Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[godblog]

An afterlife?

What are the implications of the FACT that “energy cannot be created or destroyed “

It means there is no “after” life, there is only an ever changing ever lasting NOW - LIFE -,FAITH in our memories of our past nows.
(That do not exist) anymore
HOPE for better future NOWS (That do not exist) yet and
LOVE we can only use NOW to create those better future nows based on our memories of the results of our past nows.

[Count Lucanor]

We need hard, empirical evidence, that there can be consciousness independent of a physical body, if we are to begin to entertain the idea that consciousness survives death of a subject. No such hard evidence has ever been provided.

A few thousand years ago, when we first learned that the moon pulled the tides in and out, what do you think the "hard evidence" for this was? Maybe a large hook that came down from the moon? Maybe the people who testified that they were almost washed away by the incoming tide? Or maybe it was simple observation and a disinclination to believe in coincidence?

If we continue to keep our eyes closed, put our hands over our ears, and hide in the closet, then we will never learn anything!

Gee

I hope that a few thousands years didn't just go by for nothing. We know better now. Anyway, your analogy doesn't apply to the case in question, since there was an observed phenomena (the tides) and there was more than enough hard evidence that they were real. It was then open to find the cause. No one was just hypothesizing that they could exist. Not the case with an afterlife, which has NEVER been observed, and cannot be observed, since by definition it can only occur in another supernatural domain to which the living don't have access to. A good hypothesis could be made IF we had observed in this natural domain of the living any hard evidence of a disembodied consciousness, but we haven't.

Count,

Actually, my analogy does apply. You are forgetting some relevant information that applies like the idea that the "supernatural" is an explanation now, as it was then. Yes, we knew about the tides and we knew what caused them to move -- Neptune. The supernatural was our explanation, and we knew that the "Gods" controlled the tides, tsunamis, water spouts, and even sea monsters.

We knew about the tides and we knew about the moon, what we did not see was the connection between them.

You're responding with the same argument I just refuted. There was the observable fact of tides, it was not disputed. You would never find a forum thread titled: "Do You Believe in Tides? Why? Any Evidence?". But there's no undisputed observable fact of the afterlife or disembodied consciousness. It is not something that has to be explained, because it hasn't even been established as a real phenomena that can be observed.

Right now we know about life and we know about death, but do not see the connection between them.

Pff...it's amazing the ckeek people have to make insane statements like this in order to promote their failed arguments. Since when we don't see the connection between life and death? I would bet it is seen more than a million times a day in ER and funeral homes. In fact, death is defined in terms of life: it is the end of it.

You seem to think that the supernatural can not be proven, so it does not exist, yet you still want to argue about it. This appears to be a position where you are making an argument from ignorance. Please get out of the closet before responding.

I don't believe in the supernatural, but I don't need to believe in it to respond to the claims about the coherence of such concept. By definition, the supernatural excludes the natural, and vice versa. There cannot be a world where the natural coexists with the supernatural, because their interactions would require that each one is explained in terms of the other, and you would have an all-encompassing reality that is either called natural or supernatural, but not both. It would be an oxymoron. So, once anyone is declaring the existence of the supernatural, they are declaring the existence of another domain beyond the one where humans live, which is known as the natural world. Regardless of whether one accepts the existence of the supernatural or not, one is forced to acknowledge at a theoretical level that what works in the natural world cannot work in the supernatural world and vice versa, and that includes perception, sensation, thought and everything that relates to the physical and causal laws of nature as experienced by humans. In order for the supernatural to not be part of the natural world, it must be unintelligible. By definition, anything supernatural has to be naturally impossible, which implies its non-occurrence in a natural domain. Evidently, though, the passage from a natural domain to a supernatural one, and vice versa, requires a coherent explanation that is still missing in this natural world of ours.

[Tegularius]

What negates that belief is a question: What would be its purpose; can anyone come up with a reason why there should be life after death which resumes in an endless array of reincarnations? If so, would it refer only to humans?

To me it looks exactly like evolution, which is much like an endless array of reincarnations. No, it would not refer only to humans, but to life.

No, evolution is a physical process while reincarnation is nothing more than a presupposition.

