Faith in permanent death

[839311]

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.

Well, yes. Science doesn't have the answers so we have to turn to philosophy.

Hey you're making arguments for me now!

I hope you don't think that there is as much reason to think that there might be an afterlife as there is to think that the FSM is real. As Ive pointed out in the previous post, we already have evidence in an afterlife. So, using that line of reasoning isnt really helping your cause at all.

I'll acknowledge that it would be nice.

Looks like Ill have to settle for this lol

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?

You'd be affected in the most important way. You would be alive.

So then in the end...why hope for it?

Personally, the idea of permanent death unsettles me. I don't fear it. I fully expect it to be like sleep, and thats not a bad thing. But I find it unsettling. You just cease to exist... forever... Sleeping for 7 hours is one thing, but permanent sleep is another. I don't like it. I'd prefer to wake up at some time in the future, or enter another simulation after this one ends, whatever the case may be.

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.

I see what your saying. Thats fine, I suppose, if thats really where you are at. But, isn't your participation in this thread a sign that you do think about it and that it does interest you? Myself, I think about it from time to time, because Im interested in knowing what happens to me after I take my last breath.

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

I disagree. I hope to have a Lamborghini Murcielago one day. But I don't have faith that I will. Im realisitc. As far as I know a meteor will fall from the sky and obliterate me a minute after I submit this post. So, you can have hope without faith. On the other hand, if you have faith, say in Jesus, then I think naturally you would hope in eternal life in heaven - perhaps simply because the other alternative isnt all that nice lol. And Im sure there are some people out there who have faith in an afterlife but don't want it, and so don't hope for it.

 

[Acim]

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

There he goes telling me to use my physical eyes to see the physical world (objectively). It's rubbish.

The physical world that is.

No, just kidding.

The way objectivity and seeing are used (often). Rubbish.

And rubbery.

A little plastic.

Mostly straw

man

dude

 

[idav]

There he goes telling me to use my physical eyes to see the physical world (objectively). It's rubbish.

The physical world that is.

No, just kidding.

The way objectivity and seeing are used (often). Rubbish.

And rubbery.

A little plastic.

Mostly straw

man

dude

You type and respond pretty good for someone who can see things objectively.

 

[atanu]

How are we supposed to try and find something that is non-material though?[/COLOR].

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

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

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

All these are thoughts, based on the primary pre-suppostion of 'non-material' and 'material'. To whom is the supposition? Can you find him external to mind-senses?

 

[Benhamine]

I see what your saying. Thats fine, I suppose, if thats really where you are at. But, isn't your participation in this thread a sign that you do think about it and that it does interest you? Myself, I think about it from time to time, because Im interested in knowing what happens to me after I take my last breath.

I can have interest in a concept without having hope that it happens. I like to think how people think and am very interested in how people think about all facets of religion. This doesn't mean that I think they're right or hope that they are. Discussions such as these merely pique my interest

I disagree. I hope to have a Lamborghini Murcielago one day. But I don't have faith that I will. Im realisitc. As far as I know a meteor will fall from the sky and obliterate me a minute after I submit this post. So, you can have hope without faith. On the other hand, if you have faith, say in Jesus, then I think naturally you would hope in eternal life in heaven - perhaps simply because the other alternative isnt all that nice lol. And Im sure there are some people out there who have faith in an afterlife but don't want it, and so don't hope for it.

Point taken.

-Benhamine

 

[otokage007]

There he goes telling me to use my physical eyes to see the physical world (objectively). It's rubbish.

The physical world that is.

No, just kidding.

The way objectivity and seeing are used (often). Rubbish.

And rubbery.

A little plastic.

Mostly straw

man

dude

Much talk, no substance! :slap:

 

[idav]

All these are thoughts, based on the primary pre-suppostion of 'non-material' and 'material'. To whom is the supposition? Can you find him external to mind-senses?

I have spiritual beliefs but I have no reason to believe it is non-material or something other than what the cosmos are made of. So I'm more than willing to discuss it especially if you can find something within the mind that you feel we haven't accounted for and would likely remain an unknown. Mind you we really are still learning tons about where consciousness comes from but that shouldn't stop us. Where are the gaps for non-material?

 

[Acim]

I have spiritual beliefs but I have no reason to believe it is non-material or something other than what the cosmos are made of. So I'm more than willing to discuss it especially if you can find something within the mind that you feel we haven't accounted for and would likely remain an unknown. Mind you we really are still learning tons about where consciousness comes from but that shouldn't stop us. Where are the gaps for non-material?

