Faith in permanent death

[Acim]

how then can you ask a subjective "you" to accept anything you say?

by asking

 

[atanu]

Well we have no real reason to think that non-material would be part of our brain at all and consciousness is merely coming from the brain. A couple of things required for consiousness is memory and perception and these things are indeed material. The stuff is in the brain cell and if the brain cell dies your memories die along with it. Also the perception we have of what is outside of us is a reaction to chemical stimuli in our brains and the feelings and sensations we have are material as well. Do you really wonder why we wouldn't suppose some non-material stuff is helping us with consciousness? How one would go about find this non-material portion? I feel like you might be bringing in your own bias on this but I'm willing to contemplate a bit.

Again you have just by-passed the request. Contemplate. With a consciousness that is given, we make a representational supposition that there is 'material' and then superimpose that material on the given consciousness itself.

In the process we say "this body is me".

Suppose a singer dies but his song now lives on. Who was the singer really? The fleshy body through which the sound emanated, just as sound emanates from a mouth-organ. Or was the singer the ungraspable person with a song who played it through the machine called body?


I offer the above as matter for thinking and contemplating.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I have been in deep discussion on the subject of permanency with a physics graduate at a restaurant tonight. He thinks that even time itself is not permanent as there will be a phase in the universe's dark era after the last black hole has radiated all its Hawking radiation (>10^100 years post big bang) where the universe has reached its maximum entropy and as such there would be nothing to point the arrow of time. That would be Heat Death There could even be false vacuums where in the timeless void pocket universes spring up. Some similar to our own, but the overwhelming majority of them not so. They would even reset back to time zero creating a causal loop between this universe and those future pocket universes.

 

[atanu]

I have been in deep discussion on the subject of permanency with a physics graduate at a restaurant tonight. He thinks that even time itself is not permanent as there will be a phase in the universe's dark era after the last black hole has radiated all its Hawking radiation (>10^100 years post big bang) where the universe has reached its maximum entropy and as such there would be nothing to point the arrow of time. That would be Heat Death There could even be false vacuums where in the timeless void pocket universes spring up. Some similar to our own, but the overwhelming majority of them not so. They would even reset back to time zero creating a causal loop between this universe and those future pocket universes.

There was some discussion on this, mid-way through in the following thread.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ws-thermodynamics-demonstrate-god-exists.html

 

[Benhamine]

Because anything that is possible to exist maintains its possibility. Thus, as long as we know that something is possible to exist, like me and you, then this counts as evidence that it may exist in the future. That doesn't necessarily mean it will, and this is where our insufficient understanding of the nature of reality kicks in - are we living in an open system or a closed system? What is the complete nature of reality? Who knows? But only if we had a complete understanding of the nature of reality would we really be able to say. But even then, how could we be sure we aren't missing something? We could always say that there might be more to reality than that which we are aware of. For all we would know, the part that we might have been missing would be a crucial part, and it might turn out that it was another layer of reality that we had no knowledge of but that in one catastrophic instant collides with our reality and warps the laws of physics in such a way that all life would instantly cease to exist. Ahhh, mystery...

I see what you're saying here in that existence implies the possibility of further existence but I think you're moving further into the realm of philosophy and further away from science with this mindset.

Alright, but this isn't saying much. We could use the same line of reasoning for the flying spaghetti monster, but lets be honest, this doesn't really get us anywhere.

Hey you're making arguments for me now!

If life is a good thing, then why not hope that there is going to be more of it?

In the same way that I don't hope there's a flying spaghetti monster. Hope implies thought in wanting it. I don't actively want that to happen, however, I'll acknowledge that it would be nice. I don't know that I want or can believe in an afterlife separate from this world however. I would be more happy with a recurring life afterlife. However, it would be important to note that I now don't remember any previous life. But if I don't no knowledge of the previous life than is it really that previous person in this life? Even if it is...with no knowledge does it really affect me in my previous life or in this one? So then in the end...why hope for it?

This is kind of how I approach the idea of hope. I don't have hope in a flying spaghetti monster because I just don't think to have hope in it. The same holds true for an afterlife. I just am convinced that there isn't an afterlife or if there is the fact that it exists won't affect me now or when I'm in it so there's no point in hoping for it or not hoping for it.

Does this make any sense or am I just rambling?

Well, in your case, as you've laid it out, it does seem that you are in a better spot than you were before. I just think you could use a healthy does of hope without the need to have faith.

As mentioned above, I think having any hope implies some level of faith. This is why I have neither.

Well as long as you believe in permanent death I pity you, but not too much lol

-Benhamine

P.S. Thoroughly enjoying this discussion

 

[idav]

Again you have just by-passed the request. Contemplate. With a consciousness that is given, we make a representational supposition that there is 'material' and then superimpose that material on the given consciousness itself.

In the process we say "this body is me".

Suppose a singer dies but his song now lives on. Who was the singer really? The fleshy body through which the sound emanated, just as sound emanates from a mouth-organ. Or was the singer the ungraspable person with a song who played it through the machine called body?


I offer the above as matter for thinking and contemplating.

