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

[Lagayascienza]

Agreed. Dying may be a process but death is terra incognita or terra nulla. Those religious who say they "know" that something happens after death, that there is something to be perceived by the soul of a person who has died, are simply not being honest. They "know" no such thing. They are indoctrinated into such belief and either cannot, or choose not to, question it. It may be a comforting belief, but that doesn't make it true. At times I'd like to think that that death may not be the end, but there is nothing to suggest that there is.

[Lagayascienza]

...nothing to suggest that there is anything.

Apologies of the omission.

[Belinda]

Agreed. Dying may be a process but death is terra incognita or terra nulla. Those religious who say they "know" that something happens after death, that there is something to be perceived by the soul of a person who has died, are simply not being honest. They "know" no such thing. They are indoctrinated into such belief and either cannot, or choose not to, question it. It may be a comforting belief, but that doesn't make it true. At times I'd like to think that that death may not be the end, but there is nothing to suggest that there is.

I love a good ghost story. M R James is best ghost story teller I know . To enjoy a ghost story, or spiritualism, one must first suppose that bodies and minds are entirely separable substances. This psychological trick is called 'suspension of disbelief'.

However after death it's credible that , because every event that has happened necessarily happens, all events that have happened cannot disappear into nothing. Each of us is an event.

Each of us is subjectively an individual. After death the individual is not subjectively an individual any more but is decaying organic matter. That you and I , in life, were conscious of being individuals was an event , does not imply that the minute fact that we were conscious is any more necessary an event than the event of a rain shower on a hill.

[Sy Borg]

I think we fundamentally misunderstand what it is to live, to be an individual. We are are not separate. We are not independent. That is a false impression given by the limitations of our nervous systems.

We are, in effect, incomplete as individuals. Humanity is incomplete. Animalia is incomplete. All are structures within the Earth, in this special thin balance zone that starts a few kms underground and finishes a few kms into the atmosphere. As soon as you lose this perspective and see life and death as purely individual, you are on the wrong philosophical track existentially, although this mindless attitude is obviously a useful delusion for survival for us animals existing within this zero sum game.

I appreciate that this is a deeply unpopular view because it devalues that which is most dear to humans - our egos. We want so much to be special, exceptional, important that we will concoct all sorts of stories to avoid the truth that we are individually just sapient bits of the Earth's surface that bubble up and go away with very, very little consequence in the larger journey of this astonishing solar system.

[Lagayascienza]

Well said. It may be unpopular but it is true. We don't usually think about just how connected we are to this planet and to all its life support systems. We are of the same cloth and not a separate, special, creation. We are so dependent on, indeed, we are so much a part of, that narrow band of interacting atmosphere, lithosphere and biosphere that we need to take parts of it with us for even the shortest journeys into space.

Our existence as an outgrowth of the earth is the only reason we have, or need, for our existence on this planet. While there is nothing separate or special about us, we are part of nature, and as such, we have a right to be here, just like all the other parts of the biosphere. We needn’t feel guilt about the need to kill to survive because all non-autotrophs must do the same. It is part of life. Organisms eat us, too. All organisms must die so new ones can live. We are all in it together. We are all one with the earth.

[Sy Borg]

... we are so much a part of, that narrow band of interacting atmosphere, lithosphere and biosphere that we need to take parts of it with us for even the shortest journeys into space.

Exactly!

We are connected to atmosphere in a similar way to how trees are connected to soil. A real eye-opener for me in this is the study of people with brain damage who cannot feel fear. Researchers played all sort of games with them and they generally remained unbothered - until suffocation, being "uprooted" from our soil. Instant terror.

Our existence as an outgrowth of the earth is the only reason we have, or need, for our existence on this planet. While there is nothing separate or special about us, we are part of nature, and as such, we have a right to be here, just like all the other parts of the biosphere. We needn’t feel guilt about the need to kill to survive because all non-autotrophs must do the same. It is part of life. Organisms eat us, too. All organisms must die so new ones can live. We are all in it together. We are all one with the earth.

There is one special thing about us. We are the most sapient aspect of this thin sliver, even if we struggle to know how to use it, like chimps trying to learn to ride a bike. If things don't go too pear-shaped with all the imbalances of the Holocene, there might be quite a road ahead for Earth's sapience, especially now that we can configure rocks and chemicals in such a way that it augments that sapience (if not sentience).

[Lagayascienza]

Yes, the degree of sapience is the only feature that sets us apart. Apart from that, we're just another tetrapod. And even sapience exists on a continuum from the simplest bacterium right through to us. Whether our sapience will save us in the long term remains to be seen. It's a fancy skill to have. But then, so was the ability of cynobacteria to photsyntesize and pump poisonous oxygen into the atmospere. That neat trick resulted in a massive extinction event. Still, the cynobacteria could not foresee the consequences of what they were doing. We have some ability to understand our role in what may be the Holocene, or perhaps the Anthropocene, mass extinction event. Hopefully, our ability to look into the future and see the consequences of our actions will save us - if we can control our baser instincts, that is, and don't deliberately kill ourselves in a nuclear holocaust.

[Hello Sailor]

Hi, I was considering exactly this myself. We can't be conscious of not existing so we are only ever conscious of existing. I was pondering it as maybe a reset of consciousness so it can keep evolving.

