Enmos
Valued Senior Member
The Afterlife
- Thread starter Cellar_Door
- Start date
My thoughts on an Afterlife are actually split. From the base, you have the fact that the naivety of people that congregate with the belief that their own lack of action and 'Religion' is enough to grant them a passage to some alternate paradise.
Quite simply lack of action infers laziness, and this laziness mean that there is no alternative built because everyone's to naive to do it. Perhaps they argue that their 'One God' has already built them a paradise, however I think they greatly over estimate the powers of the titled position.
For that you can say that peoples abstinence means all mankind is doomed to demise back into the role of nothingness... Oblivion.
This however is where my thought splits, after all just like Greek Mythology, we don't all have to be doomed to Oblivion.... we can actually choose to built a world for ourselves and create an afterlife. Admittedly nowadays it's posed that Transhumanism is the way forward, a way to bridge man and machine together so that what in essence makes up our individual intellects doesn't have to be lost like our decomposition recombining with the sands of time.
Transhumanism could allow for many different avenues:
That's just the basics obviously there is a lot more too it than just that if/when it's possible. At the end of the day though it's all about people learning what they can do to change how they live and working towards the overall goal. No singular Man or Deity could build this future alone, that's pretty much up to you (as individuals, as groups).
Quite simply lack of action infers laziness, and this laziness mean that there is no alternative built because everyone's to naive to do it. Perhaps they argue that their 'One God' has already built them a paradise, however I think they greatly over estimate the powers of the titled position.
For that you can say that peoples abstinence means all mankind is doomed to demise back into the role of nothingness... Oblivion.
This however is where my thought splits, after all just like Greek Mythology, we don't all have to be doomed to Oblivion.... we can actually choose to built a world for ourselves and create an afterlife. Admittedly nowadays it's posed that Transhumanism is the way forward, a way to bridge man and machine together so that what in essence makes up our individual intellects doesn't have to be lost like our decomposition recombining with the sands of time.
Transhumanism could allow for many different avenues:
- Lengthing of life. Admittedly the longer you live the more a machine your body would become, but this doesn't necessarily undermine the intellect housed that from being human.
- Alternate lives. Why just live one life when you could technically live many, admittedly each life would be a virtual reality construction.
- Alternate paths. You could potentially live the same life over to attempt to decide your overall path in life. ; Should you of accepted that job? What if you moved when given that opportunity? etc.
That's just the basics obviously there is a lot more too it than just that if/when it's possible. At the end of the day though it's all about people learning what they can do to change how they live and working towards the overall goal. No singular Man or Deity could build this future alone, that's pretty much up to you (as individuals, as groups).
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
Complete lack of action, physical or mental, is actually an extraordinarily difficult state to attain while conscious.
Adepts of meditation traditions spend decades of their lives on it.
Spidergoat: "The dictionary definition of that phenomenon is called birth. In reality it's a transformation of material form, something that's happening all the time."
So a dictionary definition is a deviation from reality?
Right, so let's try and order your thoughts a little... we're not born, because birth apparently means a transformation of material form. Well, even putting my disagreements with that aside, you've just contradicted yourself. You are developed from a sperm and an egg, which then (to gloss over the more intricate details and get to the point) grows using the energy and resources of the mother's body.
Therefore, some of the mother and a little of the father is transformed into a new life.
Sorry to burst your bubble but, whichever way you look at it, we were born.
So a dictionary definition is a deviation from reality?
Right, so let's try and order your thoughts a little... we're not born, because birth apparently means a transformation of material form. Well, even putting my disagreements with that aside, you've just contradicted yourself. You are developed from a sperm and an egg, which then (to gloss over the more intricate details and get to the point) grows using the energy and resources of the mother's body.
Therefore, some of the mother and a little of the father is transformed into a new life.
Sorry to burst your bubble but, whichever way you look at it, we were born.
Then maybe everything has already been alive, just in different forms yes? Its just a difference of mind. Kinda eliminates everything we take as "Ourselves" if every thought is programed. Or is it? Perhaps we have truly moved form the realms to animal nature and living creatures. Nature did a number here, and what has occurred is the the closest things to gods this world has ever seen. Humanity. My question is this...is the way we think natural, or a byproduct of evolution gone too far? Or too well.
Consciousness is nothing more than a by-product of increased intelligence (mitigated by chemical and physical processes in the brain, which are not understood). You could say we will look back in future years and observe that currently we are not 'truly' awake.
That being said, consciousness and body are one, there is no conscious 'spirit' or 'soul'.
Rebirth is the closest your going to get to an afterlife because of the dispersion of your molecules, but no more consciousness sorry.
That being said, consciousness and body are one, there is no conscious 'spirit' or 'soul'.
Rebirth is the closest your going to get to an afterlife because of the dispersion of your molecules, but no more consciousness sorry.
Oh yes...of course there is no soul or afterlife.
I call the loss of consciousness the parting of the sensory, as you lose all senses.
But yes, explain our thought process please, how has it gotten this far? You seem a intelligent enough chap.
And please don't act like I don't know what I'm talking about.
I call the loss of consciousness the parting of the sensory, as you lose all senses.
But yes, explain our thought process please, how has it gotten this far? You seem a intelligent enough chap.
And please don't act like I don't know what I'm talking about.
Answered that one already chap.
"(mitigated by chemical and physical processes in the brain, which are not understood)"
Let me re-iterate with a thought experiment. Suppose we have the technology to read every single atom in your body; its precise configuration, location etc...
