FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Where did the concept of an afterlife come from? (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: Where did the concept of an afterlife come from?
Avatar300
Member
Member # 5108

 - posted      Profile for Avatar300   Email Avatar300         Edit/Delete Post 
Mucus

quote:
You could think the other way too.
That without an afterlife, what you do in the here and now, is what really matters. You have to create a world (and children) that you want to leave behind as a legacy, since there is no spiritual intervention to give you a second chance, so to say.

I don't know that such a view makes life any more meaningful. I won't care what happens when I'm dead, because I will no longer be. So the idea of leaving a legacy behind me seems pointless. I think a better way to approach life is to identify what makes you happy, and then do it.

The Pixiest:

quote:
Personally, when I try to picture what it's like when I'm dead I have a very hard time... Because it's not blackness, it's nothingness. Like before you were born.. You weren't sitting in blackness, you just weren't there. There was no darkness, light, time, nothing... And that's how it will be after I die. But I still have trouble conceiving of it.
Ever had a night where you fall asleep the instant your head hits the pillow, and then seem to open your eyes to find that eight hours, or whatever, have passed? No dreams, no sense of time. One moment you went to sleep, the next you woke up. I imagine it's like that, but without the waking up in the morning.
Posts: 413 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xavier
Member
Member # 405

 - posted      Profile for Xavier   Email Xavier         Edit/Delete Post 
Actually, I think the best way to imagine death was mentioned in this thread.

It's like how you were before you were born.

Remember? No, of course not, because you didn't exist. Same with death.

It is a difficult concept, however, and I'd imagine the percentage of people on this earth who have truly accepted it is extraordinarily slim.

Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
You've already had this conversation with Tom, and I don't have any illusions that me and you would have better luck.

Regardless, I think this statement is dead wrong.

I think the death penalty is dead wrong, but that is irrelevant to Hatrack except insofar as I can explain WHY I think that way. If you think the brain can experience pain, explain why. Is it just something you take on faith?

quote:
"Having a Perspective" is another name for having a mind, which also comes from the brain.
I agree that it is possible that the mind may "come from" the brain. However, it isn't explained by the brain - sort of like how I come from my parents, but cannot be completely explained just by examining the nature of my parents. There are aspects of me that seem to have no source in my parents.

Conscious experience seems to have no source in the brain - our brains would appear to be perspectiveless machines, like our computers appear to be, if we didn't know otherwise from our own personal, subjective conscious experience.

quote:
I don't know why you would think this. What is so special about us as opposed to an intelligent machine? I believe that's all we are. Our experiences are just electrical signals that cause other electrical or chemical reactions.
The reason I think this is because our experiences are definitely NOT just electrical signals or chemical reactions. I say this because they have different properties. (If they were the same thing they'd have to have the same properties!) For instance, my experience of "red" cannot be diagramed on a paper in a way that would explain to you what red looks like to me. However, any electrical signal or chemical reaction could be diagramed on a piece of paper to explain to you what is happening. Or you could do a scan of my brain and if your scan was detailed enough, it could show you all the electrical signals and chemical reactions in my brain. Yet it would not show what I experience when I see red. In this way "experience" and "chemical reactions" have inherently different properties. They literally cannot be the same thing.

Don't get me wrong - experience and chemcial reactions can certainly be related. One could certainly cause the other! And we can talk in a fuzzy, inaccurate sort of way about my experience of pain being just a bunch of neurons firing. (Just like we can talk in a fuzzy, inaccurate sort of way about my computer being "mad" at me when it gives me an error message. My computer is not literally experiencing an emotion of anger though.) But they are different things, because they have different properties. The neurons firing occurs in my body, whereas the pain occurs in my mind. Presumably they always occur in unison, but it is logically possible for me to feel pain without any reaction in my body, or for a reaction to occur in my body without any pain felt in my mind. And along the same lines, it is at least logically possible for me to feel pain (or other experiences) without having any body whatsoever - something people have had no trouble imagining for thousands of years.

That may be one contributing factor to why so many people believe in a "soul" - and an afterlife.

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Avatar300:
I don't know that such a view makes life any more meaningful. I won't care what happens when I'm dead, because I will no longer be. So the idea of leaving a legacy behind me seems pointless. I think a better way to approach life is to identify what makes you happy, and then do it.

Thats pretty much the same, since what should make you happy IS having children (at the appropriate age) and making the world a better place, for them at least. Humans (and animals) are kinda wired that way.
It would be a poor species (evolutionary speaking) that was wired to be unhappy when they had children.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amanecer
Member
Member # 4068

 - posted      Profile for Amanecer   Email Amanecer         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
For instance, my experience of "red" cannot be diagramed on a paper in a way that would explain to you what red looks like to me. However, any electrical signal or chemical reaction could be diagramed on a piece of paper to explain to you what is happening. Or you could do a scan of my brain and if your scan was detailed enough, it could show you all the electrical signals and chemical reactions in my brain. Yet it would not show what I experience when I see red.
I believe that you overestimate our current technology in the area of brain studies. When this technology improves, I fully expect that you will be able to diagram what happens in the brain when a person experiences red.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xavier
Member
Member # 405

 - posted      Profile for Xavier   Email Xavier         Edit/Delete Post 
Which of these entities "experience pain" Tresopax:

  • A Human
  • A Chimpanzee
  • A Squirrel
  • A Mouse
  • A Lizard
  • A Chicken
  • An Earthworm
  • A Wasp
  • A Tree
  • An Amoeba

If you say "just the human", then I have a host of questions for you.

