12 Mar 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadReally? I don't believe in life after death. What's irrational about that?
You wouldn't similarly speculate that a person would somehow survive on mars because perhaps he doesn't need oxygen. If an entity survives beyond death that does not need the brain then that entity is not what I call consciousness, it is not what I call 'me', and I would certainly not call it 'living'. It just seems that you are irrational about this particular topic.
12 Mar 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe way life (or consciousness) after death is usually defined it's intrinsically metaphysical. This is why you cannot know. And also, it's why speculating about it is a pointless exercise.
Then why do you have a problem when it comes to consciousness?
All the factors that contribute to the lack of consciousness after death have been tested witnessed and thus established as facts. Why do you still remain skeptical?
12 Mar 09
Originally posted by dystoniac===========================
Question: "What happens after death?"
Answer: Within the Christian faith, there is a significant amount of confusion in regards to what happens after death. Some hold that after death, everyone “sleeps” until the final judgment, after which everyone will be sent to Heaven or Hell. Others believe that immediately after the moment of death, people are ins ...[text shortened]... n whether or not they had trusted Jesus Christ alone for salvation (Matthew 25:46; John 3:36).
Within the Christian faith, there is a significant amount of confusion in regards to what happens after death. ....
===============================
"Whew!" replies the skeptic. "I feel better already."
12 Mar 09
Originally posted by FMFWhat is irrational is your openness to the possibility of life after death and your belief that it must be experienced for someone to know whether it exists or not. There is simply no rational reason to even consider the possibility.
Really? I don't believe in life after death. What's irrational about that?
12 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI disagree. I am not sure what you mean by 'metaphysical' but whatever it is, if you cannot know anything about it then as far as I am concerned it doesn't exist nor is it even meaningful.
The way life (or consciousness) after death is usually defined it's intrinsically metaphysical. This is why you cannot know. And also, it's why speculating about it is a pointless exercise.
Besides, most theists would disagree with you and claim that it is theoretically possible to know that it exists.
12 Mar 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadHow can I be open to it if I am not the least bit interested in it? Wouldn't speculating about it suggest openness? And yet I have said repeatedly that I am not interested in speculating about it. And I don't speculate. Perhaps you could cut and paste the the words of mine that have made you think that I am irrational. For my part, I only really recall saying over and over again that I don't believe that there is life after death.
What is irrational is your openness to the possibility of life after death
12 Mar 09
Originally posted by twhitehead"Witnessing" and "experiencing" (did I use that word?) were merely euphemisms or synonyms for "evidence". There is no evidence that there is life after death. That's why I don't believe it exists. I don't suppose any evidence is ever going to emerge someday. But I also think I don't know that for sure. I don't care, frankly. This is the most speculating I have done on it in 25 years! Am I irrational? twhitehead you wicked disruptor - you've made me irrational!
your belief that it must be experienced for someone to know whether it exists or not.
12 Mar 09
2 edits
When a person has a stroke and part of their brain is destroyed, some corresponding part of their consciousness is destroyed -this can be observed. For example, if the part of the brain known to be important for mentally forming words in one’s head is destroyed, then that aspect of consciousness is also destroyed. In this way, all aspects of consciousness can be mapped to various parts of the brain and without any known exception. So it seems to me to be a perfectly logical extrapolation to make that, GIVEN the fact that destroying PART of the brain destroys PART of the consciousness, destroying ALL of the brain destroys ALL parts of the consciousness. When you die, all the brain is destroyed, therefore, you should conclude all of your consciousness is also destroyed when you die -therefore, no afterlife :'(
12 Mar 09
Originally posted by FMFWhat I see as irrational is this statement of yours:
"Witnessing" and "experiencing" (did I use that word?) were merely euphemisms or synonyms for "evidence". There is no evidence that there is life after death. That's why I don't believe it exists. I don't suppose any evidence is ever going to emerge someday. But I also think I don't know that for sure. I don't care, frankly. This is the most speculating I have d ...[text shortened]... years! Am I irrational? twhitehead you wicked disruptor - you've made me irrational!
But perhaps the entity that survives is something not reliant on the working brain.
Also you seem to reject the possibility that there is good evidence that life after death does not exist. At best you have only stated that there is no evidence either way. I think there is strong evidence that there is no life after death yet you appear to reject that evidence irrationally (without even considering it).
12 Mar 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think I understand KazetNagorra, and I agree with him.
I disagree. I am not sure what you mean by 'metaphysical' but whatever it is, if you cannot know anything about it then as far as I am concerned it doesn't exist nor is it even meaningful.
