Why most people is afraid of death?

[Michael 345]

Materialists can be as fanatic

Agree, usually in the context of asking for proof (evidence) of ANYTHING existing from the spiritual world

As a materialists
PHILOSOPHY
a person who supports the theory that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications
Definition from Oxford Languages
I await the moment when those whom believe in a spiritual aspect within our materialistic realm put SOMETHING on the work bench which is capable of being examined

Never happened so far and never will since nothing spiritual exist in our materialistic realm (nothing OBJECTIVE)

Go through the thousands of spiritual items purporting to show proof (a spiritual aspect exist) and extract said proof for examination on afore mentioned bench

unable to understand other position

I would disagree. Pony up your evidence please and a fruitful discussion shall be yours

You recommended many afterlives

Not so. I did point out if one afterlife was possible no philosophical rationale why hundreds could not exist

but there is only one, which lasts forever.

And this is KNOWN by yourself exactly how please?

Buddhism, which assumes an endless sequence of lives on earth.

My thoughts on Buddhism run along the lines of the components of my body, after I die, will be recycled and some may end up in other life forms. The other life form will not inherit any aspect of me only the atoms which were once part of my make up

However I assume, you have never tried to understand other “religions” than materialism.

My understanding of ALL religions is that they are a human made up story construct designed to explain some aspect of the world, which the story constructor has no idea about, but the made up story makes the story teller appear knowledgeable

Materialism is not a religion sorry

“A possible way toward a believable belief”

Which would rob it of said belief aspect. One down, millions more unsustainable beliefs out there to bring to reality or expose as fake

A possible way toward a believable belief

Care to write a mini Reader's Digest version in this thread?

 

[C C]

[...] When it comes down to it, all that exists is awareness because words which mean anything other than some or other kind of experience mean absolutely nothing. [...]

I occasionally wonder what someone means by "awareness" when they treat it as distinct from consciousness (as in the quote at bottom, and I noticed you "apparently" doing in another thread several days, if not a couple of weeks, ago).

The only way I can make sense of that is as a reference to manifestations occurring, but minus any cognition or understanding of them. IOW, having more to do with an ontological classification of phenomenal happenings ("showing", appearances, feeling) rather than a psychological one.

Which is to say, the matter of a dead brain might exist to itself as primitive, disorganized experiences (manifestations), but there is no functioning memory system available anymore to identify such events as even random nonsense. As well the inability to validate that there is indeed "something" presenting itself (as a supposed alternative to materialism's "not even nothingness" following death -- what the non-conscious universe at large usually is to itself).

Even if the person offers a different take on what they mean by "awareness", most likely I would still only be able to make sense of it being distinct from consciousness via the above (no cognition available).

Which then tumbles off into the current-day confusion of how consciousness once implied both experience and the understanding of it. But since the dawn of Chalmers' hard problem, has often narrowed down to philosophers (and some scientists) treating it as a synonym of bare experience (rather than an umbrella concept of multiple properties or psychological features).

http://www.philosopher.eu/texts/schopenhauer-atheist-idealist-visionary/

"But note that awareness is not necessarily consciousness. Schopenhauer writes that the notion of consciousness without a brain is as nonsensical as the notion of digestion without a stomach. One can have desires without being conscious of them, as Freud later sought to develop."​

 

[Michael 345]

I occasionally wonder what someone means by "awareness"

2 cents worth of possible meaning

Being conscious is being awake and aware

Consciousness is being awake and aware of being awake and aware

awareness is I think much the same as being conscious but added to by actively being out there seeking what to make of the world instead of only knowing your being aware from inputs arriving

Generating your own inputs

Chalmers' hard problem

I go with the following

Annaka Harris poses the hard problem as the question of "how experience arise out of non-sentient matter"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

However I think how experience arise out of non-sentient matter is a fake hard problem

All the component parts and systems have manifest themselves, over millennium, into the body and, inevitably it seems, to have grown from mere reflex reactions to thinking ABOUT THINKING

Also adding to the fakeness said experience(s) are NOT being put forward to non-sentient matter

 

[C C]

2 cents worth of possible meaning

Here, the inquiry applies to what HML (Holly-May Leslie) meant by awareness (primarily elsewhere in another thread). As well as beyond her, since there are others who seem to do the same (as indicated by the quote at the bottom of that post).

[...] awareness is I think much the same as being conscious but added to by actively being out there seeking what to make of the world instead of only knowing your being aware from inputs arriving

Generating your own inputs

Agree that they can be construed as similar, in that "awareness" could be subsumed by "consciousness" with respect to the latter traditionally treated as a broad category for various features.

Which then prompts the original perplexity as to how an individual can declare that "awareness" is distinct from "consciousness" in some other manner other than being a hyponym of the latter. Especially with respect to suggesting awareness not requiring a functioning brain/body or an equivalent space alien organ or technological (AI) equivalent.

