belief in an afterlife

[Medicine*Woman]

Precisely

Not everyone is able to achieve that unfortunately, and I do not mean me..

*************
M*W: What I meant was one's "reward" is relative. I chose my reward to be in this life which was having children and a big family. (I was an only child). I definitely got my reward many times over now that I have six grandchildren!They are my heaven.

 

[spidergoat]

One interesting notion is that Jesus was not talking about an afterlife when he spoke of heaven.

Jesus said, "If those who lead you say, 'See, the Kingdom is
in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they
say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you.
Rather, the Kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you.
When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and
you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living
Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty
and it is you who are that poverty."

Gospel of Thomas Vs. 3

 

[lightgigantic]

But, the mind does not exist. What exists are billions of calculations that go on behind the scenes to produce that perception, none of which we can actually percieve (except perhaps in certain circumstances like hallucinations).

at the very least there is no empirical evidence for your statement - it could be very well just your mind speaking

 

[spidergoat]

Mind is a verb, the brain is a noun. The mind does exist in this sense as a phenomenon.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Lightgigantic: "According to such reductionist paradigms of defining reality the mind doesn't exist either - are you prepared to accept such paradigms as the final last words for determining the validity of claims about the nature of reality?"

I was not referring to the idea or mind but to your claim that the afterlife is an aspect of 'the nature of reality'. The only verifiable phenomenon after death is the nitrogen cycle. Reality is based on what you know and what you experience but not necessarily what you believe.

 

[lightgigantic]

Lightgigantic: "According to such reductionist paradigms of defining reality the mind doesn't exist either - are you prepared to accept such paradigms as the final last words for determining the validity of claims about the nature of reality?"

I was not referring to the idea or mind but to your claim that the afterlife is an aspect of 'the nature of reality'. The only verifiable phenomenon after death is the nitrogen cycle. Reality is based on what you know and what you experience but not necessarily what you believe.

i am not familiar with how the nitrogen cycle is the only verifiable after death phenomena

 

[lightgigantic]

Mind is a verb, the brain is a noun. The mind does exist in this sense as a phenomenon.

mind / Ñ maInd; NAmE Ñ / noun, verbŒ nounABILITY TO THINK1[C, U] the part of a person that makes them able to be aware of things, to think and to feel:
the conscious / subconscious mind Ç There were all kinds of thoughts running through my mind. Ç There was no doubt in his mind that he’d get the job. Ç ‘Drugs’ are associated in most people’s minds with drug abuse. Ç She was in a disturbed state of mind. Ç I could not have complete peace of mind before they returned.
—see also frame of mind, presence of mind

depends on which frame of mind you are viewing the word

 

[Sarkus]

i am not familiar with how the nitrogen cycle is the only verifiable after death phenomena

You mean you can suggest another verifiable after-death phenomena?

 

[lightgigantic]

You mean you can suggest another verifiable after-death phenomena?

I am just trying to determine what is being alluded to exactly with the nitrogen cycle first, and seeing if it does in fact operate out of strict reductionist paradigms of reality that would also declare that we don't have a mind either.

 

[Sarkus]

I am just trying to determine what is being alluded to exactly with the nitrogen cycle first, and seeing if it does in fact operate out of strict reductionist paradigms of reality that would also declare that we don't have a mind either.

I think LucySnow said that her comment was not in reference to the idea/concept of "mind":

"I was not referring to the idea or mind but to your claim that the afterlife is an aspect of 'the nature of reality'"

But well dodged, anyhoo

 

[heliocentric]

I think the afterlife is one of the most irrational of religious beliefs.

It exists purely because of wishful thinking

I think it exists because as human beings we've been having out of body experiences and experiences of an after life for thousands of years. Whether or not you believe those experiences to be substantial or not is another matter, but i would say belief in an afterlife is probably the most rational of all spiritual beliefs since its based on an actual experiences.

On a personal level im pretty much undecided about the reality of an afterlife or not, sometimes i think its too weird to be anything but nonsense.
Other times i think no, its completely natural you just believe its weird and impossible because youve been raised to believe that spirits and ghosts are representative of a pre-rational age where people entertained any old cobblers. The afterlife could simply be something that lies outside of scientific understanding.
But being an essential nihilist i'll sway in one direction or another on any given day Sometimes im honestly not sure i want to live atall if there is no afterlife or higher meaning, especially during bad boats of depression. Sometimes i just want to know one way or another just so i can *know* and be done with it.

 

[heliocentric]

LightG., I'm afraid, is being nonsensical in his criticism that I'm being as speculative as he. Poppycock, is the technical term. There simply is no physical evidence to suggest an afterlife, thus it is pure speculation.

Out of interest what would constitute compelling evidence of an afterlife for you? hmm im not really sure what the problem with speculating on the existance of an afterlife is either, isnt speculation the bedrock of the scientific method? if we just aligned ourselves with established fact then i cant really us ever expanding our understanding of the universe.
Anyway, i await your repsonse

 

[baumgarten]

But, the mind does not exist. What exists are billions of calculations that go on behind the scenes to produce that perception, none of which we can actually percieve (except perhaps in certain circumstances like hallucinations).

