belief in an afterlife

[superluminal]

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.

Interesting.

 

[Taken2Extremes]

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

It exists purely because of wishful thinking, but when you think about it rationally, there is nothing to fear. I compare it to before I was born, and that wasn't all too traumatic, was it? In fact oblivion will be good restbite from peeing my pants when I'm an old man.

Seriously though, an afterlife is so unlikely that it is safe to consider it impossible - god or no god.

Well scientifically speaking we can neither create nor destroy anything...only transform it. Speaking of matter and energy, so technically there has to be an afterlife now doesnt there? We know where your matter is going...ashes to ashes ...dust to dust. But where is that pesky little bit o'energy going? Who knows....theres a million opinions and we could argue them for the next 50 reincarnations..the point is it HAS to go somewhere. There is "nothing new under the sun."

 

[superluminal]

Well scientifically speaking we can neither create nor destroy anything...only transform it. Speaking of matter and energy, so technically there has to be an afterlife now doesnt there? We know where your matter is going...ashes to ashes ...dust to dust. But where is that pesky little bit o'energy going? Who knows....theres a million opinions and we could argue them for the next 50 reincarnations..the point is it HAS to go somewhere. There is "nothing new under the sun."

As much as I would love to believe otherwise, that bit of energy will eventually go the way of all other bits of energy - into the cosmic environment as random motions of particles with less potential than it started with, eventually succumbing to the heat-death of the universe. Or not.

 

[Taken2Extremes]

Well superL...even if it burst into infinite particles of light that found their home among the stars in the outer corners of the cosmos...it would still be energy and it still wont cease to exist and you would be at one in the bossom of the universe from which you were derived. What a beautiful thought, afterlives are like that arent they? Almost makes you want to cry thinking about it...kinda like a sunset. *wink*

 

[superluminal]

Well superL...even if it burst into infinite particles of light that found their home among the stars in the outer corners of the cosmos...it would still be energy and it still wont cease to exist and you would be at one in the bossom of the universe from which you were derived. What a beautiful thought, afterlives are like that arent they? Almost makes you want to cry thinking about it...kinda like a sunset. *wink*

That's nice. I like it.

 

[Taken2Extremes]

You know we may never in this limited physical existance be able to grasp the full concept of life and the power so many great men spoke of when they tried to articulate the source we currently refer to as "God". But one thing I assure you, it is only offensive, impractical and improbable when you try to keep it in a cute little protestant box so that it is convenient for political control.

 

[superluminal]

You know we may never in this limited physical existance be able to grasp the full concept of life and the power so many great men spoke of when they tried to articulate the source we currently refer to as "God". But one thing I assure you, it is only offensive, impractical and improbable when you try to keep it in a cute little protestant box so that it is convenient for political control.

Damn! I really like that! Excellent!

 

[Taken2Extremes]

This place has changed some and grown a lot. Havent checked in for a year or more. Is Tony still about? He was the local hell fire and damnation preacher around here back in the day. Made a good sparring partner, easy to ruffle and couldnt help but be amused at him. LOL I dont have my boots on tonight though.

 

[superluminal]

Tony?

Don't know any Tonys.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Thanks Sarkus for pointing out my argument accurately. Lightgigantic doesn't seem to see my point, or maybe he doesn't want to consider it.

 

[baumgarten]

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.

Most mammals are not self-aware, though. Place a rat in front of a mirror and it will not recognize the image it sees as itself. While with some degree of truth it can be said that they are simply aware, with very few exceptions mammals -- to say nothing of less complex organisms or subatomic particles -- are not conscious (i.e. self-aware) by the definition you just provided.

I think you should deeply consider the question of consciousness before you claim to know about it. The fact that 'aware', 'self-aware', and 'conscious' are all used interchangeably by you shows that either you have not mentally made a distinction between them, or you are being too imprecise with your language to effectively convey your thoughts.

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.

I mean metaphysical idealism, not idealism as in lack or realism or naivete. You seem to suggest that, as the fundamental building blocks of matter are conscious, that consciousness could be the ultimate substance of reality, which by definition is idealism. This is not something Bohm would agree with, I think.

 

[heliocentric]

Most mammals are not self-aware, though. Place a rat in front of a mirror and it will not recognize the image it sees as itself. While with some degree of truth it can be said that they are simply aware, with very few exceptions mammals -- to say nothing of less complex organisms or subatomic particles -- are not conscious (i.e. self-aware) by the definition you just provided.
I think you should deeply consider the question of consciousness before you claim to know about it. The fact that 'aware', 'self-aware', and 'conscious' are all used interchangeably by you shows that either you have not mentally made a distinction between them, or you are being too imprecise with your language to effectively convey your thoughts

We're definitely talking the same language and i dont think theres any confusion on either our parts in the specific terminology. I think we're just talking about different degrees of self-awareness/awareness.