If you list some, but not others, different questions will follow.

Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Thats pretty much the same, since what should make you happy IS having children (at the appropriate age) and making the world a better place, for them at least. Humans (and animals) are kinda wired that way.
Are you suggesting that we should be happy about whatever we were "wired" to care about? What if Avatar was not wired that way?

quote:
When this technology improves, I fully expect that you will be able to diagram what happens in the brain when a person experiences red.
Yes, I agree completely. I'm just saying that when you do so, it won't tell you what my experience of "red" is like. Which means "what happens in the brain when I experience red" != "my experience of red".

quote:
Which of these entities "experience pain" Tresopax:
Truthfully, I really don't know. The only entity that I know experiences pain is me, because experience (unlike chemical reactions) can only be observed by the person having it. I can't know what (if anything) is going on in another person's mind.

I guess that other human beings have experience, based purely on fact that they are similar to me and act similar to me. I would think the same thing about several of those animals, with decreasing confidence as they get less and less like me. But again, that is a hypothesis I can't prove or back up, but that I have faith in. It is possible I am the only person in the universe who experiences anything, but I hope that is not true.

Generally, I tend to think animals are similar enough that they probably feel pain (and thus have souls). Trees and ameobas, probably not. But there have certainly been some groups that have historically felt trees could feel pain too.

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
Where did the concept of an afterlife come from?

Well...uh...God told us about it...

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Strider
Member
Member # 1807

 - posted      Profile for Strider   Email Strider         Edit/Delete Post 
yeah...but how did he find out about it? Huh?? [Razz]
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xavier
Member
Member # 405

 - posted      Profile for Xavier   Email Xavier         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I guess that other human beings have experience, based purely on fact that they are similar to me and act similar to me. I would think the same thing about several of those animals, with decreasing confidence as they get less and less like me.
Notice anything else about your decreasing confidence?

How about the decreasing levels of development of the brains of the other species?

You're pretty confident that Chimps do, because they have very well developed brains. Not too far from our own. Lizards? Less confident, as their "upper" brains are small and stunted. Earthworms? Not very confident at all are you? That's because their brains are so simple and primitive that removing it hardly changes their behavior at all. Pretty confident that trees and amoebas can't experience pain, I see, why is that? Could it be because they lack a brain entirely?

I mean seriously. When this ability to "experience" is 100% correlated with brain function, why does there have to be another explanation?

Edit: Can't you see what you've done? You've determined that any animal with a highly advanced brain has a soul. So why don't you see that this "soul" is really a side-effect of having an advanced brain? A non-physical, mystical, abstract "thing" which just happens to exist in every animal with an advanced brain? Doesn't that sound ridiculous to you?

Your thoughts about the differences between "experience" and what goes on in the brain is, in my opinion, pretty silly.

It's like us not fully knowing the details of software, but having access to a computer, and saying that by mapping and diagramming what happens in a computer when you start a program doesn't equal the display on the screen.

It is a true statement, but it doesn't mean anything.

The human brain is perhaps the most complex thing in the known universe. Our understanding of it is really quite limited. It's okay that we don't quite know how the chemical, physical, and electronic processes it produces results in things like conscious thoughts or feelings.

We don't have to create a "soul" to represent something we don't quite understand yet.

[ January 11, 2007, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: Xavier ]

Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:
Thats pretty much the same, since what should make you happy IS having children (at the appropriate age) and making the world a better place, for them at least. Humans (and animals) are kinda wired that way.
Are you suggesting that we should be happy about whatever we were "wired" to care about? What if Avatar was not wired that way?

Yes, Avatar should be happy to do what he is "wired" to do. If he was not wired that way, then he won't. But from my perspective, I only know him as a fellow human for which on average, do like to have children.

To further clarify, I'm using the second definition of should as in

quote:
should Pronunciation (shd)
aux.v. Past tense of shall
1. Used to express obligation or duty: You should send her a note.
2. Used to express probability or expectation: They should arrive at noon.
...


Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Strider
Member
Member # 1807

 - posted      Profile for Strider   Email Strider         Edit/Delete Post 
well if you're using the second definition than I guess i have no argument. But to use the first definition for anything that we've been "wired" to do, I strongly disagree with. This is the greatest gift that has come from the evolution of our brains. That we can think for ourselves and choose to do(or not to do) certain things based on what is important to us and what we think is right, and not what are genes are telling us to do.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
You've determined that any animal with a highly advanced brain has a soul. So why don't you see that this "soul" is really a side-effect of having an advanced brain? A non-physical, mystical, abstract "thing" which just happens to exist in every animal with an advanced brain?
It is equally true that I suspect every animal on your list with highly advanced eyes has a soul. Does that imply that my eyes entirely explain the soul?

It is also true that the bigger the animal on the list, the more likely I think it has subjective experience. Does that mean that subjective experience is simply a side-effect of being big?

No... I think you are misusing correlation here. It doesn't imply causation.

After all, consider what I said. I said I am ASSUMING that things that ACT LIKE ME are more likely to have subjective experience. Most things that act like me have brains. Most things that act like me have eyes. Most things that act like me are around my size. So it is no surprise that you could say things with brains, thing with eyes, and things that are big end up higher on my list of things likely to have souls. That says nothing about what truly causes subjective experience. It only says something about my means of guessing who has it.

