Why life after death might not be an "complete impossibility".

[anthonymilkins]

It's not good enough to say "one day we will know because.......science!"

No great discovery was ever made by suggesting that we'll never know.

[guyver79]

^^You should read Nick Bostrom's 'Superintelligence'. I made a thread on it, should be a couple pages back.

In one section he talks about future possibility of analyzing & reconstructing the neural and synaptic network of the brain, and synthesizing the results onto a computer network, in order to = HLAI (human level artificial intelligence) and the consequences thereafter (rapid acceleration toward super intelligence). After I finished reading it, I was more thoroughly convinced than ever about how futile and ridiculous the notions of after-life and divine/eternal significance truly are.

EDIT: I should note too, that he's actually a professor of philosophy at Oxford and has a vast array of disciplines... So it's somebody Athanasius should have no problem delving into.

Cool, will look into it, I'm actually gonna have to do some work now but will check it out this afternoon.

It's not quite the same but did you see the afterlife debate between Sean Carroll and Steve Novella vs Eben Alexander Ray Moody?

They're discussing OBE and NDE but I thinks it applicable in this thread.



"At the end of my opening talk I said that the choice here basically comes down to two options we can believe:
1.Everything we think we understand about the behavior of matter and energy is wrong, in a way that has somehow escaped notice in every experiment ever done in the history of science. Instead, there are unknown mechanisms allow information in the brain to survive in the form of a blob of spirit energy, which can then go start talking to other blobs of spirit energy, but only after death, except sometimes even before death.
2.Physics is right. And people under stress sometimes have experiences that seem real but aren�t." - Sean Carroll.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/...ife-aftermath/

[anthonymilkins]

Cool, will look into it, I'm actually gonna have to do some work now but will check it out this afternoon.

It's not quite the same but did you see the afterlife debate between Sean Carroll and Steve Novella vs Eben Alexander Ray Moody?

They're discussing OBE and NDE but I thinks it applicable in this thread.

"At the end of my opening talk I said that the choice here basically comes down to two options we can believe:
1.Everything we think we understand about the behavior of matter and energy is wrong, in a way that has somehow escaped notice in every experiment ever done in the history of science. Instead, there are unknown mechanisms allow information in the brain to survive in the form of a blob of spirit energy, which can then go start talking to other blobs of spirit energy, but only after death, except sometimes even before death.
2.Physics is right. And people under stress sometimes have experiences that seem real but aren’t." - Sean Carroll.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/...ife-aftermath/

Will watch tonight, ty

[ymer]

It's not aiming at nondualism.

What are you talking about?

[GreatOldOne]

What are you talking about?

The stuff Alan Watts is talking about would probably be considered nondualism. Some kind of pantheism or panentheism perhaps. Like some weird variant of Hinduism or Buddhism. Even atheists are like that consciously or not. They just normally don't care and consider it a waste of breath to discuss.

Most people (in America anyway) think about life after death as a little soul in your body which is going to arrive in heaven or hell at some point.

The book I was referring to imo demonstrates (well provides a compelling argument) that this concept of afterlife is incoherent. So in that respect, there is no need to get to the issue of evidence. There could be no such evidence. The question itself makes no sense.

[ymer]

The stuff Alan Watts is talking about would probably be considered nondualism. Some kind of pantheism or panentheism perhaps. Like some weird variant of Hinduism or Buddhism.

Mmmm no, Alan Watts is educated in all theologies, you must have not studied his work very thoroughly.

[GreatOldOne]

Mmmm no, Alan Watts is educated in all theologies, you must have not studied his work very thoroughly.

I assume he was educated in all kinds of things. And did he like to talk about (endorse) having a little soul which goes to heaven when you die?

He appears concerned from the lectures I've heard about self, mind (and lots of other things as well). But it's clearly not dualism.

[ymer]

I assume he was educated in all kinds of things. And did he like to talk about (endorse) having a little soul which goes to heaven when you die?

He's concerned from the lectures I've heard about self, mind (and lots of other things as well). But it's clearly not dualism.

I'm having a real hard time understanding what you are talking about, you seem to keep bringing up dualism and non dualism, what is that dualism that you are talking about?

[GreatOldOne]

I'm having a real hard time understanding what you are talking about, you seem to keep bringing up dualism and non dualism, what is that dualism that you are talking about?

mind/body dualism. mental/physical divide in reality. don't worry about it.

[ymer]

mind/body dualism. mental/physical divide in reality. don't worry about it.

But what point are you trying to make discussing dualism.