[Gee]

What negates that belief is a question: What would be its purpose; can anyone come up with a reason why there should be life after death which resumes in an endless array of reincarnations? If so, would it refer only to humans?

To me it looks exactly like evolution, which is much like an endless array of reincarnations. No, it would not refer only to humans, but to life.

No, evolution is a physical process

Are you absolutely sure that it is just physical? Have you never noticed that the changes in life that are explained by evolution seem to satisfy a need or want in the species involved? Have you not noticed that these changes satisfy a survival instinct? An instinct is mental, so survival instincts are mental and are an important aspect of evolution. If in fact these "mutations" did not satisfy a need, did not improve the species, did not help to preserve the species through survival instincts, then they would not be called evolution. They would be called a mess.

while reincarnation is nothing more than a presupposition.

Have you actually studied anything about reincarnation? Or are you arguing from a position of ignorance?

Gee

[Gee]

You seem to think that the supernatural can not be proven, so it does not exist, yet you still want to argue about it. This appears to be a position where you are making an argument from ignorance. Please get out of the closet before responding.

I don't believe in the supernatural, but I don't need to believe in it to respond to the claims about the coherence of such concept. By definition, the supernatural excludes the natural, and vice versa. There cannot be a world where the natural coexists with the supernatural, because their interactions would require that each one is explained in terms of the other, and you would have an all-encompassing reality that is either called natural or supernatural, but not both. It would be an oxymoron. So, once anyone is declaring the existence of the supernatural, they are declaring the existence of another domain beyond the one where humans live, which is known as the natural world. Regardless of whether one accepts the existence of the supernatural or not, one is forced to acknowledge at a theoretical level that what works in the natural world cannot work in the supernatural world and vice versa, and that includes perception, sensation, thought and everything that relates to the physical and causal laws of nature as experienced by humans. In order for the supernatural to not be part of the natural world, it must be unintelligible. By definition, anything supernatural has to be naturally impossible, which implies its non-occurrence in a natural domain. Evidently, though, the passage from a natural domain to a supernatural one, and vice versa, requires a coherent explanation that is still missing in this natural world of ours.

Still in the closet? You are certainly good at arguing, but I don't think you realize that I am not interested in the "supernatural", don't believe in it, and don't want to discuss it or argue about it. Maybe you could find someone else, who cares.

Gee

[Tom Butler]

Emerging understanding about how people formulate perception is that it is a mostly unconscious process. Worldview (instincts, cultural training, memory) functions as a filter of "incoming" environmental signals (five senses, presumed Psi sensing). People become aware of environmental signals based on a sort of "agree-disagree-maybe" decision process that delivers a version of sensed information that is more an "opinion." That is we experience our world based on personal opinion of truth.

Integrating this emerging understanding with what we know about human behavior helps to explain such idiosyncrasies of intellect as ignorance and intellectual myopia. When a person makes such declarations as "there never was" and ""there is no ..." they tend to reinforce that ignorance.

For me, the mechanism of mental preprocessing is a strong indicator of nonlocal mind. When other factors such as the apparent influence of intentionality on physical processes, remote viewing and Instrumental TransCommunication are considered, that apparent nonlocal consciousness begins to look a lot like evidence of Dualism as opposed to Physicalism.

[godblog]

You still do not get it. There are no “five senses”
There are only atoms
Atoms are not physical. They are a perception of vibrating energy.
What you. See hear think are
Angstroms Decibels Consciousness
None of those are physical except by definition of their vibrations and frequency thereof
PLEASE FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE TO ITS ULTIMATE CONCLUSION.
I THINK therefore I AM
JUST THOUGHTS CONSCIOUSNESS—- creating this. Beautiful perception of a physical reality.

[Stoppelmann]

There is nothing more certain than a spoonful of brain matter.

LOL, a spoonful of dead cells, certain as death ...

Oh you mean life requires healthy living matter?

You are the materialist, or have I misread you?

[Count Lucanor]

You seem to think that the supernatural can not be proven, so it does not exist, yet you still want to argue about it. This appears to be a position where you are making an argument from ignorance. Please get out of the closet before responding.

