Faith in permanent death

[idav]

This generalization is utterly false. There is no evidence to suggest that consciousness is connected to the quantum level, although there is a popular pseudoscientific movement that is sometimes called "quantum mysticism", which advocates a connection.

People are taking that a bit too far. If anything comes from our brain at that level it is so minimal to be pretty much unnoticeable. Even if our thought processes do work at that level at a thousandth of a percent it isn't enough to explain consciousness and not enough to say it would keep us alive after death. The brain is obviously very complex but we are figuring it out and some AI people hypothesize that quantum mechanics can be used in circuitry to make computers much faster and I have read some stuff regarding creating a quantum neuron in relation to quantum computing.
http://www.cs.yale.edu/publications/techreports/tr1234.pdf

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I think that's entirely a matter of perspective. If this is the only life we have, then it imbues our lives with importance that we wouldn't have otherwise.

To use a sports analogy, which is more "bleak, doomed, hopeless": an endless succession of exhibition games, none of them counting for points, or game 7 of the World Series?

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

For me, it's not a matter of faith. But the basis for my conclusion to reject the idea of an afterlife is based on the significant amount of evidence I've seen that we are entirely physical creatures. When physical injury or disease can change the very personality of a person, or in some cases actually "kill" the original personality altogether even before physical death, what is left to survive into an afterlife that could properly be called the person?

Also, I think it's a bit silly to claim that there exists a real, physical realm that has some sort of one-way connection to the visible universe but is otherwise completely indetectable. That's a proposition that I think has to be defended on its own merits, but the way it's been set up, no evidence could ever support it.

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.

Hmm. Interesting perspective. Personally, I think it's a good thing that most of the atheists I know are more concerned with figuring out what's true than they are with winning "deconverts" at any expense.

 

[Kriya Yogi]

I find there are many more hints that consciousness lives on after death than that we die with the body. I find it even more irrational to believe we die permanently than otherwise because there is absolutely no evidence to back this up.

On the contrary there have been multiple cases where people flat line see the other side outside of their bodies and come back to tell of it. Babies having personalities before any influence. At least this is something other than claiming death is permanent based on absolutely nothing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I find there are many more hints that consciousness lives on after death than that we die with the body.

Such as?

I find it even more irrational to believe we die permanently than otherwise because there is absolutely no evidence to back this up.

On the contrary there have been multiple cases where people flat line see the other side outside of their bodies and come back to tell of it.

I have no doubt that people feel like this has happened to them, but I don't think that it's reasonable to believe that it comes from actually being a floating spirit perceiving things outside our physical bodies. I think it's much more reasonable to consider it some sort of hallucination or dream.

To the best of my knowledge, there's never been any reported case of an out-of-body experience where, to any reasonable degree of reliability, the person was able to describe something that they wouldn't have been able to see from their body's position or guess at by reasonable inference.

People with OBEs report things like seeing "doctors and nurses standing around them", or seeing "people in operating gowns" in another room... all things that could be reasonably expected in a hospital without special insight into what was going on in that other room... but never, for instance, the title of a book on a shelf in that room.

Babies having personalities before any influence.

Why would this point toward some life beyond this one?

And I don't think you could say anyone's ever encountered a baby "before any influence". Sure, we might not be completely blank slates when we're born, but even at that moment, we've spent nine months being "influenced" by genetics, prenatal environment, and growth.

 

[Silver]

There's zero reason to think consciousness or anything else survives death.....

What if scientists in the future could somehow transfer your consciousness to an afterlife realm at your moment of death.

Could they possible do this?

1.The future scientists would need to access the past....perhaps time travel is required without changing the timeline (avoids paradoxes).
- Time travel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2.The future scientists would need to be able to upload the mind, known as mind uploading.
- Whole brain emulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3.The future scientists would need to have designed and built an afterlife realm which might be no more than an advanced virtual world.
- Virtual world - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If scientists in the distant future can time travel, mind upload & create virtual worlds, which is reasonable in my opinion, then maybe we'll survive death!