Please note that there are things you could have put on that list that I do not think have physical brains which I do think have souls. God, perhaps. There also could be things that do have physical brains, but which I don't think have souls. For instance, I have doubts that a brain sitting in a jar by itself would have a soul.

I do believe brains are intimitely related to souls, and to conscious experience. But I don't think either one necessarily implies the other - which is the critical issue when it comes to the continuation of the soul after the brain has died. I also don't think the soul and brain do the same thing.

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Strider
Member
Member # 1807

 - posted      Profile for Strider   Email Strider         Edit/Delete Post 
Tres, do you accept evolution? Assuming you do, how do explain your concept of a soul with the fact of evolution? At what point did a creature suddenly get a soul? who was the first? I think it'd be absolutely impossible to draw that line.

If not all life has a soul, what is it about us physically that allows us to have a soul, but not another creature?

Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xavier
Member
Member # 405

 - posted      Profile for Xavier   Email Xavier         Edit/Delete Post 
I think you can eliminate the "size" thing, since I'd bet you'd think Squirrels have a soul.

quote:
It is equally true that I suspect every animal on your list with highly advanced eyes has a soul. Does that imply that my eyes entirely explain the soul?
Poke out the chimp's eyes, and it would still "experience".

Destroy its brain and it no longer, in any observable way, "experiences".

Change its brain through drugs, and its "subjective experience" changes radically.

You think that things which act like you have a soul. Well they act like you BECAUSE THEY HAVE A BRAIN.

quote:
I have doubts that a brain sitting in a jar by itself would have a soul.
If it can think, then why not?

quote:
Please note that there are things you could have put on that list that I do not think have physical brains which I do think have souls. God, perhaps.
If the only one you can think of is a mythical being, then this doesn't really stand. I can imagine a fictional being who can see without eyes, but that doesn't mean that eyes aren't required for vision.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
I personally believe that without the idea of an afterlife that human civilization would not be where it is today.

I just finished up an anthropology class, and it is interesting to note that even the earliest forms of tribal life had some form of religion and idea of the afterlife. In Australia the tribal people believed in "The Great Dream" and that a deity.

It organizes and unites people. It helps people live their lives better. Without religion or the belief in an afterlife, America would not be what it is today.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Strider
Member
Member # 1807

 - posted      Profile for Strider   Email Strider         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Without religion or the belief in an afterlife, America would not be what it is today.
While I think a good argument exists against what you just said, lets say for a moment that it's true. If that's the only reason to keep it around, I think it's not only a weak reason, but a very damaging one as well. And if that's the only thing that keeps people good, then I also worry for humanity.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Tresopax:
[QUOTE]Please note that there are things you could have put on that list that I do not think have physical brains which I do think have souls. God, perhaps. There also could be things that do have physical brains, but which I don't think have souls. For instance, I have doubts that a brain sitting in a jar by itself would have a soul.



You say that there are things that could be put on the list that don't have a physical brain but do have a soul. What things other than deities can you think of that you'd say this of?

I realize that your statement about things possessing brains but not souls was more conditionally phrased, but if you can think of other examples of that (and also expand on why you don't believe that a functioning brain in a jar wouldn't have a soul), I'd be interested to hear them.

Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Or you could do a scan of my brain and if your scan was detailed enough, it could show you all the electrical signals and chemical reactions in my brain. Yet it would not show what I experience when I see red.
You've used this example before, and I found it unconvincing then, too.

A printout of a brain scan is the equivalent of sheet music. Merely reading the brain scan wouldn't be a shared experience of "red;" it would be like reading the sheet music. If technology could play back the brain activity in someone else's brain (and this is a big "if," as I've admitted before; brain architectures may well be unique), I see no reason why they would not experience "red" the same way you do.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post 
Good analogy, Tom.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Will B
Member
Member # 7931

 - posted      Profile for Will B   Email Will B         Edit/Delete Post 
You seem to have an understanding of consciousness -- this thing I experience whenever I'm, well, conscious! -- as something that is decomposable into activities of the brain. If this is true, can you share it? I can see the (solipsistic) consistency in saying that the behavior of others is simply a manifestation of brain activity, but I can't see any way to explain this sensation I have of consciousness as decomposable or physical.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
but I can't see any way to explain this sensation I have of consciousness as decomposable or physical
Sure you do. If I crush your brain in a vise, you will no longer have a sensation of consciousness. I don't even have to crush it all that hard; I don't even have to kill you. I just need to deny you oxygen for a few seconds, and bam! No sensation of consciousness.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Strider:
That we can think for ourselves and choose to do(or not to do) certain things based on what is important to us and what we think is right, and not what are genes are telling us to do.

Perhaps, but I might note that it may be highly nontrivial to tell which is which.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine, edited by Mucus:
I personally believe that without the idea of "pointed sticks" that human civilization would not be where it is today.

I just finished up an anthropology class, and it is interesting to note that even the earliest forms of tribal life had some form of "pointed stick."

It organizes and unites people. It helps people live their lives better. Without "pointed sticks", America would not be what it is today.

Just as true by the way.

