The Great Lie.

[SalixIncendium]

Rather the evidence suggests that at death is oblivion. Game over.
The same as before you were born.

So when we die, we spend eternity fighting Daedra? That sucks.

I don't remember doing this before I was born, but I did spend many hours doing so in the late 2000's.

 

[Ignatius A]

Not for the afterlife.

Rather the evidence suggests that at death is oblivion. Game over.
The same as before you were born.

Prove it

 

[Trailblazer]

Not for the afterlife.

Rather the evidence suggests that at death is oblivion. Game over.
The same as before you were born.

What evidence? You cannot have evidence for something that does NOT exist.

How do you prove a negative fallacy?

Here's what the The Objectivist Newsletter (April 1963) had to say on the logical fallacy of proving a negative: "Proving the non-existence of that for which no evidence of any kind exists. Proof, logic, reason, thinking, knowledge pertain to and deal only with that which exists.

The Burden of Proof​

If you mean there is evidence that the physical body dies when all the bodily functions cease, we all know that, but that does not address what happens to the soul when we die...

I never said there is evidence that a soul exists, there isn't, nor is there any evidence that it doesn't exist.
However, that does not mean it does NOT exist, since evidence is NOT what makes anything exist,

Boy will you be surprised when you die and realize you are not really dead.
I don't like surprises, I prefer to know where I am going before I go there.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Suffering is inevitable

Above is The Great Lie.

At its core, my mission in life is to leave behind a philosophy that argues against this mindset.

What is suffering to you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Prove it

There is no "proving". There is only "supporting".

There is no independently verifiable evidence for any "afterlife", or concept thereof.
There is much independently verifiable evidence that any kind of "life" / "mind" / "consciousness" is inherently linked to physical biological organisms and that their existence is an emergent property of the, at bottom, chemical workings of said organism (brains with neural pathways etc).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What evidence? You cannot have evidence for something that does NOT exist.

Exactly.
Additionally, we can have evidence of things that DO exist and testable hypothesis.

Like: the mind / consciousness is an emergent property / mechanism of physical biological organisms.
Meaning that if the underlying physical "hardware" gets destroyed (death), then the processes and mechanisms that depended on that will also stop / get destroyed.

Everything I observe in nature as it concerns biology, is fully consistent and supportive of that hypothesis.
I am unaware of an evidence against it and the hypothesis that says that the mind is existentially independent of the physical body (aka "the soul" or whatever) which "lives" regardless of the body (=afterlife and perhaps even pre-life)... I don't see it having any evidence at all. I'm not even sure if it actually can have evidence.
It all kind of depends on how you define it (or which religious you follow).

Which doesn't help the case, btw... that there are so many vastly different afterlife concepts. Another thing I would expect from an idea that has no trail of evidence to follow... Usually one is constrained by evidence in building one's theory, but if there isn't any evidence to work with, then you can let your imagination go crazy.

How do you prove a negative fallacy?

Here's what the The Objectivist Newsletter (April 1963) had to say on the logical fallacy of proving a negative: "Proving the non-existence of that for which no evidence of any kind exists. Proof, logic, reason, thinking, knowledge pertain to and deal only with that which exists.

The Burden of Proof​

I wasn't talking about proving a negative.
I was talking about what is more likely. I was also talking about specific hypothesis. And they don't require the word "not".
Like "the mind / soul / consiousness is an emergent property from physical underpinnings"

If you mean there is evidence that the physical body dies when all the bodily functions cease, we all know that, but that does not address what happens to the soul when we die...

It also doesn't address what happens with the fairies that stopped making my heart pump.


The fact is, that there is nothing to explain about the "heat pumping fairies", just like there is nothing to explain about the "soul".
First you provide sufficient independently verifiable evidence for the existence of this "soul" as independent from the physical body. Then you get to ask the question "what happens with the soul when we die"

Today all the evidence suggest that, insofar as a "soul" can be shown to exists as the neural pathways in the brain, that this "soul" is an emergent property of a physical configuration. There is no reason at all it could survive the destruction of that physical configuration. There is much reason to say it can't.

I never said there is evidence that a soul exists, there isn't, nor is there any evidence that it doesn't exist.

Which is a very good reason to say that then asking the question "what happens to it when we die" might not even be a sensical question.
And considering the evidence against it (or rather: for alternative explanations of consciousness), it is most likely that it is not a sensical question.
It is about as usefull as asking what happens with the heart pumping fairies.