1 - The ongoing question of "well what is that made of?" Like you say, "other than what the cosmos are made of" but don't say what cosmos are made of. So, let's say you do, and then I reply with, "well what is that made of?" And you respond, and I ask same question, and well you see where this is going,. But it is I think getting at 'gaps' for non-material. Not because we don't currently have something that describes / quantifies basic matter / waveforms, but in getting there, we do realize (I think) that there are gaps in all material forms. Hence, it is more appropriate to assume all things we see have more non-material than material, if breaking down 'reality' with inquiry along lines of "what is that made of?" Ultimately, I think this gets to point of "I don't know" or is akin to "who made God" type logic. Cause, the person answering "what is that made of," will get to point of "basic building blocks, and there is nothing else known to be more basic than this." Which might sound assertive and all, but is essentially admitting, "we don't know" (yet).

2 - We don't know what material stuff is. This is similar to last point, but even at level we perceive things, this is accurate. We use understanding, we use deduction, we use rational, we use inspiration, intuition, etc. etc. so on and so forth. But we don't know, and pretty much live in paradigm where we don't need to know. I don't 'need to know' what my computer keyboard is (in essence) in order for it to work for 'me.' Same goes with all things that are 'working for me.' I may be curious, and if desiring to explore, I'll go with what first point is getting at. But the 'gap' here is a) I don't know 'me' from this perspective, which is hugely critical, and b) that 'me' that doesn't know relies on interpretation to perceive and understand. That me is literally manifesting a gap between material and non-material. It might be easier to sit with this for a moment or two before asking for elaboration or more explanation. Ultimately we get this point, because ultimately I know we know. I know you know. I don't know that you know that I know. But I do know. And know that you know. I'm very good at pretending, very very good, at pretending like I don't know.

3 - The spiritual is the gap between perception of material and non-material. This follows from last point of 'what we know.' But gets between convoluted or utterly denied by that which pretends (with incredibly high conviction) that it doesn't know. "That which doesn't know" may be 'me' or 'you' or whoever. We live in a world where arguably no one knows, and if they say they know, they need to be questioned endlessly because how did they get to know when rest of us don't. In fact, let's assume, until we 'know' that those who claim to know are severely deluded and/or are arrogant, or something that judges them (appropriately, according to us not in the know) as someone who is essentially lying. They couldn't possibly know.

Know what? Spirit = reality.
Or whatever interpretation of "spirit" works within your understanding of 'non-material.'

I know you know this. I think you may pretend not to know, and if you do, I'll pretend (along with you) that there is no way for me to make you know, for it might not be possible to be known. In fact, we might even agree that we know it is not possible, especially given the 'known' evidence.

Then go back to #1 on this list and read through this again.

Repeat 7 times.

 

[idav]

1 - The ongoing question of "well what is that made of?" Like you say, "other than what the cosmos are made of" but don't say what cosmos are made of. So, let's say you do, and then I reply with, "well what is that made of?" And you respond, and I ask same question, and well you see where this is going,. But it is I think getting at 'gaps' for non-material. Not because we don't currently have something that describes / quantifies basic matter / waveforms, but in getting there, we do realize (I think) that there are gaps in all material forms. Hence, it is more appropriate to assume all things we see have more non-material than material, if breaking down 'reality' with inquiry along lines of "what is that made of?" Ultimately, I think this gets to point of "I don't know" or is akin to "who made God" type logic. Cause, the person answering "what is that made of," will get to point of "basic building blocks, and there is nothing else known to be more basic than this." Which might sound assertive and all, but is essentially admitting, "we don't know" (yet).

2 - We don't know what material stuff is. This is similar to last point, but even at level we perceive things, this is accurate. We use understanding, we use deduction, we use rational, we use inspiration, intuition, etc. etc. so on and so forth. But we don't know, and pretty much live in paradigm where we don't need to know. I don't 'need to know' what my computer keyboard is (in essence) in order for it to work for 'me.' Same goes with all things that are 'working for me.' I may be curious, and if desiring to explore, I'll go with what first point is getting at. But the 'gap' here is a) I don't know 'me' from this perspective, which is hugely critical, and b) that 'me' that doesn't know relies on interpretation to perceive and understand. That me is literally manifesting a gap between material and non-material. It might be easier to sit with this for a moment or two before asking for elaboration or more explanation. Ultimately we get this point, because ultimately I know we know. I know you know. I don't know that you know that I know. But I do know. And know that you know. I'm very good at pretending, very very good, at pretending like I don't know.