PS; You might ask how pointed sticks help unite and organise people. Well, how else would people kill the predators that might be between them? [Wink]

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Strider
Member
Member # 1807

 - posted      Profile for Strider   Email Strider         Edit/Delete Post 
trivial or nontrivial(meaning important)?

are you arguing that every thought and action we take based on instructions from the brain is as deterministic in nature as our genetics? Because if so I agree with that. Doesn't mean I can't appreciate the fact that something like this developed that allows me to be conscious and aware of my surroundings and myself. It allows me to live my life and act as if I have free will, regardless of whether I scientifically believe or understand that in reality I don't. I may not love everything about the state of the world today, but I do love and appreciate the state of affairs that allow me to exist and experience life in a very active conscious way. And so it IS important to me that I can use my brain to lead a happy and fulfilling life, however it is I happen to define that.

Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Will B
Member
Member # 7931

 - posted      Profile for Will B   Email Will B         Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks. (Both for the answer, and for not demonstrating!) What about the "decomposable into parts" bit? Or would you agree with that?
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlueWizard
Member
Member # 9389

 - posted      Profile for BlueWizard   Email BlueWizard         Edit/Delete Post 
Relative to Strider's response to my post, which is somewhat outdated since the discussion is moving so fast, I will make a few comments.

I said -
"You denied the concept of the soul, and that's fine, but you can't deny the concept of the soul, or something at least soul-ish, and then pose a question about afterlife."

To which Stider responded in part -
"of course i can! I realize that if you're coming at this question from a religious/spiritual perspective there is a point where no further conversation is possible. I see no physical, philosophical, historical basis for the concept of a soul."

First, it is your assumption that I am coming at this from a religoius perspective. Pretty much everything I said in my post goes against standard Christian teachings.

Second, for there to be an afterlife there has to be something that lives after. To deny that there is the possibility of 'something' that lives after, is to deny any possible framework for answering the question.

Also, to your statement - "I see no physical, philosophical, historical basis for the concept of a soul." How about several thousands of years of religion, and religious and general philosphy?

We must consider in discussing the 'afterlife' that the concept of the 'soul' across a wide range of philosophical, religious, and even scientific beliefs can only be had with a very broad and diverse application of the word 'soul'. Note that in referring to the thing called 'soul' I also used -
...something at least soul-ish
...pure infinite white light
...true spiritual identity
...universal essense of 'being'
...Outside essense
...Auia
...(spark of life, spirit, soul, whatever)
...your eternal intangible spiritual and true Self
...the Eternal spiritual Self

Certainly, I am not the one locked into a particular model of 'soul'. However, for simplicity of discussion 'soul' serves as as useful broad all-encompassing word as any.

To reiterate -

You said -
"You obviously tie the concept of an afterlife in with the concept of soul."

To which I answer, NO; I tie the concept of afterlife to the concept that there must be something that lives after. If you are going to have a conversation of 'afterlife' then you have to concede the possibility that there is something that lives after. You don't have to believe in 'it', but you have to concede the possibility to allow the discussion.

Later in your post you say -
"I'd also just like to say that I am very attracted to the eastern religious ideas of letting go of your consciousness and realizing the connectivity of all life. "

You will notice in my post that I deny the human-mirror concept of God and Heaven. That is God is not a person who is divine and all powerful, and heaven is not a paradise-mirror of earth.

Every example I gave was far closer to the Eastern philosophies than to the Christian model. If we accept, at least for discussion, the Outside/Inside model of eternal life, then it fits nicely with the Animistic idea that all things are alive and endowed with some spark of spiritual life; the spirit of the forest, the spirit of the mountains, the spirit of the river, the spirit of each individual atom, etc....

That is not far from the Buddhist or Hindu view. They don't believe in the personafied Christian God or the Earth-mirrored heaven. The believe more in (greatly paraphrased) a broad universal intangible incomprehensible spiritual essense that permeates the universe, and once you have achieved sufficient moral wisdom, you return to be one with this essense. Until then, you continue to relive new lives.

Scientific evidence has also been mentioned, but I think you are making the great mistake of the ages. That is, every age believe that it is the height of knowledge and wizdom. In the late 1800's some one said that modern technology was so far advanced that everything that could be invented had been invented. Yet just a few short years later, we had telegraph, telephones, talking 'boxes', men flying through the air, and horseless carriages.

Do not be so foolish at to think that our modern society is the peak of all knowledge and learning. Our knowledge of science is pathetically inadequate. Even though was have a sufficiently workable theory, we can't really explain how electricity works. That is, the atomic model that explains chemistry fails to explain electricity, and a different atomic model that explains electricity (more accurately electronics) fail to explain chemistry. There are FAR more questions than answers in our bank of scientific knowledge.

As a scientific example, people who were about to die were placed on bed. Each leg of the bed had been placed on a scale. At the moment of death, the dying person lost a very small amount of weight. What was that weight and where did it go? Some speculate it was the 'soul' leaving the body. Of course, no CURRENT scientific explaination exists to prove this, yet something was there and then it wasn't.

Now, I doubt the science will one day explain life and the soul in a way the confirms the Christian religious view, but there could come a time when 'life and soul' are explained in a model similar to OSC's 'Outside/Inside', or in a model related to string theory and multiple dimension. So, today there is no explanation, but as I said, today we are in the infancy of science and don't really know of faction of what there is to know in the universe.

Other used assorted example of how people can change; brain damage was one example. Yet those example are 'meat puppet' examples. What happens to the body and to the current earthly personality are not relevant to the eternal spirit.