The mirror test to my mind mearly demonstrates (or otherwise) the very extreme end of self-awareness. But to say that any creature that doesnt recognise its own reflection is not self-aware would clearly be somewhat absurd (not that i think any animal behaviourist has ever stated as such).
Every animal can distinguish the self from the non-self in as much as their day to day survival dictates. i.e. a tiger wont ever confuse a branch on a tree with their right arm, a predator wont hestitate in killing its prey because it cant distinguish between the prey and itself and it believes its going to bare the pain its about to inflict on another.

I mean metaphysical idealism, not idealism as in lack or realism or naivete. You seem to suggest that, as the fundamental building blocks of matter are conscious, that consciousness could be the ultimate substance of reality, which by definition is idealism.

Well im not exactly sure whos definition youre working from, in any case i still see no reason to see basic matter as having raw awareness as being an idealistic position (metaphysical or otherwise).
If anything i think its probably more idealistic to believe that basic matter how no awareness atall since current scientific understanding points in the other direction entirely.

This is not something Bohm would agree with, I think.

Well if you read some of his essays you'll see that his position correlates with my own.
I sourced this from a website i came across while typing his name into google..

Bohm believes that consciousness is a more subtle form of matter, and the basis for any relationship between the two lies not in our own level of reality, but deep in the implicate order. Consciousness is present in various degrees of enfoldment and unfoldment in all matter, which is perhaps why plasmas possess some of the traits of living things. As Bohm puts it, "The ability of form to be active is the most characteristic feature of mind, and we have something that is mindlike already with the electron."

 

[Cris]

euthrosene,

Surely making such dogmatic statements is as bad as believing with fundamental force?

In my (current) view, the brain is merely a RX/TX and therefore any damage could alter the signals or programme should that 'soul' or whatever it might be called, choose to re-create itself.

It is all a matter of credibility. You have none.

For the majority of past human history the soul was considered the source of thoughts, emotions, consciousness, etc. With modern science we know through countless clinical trials and observations of brain damaged patients that the brain accounts for all those attributes.

We also know that when someone dies they are never seen again.

You have absolutely no credibility to speculate about any other conclusion other than you are your brain.

 

[baumgarten]

We're definitely talking the same language and i dont think theres any confusion on either our parts in the specific terminology. I think we're just talking about different degrees of self-awareness/awareness.

The mirror test to my mind mearly demonstrates (or otherwise) the very extreme end of self-awareness. But to say that any creature that doesnt recognise its own reflection is not self-aware would clearly be somewhat absurd (not that i think any animal behaviourist has ever stated as such).
Every animal can distinguish the self from the non-self in as much as their day to day survival dictates. i.e. a tiger wont ever confuse a branch on a tree with their right arm, a predator wont hestitate in killing its prey because it cant distinguish between the prey and itself and it believes its going to bare the pain its about to inflict on another.

Hold on there. How do we know that the animal "distinguishes," per se, from itself? To distinguish is an act of cognition. Perhaps some animals (most of them, really) do not recognize their own existence at all; that is, the self would not be a part of their visible universe. A predator does not harm itself, but there needn't be self-awareness for the predator to associate pain with a particular action. "If I bite this leg, it hurts" does not imply a knowledge that "this leg" is my own.

Well im not exactly sure whos definition youre working from, in any case i still see no reason to see basic matter as having raw awareness as being an idealistic position (metaphysical or otherwise).
If anything i think its probably more idealistic to believe that basic matter how no awareness atall since current scientific understanding points in the other direction entirely.

Idealism is generally considered to be the belief that consciousness is the root of existence. The belief that basic matter has no awareness at all is closer to the opposite of idealism, or materialism. Most materialists are determinists, and vice-versa.

Well if you read some of his essays you'll see that his position correlates with my own.
I sourced this from a website i came across while typing his name into google..

Bohm believes that consciousness is a more subtle form of matter, and the basis for any relationship between the two lies not in our own level of reality, but deep in the implicate order. Consciousness is present in various degrees of enfoldment and unfoldment in all matter, which is perhaps why plasmas possess some of the traits of living things. As Bohm puts it, "The ability of form to be active is the most characteristic feature of mind, and we have something that is mindlike already with the electron."

Interesting. I will have to read some of his essays, then. Perhaps his views have changed since the advent of his "hidden variables" interpretation of quantum mechanics.

 

[lightgigantic]

Thanks Sarkus for pointing out my argument accurately. Lightgigantic doesn't seem to see my point, or maybe he doesn't want to consider it.

I also perceive your comment as a retreat behind the bunkers

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

It is all a matter of credibility. You have none.

credibility?

We also know that when someone dies they are never seen again.

considering that we cannot even see the soul/life force/ consciousness/ what ever you want to call it when a person is living (merely the symptoms of it), it s not clear how credible our "seeing" is

You have absolutely no credibility to speculate about any other conclusion other than you are your brain.

