Every moment happens and then passes, bounded by the moments on either side of it.
As sad and frightening as it is, I see no reason not to assume we live a single existence with infinite “nothing” on either side (although I might quibble on the “infinite” point). “This makes me sad to think about” is not a compelling argument against a thing.
Whether or not you want something to be true has no bearing on whether or not something is true.
This. Even if there is some sort of metaphysical “material” that gets recycled into different creatures, they still aren’t me. I don’t think the fact that our atoms get exchanged throughout the chain of existence means that I am literally part fish and part dinosaur. Any soul substance would be no different than physical substance if the memories disappear like tears in rain.
Since you ask, I think that there is way, WAY more to existence than what we know. Life is a creative force, and that’s why I believe in a Creator. What this all exactly entails is something I just don’t know and really cannot visualize from my severely limited perspective.
I believe this as strongly as I believe that my parents took my old, sick dog to a beautiful farm where he could run in the fields and jump and play all day long with his animal friends.
As we used to say in the military, “hope as a strategy” is rarely a good idea.
You’re thoughts just read to me as wishful thinking masquerading as a philosophy. Sounds great if that’s what gets you though the night, and I get that too. If you’ve been unhealthy since child hood, or your child died young, you’d like to make sense of it. But that’s just hope from my seat.
Well I think there are ways of parsing the OP that go beyond wishful thinking.
For example, let’s just say, hypothetically, long after you’re dead, a brain identical to yours right now at this moment happens to arise somewhere. Is that brain you, or just a consciousness that happens to be identical to you?
Yes, it’s basically the “transporter” philosophical problem, and either of the two main answers to the transporter problem present issues for the trivial, common-sense “you live a life for a few decades as one entity, then you’re gone forever” view.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe there’s an afterlife: there’s no reason to suppose that hypothetical will ever happen for starters. I’m just speaking philosophically.
Speaking of stuff cycling around, each time I see this thread’s title has been bumped back to the top, I’m reminded of a throwaway bit in A Few Good Men.
Do you think the same thing about your windows installation? If the hard drive on your computer fails, do you think your data disappears into nothingness, or that “It has nowhere else to go except back to the beginning?” I believe that data disappears when the hardware it is based on fails, and I think human consciousness works the same way when the brain that it is based on fails. Everything else is just the fear of death rationalized by scared humans.
I like to believe in the block universe concept of time. Our consciousness starts at birth and ends at death, but it no more ceases to exist than a book ceases to exist because it has a last page. Whatever we do, did and will have done are all equally real. Further whatever perceives our consciousness, and observes our inner thoughts, is the same mechanism that perceives everyone else’s thoughts, so effectively we are all one consciousness. Which is somewhat similar to reincarnation, except that there is no linear ordering of past and future lives and we are all reincarnated as everyone. Also from a moral stand point even if there is no nasty god punishing us for being bad, its still a good idea to be nice to each other because any suffering you cause to someone else you are actually causing to yourself, sort of automatic Karma.
Hitchens described death as “the party will continue, but you have to leave”. The alternative, where your soul is eternal and an everlasting afterlife awaits is: “the party will continue, and you can NEVER leave.”
I’m more inclined to the former, but I was never really big on parties.
Yeah, I think this makes a fair bit of sense. When an ambulance races past the office and I look out of the window and observe “He won’t sell many ice creams going that speed”, I am actually reviving a small piece of the mind of the late great Eric Morecambe. When I am gone, and those who remember me look out of the window and say the same thing, they will be reviving a small piece of both my mind, and that of Eric Morecambe - it’s all part of the same big pattern, or mess.
Our words and actions create ripples in the stream of life, which interact with the ripples of other people’s lives and so on and so on. Until all the ripples die down, your part in this great and unique pattern of ripples lives on. This philosophy has no more, and no less, evidence in its favor than any other…and it satisfies me.
Where does the candle flame go when it is blown out?
What’s nightmarish about it? I literally don’t understand.
Let me give you an example of what it would be like if you were completely gone. Look at the space two feet to your left. You’re not there. That chunk of universe is trucking along without you in it. Is it horrifying?
No, the answer isn’t, “but I still exist over here”. We’re not talking about over here. We’re talking about over there. And over there, you don’t exist. You’re utterly absent. Is that scary?
That space two feet to the left is exactly like the whole universe was prior to when you started to exist. It was a perfectly unscary universe that simply happened to not have you in it. (Well, unscary aside from all the spiders in it, but I digress.)
Now let’s talk about the universe after you die. Real quick look at that space to the left again - still not scary. But let’s put that aside for a moment and talk about this “eternal oblivion” you imagine. What, exactly, does that mean? Is that something you’d be experiencing? How? If you don’t exist you’re not experiencing anything. No pain, no fear, no crotch itch. Being dead would not be unpleasant. Not existing would not be unpleasant. It would just be (wait for it) two feet to the left.
You didn’t explain why being too transitory makes what ‘seems to be the sensible “default” rational assumption’ false. If it’s too transitory to be rational, tell us why.
Our brain is the light bulb. Our awareness is the light. When a light bulb burns out, where does the light go?
It may be your view, but where is your evidence, since you’re talking about what’s rational? Sure, the stuff we’re made of gets recycled, but our awareness is a result of a mind that exists in a functioning brain and can be altered by drugs, brain damage, etc. We have evidence for this. It goes against evidence that our awareness can exist without the matter we’re made of no longer consisting of a non-rotted or non-cremated brain.
I used to have a fun thought experiment with my father. I would say, if the universe is infinite then all possible things must occur, then my dad would say “all possible things must then reoccur an infinite number of times.” Because you exist, you are a possible thing, you must then be reincarnated an infinite number of times. Of course there are plenty of holes in this line of reasoning, the universe may not be infinite, the universe is infinite, but being infinite it contains an infinite number of possible variations and as such, your number will never be picked again. In any case, you don’t have to be worried about “the void.” Experience, even bad ones, requires existence. One cannot “experience” a void nor time if they do not exist.
Another issue is that all those other "you"s aren’t actually “you”, and thus you haven’t actually been reincarnated.
For a proof of this, if the universe is infinite in size (and not just duration), then there are arguably an infinite number of "you"s right now. Exact copies of you, same time, different place.
Look two feet to the right of you. You’re there too. Reincarnation?
You are free to believe whatever you wish, but there is exactly zero observational evidence for a “soul” unless you mean the system of chemical interactions that powers the cells and the emergent behavior of sapience that comes from a really complex system of neurons and neuroglia. And these systems do not survive the death of the organism, although the ideas and interactions they can create can be transferred from one organism to another, and in more recent times be translated into various media for persistent retention and mass transmission. When you watch Singin’ in the Rain you could be said to be communing with the “souls” of Gene Kelly and Debbie Reynolds in fashion more practical and measurable than any sort of reincarnation or seance, although it is obviously with the public projection of the actors playing those characters than their interior dialogue or feelings.
Stranger
I forgot to take notes.