There may be sub-disciplines, schools of thought, and personal viewpoints that define or employ the terms "awareness" and "consciousness" differently... But that, again, is what one is requesting clarification about to begin with, or expressing puzzlement about.

I.e., "what existing specific orientation, or background theory, or practice, or field of inquiry, are you coming from?" -- "or what have you introduced yourself that distinguishes them so radically?".

[...] Being conscious is being awake and aware

Which is cognition, or presented "images, sounds, tactile sensations, odors, etc" being identified or understood further by those brain processes dependent upon memory. (Or initially poised for such, if one has just awaken or snapped back to awareness.)

Consciousness is being awake and aware of being awake and aware

Which is metacognition -- acknowledgement of, or having a higher level concept, that one indeed has the capacity of the above. Consciousness is sometimes used as a synonym for cognition, thus "meta-consciousness", also. Which returns us to the ambiguity of the word "consciousness", the many ways it is used, and trying to discern which one someone applied in _X_ instance.

 

[Michael 345]

how an individual can declare that "awareness" is distinct from "consciousness"

The

seeking what to make of the world instead of only knowing your being aware from inputs arriving

Generating your own inputs

awareness" is distinct from "consciousness"

During my EN and then my RN training I frequently cared for a patient who was totally lacking awareness. He would be asleep or awake, the only two states any staff member could discern

One staff member did remark "He might be locked within his brain" meaning it is / could be he IS aware of surroundings and what is happening but lacks any ability to pass this information out

No-one had any suggestion about how we might be able to discern such

I hope medical personnel still taught such a condition exists and to be aware when caring for such patients to conduct themselves as if patient is aware

Worse than being alive locked within your brain? being aware you are locked within your brain

 

[C C]

[...] I have written a booklet - “A Rational Philosophy of Life” by Hermann Raith, with the subtitle “A possible way toward a believable belief”, available as Kindle book for 1 $. I would like to discuss this with somebody in detail.

From your blog(?):

3. Is there room for an individual soul? Some people state that they cannot imagine how a nonmaterial soul could interact with matter.​

Lots of things could be possible in terms of whatever existence might be behind our phenomenal and intellectual representations (akin to the invisible computer -- to its denizens, anyway -- actually doing the work behind the entities, events, and causal relationships exhibited in a simulated reality).

But that's not something science can pursue if these speculative affairs are undetectable. Which is no shortcoming, since science is a practical practice or enterprise like any other -- not an armchair philosophy or declarer of what ultimately is (metaphysics). Science shouldn't be conflated with scientism. (Perhaps a sort of detour I'm engaging in here, since you were primarily referring to materialism -- but still something that I need to mention as lead-in to the next paragraph.)

There are non-extraordinary explanations for NDEs, like they are simply hallucinations caused by DMT flooding the brain during an aborted stage of death. Obviously, methodological naturalism is going to choose one of those solutions that is potentially testable, over metempirical inferences regarding what might be transpiring behind the Matrix, competing proposals that are resistant to being culled.

 

[Holly-May Leslie]

I occasionally wonder what someone means by "awareness" when they treat it as distinct from consciousness (as in the quote at bottom, and I noticed you "apparently" doing in another thread several days, if not a couple of weeks, ago).

The only way I can make sense of that is as a reference to manifestations occurring, but minus any cognition or understanding of them. IOW, having more to do with an ontological classification of phenomenal happenings ("showing", appearances, feeling) rather than a psychological one.

Consciousness is awareness AND being responsive to one's surroundings. I used the word awareness instead because I wanted to include all types of awareness in my description. My word choice here had nothing to do with referencing manifestations occurring without understanding or cognition of them, but if that was your interpretation then so be it.

Which is to say, the matter of a dead brain might exist to itself as primitive, disorganized experiences (manifestations), but there is no functioning memory system available anymore to identify such events as even random nonsense. As well the inability to validate that there is indeed "something" presenting itself (as a supposed alternative to materialism's "not even nothingness" following death -- what the non-conscious universe at large usually is to itself).