However, that does not mean it does NOT exist, since evidence is NOT what makes anything exist,

Yeah. Ditto for the heart pumping fairies.

Boy will you be surprised when you die and realize you are not really dead.

You won't be when you are.

 

[Trailblazer]

There is no independently verifiable evidence for any "afterlife", or concept thereof.

You won't have that kind of evidence till you get to the afterlife. Seeing is believing!

 

[Trailblazer]

Exactly.
Additionally, we can have evidence of things that DO exist and testable hypothesis.

Like: the mind / consciousness is an emergent property / mechanism of physical biological organisms.
Meaning that if the underlying physical "hardware" gets destroyed (death), then the processes and mechanisms that depended on that will also stop / get destroyed.

Everything I observe in nature as it concerns biology, is fully consistent and supportive of that hypothesis.
I am unaware of an evidence against it and the hypothesis that says that the mind is existentially independent of the physical body (aka "the soul" or whatever) which "lives" regardless of the body (=afterlife and perhaps even pre-life)... I don't see it having any evidence at all. I'm not even sure if it actually can have evidence.

There is no evidence of the kind you are looking for, objective evidence, and there can't be that kind of evidence for the soul since "the soul is a sign of God, a heavenly gem whose reality the most learned of men hath failed to grasp, and whose mystery no mind, however acute, can ever hope to unravel." Gleanings, pp. 158-159

It all kind of depends on how you define it (or which religious you follow).

Which doesn't help the case, btw... that there are so many vastly different afterlife concepts. Another thing I would expect from an idea that has no trail of evidence to follow... Usually one is constrained by evidence in building one's theory, but if there isn't any evidence to work with, then you can let your imagination go crazy.

If you wanted to believe in an afterlife I guess you would have to select one religious concept, the one that makes the most sense to you.

The fact is, that there is nothing to explain about the "heat pumping fairies", just like there is nothing to explain about the "soul".
First you provide sufficient independently verifiable evidence for the existence of this "soul" as independent from the physical body. Then you get to ask the question "what happens with the soul when we die"

None of that is independently verifiable (see above).

Today all the evidence suggest that, insofar as a "soul" can be shown to exists as the neural pathways in the brain, that this "soul" is an emergent property of a physical configuration. There is no reason at all it could survive the destruction of that physical configuration. There is much reason to say it can't.

There is no evidence that the soul exists as the neural pathways in the brain, that this "soul" is an emergent property of a physical configuration.
That is just a theory some people hold to. There is no more reason to believe that the soul only exists as a product of the physical body than that the soul can exist independently of the physical body. Both are religious concepts that cannot be proven.

Which is a very good reason to say that then asking the question "what happens to it when we die" might not even be a sensical question.
And considering the evidence against it (or rather: for alternative explanations of consciousness), it is most likely that it is not a sensical question.
It is about as usefull as asking what happens with the heart pumping fairies.

There is only evidence of consciousness while we are living in a physical body. There is no evidence against continuation of consciousness after we die.

If you are claiming that there is no afterlife because there is no verifiable evidence (proof ) of an afterlife that is an argument from ignorance.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false.

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

You won't be when you are.

I won't be surprised if I am dead but you will be surprised if you are not dead.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I'm sorry you have to live with these afflictions, especially the migraines, because I know how paralyzing they can be.

Pain is an old friend. I've lived with chronic pain (arthritis) for years and it gets no better with age, finding new parts of my body to capture as time passes. It waxes and wanes in different situations, and some days are less painful than others. I know it's there, and I know it will continue to grow with age, and I know there is little I can do about it. I'm aware of it, but because it's something I am aware of, as with anything else I'm aware of, I don't identify as it...it's not me. Therefore, I'm not attached to it. I know that just as with anything else in this reality, it will pass. I don't suffer from it. I instead choose to engage in the beauty of the world in a life for which I'm grateful for having the opportunity to experience. And that, too, shall pass.

To me suffering is simply the state of being in pain, distress or hardship. It's not something you can choose any more than the physical sensation. There's healthy ways to approach pain, and optimism and thankfulness is great so long as it isn't harboring denial or judgement. *Especially* when we're talking about someone else's pain. We are often too quick to project our own experiences on others and it can be very dismissive and cruel when people convince themselves someone else is experiencing suffering, or grieving 'the wrong way' based on their own experiences. It's a judgement approach instead of an empathetic one. 'I did this so you should be able to as well' instead of 'I can only imagine what your pain is like, I hope you can find relief.' Because sometimes they can't, and 'well someday you'll die and it'll be over' is no comfort to them.