3 - The spiritual is the gap between perception of material and non-material. This follows from last point of 'what we know.' But gets between convoluted or utterly denied by that which pretends (with incredibly high conviction) that it doesn't know. "That which doesn't know" may be 'me' or 'you' or whoever. We live in a world where arguably no one knows, and if they say they know, they need to be questioned endlessly because how did they get to know when rest of us don't. In fact, let's assume, until we 'know' that those who claim to know are severely deluded and/or are arrogant, or something that judges them (appropriately, according to us not in the know) as someone who is essentially lying. They couldn't possibly know.

Know what? Spirit = reality.
Or whatever interpretation of "spirit" works within your understanding of 'non-material.'

I know you know this. I think you may pretend not to know, and if you do, I'll pretend (along with you) that there is no way for me to make you know, for it might not be possible to be known. In fact, we might even agree that we know it is not possible, especially given the 'known' evidence.

Then go back to #1 on this list and read through this again.

Repeat 7 times.

I'm kinda familiar with the philosophical point you are trying to make but I'm more interested in talking about the evidence behind it. Allow me to elaborate. Maybe you can argue non-material exists in that there may be forces involved that are a product of matter like gravity for example. Another thing to consider is that an atom does contain empty space so this can be argued as non-material though it may be filled with energy which is another form of matter. Also in between each neuron there may be charges going on but again this would be more of a form of energy as the data is passed to the brain cells which is then interpreted. Now given the mechanics of the brain and the mechanics of the basic building blocks I would hazard to say that any non-material you can come up with has nothing to do with our consciousness but that our consciousness is due to a combination of matter and energy. Is there some gap I'm missing where the soul is non-material?

 

[atanu]

I have spiritual beliefs but I have no reason to believe it is non-material or something other than what the cosmos are made of. So I'm more than willing to discuss it especially if you can find something within the mind that you feel we haven't accounted for and would likely remain an unknown. Mind you we really are still learning tons about where consciousness comes from but that shouldn't stop us. Where are the gaps for non-material?

The Seer cannot be Seen. If you say that you can observe the Seer, then I will confer a title on you and I will lay down myself at your feet.

It is very difficult for some to even accept that we see/know the objects of mind-senses but not the subject. Till we keep seeing externally through senses, we can only see the objects. When the mind-senses are withdrawn, then alone the mind being same as its source reveals that which is always peace.

Our deep sleep state gives us an hint.

 

[atanu]

But in everything that we see and know, the Seer Is.

 

[Acim]

I'm kinda familiar with the philosophical point you are trying to make but I'm more interested in talking about the evidence behind it.

I was talking about evidence.

Allow me to elaborate.

Okay. Sorry for interrupting.

Maybe you can argue non-material exists in that there may be forces involved that are a product of matter like gravity for example. Another thing to consider is that an atom does contain empty space so this can be argued as non-material though it may be filled with energy which is another form of matter.

Energy is a form of matter? Interesting.

Also in between each neuron there may be charges going on but again this would be more of a form of energy as the data is passed to the brain cells which is then interpreted. Now given the mechanics of the brain and the mechanics of the basic building blocks I would hazard to say that any non-material you can come up with has nothing to do with our consciousness but that our consciousness is due to a combination of matter and energy. Is there some gap I'm missing where the soul is non-material?

I am saying / what I said before is (short version) matter and energy are not known to us. We do not know what they are made of. This is non-material gap #1, and has I would say, next to no-thing to do with consciousness. While incidentally being the very 'thing' we obsess over with regards to 'what is this stuff that is working for me?' Consciousness of a certain kind (let us hypothetically call that science) is trying to figure out 'what is this stuff?' And Consciousness of another variety (really same variety, but let us hypothetically call it metaphysics) is, or may be, supremely interested in knowing 'who is this me' in the equation? The one who is asking about this stuff? Perhaps that might be a key to understanding the stuff. Especially since this 'me' is also made up of the stuff, but is precisely that which is asking about the stuff. This is gap #2 (Consciousness and lack of understanding between what is me, and how that relates to stuff that we don't actually know).

