And clearly, life provides many variations of the word “philosophical.”
:smack:
I think a far more interesting question is what happens when you’re born? (Or are conceived, or whatever). Was there was a beforelife? Very few people contend that their soul existed in those 14 billion years when the stardust had not yet attained the arrangement called “humans”: what do these billions of souls do while they wait to be born, and how come I can’t remember being one?
If you didn’t exist then, or existed only as disparate atoms, how did “you” arise from “not you”? If you consider the answer given by biological and cognitive science to be all that is necessary to explain how you came to be, why propose a further entity (an afterlife) which exists when that arrangement of atoms again becomes disparate?
SentientMeat, you might like to read “Journey of Souls” and “Destiny of Souls” by Dr Michael Newton. I found the views of the “beforelife” and “inbetweenlife” intriguing.
Fair enough, however, you might want to consider the analogy that prior to 1885 there was no empirical evidence of radio waves. In fact, James Maxwell had mathematically predicted their existence in 1864, but it was Hertz who discovered radio waves in 1885. Did radio waves in fact exist prior to 1885? I would argue yes. It was only due to the discovery of a mechanism to measure/receive/transmit radio waves that, for humans, they “came into existence.”
Therefore, I think it would be a little unwise to close the door to the possibility of a conceptual existence of a thing merely because there currently exists no empirical evidence to support the existence of that thing.
Perhaps you could paraphrase for me, Mellivora. Does he propose billions or trillions of souls waiting 14 billion years to be born? (D’oh! I blew my entire physical existence on a Neanderthal miscarriage…) What does he have to say about the vast welter of scientific knowledge about how new individuals come to exist via the biological process of reproduction? Does that not explain?
SentientMeat, at the risk of doing injustice to Dr Newton’s work, and bearing in mind it’s been a while since I read the books, I’ll try to summarise. 
He is a hypnotherapist who initially only dealt with current life issues, but then “stumbled upon” a deeper level of hypnosis that opened up the doorway to memory recall of “life between lives.” I know, I know, serious alternative stuff here, but interesting nonetheless.
His books seem to support the concept of reincarnation, and a cycle of birth-death-study, birth-death-study, birth-death-study, ad infinitum. To use your example and to try and answer your question more specifically, according to his reports it’s not a case of a billions of souls waiting 14 billion years for a single earthlife experience, but rather billions of souls cycling through numerous earth incarnations over a period of that 14 billion years.
Does that help?
And what ‘memories’ suggested more than mere dreams? Could he speak a historical language fluently, or something?
And what were they doing for the vast majority of those 14 billion years (when the entire universe consisted of hydrogen condensing into stars and nothing you could call “life” at all, let alone “humanity” which has only existed for the briefest blink of a cosmological eye) if not waiting to be born into those first bacteria or protohominids or whatever?
Hmmm, I recall one example that might answer your question. His one patient complained of an inexplicable pain in his side that could not be diagnosed. Under hypnosis he apparently recalled being bayoneted in one of the world wars. He described the scene, what he was wearing, the battle, approximate time, etc, etc. Dr Newton then researched the event and could validate that such a battle did indeed take place at that time, place etc.
And again I must issue my caveat, my recall of the book is sketchy, so to get a clear understanding of his work you will need to read the book. 
Played Tri Nations rugby.
Just kidding. I have no idea.
Yes, and I know where and when many 20th century battles occurred, and the uniforms of the parties involved, such that I could have such a dream. And bayonetted in the 20th Century? I assure you that this would have been a remarkably rare occurrence, to the extent that field logs should actually have revealed the exact name of the supposed “previous incarnation” given the Doctor’s research. It would then be extremely easy to test the veracity of the claim by simply asking the patient for eg. the name of his “past wife”, if you’ll pardon the pun.
What line of reasoning would lead you to the conclusion that, actually, it’s a rather silly idea in the first place? Have I not yet reduced the premise to an absurd conclusion?
Hey, I’m Spartac … err, Brian … umm. Never mind.
Whoa there, SentientMeat. I have no investment in the philosophy, nor the views put forward by the author.
I was merely suggesting some interesting reading material.