Being aware as a dead brain sure sounds unpleasant. That is my opinion anyway. Do you really think that it would be like that? Materialists are so deluded. I'll bet that they don't even mean what they say when they say not even nothingness. Not nothing is by definition something. That is the point they seem to be missing. It is true that the universe is not nothingness, because in order for it to be around it must be something instead. Honestly though, I find a paradox in talking about nothing in any case. That is, that in order for something to not exist, that something must be real, because otherwise there is no it around to do so.
This proves the existence of the multiverse, and yet there is another paradox in the existence of that multiverse because, if everything exists, then there is a reality in which not everything exists. Therefore, this reality must exist at the same time as every other reality in the multiverse, but in a different time zone. The only way in which this is possible though is if the reality exists in one bit of 4 dimensional space, as well as a different bit of 4 dimensional space at exactly the same place. This can be understood if one takes into account how space in general works though. An infinite amount of points form a line, and an infinite amount of lines form a plane, and an infinite amount of those form a 3 d thing, and an infinite amount of those form a 4d thing and so on, but when it comes down to it it's all just 0 dimensional points which can't really add up at all, so one bit of 4 dimensional space can exist as a 0 dimensional point in another bit of 4 dimensional space, meaning that these bits of space exist in the same place but also don't, because there isn't actually anything to any 0 dimensional point at all. It's a non thing, with location.

Even if the person offers a different take on what they mean by "awareness", most likely I would still only be able to make sense of it being distinct from consciousness via the above (no cognition available).

Awareness may have cognition available, and it may not. The same goes for consciousness, although, if someone has consciousness they very probably have cognition too. It's just semantics.

Which then tumbles off into the current-day confusion of how consciousness once implied both experience and the understanding of it. But since the dawn of Chalmers' hard problem, has often narrowed down to philosophers (and some scientists) treating it as a synonym of bare experience (rather than an umbrella concept of multiple properties or psychological features)

Okay. I guess word's have their meanings changed and skewed over time. Maybe in the future everyone will speak colloquially. That'd be funny.

http://www.philosopher.eu/texts/schopenhauer-atheist-idealist-visionary/

"But note that awareness is not necessarily consciousness. Schopenhauer writes that the notion of consciousness without a brain is as nonsensical as the notion of digestion without a stomach. One can have desires without being conscious of them, as Freud later sought to develop."​

The notion of consciousness without a brain is nonsensical, just as the notion of digestion without a stomach is. However, consciousness without a brain is not impossible. I kind of get the impression that Schopenhauer was implying that it was impossible here. One can have desires without being conscious of them. These desires are probably the most difficult to fulfill because they tend to be vague and elusive and not have any good practical solutions.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Materialists are so deluded. I'll bet that they don't even mean what they say when they say not even nothingness. Not nothing is by definition something. That is the point they seem to be missing. It is true that the universe is not nothingness, because in order for it to be around it must be something instead. Honestly though, I find a paradox in talking about nothing in any case. That is, that in order for something to not exist, that something must be real, because otherwise there is no it around to do so.
This proves the existence of the multiverse, and yet there is another paradox in the existence of that multiverse because, if everything exists, then there is a reality in which not everything exists. Therefore, this reality must exist at the same time as every other reality in the multiverse, but in a different time zone. The only way in which this is possible though is if the reality exists in one bit of 4 dimensional space, as well as a different bit of 4 dimensional space at exactly the same place. This can be understood if one takes into account how space in general works though. An infinite amount of points form a line, and an infinite amount of lines form a plane, and an infinite amount of those form a 3 d thing, and an infinite amount of those form a 4d thing and so on, but when it comes down to it it's all just 0 dimensional points which can't really add up at all, so one bit of 4 dimensional space can exist as a 0 dimensional point in another bit of 4 dimensional space, meaning that these bits of space exist in the same place but also don't, because there isn't actually anything to any 0 dimensional point at all.

Unmitigated drivel.

 

[Hermann]

From your blog(?):

3. Is there room for an individual soul? Some people state that they cannot imagine how a nonmaterial soul could interact with matter.​

Lots of things could be possible in terms of whatever existence might be behind our phenomenal and intellectual representations (akin to the invisible computer -- to its denizens, anyway -- actually doing the work behind the entities, events, and causal relationships exhibited in a simulated reality).

But that's not something science can pursue if these speculative affairs are undetectable. Which is no shortcoming, since science is a practical practice or enterprise like any other -- not an armchair philosophy or declarer of what ultimately is (metaphysics). Science shouldn't be conflated with scientism. (Perhaps a sort of detour I'm engaging in here, since you were primarily referring to materialism -- but still something that I need to mention as lead-in to the next paragraph.)

There are non-extraordinary explanations for NDEs, like they are simply hallucinations caused by DMT flooding the brain during an aborted stage of death. Obviously, methodological naturalism is going to choose one of those solutions that is potentially testable, over metempirical inferences regarding what might be transpiring behind the Matrix, competing proposals that are resistant to being culled.

Can we imagine the gravitation between distant bodies in space? No - we just try to „understand“ it in a model and can calculate it, but not more!
If NDE would not be generell rejected as hallucination, one could compare the awareness during NDE of different people, which is very different, but has also much in common. Perhaps our personality with all memories is not in our body, but outside in our soul. In this case the brain would be just a more or less perfect interface to the soul, without having a memory by itself. By this the individuell experience during NDE could reflect the individual afterlife. I know, this sounds strange, but it could be the reality.