Besides, most theists would disagree with you and claim that it is theoretically possible to know that it exists.
It seems to me be more accurate to state that there is significant evidence that there is no life after death the way we define life when our body and our mind are operational at the same Time/Space.
We know that the Human undertakes actions at three levels (“Worlds&rdquo😉: the first is the physical world, the second the psychical/ human conscious, and the third the world of the mental products of the Human (false and right theories/ ideas/ concepts etc). These are the Worlds 1, 2 and 3.
Now:
The World 2 exists, for it is the sole means that can offer explanations regarding the impact of World 3 to the World 1.
The World 1 is open to the World 2.
The World 2 interacts so dynamically with the World 3 that the Human consciousness is not understandable without the existence of the World 3. Therefore, the consciousness of the ego of the Human is rooted at the World 3.
But this means that the World 2 is a product of the World 3 as much the World 3 is a product of the World 2. And in turn this means that the Human is a product of his products -of his civilisation-, to whom everyone contributes.
However it is still unknown how the Mind interacts with Consciousness. What say you?
12 Mar 09
Originally posted by black beetle….However it is still unknown how the Mind interacts with Consciousness.
I think I understand KazetNagorra, and I agree with him.
It seems to me be more accurate to state that there is significant evidence that there is no life after death the way we define life when our body and our mind are operational at the same Time/Space.
We know that the Human undertakes actions at three levels (“Worlds&rdquo😉: the first is the physi ...[text shortened]... ributes.
However it is still unknown how the Mind interacts with Consciousness. What say you?
..…
I thought that what people normally mean by the word “mind” is the same thing as “consciousness”?
Unless what you mean here by “consciousness” is “consciousness” as in awareness of one’s surroundings?
12 Mar 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonAndrew my friend,
[b]….However it is still unknown how the Mind interacts with Consciousness.
..…
I thought that what people normally mean by the word “mind” is the same thing as “consciousness”?
Unless what you mean here by “consciousness” is “consciousness” as in awareness of one’s surroundings?[/b]
Unfortunately the barrier of the language is devastating when the conversation boils down to this level; I am talking about the zennist concept of self awareness that it's a bit tricky for it goes like this:
I am neither my thoughts nor my feelings
my mind keeps up thinking and feeling seemingly ad infinitum
the real Me comes front at the intervals
I can reach my real Self once I become the observer of my thoughts emerging from those intervals...
Maybe it is easier to call this Inner Self/ awareness "soul", however the Inner Self is not designed by a so called "god" as the religious people use to believe, and furthermore it cannot be born and it cannot die. Therefore "soul" is just a notion that may help you to understand this status of self awareness, this quality that I cannot show it to you -I can only point to its direction🙂
12 Mar 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadthere is a false analogy if ever I saw one.
That is simply not true. I do not need to be the person dying in order to find out what happens next. I don't even need to observe someone dying.
If I erase my hard disk on my computer is the information it contained lost? Do I need to be the information and experience it first hand in order to know the answer?
Your hard drive and your brain -- you think they store information or discard it the same way?
12 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadCan I 'know' that I exist?
I am afraid I don't understand all that.
Maybe some examples would help.
Can I 'know' that I exist?
Can I 'know' that Pluto exists?
Can I 'know' that all people die of old age eventually?
Can I 'know' that a water molecule is made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom?
Isn't that a horse of a different color? hmmm, let me think about that ... I don't want to put Descarte before the horse.
Can I 'know' that Pluto exists?
are we talking about the object that can be observed through a telescope, photographed, confirmed by others to be there, predicted to be in a certain place at a certain time, and then Hey Presto, it can be seen to be there?
Or are we talking about Mickey Mouse's dog? The latter poses some animated metaphysical questions to which I feel unqualified to answer.
Can I 'know' that all people die of old age eventually?
think that one through a little. don't some people die of something else, besides old age, eventually? aggravation, alone, claims a lot of folks.
Can I 'know' that a water molecule is made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom?
Are we talking about ordinary water, or tritium, or some other isotope? Ordinary water is indeed as you describe.
Here in Washington DC we tell newbies that it is a town that revolves around its fireplugs. We all know that inside the fireplug is H 2 O -- and while folks pay lip service and say they care about the substance of the fireplug, they are much more interested in who has power over that fireplug. Outside the fireplug is
K 9 P. Having the power to determine whose dog is allowed to put it there comprises most political activity.