Silver :thud:

 

[Willamena]

Those rascally future scientists.

 

[Silver]

.............

How consciousness is computational.

Second, show me how the human brain and a computer's processor are identical in how they process information.

You might need to wait 10 years for the 'proof' but The Blue Brain Project is attempting to reverse engineer the human brain.
Blue Brain Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Silver

 

[Silver]

You still aren't getting it. There isn't even an inkling of intellect in computers. Not even close. Its not something we're striving for, or getting close to, or getting better at figuring out.

Its very simple; a computer can add a sum. But it can't say, this sum doesn't work, so I'll go ahead and add this one on my own and do it all by itself.

It takes the information you have put into it, and gives an output. It does this by breaking down the information into useless 1s and 0s, then it uses a program, either a compiler or parser, to recompile that information and give an output.

That is all it does, and all it has ever done. That is all it is capable of doing. It may look magical, and may be able to fool you into thinking its doing something it isn't, but its not.

Your brain isn't anywhere close to that, not even remotely.


You're right, consciousness isn't fully understood. The best, most testable theories to date are quantum emergence. But since we're on the subject of consciousness, outside of quantum emergence, how can consciousness be created? It isn't just computational power.

What about building an artificial brain.
- Artificial brain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Silver

 

[Quagmire]

That is an ungrounded statement. The human brain is a physical object that processes information on fairly well-understood principles based on electrical currents.

There is no good reason to assume, much less state, that it has any inherent significant difference to computers that can't ever be overcome.

If anything, the way it can be reproduced by biological means is much more unique than its information processing capabilities.

As for you demanding proof that death isn't permanent, I can only assume that you are very enamoured to the idea that it isn't. It isn't reasonable to doubt something that has been established literally billions of times with only legendary and very rare challenge.

What is it exactly that's "been established" billions of times? That death happens? OK. That nothing happens after death? How has that "been established"?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

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.

Not atheist but I "believe" it.

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.

Not really bleak, doomed, or hopeless... Not really reality either. Then again it is not the opposite of those either.

1) That there are god like beings who plan to take care of us beyond death.

I believe that there are too, but only from experiental proof, you must prove to atheists that it exists.

Also, why would God create death if it makes us live forever? Who would want to live foreeeeeeeeeever. Think about how long a year is, now count to one hundred... Now imagine counting to 100 but only one number per year. That's 100 years, not too much... How about googol number of years? That's not even a quarter over because it NEVER will be over.

2) That this reality of ours is a computer simulation, and after our lives here we will move on to different programs.

Really? There is no evidence of that...

3) The idea of eternal return.

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.

These are just ideas, they prove nothing...

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​

-Facepalm- you're trolling right? Consciousness is through your 5 senses, senses are interpreted by electrical signals in your brain.

​

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

Because our brain runs on blood, and when you die the heart stops beating, thus stops pumping blood throughout your body, thus killing your brain. Therefore the brain is dead, so are your senses, so is your consciousness. That means there is nothing beyond that point.

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.

Eh, I don't think it sucks, I think it is a peaceful pause, unlike living FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR...

Although it sucks, doesn't mean anything, lots of things suck, and you know what we do? We live with it.

Its a defeatist, hopeless belief.

Not as much as your afterlife.

Atheism would be far more attractive to people if it acknowledged the possibility of life after death.

Again I'm not atheist and you are mistaken for what atheism is. Some atheists accept the possibility of life after death, some atheists do actually believe in it. Also it isn't about attractiveness, they don't want money like organized religions do.

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.

Reality can be uncomfortable, and the only way out of it is dreaming forever, which that is not even possible.

 

[LuisDantas]

What is it exactly that's "been established" billions of times? That death happens? OK. That nothing happens after death? How has that "been established"?

Well, where is the evidence that anything else happens? Everything I ever met was wishful thinking.

One would expect something more convincing to arise after so many opportunities. Yet it doesn't.

 

[Quagmire]

Well, where is the evidence that anything else happens?

Sorry, you don't get to do that. You're the one making the positive assertion here. You're claiming that the absence of any sort of afterlife is "something that has been established literally billions of times".