The physical body draws on a well of moral subconciousness that is guided by the Eternal Self, if the body is broken, it is the connection to the Eternal Self that is flawed and not the Eternal Self itself. That neither denies (nor confirms) the existance of an underlying (for lack of a better word) soul.

Part of the problem is that we all too strongly identify with our physical Selves. Though that is understandable since, for the most part, it is the only 'self' we have. So, any framework that alters the physical self and uses that alteration to prove or disprove the existance of a higher intangible self is flawed.

Do I believe that Science will one day prove the existance of this thing we broadly refer to as 'soul'? To some extent, YES; but not in a way that will please most religious organizations.

One last thing about the personified-God and the earth-mirrored Heaven. Since God or universal spiritual essense is incomprehendable, we use these lower examples as metaphors to give us a framework that allows us to even have a discussion of God and Heaven. But I fear that far far too many people are taking the metaphor literally, and I don't see that as a good thing.

So, in conclusion, and as I have already said, if you absolutely deny the concept that something lives after, then you have denied the framework for even discussing 'afterlife'.

Not sure what it's all worth, but there it is.

Steve/BlueWizard

Posts: 803 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Bowles
Member
Member # 1021

 - posted      Profile for David Bowles   Email David Bowles         Edit/Delete Post 
Wow, it's good to see Tresopax clinging to his qualia... nice nostalgic breeze blew through my synapses just now!

Tres, I think it's likely that the description of a given quale is just a meme (or information pattern in the brain), and that the quale itself (like a unicorn) doesn't actually exist. You can certainly picture a unicorn in your head, interact with it mentally, imagine yourself riding it, imagine the feel of its mane in your hands, and yet UNICORNS DON'T EXIST. Ditto qualia, my friend.

Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
What about the "decomposable into parts" bit?
It's pretty obvious that most of human perception is decomposable into parts. How much of human thought is decomposable is still a matter of wide speculation, since no one has nailed down the mechanism of "thought" yet. I'm pretty confident that this will happen to some extent within my lifetime, but it's one of the hardest fields in science to observe and might take a bit longer.

quote:

As a scientific example, people who were about to die were placed on bed. Each leg of the bed had been placed on a scale. At the moment of death, the dying person lost a very small amount of weight. What was that weight and where did it go? Some speculate it was the 'soul' leaving the body. Of course, no CURRENT scientific explaination exists to prove this...

There are good reasons for this: the MacDougall experiments have never been successfully repeated.
http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Will B
Member
Member # 7931

 - posted      Profile for Will B   Email Will B         Edit/Delete Post 
I meant more consciousness than thought, but I still appreciate the answer.

BTW, my soul lost 3 pounds since Christmas! [Smile]

Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Jim-Me:
I feel like I'm trying to say "I need to do my laundry" and you guys are trying to debate the merits of different detergents with me because you know I like "Cheer" and you think "Cheer" sucks.

Well, it does, you know. Tide all the way, baby!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Tres, do you accept evolution? Assuming you do, how do explain your concept of a soul with the fact of evolution? At what point did a creature suddenly get a soul? who was the first? I think it'd be absolutely impossible to draw that line.
I agree that it is impossible to figure out what had the first soul. I don't think this means souls don't exist.

I don't know how or if souls evolved in some way. It is possible that one day some creature suddenly had a soul, for no logical reason. Or it is possible that there was some way that it arose. Until we understand souls better, and how they relate to brains and other physical entities, we won't be able to accurately place it into any evolutionary model.

quote:
You say that there are things that could be put on the list that don't have a physical brain but do have a soul. What things other than deities can you think of that you'd say this of?

I realize that your statement about things possessing brains but not souls was more conditionally phrased, but if you can think of other examples of that (and also expand on why you don't believe that a functioning brain in a jar wouldn't have a soul), I'd be interested to hear them.

The other sort of being that I think has a soul but no brain would be people in the afterlife. There might be other things too, such as rocks or trees or whatever, but because they have no brain they can't behave in a way similar enough to me to give me an idea of whether they have a soul or not.

As for things possessing brains but not souls, I would include computers on that list, although I suppose you could argue those aren't really brains.

As for WHY I don't think a jar with a brain would have a soul, it is only because it doesn't behave similarly to me. As I said, I don't have any real way of knowing who has a soul and who doesn't. Instead all I do is guess based on their similarity to myself. I could be totally wrong - it might be that trees have souls and worms have souls, but squirrels and chimps do not.

quote:
If it can think, then why not?
That's just it - I believe it has no soul so I don't believe it can think. It can process inputs and turn them into outputs, like a computer, but it can't "think" because thinking is a sort of experience. Unless it can experience thought, it doesn't "think" anymore than my computer thinks.

quote:
A printout of a brain scan is the equivalent of sheet music. Merely reading the brain scan wouldn't be a shared experience of "red;" it would be like reading the sheet music. If technology could play back the brain activity in someone else's brain (and this is a big "if," as I've admitted before; brain architectures may well be unique), I see no reason why they would not experience "red" the same way you do.
So then you agree that the only way they could understand my experience of red is to experience it for themselves - and that they could not understand it just by understanding which neurons are firing in my brain?

quote:
You can certainly picture a unicorn in your head, interact with it mentally, imagine yourself riding it, imagine the feel of its mane in your hands, and yet UNICORNS DON'T EXIST.
Yes but mental pictures of unicorns DO exist.