[GreatOldOne]

But what point are you trying to make discussing dualism.

The afterlife Christians and Muslims want requires it. They need an immaterial soul which can be you and go to a different universe which is heaven or hell after you die.

Most of them believe this. Some of them claim to be nondualists but that doesn't reconcile with their heaven and hell ideas. Which is what is discussed in the book I referenced.

[ymer]

The afterlife Christians and Muslims want requires it. They need an immaterial soul which can be you and go to a different universe which is heaven or hell after you die.

Most of them believe this. Some of them claim to be nondualists but that doesn't reconcile with their heaven and hell ideas. Which is what is discussed in the book I referenced.

So that book discusses a specific flawed view (which are by the way, badly interpreted and translated, specificaly the Jesus Christ teachings) of the universe.

Well sure if your whole argument about "life after death" is specificaly against those specific views you can make a point, but you should listen to other views of the universe which do not support "nothingness" after death as you do and are incredibly interesting, hence you can look at Alan Watts work which translates all Eastern theologies into western raised people to be easily digested. If you are really interested in philosophy and life/death I would recommend to go out of your comfort zone and check it out.

[GreatOldOne]

So that book discusses a specific flawed view (which are by the way, badly interpreted and translated, specificaly the Jesus Christ teachings) of the universe.

Well sure if your whole argument about "life after death" is specificaly against those specific views you can make a point, but you should listen to other views of the universe which do not support "nothingness" after death as you do and are incredibly interesting, hence you can look at Alan Watts work which translates all Eastern theologies into western raised people to be easily digested. If you are really interested in philosophy and life/death I would recommend to go out of your comfort zone and check it out.

Yes it is. It's discussing those problems and flaws.

And thank you. I've enjoyed all the lectures I've heard from him. I would recommend anybody to listen. They actually fit right in with a number of my views of philosophy of mind...just coming from a different direction of sorts.

Hence life after death is other people. "Life after death is other people" doesn't make sense to people with this idea of dualism. They will think it couldn't be other people because my soul is off in some other universe. But they will also miss the point of who they are now. To them, 'Love neighbors as self' is just something a guy named Jesus said one time. The reason to do it is because that is what Jesus told them. Not because it's actually true.

[Athanasius90]

No great discovery was ever made by suggesting that we'll never know.

That's not what I was saying. It was an argument against scientism.

The issue isnt exaggerated hope. Its gross conceptual confusion. Much worse than simply not knowing.

[guyver79]

That's not what I was saying. It was an argument against scientism.

The issue isnt exaggerated hope. Its gross conceptual confusion. Much worse than simply not knowing.

What, making stuff up and wishful thinking to you is better than not knowing?

Besides I haven't said I don't know, I'm saying I do know that "life" as defined in the oxford dictionary does not continue after death and you'll be full retard for thinking otherwise.

[MentalF1tness]

op is magnetized to a potato

kek

[Athanasius90]

What, making stuff up and wishful thinking to you is better than not knowing?

Besides I haven't said I don't know, I'm saying I do know that "life" as defined in the oxford dictionary does not continue after death and you'll be full retard for thinking otherwise.

Are you capable of discussing a position without putting words into someone elses mouth? Is that a fallback strategy for you?

[anthonymilkins]

Are you capable of discussing a position without putting words into someone elses mouth? Is that a fallback strategy for you?

He quoted you accurately.

[guyver79]

Are you capable of discussing a position without putting words into someone elses mouth? Is that a fallback strategy for you?

I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was merely stating that "life" as defined by the oxford dictionary does not continue after death, to state otherwise would be changing the definition of life and death, if you are changing the definition then you are making it up to fit your own pre convinced unfounded beliefs.

For all the reasons that "you" were not conscious and fully aware before you were conceived apply that same reasoning based on all the evidence we have in biology and physics to death and then explain to me how I'm wrong and what, when and where this so called eternal consciousness is taking place.

[boseador]

I think that this is one of those "meaningless" questions that shouldn't even be asked. If you believe that you will continue to be independently of your body, then you hold a belief that is neither true nor false. IMO it is like saying "Derpusiousness is real and we will all be Derpsuisions when we die", and then inventing with your imagination a referent for this word and saying it is real; an challenge us to falsify it or accuse us of being scientistic.

[Athanasius90]

He quoted you accurately.

No he didn't. Nowhere did I ever advocate "making stuff up". I did say one should never just write blank promissory notes for ones position. Hardly synoymous with 'making stuff up'


The only thing I explicitly said was those who claimed nothing after death have no evidence at all for it. He now seems to be attempting a 'win by definition' strategy, as if pointing at a dictionary constitutes any sort of argument.