That's a pretty definite statement and it requires something a bit more solid than "Well, where is the evidence that anything else happens? "

Really, how is this any different from when a theist says "God exists!" and answers any objections to that with "Well prove that he doesn't"?

You made the positive claim, the onus is on you to show the evidence for that claim. Pointing to any lack of evidence to the contrary is a dodge.

Everything I ever met was wishful thinking.

In who's opinion?

One would expect something more convincing to arise after so many opportunities. Yet it doesn't.

Again: in your opinion. There are plenty of people who would argue all of the above with you. In order to expect your argument to carry more weight than theirs you would have to present an actual argument, one that stands on it's own, rather than just dismissing theirs based on your own, subjective opinions.

 

[Kriya Yogi]

Such as?

Well I've already pointed out some such as past life evidence in young people. I've experienced supernatural phenomena all throughout my life. Ghosts have been seen, lights being turned on without being plugged in and voices being heard. I wasn't the only one that heard or saw these things. Out of body experiences in meditation experienced by many Yogis and regular people that have died and have come back. Also the simple fact that energy can't be destroyed. Consciousness can never be destroyed. It only changes.

I have no doubt that people feel like this has happened to them, but I don't think that it's reasonable to believe that it comes from actually being a floating spirit perceiving things outside our physical bodies. I think it's much more reasonable to consider it some sort of hallucination or dream.

Well how come all of their stories are consistent with one another? They all have the same experiences.

To the best of my knowledge, there's never been any reported case of an out-of-body experience where, to any reasonable degree of reliability, the person was able to describe something that they wouldn't have been able to see from their body's position or guess at by reasonable inference.

There are plenty of testimonies all throughout history. Whether from ordinary unspiritual inspired people to deep devout Yogis. I'm not saying this is absolute evidence but it is much more than what atheists have for their belief of everything just ending when we die. Which is nothing.

I just don't get how atheists preach about coming to conclusions based on factual evidence yet they contradict themselves by saying everything ends when you die, when that is basically a claim based on no factual evidence at all.

Why would this point toward some life beyond this one?

And I don't think you could say anyone's ever encountered a baby "before any influence". Sure, we might not be completely blank slates when we're born, but even at that moment, we've spent nine months being "influenced" by genetics, prenatal environment, and growth.

I will concede this point because there are many factors that decide a person's personality. One in which I believe to be the soul and is the main contributing factor before all is said and done, but that is something we won't know until we die and experience after life. I have my reasons to believe these things though. Anyways beliefs aside you have to look at what is more plausible in the grand scheme or picture. What is the purpose of life if all we do is live one short life in comparison to the universe's existence if we just live and then die? It literally makes no sense to me. Especially when we have little hints of evidence here and there that point to otherwise. Sure it will never be utterly convincing evidence until you experience these things yourself but they are there and can't ignore them.

 

[Silver]

So there is no evidence for reincarnation?
- Reincarnation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Was the universe a quantum fluctuation like all the other universes?
And no matter how much we study, and work, is there nothing we can do to prevent our own deaths?

Think again.
Don't give up.
Let scientists try to be the cause of the Big Bang. Future scientists can bring us into existence. It's the natural way.
Let scientists try to create an afterlife realm for us. It's the natural way.
We're far too young as a species to know anything for sure.
We should be thinking of different possibilities.

If you see a swirling river you don't say "Dont cross or you'll drowned!".
You find someone to build a bridge.
Likewise if you see death you don't say "After death there's only non-existence!".
You find someone to come up with a solution.
It might be a little more advanced but we just might get there.

Silver

 

[LuisDantas]

Sorry, you don't get to do that. You're the one making the positive assertion here. You're claiming that the absence of any sort of afterlife is "something that has been established literally billions of times".

It seems to me that the positive assertion is that there is an afterlife.

A highly speculative assertion, at that. So no, I do get to call it unfounded.