[ January 12, 2007, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Strider
Member
Member # 1807

 - posted      Profile for Strider   Email Strider         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

To deny that there is the possibility of 'something' that lives after, is to deny any possible framework for answering the question.

okay, so? My question is about why the concept would have come up in the first place since I believe there is no logical reason for it. To me there is no possible framework which allows for an afterlife, so i'm intrigued about the strength of the idea.

quote:
Also, to your statement - "I see no physical, philosophical, historical basis for the concept of a soul." How about several thousands of years of religion, and religious and general philosphy?
telling me that your particular fairy tale believes in the afterlife is not an effecient way of making me believe it. And I think you'll also notice that as religion becomes less prevalent in philosophical thought, so does the idea of a soul.

quote:
I tie the concept of afterlife to the concept that there must be something that lives after. If you are going to have a conversation of 'afterlife' then you have to concede the possibility that there is something that lives after. You don't have to believe in 'it', but you have to concede the possibility to allow the discussion.
I don't see why. I would think the onus of proof would be on you to explain how and why a framework would even exist to provide for the existence of a soul. I will concede that it is impossible to ever truly be 100% sure about anything, but that's all I'll concede.

quote:

Do not be so foolish at to think that our modern society is the peak of all knowledge and learning. Our knowledge of science is pathetically inadequate.

if the best counter examples you can come up with are in the same vein as weight loss at death experiment, then I can't take your scientific arguments seriously. Do people really still use this as an argument for the existence of a soul?


quote:
As for WHY I don't think a jar with a brain would have a soul, it is only because it doesn't behave similarly to me.
Tres, what if the brain was hooked up through electric wires to a robot body that reacted to the brains impulses in every way a normal body did? it would behave similarly to you and you would be forced to conclude it had a soul. when in fact, it's still the same brain, just hooked up to a machine. what if the robot body was made to look organic and realistic so you couldn't even tell the difference?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Yes but mental pictures of unicorns DO exist.
Images of night elves and trolls exist too, in the WoW servers. Do they have souls?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Altáriël of Dorthonion
Member
Member # 6473

 - posted      Profile for Altáriël of Dorthonion   Email Altáriël of Dorthonion         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
quote:
I like the idea of an afterlife because it makes me think that life is worth something, you know? Like, why am I living this life if I will only die one day and that is that. I prefer to think that I will somehow live on.
other people have touched on this, but I see no reason to believe that a never ending life is in any way more meaningfull than a mortal life. A neverending life would probably make me question my purpose and the nature of existence even more. To me, knowledge that "this is it" gives me a much greater appreciation for life and a desire to to live as fully as I can during my time(if only practice was as easy as theory!).
Strider

I don't imagine an afterlife the same as my mortal life simply because I feel that the concept of immortality seems boring to me. I am not sure how exactly to convey my feelings and thoughts on an afterlife mostly because those thoughts have not fully taken shape inside my head. However, something that keeps dabbing at me is that my memories are stored inside my brain, which rots after my death. I wonder where my memories are going after I die. I am not sure whether I will keep them at all, but I do think that the person I was because of them is what will live on and that is what forms a soul. As I said, it's hard for me to explain what I'm trying to say but hopefully you can kind of know where I'm getting to.

Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlueWizard
Member
Member # 9389

 - posted      Profile for BlueWizard   Email BlueWizard         Edit/Delete Post 
Points made and taken, Strider.

I will make one additional comment however.

I have seen film footage of the equivalent of the MacDougall experiment, and it did not take place in 1907. Yes, the MacDougall experiment DID take place then, but I seriously doubt that they had film footage of it. The experiment I'm taking about took place at a university, and its result were presented in a couple of TV shows. One was on PBS, and another was a Network Show. I saw the footage three times to my memory.

It was not my intent to say that experiment 'proved' that the soul existed. Only to point out that scientific proof of something that would fall under the broad heading of 'soul' is not impossible.

That was the thrust of my whole 'scientific' rant. People are trying to use today's science and say that it has proven the soul doesn't exist, and I will, to a limited extent, grant that based on today's science. But, as I said, today's science is in its infancy, and what tomorrow's science will prove is something else altogether.

Though as I pointed out, I strongly suspect if and when science verifies what we are broadly terming the 'soul', most religions are going to be very disappointed. It is not going to be a 'soul' that fits their preferred model.

If fact, I will go so far as to say that Religion would prefer that the 'soul' not be verified. Without scientific varification, they are free to determine the soul after any fashion that suits them.

One last point that I didn't touch on. You and others seem to denounce the idea that the soul and the afterlife can be experienced. I'm not sure that's true. I think the belief in the soul and the afterlife's existance has very much been strongly reinforced by personal experience. Again though, experience is not necessarily absolute proof, but it is certainly enough to keep the belief alive across many many centuries.

So, you ask, not does the afterlife exist, but how did the belief in the afterlife come to exist? I think a big part of it was experience. I think it was upon that experience of higher-self awareness and near death experience as well as certain psychic phenomenon that people built their beliefs. Though again preceived experience and belief are not proof.

I'm not seeking to prove that the soul or afterlife exist, I'm simply providing workable frameworks and models in which they could exist. Whether you buy my model or the religious model or no model at all is entirely up to you.

Just a few more thoughts.