I don't believe in the supernatural, but I don't need to believe in it to respond to the claims about the coherence of such concept. By definition, the supernatural excludes the natural, and vice versa. There cannot be a world where the natural coexists with the supernatural, because their interactions would require that each one is explained in terms of the other, and you would have an all-encompassing reality that is either called natural or supernatural, but not both. It would be an oxymoron. So, once anyone is declaring the existence of the supernatural, they are declaring the existence of another domain beyond the one where humans live, which is known as the natural world. Regardless of whether one accepts the existence of the supernatural or not, one is forced to acknowledge at a theoretical level that what works in the natural world cannot work in the supernatural world and vice versa, and that includes perception, sensation, thought and everything that relates to the physical and causal laws of nature as experienced by humans. In order for the supernatural to not be part of the natural world, it must be unintelligible. By definition, anything supernatural has to be naturally impossible, which implies its non-occurrence in a natural domain. Evidently, though, the passage from a natural domain to a supernatural one, and vice versa, requires a coherent explanation that is still missing in this natural world of ours.

Still in the closet? You are certainly good at arguing, but I don't think you realize that I am not interested in the "supernatural", don't believe in it, and don't want to discuss it or argue about it. Maybe you could find someone else, who cares.

Gee

You were very eager to discuss the supernatural in relation to this topic before, until you ran out of arguments, I guess. I don't care about the supernatural either, but it comes with the claims of an afterlife. And as I said, we don't even need to get into that, as no one can't show disembodied consciousness in our world, today, among the living.

Meanwhile you found a lame excuse to avoid the realization that your analogy with the moon and tides was refuted.

[Tom Butler]

... as no one can't show disembodied consciousness in our world, today, among the living.

Count Lucanor, "never" ... "can't" ... "no such" only tells us that you have not examined the evidence. It would be useful if you addressed the evidence by justifying "can't." Else, one must suspect ignorance.

[Count Lucanor]

... as no one can't show disembodied consciousness in our world, today, among the living.

@Count Lucanor, "never" ... "can't" ... "no such" only tells us that you have not examined

No, it does not tell us that, not until you show the evidence that there's evidence I have not examined.

It would be useful if you addressed the evidence by justifying "can't." Else, one must suspect ignorance.

I would gladly address the evidence if there was one, ever.

[Sculptor1]

There is nothing more certain than a spoonful of brain matter.

LOL, a spoonful of dead cells, certain as death ...

Oh you mean life requires healthy living matter?

You are the materialist, or have I misread you?

It seems you are the materialist too

BUT
I do not accept a label like that. THe point is that brain matter is dead until fused with blood and active with electrical charges from the neurons. If you have to use a label to make your prejudice easier to handle Physicalism includes matter and energy, but it about the facts; not about bias and teams and tribes.

[godblog]

I THINK THEREFORE “I KNOW” I AM

there is nothing physical because all atoms are reducible to subatomic particles- which are actually subatomic electromagnetic energy, NOT PHYSICAL at all.

We are a singularity consciousness (1)in a universe of nothingness (0) vibrating 1001110 and creating a perception of a physical existence.
Angstroms what you see vibrating energy
Decibels what you hear vibrating energy
What you think Consciousness vibrating energy

All just different frequencies of the same vibrating energy we use to create this beautiful perception of a physical existence.

[Gertie]

I don't believe in an afterlife.  On the evidence we have, conscious experience correlates with physical brain processes.  And when they cease there's no more discernible sign of consciousness, which we can recognise as such at least. (The anecdotal evidence should be more than anecdotal by now, I reckon - not to say it can't be profoundly meaningful to those who've had such experiences).

If the universe is such that consciousness which manifests now  as me in this body continues, the implication of neural correlation suggests to me  it will  manifest as what it's like  to be my decaying or burnt corpse, slowly dispersing. Á cheery thought, but 'we are all stardust' is a groovier way of putting it! 

Or, the nature of the universe is unimaginably different to how we experientially model it, then you can speculate just about anything, but test nothing. So that's not worth worrying about - just make the most of now.

[Tegularius]

Have you actually studied anything about reincarnation? Or are you arguing from a position of ignorance?

Enough to know that it's probability status is exceedingly low.