[Athanasius90]

I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was merely stating that "life" as defined by the oxford dictionary does not continue after death, to state otherwise would be changing the definition of life and death, if you are changing the definition then you are making it up to fit your own pre convinced unfounded beliefs.

For all the reasons that "you" were not conscious and fully aware before you were conceived apply that same reasoning based on all the evidence we have in biology and physics to death and then explain to me how I'm wrong and what, when and where this so called eternal consciousness is taking place.

Derp. Life, in that particular context, is obviously referring to the functions of the physical body. So it's obvious and trivial that life in that strictly defined sense ends with the body.


If consciousness continues after death, there is no direct conflict with biology or physics. It wouldn't overturn anything scientific, it would only overturn materialistic presumptions about what they think science says or is supposed to do.

Again, your argumentative strategy involves deflecting questions to me to try and keep me on the defensive so you never have to produce the evidence for what you were saying. I have no obligation to explain where consciousness might go it what it might do after death. It might very well be beyond my ability to know, due to the possibility it is a scientifically intractable phenomenon, or it may involve aspects of reality we won't be able to understand for centuries.

All I said was those who think it has to end with the body have no evidence for it, and so far you've come up trumps with that evidence.


I'll leave this here:

[Athanasius90]

I think that this is one of those "meaningless" questions that shouldn't even be asked. If you believe that you will continue to be independently of your body, then you hold a belief that is neither true nor false. IMO it is like saying "Derpusiousness is real and we will all be Derpsuisions when we die", and then inventing with your imagination a referent for this word and saying it is real; an challenge us to falsify it or accuse us of being scientistic.

Verificationism of peace.


But of course, no major advocate for any non-materialist positions has done anything like you suggested. Noone has "imagined" a referent for mind/consciousness/thought

[boseador]

Verificationism of peace.


But of course, no major advocate for any non-materialist positions has done anything like you suggested. Noone has "imagined" a referent for mind/consciousness/thought

The soul/spirit isn't something that was imagined... They needed something that endures change and survives the death of the body. A soul/spirit was invented. Now consciousness refers to soul/spirit/form.

[Athanasius90]

The soul/spirit isn't something that was imagined... They needed something that endures change and survives the death of the body. A soul/spirit was invented. Now consciousness refers to soul/spirit/form.

Which wasn't "invented". The soul in classical theology is something we can know exists, just not in a reductively materialistic way. There's nothing spooky about it.

[boseador]

Which wasn't "invented". The soul in classical theology is something we can know exists, just not in a reductively materialistic way. There's nothing spooky about it.

How do we "know" about it? I didn't say that there's something spooky about it, just that it is a conjecture intended to explain things such as how we survive change when the material constituents of bodies change, or what gives us an identity when our mater has no identity, or how we will go on to live for ever. Also, language has a role in the conjecture of souls because of the subject/predicate forms. When we say "my body is changing" we are postulating a "person" and a body. From this some conclude that there must be two things here, the form/soul and the mater, which endures change and survives bodily death.

[Athanasius90]

How do we "know" about it? I didn't say that there's something spooky about it, just that it is a conjecture intended to explain things such as how we survive change when the material constituents of bodies change, or what gives us an identity when our mater has no identity, or how we will go on to live for ever. Also, language has a role in the conjecture of souls because of the subject/predicate forms. When we say "my body is changing" we are postulating a "person" and a body. From this some conclude that there must be two things here, the form/soul and the mater, which endures change and survives bodily death.

None of that captures classical theological accounts of the soul, because you're describing Cartesian egos and dualism.

[boseador]

None of that captures classical theological accounts of the soul, because you're describing Cartesian egos and dualism.

What I described is a classical criticism of hylomorphism, which is, I presume, the classical theological accounts of the soul, right? Classical theologians also struggled with the problem of identity/change. The same criticisms apply.

[Athanasius90]

What I described is a classical criticism of hylomorphism, which is, I presume, the classical theological accounts of the soul, right? Classical theologians also struggled with the problem of identity/change. The same criticisms apply.

But there are no two things here. There is just the substantial form of the person, which is a compound of matter and form.

[boseador]

But there are no two things here. There is just the substantial form of the person, which is a compound of matter and form.

There is only one thing, composed of two things. What is the thing that survives the death of the body?

Even Descartes compared his dualism to the scholastic hylomorphism which attributes a telos (or mind) to matter.