 

[Revoltingest]

New question!
If I removed all the power from my computer, & let the circuits be consumed by transistor eating bacteria, then it will utterly rot away.
Should I presume it will keep running programs in some kind of supernatural afterlife? Or is it more reasonable to assume that it just
ceases to function as a computer?

 

[Songbird]

New question!
If I removed all the power from my computer, & let the circuits be consumed by transistor eating bacteria, then it will utterly rot away.
Should I presume it will keep running programs in some kind of supernatural afterlife? Or is it more reasonable to assume that it just
ceases to function as a computer?

Just to be safe it should say the sinner's prayer.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well I've already pointed out some such as past life evidence in young people.

You haven't given any past life evidence; you only noted that babies have personalities. That's hardly evidence for past lives.

I've experienced supernatural phenomena all throughout my life. Ghosts have been seen, lights being turned on without being plugged in and voices being heard. I wasn't the only one that heard or saw these things.

Really? How do you know these events were caused by ghosts?

Tell you what: pick the event that you think is the clearest evidence, the best supported, and describe it. If it really is evidence for an afterlife, I'd be very interested to hear more about it.

Out of body experiences in meditation experienced by many Yogis and regular people that have died and have come back.

Really? Can you tell me more?

Again, just give the best case that you know about.

Also the simple fact that energy can't be destroyed. Consciousness can never be destroyed. It only changes.

It changes into things that are not consciousness.

Analogy time:

Take a copy of Hamlet and burn it. Be sure to do it under controlled conditions so that you retain all the energy and matter of the burnt book.

Is it still a copy of Hamlet?

If yes, then what exactly are the properties of the play Hamlet that allow you to say that this container of warm soot, CO2 and water vapour is in fact Hamlet?

Well how come all of their stories are consistent with one another? They all have the same experiences.

And they all share many aspects of brain physiology. Human beings have plenty in common with each other. I don't find it surprising at all that we would hallucinate in similar ways when near death. After all, there are plenty of situations where, under certain conditions, people have similar perceived experiences.

For example, pilots doing high-G manoeuvers will generally black out in the same way: it will appear to them that a dark tunnel is closing in around them. Does the fact that their perceived experience is consistent from pilot to pilot mean that this "tunnel" really does exist in some physical form? No - it's just a quirk of how our brains work when deprived of blood flow.

There are plenty of testimonies all throughout history. Whether from ordinary unspiritual inspired people to deep devout Yogis. I'm not saying this is absolute evidence but it is much more than what atheists have for their belief of everything just ending when we die. Which is nothing.

Great - again, can you describe the one case that you think provides the best evidence?

I just don't get how atheists preach about coming to conclusions based on factual evidence yet they contradict themselves by saying everything ends when you die, when that is basically a claim based on no factual evidence at all.

No, it's based on plenty of factual evidence. In fact, there are entire disciplines of medicine, well-supported by evidence, that are based on the idea that changes to our physical brains will affect who we are at a fundamental level. If "I" is rooted in the physical, then how can "I" survive the death of my physical form?

I will concede this point because there are many factors that decide a person's personality. One in which I believe to be the soul and is the main contributing factor before all is said and done, but that is something we won't know until we die and experience after life. I have my reasons to believe these things though. Anyways beliefs aside you have to look at what is more plausible in the grand scheme or picture. What is the purpose of life if all we do is live one short life in comparison to the universe's existence if we just live and then die? It literally makes no sense to me.

Hmm. And when I look at the universe, I can't reconcile what I see with the notion that it was all created and designed according to some overall plan. I especially can't take seriously the idea that any such creator has any special role or concern for humanity.

Especially when we have little hints of evidence here and there that point to otherwise. Sure it will never be utterly convincing evidence until you experience these things yourself but they are there and can't ignore them.

Such as?

 

[Willamena]

It seems to me that the positive assertion is that there is an afterlife.

A highly speculative assertion, at that. So no, I do get to call it unfounded.

The positive statement is "there is," whatever it be about, whether it be about afterlife or no afterlife.

It stands in contrast to a normative statement, which expresses judgement about what ought to be.

 

[LuisDantas]

That is really grasping at straws...