Just like your speculations on the authority of your sight are noncredible

 

[Cris]

LG,

considering that we cannot even see the soul/life force/ consciousness/ what ever you want to call it when a person is living (merely the symptoms of it), it s not clear how credible our "seeing" is

Why call it anything? We know there is a material brain and we have NO reason to speculate that there is any type of fantasy immaterial component.

Just like your speculations on the authority of your sight are noncredible

There is no speculation about the existence of a brain, we know it exists. Are you denying that you have a brain then?

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

“ considering that we cannot even see the soul/life force/ consciousness/ what ever you want to call it when a person is living (merely the symptoms of it), it s not clear how credible our "seeing" is ”

Why call it anything?

Well generally knowledge works like that - when you discover a more complex article of what is a simpler article you call it something so it can be easily distinguished

We know there is a material brain and we have NO reason to speculate that there is any type of fantasy immaterial component.

Unfortunately there is no knowledge to determine exactly what it is about the brain that gives us a sense of self as context - as you pointed out above, they don't even have the terminology for it

“ Just like your speculations on the authority of your sight are noncredible ”

There is no speculation about the existence of a brain, we know it exists. Are you denying that you have a brain then?

Its a speculation when you say that the brain is the source of the self as context however - thats what a speculation is - a tentative claim about the nature of a truth that is not evidenced by the facts at hand -

This is not a crime, you could call it an educated guess.

But when on the basis of such speculations one flaunts an air of authority over how other proposals are inferior it makes it appear that they are giving their speculations the status of a fact, when a complete lack of empirical evidence to back such claims suggests otherwise.

 

[Cris]

Lg,

Well generally knowledge works like that - when you discover a more complex article of what is a simpler article you call it something so it can be easily distinguished

You mean like “mind” that you keep stating doesn’t exist, right?

… there is no knowledge to determine exactly what it is about the brain that gives us a sense of self as context ..

And even less to justify fantasy assertions that something supernatural is involved, right?

Its a speculation when you say that the brain is the source of the self as context however - thats what a speculation is - a tentative claim about the nature of a truth that is not evidenced by the facts at hand –

So let’s see – we have emotions, we have thoughts, we have memory, and there is this incredibly massive processing component between our ears – gosh I wonder if there is a correlation? Are you nuts, this isn’t speculation – it is a certainty reached by any reasonable person, surely?

But when on the basis of such speculations one flaunts an air of authority over how other proposals are inferior it makes it appear that they are giving their speculations the status of a fact, when a complete lack of empirical evidence to back such claims suggests otherwise.

Credibility again lg. The brain exists; correlations between thoughts, emotions, memory, and brain are proven.

 

[lightgigantic]

“ Well generally knowledge works like that - when you discover a more complex article of what is a simpler article you call it something so it can be easily distinguished ”

You mean like “mind” that you keep stating doesn’t exist, right?

On the contrary it is the reductionist paradigms that you hold as determining the nature of reality that don't allow admittance of the term "mind"

“ … there is no knowledge to determine exactly what it is about the brain that gives us a sense of self as context .. ”

And even less to justify fantasy assertions that something supernatural is involved, right?

You reveal your bias when you have insufficent knowledge at hand to begin to understand a phenomena and express full confidence about how other ideas (other ideas that you are not even familiar with in any great detail) are "fantasy"

“ Its a speculation when you say that the brain is the source of the self as context however - thats what a speculation is - a tentative claim about the nature of a truth that is not evidenced by the facts at hand – ”

So let’s see – we have emotions, we have thoughts, we have memory, and there is this incredibly massive processing component between our ears – gosh I wonder if there is a correlation? Are you nuts, this isn’t speculation – it is a certainty reached by any reasonable person, surely?

everytime this topic comes up atheists like to play the game of jumping between defintions of self - I have made very clear from the outset that I am talking about the self as context - you onthe other hand slip into descriptions of the conceptualized self when it suits your purpose

"From an RFT perspective, there exist three senses of self that are directly knowable by humans: the conceptualized self, self as an ongoing process of verbal knowing, and self as context."
http://www.ijpsy.com/volumen4/num3/96.html

“ But when on the basis of such speculations one flaunts an air of authority over how other proposals are inferior it makes it appear that they are giving their speculations the status of a fact, when a complete lack of empirical evidence to back such claims suggests otherwise. ”

Credibility again lg. The brain exists; correlations between thoughts, emotions, memory, and brain are proven.

Its not clear whether you are not familiar with the different break downs of the defintions of self or whether you purposely mix them up to give the air of credibility to your arguments.

When you talk about the brain being the source of the self as context, it is definitely a speculation - unless you have access to knowledge that is not available to neurologists and human psychologists the world over