Steve/BlueWizard

Posts: 803 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Tres, what if the brain was hooked up through electric wires to a robot body that reacted to the brains impulses in every way a normal body did? it would behave similarly to you and you would be forced to conclude it had a soul. when in fact, it's still the same brain, just hooked up to a machine. what if the robot body was made to look organic and realistic so you couldn't even tell the difference?
If you did that and it ended up acting like a human being, then I'd probably not be sure whether it did really have a soul or if it was just an elaborate machine designed to look like it had a soul - much like a robot designed to act like a human would probably be. There are numerous sci-fi stories in which questions like these are debated, and usually there is diagreement among characters over whether the monster or robot or whatever is a person with a soul. The truth is, again, that we don't know. I'm using "things similar to me" as a rough guideline, but like most rough guidelines, I suspect you can imagine situations in which the rule is manipulated in a way so that it gives the wrong answer.

quote:
Images of night elves and trolls exist too, in the WoW servers. Do they have souls?
No. Pictures of unicorns don't have souls either. The point wasn't that imaginary mental images have souls.

quote:
And I think you'll also notice that as religion becomes less prevalent in philosophical thought, so does the idea of a soul.
I don't think it would be accurate to say religion has become less prevalent in philosophical thought.

It might be accurate to say the word "soul" has become less discussed by philosophy, but "personal identity" IS widely discussed - and that is essentially the same topic, only put in more modern academic lingo. "Discussing the soul" sounds supernatural, while "discussing personal identity" doesn't.

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Bowles
Member
Member # 1021

 - posted      Profile for David Bowles   Email David Bowles         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Yes but mental pictures of unicorns DO exist.
Actually, no. They don't. There is no place in your brain where any pictures of anything exist. Certain sequences of neuron firings make your brain be in a similar state to what it would be in if it actually ever saw a unicorn.

No pictures, no qualia. Just your reported beliefs in them, which I simply process via heterophenomenology. That way I can use these reports about how things appear to be to you (as you have no privileged access to the innerworkings of your brain, they are only your opinions of what is happening in it) to analyze your behavior and make predictions about what you'll do. Just like when people claim God has spoken to them: I have no evidence this is so, and they've no way of proving it to me, so I can only treat this claim as a piece of data about themselves as a belief they hold, not as some objective report on a real phenomenon.


Oddly enough for anyone interested, I actually wrote a song about this issue called I Am Information. I think Tresopax would dig the line "If qualia are an illusion, what's the point of my crying?" Heh.

Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
There is no place in your brain where any pictures of anything exist.
Exactly! That's why the brain cannot explain qualia.

1. Mental pictures of unicorns DO exist. (I know this because I'm picturing one right now and can see it in my mind. You can deny this if you want, but I can be certain it is true because I can directly observe it in my own mind. It is somewhat different from the experience of actually seeing something, but imagining a unicorn is nevertheless certainly a very real experience.)
2. There is no place in your brain where any pictures of anything exist.
3. Therefore, the mental pictures of unicorns exist somewhere that is NOT in the brain.

That's the rough outline of how the general argument goes at least...

quote:
I have no evidence this is so, and they've no way of proving it to me, so I can only treat this claim as a piece of data about themselves as a belief they hold, not as some objective report on a real phenomenon.
You could treat it as an objective report on a real phenomenon AND as a belief I hold if you wanted to. Why don't you? I often do that when people tell me something unprovable that I have no good reason to think is false. For instance, people told me that man walked on the moon. I can't prove it, but I believe it when people say so. [Wink]

[ January 12, 2007, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Strider:
trivial or nontrivial(meaning important)?

are you arguing that every thought and action we take based on instructions from the brain is as deterministic in nature as our genetics? Because if so I agree with that. Doesn't mean I can't appreciate the fact that something like this developed that allows me to be conscious and aware of my surroundings and myself. It allows me to live my life and act as if I have free will, regardless of whether I scientifically believe or understand that in reality I don't. I may not love everything about the state of the world today, but I do love and appreciate the state of affairs that allow me to exist and experience life in a very active conscious way. And so it IS important to me that I can use my brain to lead a happy and fulfilling life, however it is I happen to define that.

I'd agree with the assertion that "every thought and action we take based on instructions from the brain is as deterministic in nature as our genetics."
However, you kind of misinterpreted me, I was really just noting the point that to tell the difference between an action motivated by our genes and an action motivated by "think[ing] for ourselves and choose to do(or not to do) certain things based on what is important to us and what we think is right" may be extremely difficult.
Especially since both processes are not (statistically) independent.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
So then you agree that the only way they could understand my experience of red is to experience it for themselves - and that they could not understand it just by understanding which neurons are firing in my brain?
You're using a faulty definition of the word "understand," Tres.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Will B
Member
Member # 7931

 - posted      Profile for Will B   Email Will B         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't know how it's relevant to afterlife, but the claim that mental images don't exist is, well, surprising -- surprising that people would go that far. It's a classic scenario that denying this won't work. No, I didn't just imagine a pink elephant! I will not picture a pink elephant! And every time you try to stop it, you imagine a pink elephant.

It is logically consistent (although bizarre) to claim that others don't really picture pink elephants, but when you do it yourself, you yourself experience proof that you do.

Limiting a discussion to behavior is sometimes useful for science, because that's what's observable, but even Skinner didn't (IIRC) say that nothing not observable existed.

Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
even Skinner didn't (IIRC) say that nothing not observable existed.
I'm a materialist. I think nothing exists that does not have a physical effect. In other words, your "mental image" exists insofar as it's a pattern of electrons. It has no reality in what I call the "external context" of the real world.

These mental concepts have validity within what I call the "internal context," the framework of your mind and motivations, but are not valid when describing reality.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
You're using a faulty definition of the word "understand," Tres.
I'll rephrase then: So then you agree that the only way they could know how I experience red is to experience it for themselves - and that they could not know it just by knowing which neurons are firing in my brain?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It is logically consistent (although bizarre) to claim that others don't really picture pink elephants, but when you do it yourself, you yourself experience proof that you do.
Exactly! Which is why eliminitivist materialists (materialists who try to argue experience doesn't really exist) can make claims all day about how there is no proof for conscious experience, and they can never be proven wrong per se - but they also can't possibly convince those who can see for themselves with certainty that they do have such experience.

I don't believe it is rational to deny what I can directly observe to be true, just because I can't objectively prove it to another person - even if such a denial would make the universe explainable in a more simple fashion.

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Strider:
quote:
See, I disagree that it is "just semantics". I suspect that there is nothing "pre-existing" to any individual other than the atoms from which their body is formed. I do believe that something "more" than "just the physical substructure" arises from the unique way in which intelligence has evolved, but that does not necessitate belief that such a thing can exist independently of some physical sub-structure. Is this "something more" a soul by your definition? I don't know. It could be. I might even agree to call it a soul, but I don't think such things are merely semantic. I think they are essential points requiring clarification if one is to discuss the topic.

There is quite a difference between believing in a pre-existing entity temporarily inhabiting a meat-vehicle and in an entity potentially separate from yet born of and currently dependent on the physical body.

I agree that this point is not just semantics and is in fact extremely important to the conversation.

I would also be very interested in hearing not the specifics surrounding your belief of what form consciousness takes after death, but the way in which you came to believe these things. If it doesn't fit with the thread, feel free to email.

Though I think this thread is pretty sprawling, and has already completely moved away from the initial reason I started it. [Smile]

First, I won't say anything that follows or even preceded this post in this thread is what I believe, but only what I believe is possible in some theoretical sense. I don't have enough information to actively believe anything about a "soul" or "afterlife".

That said, I don't see any reason to believe that a 4 or more dimensional construct ceases to exist in the way we think things do when they are viewed in chronological three-dimensional slices. I think it's possible that from the appropriate vantage point, our whole 4th dimensional existence might be seen at once, from beginning to end, as a coherent whole. In that sense, or from that vantage point, death is only one point on the whole, just as the tip of a finger is only one point on a statue. It might be possible that once this progressive construction of our 4 dimensional selves is completed, there will be some continued consciousness in a higher form unseeable from our current limited 4 dimensional perspective*.

None of this is meant to be profound. It's mostly philosophical musings and doesn't affect my day to day existence in any perceptibly significant way. (I'm just as content, for the moment, if I'm completely wrong about this, and I'm certainly open to revising these thoughts given better understanding of reality.)

Does any of this make sense? I'm willing to try again to clarify if you want.

*We experience 3 dimensions clearly, and the 4th in which we commonly believe we exist we only experience imperfectly (I believe) as the passage of "time". From a 5th dimensional perspective, perhaps, we might get a clearer vision of what the 4th dimension really is.

Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
So then you agree that the only way they could know how I experience red is to experience it for themselves - and that they could not know it just by knowing which neurons are firing in my brain?
I think you're using a faulty definition of "know," too. Because you're using it as a synonym for "experience," which makes your question a tautology.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
but they also can't possibly convince those who can see for themselves with certainty that they do have such experience.
But there are at least two stages of input at which I can insert a "false" (i.e. non-real) experience into your brain. I can fool your eyes and your other senses into seeing something that's not real; with additional technology, I might be able to make you think (or just remember) that you saw something that wasn't there.

In this case, you have had the "experience" I wanted you to have, despite having had no such experience at all. To you, within your internal context, it is "real" -- but it's a completely false construct.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
Also from Strider, earlier in the thread:
quote:
But lets even say for a moment that what you're talking about is possible. I agree there's so much we don't know, and can possibly never understand given the nature of our brains evolution to cope in a three dimensional environment. But this possible consciousness that continues to exist in some other plane of existence is not ME. To me, what I know as myself is a funciton of memory. I use my memory and my present state of awareness to define who I am. The me I know ceases to exist when I die(when my memories and awareness die with my body). And whatever consciousness continues to exist after the ME is dead, has no relation to me.
I don't think you can conclusively declare that this conciousness is not you, unless you also claim that the Strider who people will experience tomorrow isn't you because it has progressed further through time and you haven't. It seems possible to me that just as Strider tomorrow is more than but (as far as we can tell) wholly inclusive of the "you" that exists today, the "Strider" which might exist beyond your experience of what we call mortality might possibly contain the whole of your life, plus whatever is possible to be experienced "beyond" it. Would this consciousness not be "you"?

This may be a matter of semantics. I mean, in a sense you aren't the person who came out of your mother's womb. In the sense that "you" are your mind (containing your memories) "you" are a being of incredibly greater complexity than the infant that bore your name. I think it's possible that a conciousness might exist beyond your "death" that is not less "you" than that baby was "you".

Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
This, by the way, is why I claim the whole idea of the "self" is merely a useful fiction.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2