[Sy Borg]

Yes, the degree of sapience is the only feature that sets us apart. Apart from that, we're just another tetrapod. And even sapience exists on a continuum from the simplest bacterium right through to us. Whether our sapience will save us in the long term remains to be seen. It's a fancy skill to have. But then, so was the ability of cyanobacteria to photsyntesize and pump poisonous oxygen into the atmosphere. That neat trick resulted in a massive extinction event. Still, the cyanobacteria could not foresee the consequences of what they were doing. We have some ability to understand our role in what may be the Holocene, or perhaps the Anthropocene, mass extinction event. Hopefully, our ability to look into the future and see the consequences of our actions will save us - if we can control our baser instincts, that is, and don't deliberately kill ourselves in a nuclear holocaust.

Sapience is not present in most animals. Sentience, yes, but not sapience. Other animals don't tend to mentally time travel as humans do, without our capacity to recall past events and project into the future as we do.

Nor is human awareness of environmental damage important in this situation. It would matter if humanity was in control of itself, but it's not. Consider what it would take for eight billion people, from all manner of geographical, cultural and historical situations, to work together to achieve a common goal.

Only the very most ruthless and all-encompassing totalitarianism could achieve this, one where babies would be regulated and unwanted babies would be crushed up to either fertilise the soil or feed pets (an ideal world would not waste anything).

Humanity is disparate, with widely varying interests and concerns. Consider the massive drive towards renewables in the west and balance that against China building 95% of all new coal-fired power stations, seemingly to cater for the west's appetite for shiny new "green" products. Have you a solution to this problem, using our "awareness"? When you have eight billion people, you have an ever rising list of wicked problems.

Instead of a Glorious Omnipotent Dynasty that pretends to (because it would be pretending, given the way power plays out) bring all of humanity together to the common good, we have our messy, barely controlled reality. Despite that individuals and various groups know, humans - en masse - have no more control than cyanobacteria.

It's more about logistics than "baser instincts".

[Lagayascienza]

Yes, I meant sentience. But I think sentience merges into sapience as we go from bacteria to us. And yes, getting all 8 billion of us to act as one in pursuit of anything is like herding cats. Look at the UN.

[Hello Sailor]

Hallucinogenic drugs would be worth a go before hacking into the babies.
Add the assumption that consciousness is fundamental.

[Sy Borg]

Hallucinogenic drugs would be worth a go before hacking into the babies.
Add the assumption that consciousness is fundamental.

Hmm, I dunno. Getting a good machete and making baby pie seems like a terrific idea! I believe you have to skin them slowly to improve the taste of the meat. Oops, I'm getting babies mixed up with dogs and monkeys eaten in Asia.

But seriously, I say no to all of the above (not that anyone would care what I think). No to hacking babies (and other animals). No to drugs. No to idealism.

There is no solution. The situation will simply play out however it will, regardless of little piecemeal effort to change things. Imagine if you could dope up all Americans on trippy drugs and get them to believe in idealism. It would make zero difference to Chinese, Russians, Arabs/Persians and central and southern Africans, and it would make diddy-squat difference to Indians - and these make up most of the world.

[Sy Borg]

Yes, I meant sentience. But I think sentience merges into sapience as we go from bacteria to us. And yes, getting all 8 billion of us to act as one in pursuit of anything is like herding cats. Look at the UN.

The UN has been captured by China and the Middle East ... unless one believes that over 50% of all the problems of the world are caused directly by Jews and that Israel's human rights violations vastly dwarf those in other parts of those great bastions of human rights and dignity - the Middle East, Africa, central and southern America ... oh, and China, NK and Russia.

And all of this happens on a small portion of a sliver on a pale blue dot. Just as well we're not a multi-planet species. We have enough trouble properly administering sates within nations, let alone multiple worlds. In the meantime, those worlds slumber peacefully, seemingly dead but they could potentially be "awakened" by collisions or colonisation.

[Belinda]

I think we fundamentally misunderstand what it is to live, to be an individual. We are are not separate. We are not independent. That is a false impression given by the limitations of our nervous systems.

We are, in effect, incomplete as individuals. Humanity is incomplete. Animalia is incomplete. All are structures within the Earth, in this special thin balance zone that starts a few kms underground and finishes a few kms into the atmosphere. As soon as you lose this perspective and see life and death as purely individual, you are on the wrong philosophical track existentially, although this mindless attitude is obviously a useful delusion for survival for us animals existing within this zero sum game.

I appreciate that this is a deeply unpopular view because it devalues that which is most dear to humans - our egos. We want so much to be special, exceptional, important that we will concoct all sorts of stories to avoid the truth that we are individually just sapient bits of the Earth's surface that bubble up and go away with very, very little consequence in the larger journey of this astonishing solar system.

I thoroughly agree. I'd rather tweek you thesis a little so that the first paragraph is emphasised.

[Belinda]

Hallucinogenic drugs would be worth a go before hacking into the babies.
Add the assumption that consciousness is fundamental.

Hmm, I dunno. Getting a good machete and making baby pie seems like a terrific idea! I believe you have to skin them slowly to improve the taste of the meat. Oops, I'm getting babies mixed up with dogs and monkeys eaten in Asia.

But seriously, I say no to all of the above (not that anyone would care what I think). No to hacking babies (and other animals). No to drugs. No to idealism.

There is no solution. The situation will simply play out however it will, regardless of little piecemeal effort to change things. Imagine if you could dope up all Americans on trippy drugs and get them to believe in idealism. It would make zero difference to Chinese, Russians, Arabs/Persians and central and southern Africans, and it would make diddy-squat difference to Indians - and these make up most of the world.

But, Sy Borg, the reforms stemming from the enlightened 1960s and 1970s caused an effect all over the world.