Why do you make this distinction? So there is less reason that you and I exist than that the universe exists? Why?
Please comment on my thesis:
The brain is an emergent property of the cosmos. It is created by the cosmos and exists only in the cosmos. It is physically impossible for the brain to continue without the cosmos. Ergo, for the brain to survive after the death of the cosmos is physically impossible.
These are the questions of a stoned person. Of course you or I could not exist; we didn’t exist before we were born, and we won’t exist after we die. The universe could not exist as well, which of course means we wouldn’t exist in that scenario. You and I cannot exist if the universe doesn’t exist, as we are physical beings taking up space in the universe and subject to the universe’s physical laws. What are you finding difficult to understand?
Not to speak for him, but I took the sneer to be at the “pseudo-intellectual” part, not the “questions” part.
Our existence is not necessary for the universe to exist. It can, has, and will exist without any form of life on planet Earth. But we can’t exist without the universe. The fact that there is a universe is the reason we exist. Sorry to keep jumping in on questions addressed to others.
I think if you actually define what you mean by afterlife in a testable way, then you can test for it. Otherwise, it is nothing but poetic license, and not a fact.
Since the term “afterlife” is not really defined, if you want to apply the scientific method to the issue, then a definition is in order.
Don’t cry if you don’t like the definition the scientists come up with if you haven’t presented one yourself.
And definitely, don’t cry over the results that follow.
Yes, but, more accurately, the fact that there is a universe is the reason we were born, :eek: the reason for this life.
But, of course, in that scenario we wouldn’t even have been born nor would we die.
Another fantasy for you, not logically impossible, not yet proven physically impossible:
Dark matter beings record and observe the EM field of human brains. Upon brain death, they resurrect the recorded human consciousness in a dark matter body.
While dark matter is postulated to not interact with regular matter and/or EM fields, there is no evidence that it isn’t extremely exotic, behaving in ways that normal matter does not. It might be able to react to EM fields without having a reciprocal effect (inertial parity violation anyone?).
So now the soul has nothing to do with us? Our soul survives, but we don’t? Exactly what function does it perform, and how would you propose to distinguish it from nothing at all?
The soul seems to be becoming as slippery as god.
With that view of time we also have multiple bodies, multiple lovers who look very similar, multiple copies of the same child. An interesting diversion, but not very useful in the current discussion.
Your quote:
He’s saying that logic is nice but you need evidence. Euclid’s system is based on some very clear postulates, and non-Euclidean geometry is based on somewhat different postulates. The assumption was that the universe worked as if the Euclidean postulates are correct. That was an unjustified assumption. In fact, the Euclidean postulates are not even correct if we take the surface of the earth as a plane.
None of this helps your case, since the argument against the soul is not based on pure logic but on evidence and lack of evidence. The argument for the soul appears to be based on nothing except argument from historical authority and wishful thinking,.
This is entirely correct. I’m not sure it’s anything that hasn’t already been said though, maybe I’ve not fully understood you? Note that consciousness being an emergent property of the cosmos is only true in the trivial sense that the brain is part of the cosmos.
Think of life (including our personalities/experiences) as a role or a costume our soul wears and discards when the show is over. The soul remembers playing the part or wearing the costume, but it was just a role, not the true soul itself.
And the soul may not be individual; like the creosote bush, under it all it’s really just one big entity in spite of appearing to be multiple lives, maybe all life itself. As I mentioned earlier, a number of spiritual teachings say that we are all one, all god, all expressions of god. Perhaps this is more literally true than most people have ever considered.
No argument with that; s/he’s always been a slippery little fucker. I’ll always remember when I was about 6 years old sitting in the yard with a pot, trying to “catch” god as though s/he were a butterfly, after being told that he was everywhere.
Consider the following assertions:
a) Light cannot be composed of discrete particles and also consist of continuous waves because those are mutually incompatible descriptions.
b) Faster than light travel is absolutely impossible.
c) Time travel is absolutely impossible.
d) The phrase “before the big bang” is a meaningless phrase. Time didn’t/doesn’t exist except within/after the big bang. Everything came from it and nothing else is.
e) The phrase “life after death” is a meaningless phrase. Death is defined as the end of life.
Language is an artform, a body of terms into which concepts appear to be embedded, but into which we embed them as we use it. Those terms arose in an everyday context, although in specialized use groups of us, by being in specialized contexts, end up embedding them a bit differently. The notion that language consists of crystal clear denotative terms that “mean what they mean” is an illusory one.
No statement is intrinsically true, or false. Because statements don’t mean things except in the sense of meaning something to someone. Like Humpty Dumpty, we project the meaning we intend or intuit into and onto those statements.
I know (within the limitations of what it can ever mean “to know”) what I mean when I say that this life isn’t all and that instead it is just an experience. At the same time I think I know what you mean when you say there is no afterlife and there is a strong sense in which I agree with you but also an asterisk of sort, a “but…” because I think most of you believe that is the answer to a different question and I think it is not.
Some of you may be operating from a mindset that does not consider that there is life BEFORE death in the sense that folks who don’t think “this life is all” might speak of life beyond death; that is, you may not consider yourself to exist while alive except as a physical process. If you define life as “A” and then say “is there any A in the set of all non-A”, then no, there isn’t. But you should start with that “if” in order to have a conversation with folks who do not define life that way to begin with.
Me, I consider myself to be conscious. Consciousness is a term I use to descibe something I consider to be real. Your mileage may vary. I consider myself to possess intention, volition, will; I consider explanations of my behavior that reference my intention to be real explanations. You, on the other hand, may not believe in volition. I am a person who rejects reductionism as a worldview — who rejects the assertion that since we are composed of molecules in various energy states etc, that “all” we are is a set of physical processes winding down. We are that; but there are things not seen in reductionistic analysis which are nevertheless true and valid. (Including the “fine wineness” of a fine wine; the ability to describe it in terms of quarks and the behavior of those quarks doesn’t mean it doesn’t “really” exist as a fine wine)
I hate the term “afterlife”. I understand how much our everyday thinking “needs” to conceptualize in terms of a time beyond the time of death and to use constructs such as “after we die” but it’s babytalk. Oversimplification. Leads to silly arguments with literal-minded people.
Now that’s what I’m talkin’ bout.
Interesting post, AHunter3. I’m not claiming that consciousness doesn’t exist, and I don’t think anyone else here is - I’m saying it is fundamentally tied to the brain. As for definitions, several people have asked for a definition of the soul, and one has not yet been provided.
Can’t help you there; that one is a word I do not use. How about spirit?
How are the attributes of a spirit different than that of a soul?
If I said to you that this thread exemplfies the spirit of this board would you find that statement to make sense?
It’s just a word use thing… I don’t tend to use “soul” unless I’m talking about rhythm & blues.
It makes perfect sense. I would also say that the spirit of this board is property of this board, and necessarily could not exist without this board. Do you agree with this? (Honest question, I’ve not thought deeply about this and may well have missed something).
If, for the sake of argument, Creative Loafing decided to kill off the board, it would no longer exist. THEN would it make sense if I were to say that the spirit of the board survives even though the board does not? How about if you see someone acting skeptically, doing their own inquiry, not just accepting conventional explanations… would it be reasonable and appropriate to say “aah, now that’s in keeping with the spirit of the old SDMB that was” – ??