What does it mean to be “human”? That’s a shallow question.
What does it mean to be “you”? That’s a deep question.
And, damn it, one day no 1 will believe in “you” or believe in “I”.
I don’t think you’re being as profound as you think you are.
We’re animals, both of us. For some people, that’s enough.
Figuring out who you are, as a person, and that you’re stuck with yourself and within yourself, is more or less a matter of fact, and of course something you ponder as you grow.
I guess I’m just not getting how this fits in with the OP/thread discussion (that all current evidence points to no afterlife, in whatever form, and saying “no one knows” is really a cop-out, BS, denial, etc.)
I do not believe that either my mind or my brain will survive after death. I think there is ample evidence that they will not.
I believe it does interact with the material world in a detectable way, but not a quantifiable or explainable way. There are so many aspects of human behavior that can’t be quantified that I have no problem believing that there is something else besides the chemistry of the brain that makes us who we are. I believe that whatever it is, it exists entirely outside the realm of the physical world that can be tested scientifically.
It’s the difference between saying
and saying
That’s rather like saying that a skyscraper is little more than an improved version of a grass hut.
Does this question really stem from a debate? Or does it really stem from the situation discussed in this thread, where the OP wants to “debate” the woman he wants to date?
Because it’s in the latter situation where, for the sake of the success of this date if for no other reason, that he’d be advised to say that cliche.
I’m with you on this, but I think perhaps he was saying self awareness is a holistic result of the brain (I won’t bother getting into the idea of “souls”). It’s more than the sum of its parts.
Consider computing and AI. Certainly the modern desktop computer is a far cry from the first calculator, but upping its complexity has only boosted performance, capability and speed.
We’re not even sure creating true AI is possible. What will it take to bring forth the notion a machine has an “I”, like our brains.
It’s an uncanny thing, and surely the most unique and unlikely thing to come about from a universe which has no motive, design, or anything that indicates such a thing as self awareness would, or should, be possible—let alone life itself—taking what we understand about physics, cosmology, chemistry, etc. today (despite the fact we are indeed here).
Using Occam’s Razor, what sounds more likely:
A universe comprised of unthinking energy, matter, time and space, following fundamental intrinsic, yet arbitrary forces, that produces like-wise unthinking mixtures and quantities of the original stuff as the laws of entropy unfold, until it reaches its natural end?
or
A universe comprised of unthinking energy, matter, time and space, following fundamental intrinsic, yet arbitrary forces, that produces like-wise unthinking mixtures and quantities of the original stuff, which can also result in beings that organize themselves from this chaotic entropy, into becoming subjective entities that can wield nature to its own end, and in a sense, being an extension of the universe observing itself?
To rephrase Descartes:
And, triangles, like people, can be obtuse.
If you dig deep enough the absolute certainty usually isn’t there. People use “I know” quite loosely in normal conversation, and apply it just as loosely philosophically. But most people haven’t taken “Theory of Knowledge” in college. That’ll warp your perspective.
There is plenty of (bad) evidence for it. Various reincarnation tales. Ghosts. Myths. Very much like the evidence for god, so it is not surprising that those who tend to buy this kind of evidence for a god also buy it for an afterlife.
If you think about it (and excluding Eastern religions) the set of believers in god and the afterlife should be disjoint. I’m not aware of models of a Christian heaven that include souls hanging around Earth, or returning here to haunt someone or shtup Demi Moore. But I suspect lots of believers in ghosts are also good Christians, which just shows that many people can hold two contradictory beliefs with no problems.
There is no “I” in death.
There is no “U” in death.
That means absolutely nothing, but would be a great bumper sticker if sold to chumps.
But there is an “eat” in death. Yup, you know what that means… zombies.
Aha! Time to open up a website!
Yay!
This is a conundrum I had never considered before, but I will certainly bring it up the next time the topic comes up. Most of the Christian religions have the dead either stay dead until the trumpet sounds, or go immediately to their final reward(or punishment), but I don’t know of any that officially allow the dead to loiter without purpose.
I think some more extreme Christian faiths, believe that ghosts are really just a deceit of satan, or demons or something. IOW, they believe there’s something to these sightings or hauntings, but aren’t really the ghosts of dead people, rather Demons in Disguise!
Those tricksy demons.
A better bumper sticker would be:
Creepy. Chilling. More of a mind fuck than “Big Brother is watching you.” Beyond Orwellian.
What do you suppose drivers in back of you, upon reading that bumper sticker, would think?
Well, we know what “happens to you” when you go into a dreamless sleep, or go unconscious, or go into a coma, or go under general anesthetic, and so on. We all know what life was like before we were born (nothing).
All of these things correspond to, well, having our brains disabled from a conscious state in some way. All of them feel the same way. They feel like nothing.
Death is no exception. Besides, we have plenty of cases of people declared dead only to be able to resuscitate them and find that they also felt “nothing.”
So really, we have a pretty good idea of what death will be like. It’s just not an answer people want to accept.