The complexity of a lifeform does not make it any less part of the same material elements that are in this universe. You think we as humans have some special "spark" that no other animals have or is this "spark" also in single cell organisms that can't show complex personalities? A one celled organism is very complex as well but still very much made of simply the materials of the rest of the cosmos.

 

[waitasec]

by asking

but it wouldn't make sense to ask someone who is...

made up, imagined. Or perceived

 

[atanu]

The complexity of a lifeform does not make it any less part of the same material elements that are in this universe. You think we as humans have some special "spark" that no other animals have or is this "spark" also in single cell organisms that can't show complex personalities? A one celled organism is very complex as well but still very much made of simply the materials of the rest of the cosmos.

I do not know where I have claimed all these.

 

[idav]

I do not know where I have claimed all these.

It was a question. Do you believe there is a special spark of non-material in lifeforms that is other than the material elements of the cosmos? Your arguing that I am imposing material in consciousness but what else would it be made of? Are our feelings something more than complexity of natural elements?

 

[atanu]

It was a question. Do you believe there is a special spark of non-material in lifeforms that is other than the material elements of the cosmos? Your arguing that I am imposing material in consciousness but what else would it be made of? Are our feelings something more than complexity of natural elements?

I am saying that 'material' and 'non-naterial' may be perceptions that are pre-suppositions for all arguments that proceed from the perception.

 

[idav]

I am saying that 'material' and 'non-naterial' may be perceptions that are pre-suppositions for all arguments that proceed from the perception.

Yes we use premises and then go about trying to prove it based on the whatever the premise assumes. Theists seem more likely to go by some spiritual non-material assumption of consiousness but we are far less likely to be able to prove invisible non-existent material to our brain. In neuroscience they are explaining everything away and everything in our brain is explainable without bringing non-material into the picture. Science just goes by what we are able to observe with our senses or observable through machines.

 

[atanu]

---Theists seem more likely to go by some spiritual non-material assumption of consiousness -----

Undeniably that may be the case mostly. But do not make a mistake that I am making that argument. Consciousness is the base of seeing/inferring 'material' and 'non-material'. I have repeated it enough times.

Science just goes by what we are able to observe with our senses or observable through machines.

The limitations and especially the possibilty of pre-supposition error at the root is acknowleged by some scientists.

 

[Acim]

It was a question. Do you believe there is a special spark of non-material in lifeforms that is other than the material elements of the cosmos?

I would say yes. Even in that which we may not call 'life' form.

Your arguing that I am imposing material in consciousness but what else would it be made of?

An UQE.

(Yeah, I just made that up)

Stands for UnQuantifiable Energy.

Doesn't mean 'we' can't attempt to quantify, describe, limit it, but there are dozens of catch-22's at work in that process of quantifying, describing, and even (attempting to) limit it. That energy (UQE) makes manifest all that we perceive as physical, while not (necessarily) substantiating our, rather subjective, interpretation(s) of 'it.'

Are our feelings something more than complexity of natural elements?

I would say something arguably less than complexity. Something very simple. Self evident.

 

[idav]

Undeniably that may be the case mostly. But do not make a mistake that I am making that argument. Consciousness is the base of seeing/inferring 'material' and 'non-material'. I have repeated it enough times.



The limitations and especially the possibilty of pre-supposition error at the root is acknowleged by some scientists.

I know assumptions can be wrong that is why we go about trying to prove it. If there is something missing we try to find it. How are we supposed to try and find something that is non-material though? I'm positive many scientists have assumed something like a soul or something along those lines and all they keep finding is electro-chemical responses in the brain to even explain things like love. There is nothing to assume at that point we just keep explaining away the mechanics of the brain through material processes.

 

[Acim]

"Explaining away" is poor excuse for quality of subject. Couldn't we 'explain away' science or processing scientific method, by studying brain chemistry?

Wanna find something non physical? Don't rely on physical senses. It is actually pretty obvious. Go within, use your mind, and for starters (not in terms of conclusion) understand seeker as something that is not physical.

 

[idav]

"Explaining away" is poor excuse for quality of subject. Couldn't we 'explain away' science or processing scientific method, by studying brain chemistry?

Wanna find something non physical? Don't rely on physical senses. It is actually pretty obvious. Go within, use your mind, and for starters (not in terms of conclusion) understand seeker as something that is not physical.

Sounds a bit circular. Seeking to understand the self is circular enough without the additional obstical of finding a self that doesn't exist.

 

[otokage007]

Wanna find something non physical? Don't rely on physical senses. It is actually pretty obvious.

Sure, as obvious as easy, right?

Come on...

 

[Acim]

Sounds a bit circular. Seeking to understand the self is circular enough without the additional obstical of finding a self that doesn't exist.

It is a bit circular on both counts.

Seeking to understand physical self is circular while leading to finding that this self doesn't exist.

 

[idav]

It is a bit circular on both counts.

Seeking to understand physical self is circular while leading to finding that this self doesn't exist.

Your speaking nonsense. Like trying to think about the self without thinking.

 

[idav]

Sure, as obvious as easy, right?

Come on...

There he goes asking us to pull out the spiritual glasses. How can we see the non-physical with our eyes? It's rubbish.