 

[Michael 345]

That is, that in order for something to not exist, that something must be real, because otherwise there is no it around to do so

Not even wrong - Wolfgang Pauli got it correct again

This proves the existence of the multiverse, and yet there is another paradox in the existence of that multiverse because, if everything exists, then there is a reality in which not everything exists. Therefore, this reality must exist at the same time as every other reality in the multiverse, but in a different time zone. The only way in which this is possible though is if the reality exists in one bit of 4 dimensional space, as well as a different bit of 4 dimensional space at exactly the same place. This can be understood if one takes into account how space in general works though. An infinite amount of points form a line, and an infinite amount of lines form a plane, and an infinite amount of those form a 3 d thing, and an infinite amount of those form a 4d thing and so on, but when it comes down to it it's all just 0 dimensional points which can't really add up at all, so one bit of 4 dimensional space can exist as a 0 dimensional point in another bit of 4 dimensional space, meaning that these bits of space exist in the same place but also don't, because there isn't actually anything to any 0 dimensional point at all. It's a non thing, with location

Something else to sink your teeth and wit into Wolfgang

However, consciousness without a brain is not impossible

Yes it is - do I need to spell it out why?

 

[Michael 345]

Can we imagine the gravitation between distant bodies in space? No - we just try to „understand“ it in a model and can calculate it, but not more!

Can we imagine the gravitation between distant bodies in space?

No need we can

calculate

a better word here would be measure. Measurement of gravity shows gravity is real

one could compare the awareness during NDE of different people

Hasn't that been done? AND

generell rejected as hallucination

?

Perhaps our personality with all memories is not in our body, but outside in our soul

Extreamly wild speculation. Lots of stuff can alter a person's personality which means for your speculation to be true lots of stuff would also react with the soul, AND BE DETECTABLE AS REACTIONS

Does not happen

In this case the brain would be just a more or less perfect interface to the soul, without having a memory by itself

Sounds like the sub conscious which we don't have access to until the sub conscious pushes its contents into our conscious region

By this the individuell experience during NDE could reflect the individual afterlife.

Back to wild speculation and onto

I know, this sounds strange, but it could be the reality

wishful thinking

 

[Michael 345]

Okay. I guess word's have their meanings changed and skewed over time.

So sayith Humpty Dumpty

 

[Write4U]

Holly-May Leslie said: ↑
However, consciousness without a brain is not impossible

Consciousness without "thought" is impossible.
"Cogito, ergo sum"

 

[C C]

Can we imagine the gravitation between distant bodies in space? No - we just try to „understand“ it in a model and can calculate it, but not more!
If NDE would not be generell rejected as hallucination, one could compare the awareness during NDE of different people, which is very different, but has also much in common. Perhaps our personality with all memories is not in our body, but outside in our soul. In this case the brain would be just a more or less perfect interface to the soul, without having a memory by itself. By this the individuell experience during NDE could reflect the individual afterlife. I know, this sounds strange, but it could be the reality.

Memories and personality can be changed by brain damage.

So at best, [a metaphysically speculative] corresponding mind (at some prior-in-rank level that makes the natural world possible) would only be passively storing information pertaining to one's life.

The physical mind (brain) would still be the active agency directing the body.

 

[Write4U]

The physical mind (brain) would still be the active agency directing the body.

According to Anil Seth, the brain creates an expectation of cognition from sensory data. This is why he coined the term "controlled hallucination", where we create our expectation (best guess) of what the incoming data means.

If the data is outside sensory range or previously unknown to the brain, it is unable to make sense of the data.

Anil Seth shows two perfect examples of how a controlled hallucination (best guess) is false but is in fact a survival mechanism and an uncontrolled hallucination (noise) that becomes a controlled hallucination after being given a queue.

Start video @ 4:20

 

[Michael 345]

hi

a fear of the unkown and non-returnal?

Hi

fear of the unkown? - na, the different situations after death, depending how you die, are well known. Most involve rotting away, however since you are dead you (the non existent not any more you) won't feel or indeed know anything about what is happening

Nothing to worry about that aspect

Personally I will be pissed off at never being able to do anything again (your non-returnal)

However I don't see anyway out of becoming dead so pointless worrying about

 

[kx000]

Michael is the og of Heaven. Be a good man.

 

[Michael 345]

Michael is the og of Heaven. Be a good man.

No fun in being good

Lacks the spice of life which gives life flavour

 

[kx000]

No fun in being good

Lacks the spice of life which gives life flavour

Yeah but when you think Archangel Michael you know.

 

[brokenpower]

The unknown is almost like change. Most people are afraid of it.