06 Aug 08
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadHowever, as long as the concept is gray edged, it can be difficult to answer questions relating to continued existence when a significant proportion of the properties commonly used to describe the coin are changed.
There is no need for a new 'gold coin' concept. However, as long as the concept is gray edged, it can be difficult to answer questions relating to continued existence when a significant proportion of the properties commonly used to describe the coin are changed. For example, if I use a press to change the pictures on the coin, is it still the same gold co ...[text shortened]... which personality would continue after death, the original one, or the modified one? Or both?
Yes, I see your point and agree with it. Our diagnostic capabilities are not always good enough to keep pace, so to speak, with our hypotheticals. However, for the main thrust of this thread, I intend if possible to steer clear of such issues (although I would like to continue to discuss them with you on the side). So, I'll recast my question:
-----------------------------------------
Suppose I choke on a jawbreaker and die (according to some medical definition of natural death). Then, my family takes the body and cremates it, reducing it to ash. My question is, can someone present some reasons to think that after this cremation I still exist?
-----------------------------------------
I'm also specifically not trying in any way to restrict the discussion to concepts of the self like the one that I have been discussing with twhitehead that is reducible to psychological features.
If we destroyed your body then reconstituted it 10 years later, would it still be you?
I simply don't think I can answer such questions without knowing more about the situation. Again, my view of personal identity relies on psychological connectedness over time. For instance, let's suppose someone dies at time t1. Then, some researchers take the body to a lab somewhere and somehow revive or implant mentality sufficient for personhood back into the body at time t2. Is the person post-t2 the same person as the person pre-t1? I say it would depend. What if the two had radically different psychology and, for example, had different memories, preferences, character traits, values, etc? In my opinion, under such circumstances, the two are not the same person. How radically different would they have to be? I'm not sure I am prepared to answer that -- that would get into the "gray" area as you are calling it. But surely we could at the very least point to extremes -- say where the two psychologies are identical (or different, in the other extreme) on nearly all accounts.
If not, then it in my mind causes major problems for any possible concept of life after death. The question would be, which personality would continue after death, the original one, or the modified one? Or both?
As Palynka hinted, you are glossing over other possibilities here. For example, many people hold a concept of the self that is not reducible to psychological features. For instance, many people presumably are committed to the notion that their personal identity stretches back to something like the zygote at conception (for instance, there seem to be lots of people who argue that the person exists from conception). The zygote at conception is a single diploid cell and simply has no mentality. Obviously, they are not going to be committed to a view of the self that reduces to mentality, or talk of "personality" as you are employing it, etc.
I tend to find such concepts bizarre, however, which is one reason why I started this thread: I am interested in what reasons they have for holding such an irreducible view of the self.
06 Aug 08
Originally posted by LemonJelloI would guess that either they simply haven't thought about it, or such an irreducible view of the self is a requirement for any concept of a soul to be workable - so any theist must hold on to such a view.
I am interested in what reasons they have for holding such an irreducible view of the self.
06 Aug 08
Originally posted by LemonJelloI don't think the it is bizarre for a theist to believe in such a concept.
I tend to find such concepts bizarre, however, which is one reason why I started this thread: I am interested in what reasons they have for holding such an irreducible view of the self.
Most theistic timeless perspectives of existence (e.g. OOMP creator) imply (explicitly or implicitly) that the self, in the material universe, has a unique path (from a timeless perspective). This means that the self must be contained in all temporal states of the being, be it conscious or not.
In short, timeless perspectives remove the importance of consciousness (which is defined differently for each point in time) in defining the self.
06 Aug 08
Originally posted by PalynkaYet they muddle up the concept with that of conciousness as theism would mostly not be desirable without a concept of a concious entity separate from the physical body. When a Christian says "are you saved" he is specifically referring to your conciousness. I suspect that many theists realize the problem but try not to think about it.
In short, timeless perspectives remove the importance of consciousness (which is defined differently for each point in time) in defining the self.
06 Aug 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm not sure. The arguments regarding abortion certainly don't seem to indicate that. But I agree that many think of consciousness as being, at least, the mental image of the self. This may lead to some confusion, but not necessarily contradiction.
Yet they muddle up the concept with that of conciousness as theism would mostly not be desirable without a concept of a concious entity separate from the physical body. When a Christian says "are you saved" he is specifically referring to your conciousness. I suspect that many theists realize the problem but try not to think about it.
Obviously, I can't speak for them.
06 Aug 08
Originally posted by PalynkaWell I don't know how a non-concious being could be punished in hell or receive rewards in heaven or even commit sin and thus be judged. But most important of all, is that I have absolutely no motivation for preserving anything about me except my conciousness, so the future of my 'immortal soul' is quite irrelevant unless it includes my conciousness.
I'm not sure. The arguments regarding abortion certainly don't seem to indicate that. But I agree that many think of consciousness as being, at least, the mental image of the self. This may lead to some confusion, but not necessarily contradiction.
The arguments regarding abortion serve to highlight the fact that many theists refuse to address the issue.
15 Sep 08
1 edit
[I am interested in what reasons they have for holding such an irreducible view of the self.[/b]Unlike with you, it is not a view of one's self...it is a view of a higher power and the purpose of life itself. People like you, who are extremely egocentric, like to over-think issues to the point that you feel important/smart.
How do you feel about those people, who were not religious, who died but came back to life---reporting a definite life after death experience?
15 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenUnlike with you, it is not a view of one's self...it is a view of a higher power and the purpose of life itself.
Unlike with you, it is not a view of one's self...it is a view of a higher power and the purpose of life itself. People like you, who are extremely egocentric, like to over-think issues to the point that you feel important/smart.
How do you feel about those people, who were not religious, who died but came back to life---reporting a definite life after death experience?
If you feel that you must bring in ancillary considerations regarding a "higher power" and "the purpose of life itself" in order to answer my question, then do what you feel you must. Again, my question, in case you missed it, is the following: Suppose I choke on a jawbreaker and die (according to some medical definition of natural death). Then, my family takes the body and cremates it, reducing it to ash. My question is, can someone present some reasons to think that after this cremation I still exist?
How do you feel about those people, who were not religious, who died but came back to life---reporting a definite life after death experience?
I know no one fitting that description. And I'm not looking for sappy testimonials. But if you know of some relevant testimonials that you find particularly credible and want to cite them and base argument on them in order to answer my question, then go ahead.
22 Sep 08
Originally posted by LemonJellowell, the theists can think watever they want, but the most basic thing about chrisianity or going to heaven is that they believe in God and have accepted him in their hearts will go to heaven.
(1) Do we have some theists here who nevertheless find the notion of life after death implausible?