Now suppose we also have the technology to copy this information exactly. If you could, the new copy of yourself would be exactly like YOU including memories, attitude, etc...
Consciousness is a result of physical processes, I cannot answer HOW it has gotten this far, the technology is not there yet.
"That being said, consciousness and body are one, there is no conscious 'spirit' or 'soul'."
Why? Who says that someone's soul not a part of their body?
True, religion romanticises and metaphorically explains the spirit as an ethereal substance (which will live on after we die). In truth, our spirit is what makes us an individual; what makes us need and create beauty, art, music, literature and love. After all, a mayfly's life consists of feeding and growing for a year and then finally emerging for its last couple of days to mate. However, because of human intelligence, we exist on infinitely more levels this.
In short, there is no Life After Death, because our soul dies with us.
Why? Who says that someone's soul not a part of their body?
True, religion romanticises and metaphorically explains the spirit as an ethereal substance (which will live on after we die). In truth, our spirit is what makes us an individual; what makes us need and create beauty, art, music, literature and love. After all, a mayfly's life consists of feeding and growing for a year and then finally emerging for its last couple of days to mate. However, because of human intelligence, we exist on infinitely more levels this.
In short, there is no Life After Death, because our soul dies with us.
You think a soul is a requisite for consciousness. I think only an intelligent enough brain and sensory input is.
You have placed an artificial frame around something and call it "you". There is no such thing. The terms "mother", "father", "new life", are merely artifacts of our culture.
So who or what is it that is fooling me into believing that I am what I am ?
So you'd say the closest thing to a actual soul is the configuration of our atoms?
In that case, I agree.
What does that even mean? Stop trying to look so 'out-of-the-box' and profound, because you're losing touch with sense.
The terms 'mother' and 'father' are not 'artifacts of our culture', but words with a valid meaning. The mother is the parent (in natural conception) who provides the egg to create the baby and allows the foetus to gestate in her uterus. The father is the provider of the genetic information contained in the sperm.
In whatever 'culture' and whatever time period you look at, these are needed.
As for my use of 'new life', I see nothing wrong with that. The 'life', the living organism, was created - therefore it is 'new'.
That's a very simplistic way of defining great complexities. But, essentially, yes.
Well thats not a soul.... Defintion
"the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part."
As in separate from the atoms.
I looked up the definition on wiki/google, and found something a little different...
"The soul, according to many religious and philosophical traditions, is a self-aware ethereal substance unique to a particular living being. In these traditions the soul is thought to incorporate the inner essence of each living being, and to be the true basis for sentience. ..."
The soul is the essence of our entire being, physical included.
If you are all so eager to mention the word 'atom', you're never going to truly understand what is meant by our spirit or soul. You must learn to appreciate that things are not always as black and white as your narrow knowledge of science would lead you to believe. The soul is immaterial - undefinable by the standards of your understanding of physicality. We're not entirely made up of atoms anyway; we're walking bags of energy and electrical impulses as well. Without them we'd be nothing but dead lumps of matter.
However, I'm not disregarding the definition you found, or suggesting that you fabricated it. I'm simply saying that our two conflicting sources prove that opinion is sometimes divided on the finer points of the 'soul'.
So perhaps now I can return to the point? I submit that our spirit is mortal; it dies and fades as our molecular structure does. Therefore, although it exists, our inner essence cannot live on after we die. So follows, the soul would not be responsible for an afterlife.
Last edited:
Your wiki/google definition doesnt even prove your point its so vague.
Do you mean I was vague about where it came from, or is it itself vague?
Concerning the latter, I have to disagree with your observation. It explains clearly that it is the individual "inner essence of each living being" and considered the "true basis for sentience". Read my earlier posts, where I talk about a need for art and love unexplained by conventional evolutionary pressures.
It wasn't my intention for it to 'prove' my point, only illustrate it a little further and respond to your need to copy and paste definitions.
As you picked on such an inconsequential detail, I'm assuming you agree with everything else I said?
Concerning the latter, I have to disagree with your observation. It explains clearly that it is the individual "inner essence of each living being" and considered the "true basis for sentience". Read my earlier posts, where I talk about a need for art and love unexplained by conventional evolutionary pressures.
It wasn't my intention for it to 'prove' my point, only illustrate it a little further and respond to your need to copy and paste definitions.
As you picked on such an inconsequential detail, I'm assuming you agree with everything else I said?
You can make any assumption you want.
But a "self-aware ethereal substance" does not sound baryonic in nature. Even this definition defines soul as NOT normal matter.
But a "self-aware ethereal substance" does not sound baryonic in nature. Even this definition defines soul as NOT normal matter.
This is like wading through mud; tedious and difficult.
I don't think, or have ever mentioned, that the soul is 'normal matter'. How long will I have to explain until you understand that what I am trying to say is that the soul is a concept.
The soul is such a part of our entire being, the epitome of our individuality, that it can't be said to be a separate entity. It is hard for me define by its very nature, but I think the best analogy is the 'inner spark'.
However, I think that it dies when we do. I don't think it decomposes when we do. There is a subtle difference of which I'm sure you'll miss.
I don't think, or have ever mentioned, that the soul is 'normal matter'. How long will I have to explain until you understand that what I am trying to say is that the soul is a concept.
The soul is such a part of our entire being, the epitome of our individuality, that it can't be said to be a separate entity. It is hard for me define by its very nature, but I think the best analogy is the 'inner spark'.
However, I think that it dies when we do. I don't think it decomposes when we do. There is a subtle difference of which I'm sure you'll miss.