Posted by Imasquare:
Well, I haven’t read much existentialist philosophy, but I take the opposite lesson (from my belief that we’re minds created by biology, with no existence after death). It seems to me that our biological existence is only pointless if you do believe in an afterlife. If I’m going to keep existing as a sentient spirit a million years from now, what does it matter what happens in my short little biological life? Whereas, with only some decades of life – a century if I’m lucky – I want to make it count; I want to leave a mark on the world. My position is that, whether it’s a day or a century (or an unlimited afterlife), you decide on principles that are important to you, and try to fight the good fight. Maybe what you do matters more than how long you have.
Hey – just for fun, ask Lekatt about the relationship between your brain and your mind.
No worries, Mellivora - I’m just subjecting those recommendations to the Dope’s mission statement!
I can only assure you that one need not be sad, and that since “point”, “meaning”, “significance” or whatever you wish to call it are all themselves outputs or functions of our brain, why then, we can create our own! Simply feed in various sensory inputs or propositions and observe how much “significance” your brain outputs. You can become remarkably adept at identifying those inputs and propositions which push your cognitive buttons, such that you are better able to seek them in other sources in future.
On topic, some people output a huge “significance” yield when the input is “afterlife”. (Personally, I get from it a similar yield from an input of “beforelife”, which is pretty much nothing.) But all of us (except those beknighted by a crippling condition called psychopathy) output plenty of it in close interactions with our friends and/or families, or perhaps simply sitting in a garden or looking at the stars.
So don’t be sad. Either way, you have won the jackpot of existence lottery, having been born as an entity which can judge inputs significant. Seek beauty wherever you are, and you will find it in spades.
Wise words, something I would do well to heed more often. Thanks.
Thanks in return for ignoring my comical spelling. I am truly benighted.
The thing about this discussion is that it doesn’t matter what we believe. The thing that matters is truth, in that, who we really are, and what is this existence we are living. Yes, it is what you do that matters more than how long you have. But how did you come to that conclusion if you believe when you’re dead you’re dead forever. If you believe that what does it matter what you do? All things will end with you. Note that nearly all the men who “made their mark” on the world in a positive way believed in an afterlife.
As for the relationship between brain and mind. The mind, spirit, soul, the real you is spiritual and continues after death. The Pam Reynolds surgery illustrated that in an earlier post. It is simple, I would think you would be pleased to know you will live forever.
A quote from a researcher who works with NDEs on a daily basis. Quotes from skeptics always are negative.
Why would it be remarkable for someone to remember resuscitation attempts? They were there, after all. Their “form of consciousness” (if they were actually remembering something real and not just hallucinating) would be explained by the fact that they weren’t quite dead yet.
Anyway, self-reported experiences are next to worthless as empirical evidence.
False correlation. Most people have belived in some sort of afterlife, so it’s expected that “nearly all the men who “made their mark” on the world in a positive way believed in an afterlife”; the same goes for those who made negative or trivial marks.
Your NDE obsession isn’t convincing anybody. Besides, they can’t possibly be evidence for an afterlife, as the people involved don’t die; that’s why it’s called Near Death Experience - something I’ve pointed out to you before.
Well no. Looking from a completely rational point of view, to an Atheist, life must have absolutely zero value, else the Atheist in question is presumably indulging in fuzzy thinking.
Simply put, life in mechanistic Aheism has no inherent value. Ergo, it has only the value we assign to it. Ergo its value is nothing except whatever we choose. Since our choices are morally meaningless (since there are no morals and no moral choices*), life has no actual value. Saying otherwise is self-deception: nothing has value.
Of course, under this system,. there is no “I,” either. People do not actually exist, only atomic structures. People do not think and have no capacity to choose morally speaking; deep down, it’s all just mechanical (or atomic) action. Some meat machines respond to broken (read: criminal or otherwise violent) machines by destroying them. people seek pleasure because they are programmed to do so. Seeking anything except one’s own gratification is both senseless and the product of erroneous programming, which may get weeded out in future generations.
- Since there is no universal standard of value, activities and actions cannot be moral; there is no recognized standard of value beyond culture, which therefore means that culture is nothing more than a limiting factor on behavior. It may be useful for reproductive purposes, but can have no moral force. Ethics are merely a survival strategy.
In short, unless you have other, hidden axioms, life does indeed have no value under mechanistic atheism**
*Of course, certain forms of life may seem more precious because of their rarity, but this amounts to nothing more than supply and demand. Certain life-forms have innate advantages in creating pleasure which they exploit.