The third gap is, IMO, where the meat is. It is that we know reality. We know that we know. But we pretend, with unbelievable conviction, that not only do "I not know" but that to know is probably THE deception. Aka anybody who says they know is lying, and we 'know' this. We who are not in the know, know that those who claim to be in the know, have something wrong with them. Something very very wrong. That much is known.

Gap #3 - We know Spirit but we pretend not to know (convincingly) and in not knowing we can claim that the alleged knowers are deluded, very sick individuals. If claiming they know spirit is reality, they are wrong. We know this.

Is there some gap I'm missing where the soul is non-material?

Pretending not to know = missing

 

[Copernicus]

The Seer cannot be Seen. If you say that you can observe the Seer, then I will confer a title on you and I will lay down myself at your feet.

It is considered a sign of higher intelligence in those Seers that can recognize their own images in a mirror. On the other hand, it is said that vampires cast no image in a mirror. So saith the Speaker whom no one hath Heard and the Stinker whom no one hath Smelt. (Sorry, atanu. Just trying to get in the "spirit" of things. )

 

[atanu]

It is considered a sign of higher intelligence in those Seers that can recognize their own images in a mirror. On the other hand, it is said that vampires cast no image in a mirror. So saith the Speaker whom no one hath Heard and the Stinker whom no one hath Smelt. (Sorry, atanu. Just trying to get in the "spirit" of things. )

Ya. Ya. I know. Because monkeys can recognise their images as images. So much for the higher intelligence. On the other hand, those who mistake the instruments for the self are considered of low intelligence, no better than unreflective animals.

 

[PolyHedral]

The Seer cannot be Seen. If you say that you can observe the Seer, then I will confer a title on you and I will lay down myself at your feet.

Of course you can't see your own eyes. You need a mirror for that.

 

[atanu]

Of course you can't see your own eyes. You need a mirror for that.

Mind is the mirror.

 

[idav]

The Seer cannot be Seen. If you say that you can observe the Seer, then I will confer a title on you and I will lay down myself at your feet.

It is very difficult for some to even accept that we see/know the objects of mind-senses but not the subject. Till we keep seeing externally through senses, we can only see the objects. When the mind-senses are withdrawn, then alone the mind being same as its source reveals that which is always peace.

Our deep sleep state gives us an hint.

We just build on the knowledge of others to a point where everything becomes more clear. What they are discovering in neuroscience I'm sure can bring us some enlightenment.

Sure if we can tap into our subconscious we would be in tune with much more but still all physical. I'm not finding that our mind really is in tune with anything outside of ourselves but only things that we come into contact with somehow. Our subconscious is very good at putting the pieces together but the pieces don't really come out of nowhere. I do have a lot of instances of deja vu but it is never helpful and likely things I was able to predict like knowing 10 moves ahead in a chessboard by just using educated guessing and common sense.

 

[atanu]

The Seer cannot be Seen. If you say that you can observe the Seer, then I will confer a title on you and I will lay down myself at your feet.

It is very difficult for some to even accept that we see/know the objects of mind-senses but not the subject. Till we keep seeing externally through senses, we can only see the objects. When the mind-senses are withdrawn, then alone the mind being same as its source reveals that which is always peace.

Our deep sleep state gives us an hint.

We just build on the knowledge of others to a point where everything becomes more clear. What they are discovering in neuroscience I'm sure can bring us some enlightenment.

Sure if we can tap into our subconscious we would be in tune with much more but still all physical. I'm not finding that our mind really is in tune with anything outside of ourselves but only things that we come into contact with somehow. Our subconscious is very good at putting the pieces together but the pieces don't really come out of nowhere. I do have a lot of instances of deja vu but it is never helpful and likely things I was able to predict like knowing 10 moves ahead in a chessboard by just using educated guessing and common sense.

Sorry, Idav. I do not undeerstand what you are saying and it is very likely that you do not understand what I am saying. Best wishes.

 

[idav]

Sorry, Idav. I do not undeerstand what you are saying and it is very likely that you do not understand what I am saying. Best wishes.

No problem. You were talking about, I think, (in my own words) being in a meditative state and being able to tap into the unseen. When you talk about the sleep state giving us a hint it confirms this. I agree with this which is where our subconscious mind comes into play which neuroscience has explanations for.

 

[atanu]

No problem. You were talking about, I think, (in my own words) being in a meditative state and being able to tap into the unseen. When you talk about the sleep state giving us a hint it confirms this. I agree with this which is where our subconscious mind comes into play which neuroscience has explanations for.

What is the explanation?