince you that atheism is the correct position to hold, and I'm not, I'm not trying to sell you a car here.

I understand what you mean.

I would like to see people move away from set faiths and into a more scientific and open-minded understanding of reality. Atheism, I think, seems to currently be the most influential 'group' that is helping to liberate people into having, what I consider, a superior perspective. This is a goal I share with atheists. But as I see it, the fact that many atheists dismiss the afterlife makes it more difficult for people to find it attractive and move towards it at a faster rate, and I take issue with that.

If all I was going for was 'comfortable' I might as well shoot up with morphine and be done with it.

I was given morphine at a hospital once. I don't think Ive ever felt better in my life lol. And that taking into account that I was in one of the most physically painful episodes in my life prior to being administered it.

Not really. I'm telling you that I don't know what happens after we die and that neither does anyone else, living or dead. Also, I'm telling you that based on the available evidence, that is the most likely explanation.

You say not really when before you said you are 'going' for this explanation. So which is it? Have you put your faith in it or not?

I'm sorry that you are so disappointed by the 70-90 years you have to spend in this amazing cosmos and on this wonderful and interesting planet. Perhaps you should look into why that is.

Im not sure what makes you think this, but Im not disappointed.

I don't see the world, or my existence in it, as hopeless. Far from it. I love my life and consider myself lucky to have the chance to experience all this. And if, when I die, that's the end of it, then so be it.

Well said. I echo your sentiments.

But you really should look into why you think this life is so miserable that you have to look forward to another. Just sayin'... :sarcastic

This is not what I think at all. Overall life is a good thing.

Let me rephrase your sentence so that it reflects what I think. My Life is good, and it would be a pleasure to experience another positive life. I think this will probably happen, so I take some degree of comfort from that. It beats thinking that the odds of another life are close to nothing, wouldn't you agree?

 

[839311]

it's not clear to me...but thats ok...

Im not sure how to explain it better. Its simply that its the only life there is, and nothing after that. Thats really the whole reason.

 

[waitasec]

Im not sure how to explain it better. Its simply that its the only life there is, and nothing after that. Thats really the whole reason.

so?

my take on it is something like this:
if one knows there is something more out there, their "here and now" is taken for granted...

 

[839311]

if one knows there is something more out there, their "here and now" is taken for granted...

Yes, but I don't think thats a bad thing.