 

[SalixIncendium]

To me suffering is simply the state of being in pain, distress or hardship. It's not something you can choose any more than the physical sensation. There's healthy ways to approach pain, and optimism and thankfulness is great so long as it isn't harboring denial or judgement. *Especially* when we're talking about someone else's pain. We are often too quick to project our own experiences on others and it can be very dismissive and cruel when people convince themselves someone else is experiencing suffering, or grieving 'the wrong way' based on their own experiences. It's a judgement approach instead of an empathetic one. 'I did this so you should be able to as well' instead of 'I can only imagine what your pain is like, I hope you can find relief.' Because sometimes they can't, and 'well someday you'll die and it'll be over' is no comfort to them.

Is this a general statement, or are you suggesting that I'm projecting my experiences onto others?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Is this a general statement, or are you suggesting that I'm projecting my experiences onto others?

I can't know if you are. I am talking about philosophy I've seen used, especially in certain stoic circles, as a cudgel to judge people they think do or should have more control over their experience of pain or grief. And often have a very flattened idea of other people's experiences that reflects their own, or puts them on an unrealistic timeline or threshold of pain before returning to their idea of productivity.

You see that very judgy, presumptive approach brush up to Taoism when stoic get involved.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I can't know if you are. I am talking about philosophy I've seen used, especially in certain stoic circles, as a cudgel to judge people they think do or should have more control over their experience of pain or grief. And often have a very flattened idea of other people's experiences that reflects their own, or puts them on an unrealistic timeline or threshold of pain before returning to their idea of productivity.

You see that very judgy, presumptive approach brush up to Taoism when stoic get involved.

Thanks. I just want to be clear that I'm not projecting. I'm answering the OP question by offering a perspective and answering challenges to that perspective by sharing personal experiences.

People are welcome take what I say or leave it. It's their choice whether or not they wish to believe it's a choice.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Thanks. I just want to be clear that I'm not projecting. I'm answering the OP question by offering a perspective and answering challenges to that perspective by sharing personal experiences.

People are welcome take what I say or leave it. It's their choice whether or not they wish to believe it's a choice.

Samesies. Except the choice part because I don't believe beliefs are choices, like pain.

 

[PearlSeeker]

There is no independently verifiable evidence for any "afterlife", or concept thereof.

What about some experiences at the deathbed? For example there are reports of cases where the spirit visitors (loved ones who have already died) were seen by others at the bedside of the dying person, sometimes by several persons at the same time.

 

[SeekingBalance]

If you mean there is evidence that the physical body dies when all the bodily functions cease, we all know that, but that does not address what happens to the soul when we die...

Hi Trailblazer,

I'm confused as soul is not a term that means something we can all agree on. What do you think the soul is?

We are interpreting the world through our brain. Our brain is an organ in the skull that can't see, hear, or kiss its mother. It's an organ like the stomach or liver or whatever. Let's talk about sight. The eyes see things and translate what they see into data for our brain to process. Your brain can't see but it is presented with data from your eyes and reconstructs that data into something it can then use to make decisions. It seems seamless to us but if you look at the details and the lag in time you can see you are most likely a simulated person not by the government or some god but by you as an organism as a necessary step in furthering evolution. (A necessary step for survival)

I don't think there are souls but I also don't know what you mean by a soul.

I hope all is well!

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm confused as soul is not a term that means something we can all agree on. What do you think the soul is?

I don't think we are all going to agree on what the soul is but below is my brief description of the soul.
Please let me know if you have any questions.

The soul is a creation of God and it came from God sometime during the course of evolution, when man became distinct from the animal.

The soul is s mystery whose reality the most learned of men have failed to grasp, and whose mystery no mind can ever hope to unravel.

The soul associates itself with the body at the time of conception.

From then on, the soul works through the brain and while we are living on earth in a physical body. The soul is associated with the brain and it animates and directs the brain and the body, but when we die and no longer have a physical body the soul continues to live. It lives forever, and that is why it is called an 'immortal soul.'

The soul manifests itself in our thought process. The soul itself does not have cognitive functions, only the brain has those, but the soul 'animates' the brain so it is responsible for our ability to think and feel. If we had no soul the body would have no life.