But, a mind is necessary for there to be a perception in the first place -- which is a tautology, since without perception there is no mind. While the physical (mental) processes associated with sounds and colors, for example, can be objectively understood, someone who has been blind and deaf from birth cannot qualitatively appreciate either. Conscious experiences are somehow fundamentally different from the physical process that can be shown to cause them.

Does this imply that consciousness can exist independent from its material counterpart? Of course not. Empirical evidence suggests that not only must a brain be present and alive for there to be consciousness, it must be in specifically one of a number of possible general configurations. So the case for the sort of afterlife in which you continue to live normally beyond death is very weak.

 

[heliocentric]

Does this imply that consciousness can exist independent from its material counterpart? Of course not. Empirical evidence suggests that not only must a brain be present and alive for there to be consciousness, it must be in specifically one of a number of possible general configurations. So the case for the sort of afterlife in which you continue to live normally beyond death is very weak.

Not so, basic matter such as particles have a quite complex understanding of themselves and their relationship to the stuff that isnt 'them'. People like Bohm understood this only too well, you dont need a brain to be conscious - just to be conscious in a specific survival environment.
"dividing the universe up into living and nonliving things has no meaning."

 

[Fire]

I think it exists because as human beings we've been having out of body experiences and experiences of an after life for thousands of years. Whether or not you believe those experiences to be substantial or not is another matter, but i would say belief in an afterlife is probably the most rational of all spiritual beliefs since its based on an actual experiences.

Although the brain may experience strange sensations at the point of death, I don't think this is evidence of anything supernatural. People already have a firmly implanted notion of the afterlife, so they are likely to embelish any unusal sensations to match their idea of an afterlife.

Rather like when Hollywood popularised aliens visiting Earth and suddenly people start seeing aliens in the sky, and they want aliens to be in the sky... It's funny how the imagined/faked UFO's appearance changes in from a quirky and oddly shapped bowl, to sleeker designs which of course demonstrates that believers get their ideas from human technologies

 

[lightgigantic]

You mean you can suggest another verifiable after-death phenomena?

Not if you accept as the absolute authority on reality a paradigm that denies the existence of the mind

 

[lightgigantic]

I think LucySnow said that her comment was not in reference to the idea/concept of "mind":

"I was not referring to the idea or mind but to your claim that the afterlife is an aspect of 'the nature of reality'"

But well dodged, anyhoo

Mind is not part of the nature of reality? Before you can start examining what is determinable of the nature of reality you have to establish what process is accepted (almost tempted to use the word epistemology there) - and then see what falls in and out of that paradigm to determine its value

 

[heliocentric]

Although the brain may experience strange sensations at the point of death, I don't think this is evidence of anything supernatural. People already have a firmly implanted notion of the afterlife, so they are likely to embelish any unusal sensations to match their idea of an afterlife.

Well my point was, it seems likely to me that since these experiences are biological and naturally 'hard-wired' into us, that these experiences of an after-life are the very source in the belief in an afterlife.
It wouldnt make any sense the other way round - i.e. our natural biology moulding itself to our desires and beliefs.
Yes there is room for cultural beliefs already in existance to take root in these experiences and their post interpretation.
But studies have confirmed that the core OBE experience remains the same no matter what the culture, class, religion, or age of the person. They are a natural part of biology, we've been having these experiences for thousands if not millions of years, i think theyre the basis of alot of our species ideas of the afterlife and the 'otherside'.

 

[baumgarten]

Not so, basic matter such as particles have a quite complex understanding of themselves and their relationship to the stuff that isnt 'them'. People like Bohm understood this only too well, you dont need a brain to be conscious - just to be conscious in a specific survival environment.
"dividing the universe up into living and nonliving things has no meaning."

You will need to elaborate for this to make sense. What is a specific survival environment? What is consciousness? If basic particles are conscious, then your "consciousness" is clearly not the same consciousness of which I speak, in which qualitative experiences and thoughts are periodically interrupted by sleep or coma.

I thought Bohm was a determinist. Far be it from him to take the idealistic stance you ascribe to him.

 

[heliocentric]

You will need to elaborate for this to make sense. What is a specific survival environment? What is consciousness? If basic particles are conscious, then your "consciousness" is clearly not the same consciousness of which I speak, in which qualitative experiences and thoughts are periodically interrupted by sleep or coma.

Consciousness or rather pure consciousness is mearly self awareness, awareness of the self from what is not the self.
Human consciousness is a specialised version of consciousness, highly tuned to the specific needs of the environment that it emerged from. The human mind or infact any mammal mind is just a form of consciousness that works for the given survival tasks it needs to preform.

I thought Bohm was a determinist. Far be it from him to take the idealistic stance you ascribe to him.

I dont see what in any of this you percieve to be idealistic, Bohm rationally arrived at his ideas and the quote that i used via his pioneering work in quantum mechanics. Im at a loss to see where idealism comes into play here.