The soul is the sum total of the personality so it is the person himself; the physical body is pure matter with no real identity. The person, after he dies and leaves his physical body behind remains the same person, and he goes to the spiritual world where he continues the life he conducted in the physical world. The soul takes on some kind of a spiritual body made up of elements that exist in the spiritual world and continues to live forever.

 

[SeekingBalance]

I don't think we are all going to agree on what the soul is but below is my brief description of the soul.
Please let me know if you have any questions.

The soul is a creation of God and it came from God sometime during the course of evolution, when man became distinct from the animal.

The soul is s mystery whose reality the most learned of men have failed to grasp, and whose mystery no mind can ever hope to unravel.

The soul associates itself with the body at the time of conception.

From then on, the soul works through the brain and while we are living on earth in a physical body. The soul is associated with the brain and it animates and directs the brain and the body, but when we die and no longer have a physical body the soul continues to live. It lives forever, and that is why it is called an 'immortal soul.'

The soul manifests itself in our thought process. The soul itself does not have cognitive functions, only the brain has those, but the soul 'animates' the brain so it is responsible for our ability to think and feel. If we had no soul the body would have no life.

The soul is the sum total of the personality so it is the person himself; the physical body is pure matter with no real identity. The person, after he dies and leaves his physical body behind remains the same person, and he goes to the spiritual world where he continues the life he conducted in the physical world. The soul takes on some kind of a spiritual body made up of elements that exist in the spiritual world and continues to live forever.

Hi Trailblazer,

Using god to further explain the nebulous term soul just gets more confusing. However, I don't want to argue about god or the soul or whatever. I was explaining how I think we exist which would consequently mean no soul or even day-to-day congruence. You didn't have some system monitoring human births on this planet and then you're born and they plug their little cord into the wall and issue a soul. I mean maybe. What I was saying is why plug in the cord then? Why wasn't the cord always there? And if it was always there why can't I remember before it was plugged in and how could I expect to remember after it was unplugged?

I hope all is well!

 

[Trailblazer]

Hi Trailblazer,

Using god to further explain the nebulous term soul just gets more confusing. However, I don't want to argue about god or the soul or whatever. I was explaining how I think we exist which would consequently mean no soul or even day-to-day congruence. You didn't have some system monitoring human births on this planet and then you're born and they plug their little cord into the wall and issue a soul. I mean maybe. What I was saying is why plug in the cord then? Why wasn't the cord always there? And if it was always there why can't I remember before it was plugged in and how could I expect to remember after it was unplugged?

I hope all is well!

I said that the soul associates itself with the body at the time of conception, but I have no idea HOW that happens.

There was no cord that was 'always there.' The cord associates itself with the embryo at the time of conception, so the soul does not exist before conception. You cannot remember anything that happened before conception, since YOU did not exist. Each individual life begins when the soul associates itself with the embryo at the time of conception.

 

[SeekingBalance]

I said that the soul associates itself with the body at the time of conception, but I have no idea HOW that happens.

There was no cord that was 'always there.' The cord associates itself with the embryo at the time of conception, so the soul does not exist before conception. You cannot remember anything that happened before conception, since YOU did not exist. Each individual life begins when the soul associates itself with the embryo at the time of conception.

Hi Trailblazer,

Glad to see we agree. You seem with me with the cord plugging in part but seem to pull away with pulling it out.

In addition, it's not just the cord. As I have discussed I don't remember a lot of stuff. (When I was younger, do you remember what you did when you were one or two or even three?)

 

[Trailblazer]

Hi Trailblazer,

Glad to see we agree. You seem with me with the cord plugging in part but seem to pull away with pulling it out.

As I said, the cord associates itself with the embryo at the time of conception. What I did not say is that the cord disconnects from the physical body at the time of death, which is when the soul leaves the physical body and takes on another form, after which time that form continues to live in the spiritual world, what people refer to as heaven.

In addition, it's not just the cord. As I have discussed I don't remember a lot of stuff. (When I was younger, do you remember what you did when you were one or two or even three?)

No, I do not remember what I did when I was one or two or three. The furthest back I can remember was when i was about 8 or 9 or 10, but even those memories are very vague. Some people remember early childhood and some don't. One reason I might not remember is because I had a difficult childhood, so I probably blocked out all those memories. My sister who was a year older than me once told me that the same happened to her.