AN INVINCIBLE ARGUMENT FOR THE AFTERLIFE (PART THREE)

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: AN INVINCIBLE ARGUMENT FOR THE AFTERLIFE (PART THREE)

Postby phenomenal_graffiti » Sat Jun 22, 2019 12:17 am

To iambiguous:

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
But science’s statement, any statement about (1) The evolution of human history ; (2) The evolution of life on earth; (3) The evolution of earth and our solar system—of matter---back to the Big Bang; (4) 68% of the universe is dark energy; (5) Dark matter makes up about 27%; (6) The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe….

Are only made-up, imaginary states of affairs believed to have independent existence in the external world based on their appearance as ideas and sensory events within the “matrix” or virtual realities that make up the consciousness of all scientists, which they erroneously believe are magically (through neural transformativism or incantationism) produced by neurons in a skull.


Right, like this very assumption you are making here isn't, in turn, something that you are making up in a context that includes all of these other asumtpions.


I don't think that scientists making up or imagining the existence of mind-independent dark energy, the planet earth, the evolution of life on earth etc. is an assumption, or something that I am just making up.

It's a fact.

Here's why.

If we accept the belief that brains create consciousness (me for the sake of argument), and that there can be no instance, not a scrap, of subjective experience that is not created by the brain, everything a scientist knows and has discovered about the "world" must be generated by the brain. There is a 'dark energy' and a 'planet earth' that is created or generated by the scientist's brain, and there is a 'dark energy' and a 'planet earth' that is not created or generated by the scientist's brain (if we accept the existence of mind-independent doppelgangers of the content of visual person).

The 'dark energy' and 'planet earth' created by the scientist's brain is something completely different and something that is not one and the same as the 'dark energy' and 'planet earth' that is not a creation of the scientist's brain. For one thing, the 'dark energy' and 'planet earth' that is not a creation of the scientist's brain exists outside the skull and perimeter of epidermis forming the body of the scientist, thus 'planet earth', for example, not produced by the scientist's brain is too large to fit within the scientist's skull, much less can an actual planet squeeze itself into a neuron or neurons. So if the mind-independent planet even exists, it certainly didn't exist within the scientist's skull and certainly did not airbag deploy from the scientist's skull, the way the scientist's subjective experience of a planet does.

The only thing one can experience is that which is created or generated by your brain (if one believes the brain creates consciousness). One cannot experience that which is not created nor generated by your brain. Thus all mind-independent things: (1) The evolution of human history ; (2) The evolution of life on earth; (3) The evolution of earth and our solar system—of matter---back to the Big Bang; (4) 68% of the universe is dark energy; (5) Dark matter makes up about 27%; (6) The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe….

...are just imagined states of affairs produced by the brain (if one believes the brain creates consciousness). They is fact, not assumption. They must be entirely imaginary, because we cannot experience mind-independent objects and events, so everything taken to be mind-independent are made up only of one's consciousness or subjective experience, which is generated by the brain (if one believes the brain creates consciousness).

But you have to be more specific. Given this very exchange that we are having using this technology invented by a life form on planet earth in the Milky Way galaxy embedded in a universe that astrophysicists have been able to speak of with extraordinary sophistication, how do you go about demonstrating that what scientists "erroneously believe are magically (through neural transformativism or incantationism) produced by neurons in a skull" is in fact erroneous.


It's erroneous because we cannot prove the existence of mind-independent versions of the objects and processes known to scientific discovery and knowledge. We have no evidence that a mind-independent earth exists. We have no evidence that a mind-independent Milky Way exists. We have no evidence of the existence of mind-independent technology. Everything consists of a person's subjective experience, and the Milky Way, earth, biological cells, and all the processes of physics are all subjective experiences experienced by a subjectively experiencing person. We have no evidence these things exist in the absence of persons.

What on earth does that have to do with things that we can both know [and demonstrate] about tbis exchange and things that we cannot.

How would you take us out into the world and, empirically, experientially, experimently etc., prove to us that your own particular intellectual assumptions here have actual substance. Insofar as they can be related to our day to day interactions.


I can point to the scientists' own subjective experience and that the things known to be empirically and experientially true to the scientist have only appeared to the scientist when the scientist experienced them, they exist only as long as the scientist experiences them, and disappear when the scientist no longer experiences them. They only exist when the scientist experiences them. I can state that there is no evidence they exist when the scientist no longer experiences them.

kay, but this assessment is relevant to any argument about anything --- anything not able to be demonstrated.

But: with so much at stake regarding the existence of the afterlife, a demonstration is all that more crucial.


phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
Is it? Or what could suffice, for some, is merely the knowledge or realization that an afterlife is not necessarily or logically false, given that we only experience virtual realities and that consciousness is not logically or necessarily something that ceases to exist (but only changes content)?


Yeah, sure, if someone is able to feel satisfied with the knowledge that an afterlife "is not necessarily or logically false", more power to them. Whatever works...right?


It doesn't matter if one is able to feel satisfied with the knowledge that an afterlife is not necessarily or logically false. The logical fact remains that an afterlife is not necessarily or logically false.

Whatever works...right?


Doesn't matter if it "works" in a psychological sense to provide comfort that it is an invincible possibility that cannot be ruled out. The fact is that the afterlife cannot be ruled out. Blanket metaphysical possibility, regardless of whether or not one finds comfort in it, or uses it to provide shelter from the "truth" of eternal oblivion.

I'm just not one of them.


That's cool.

And to those who are satisfied that oblivion may be theoretically obviated through this frame of mind I would ask this:

1] how much have you got to lose in dying?
2] how close have you actually come to dying?


Eternal oblivion, if its the case, is eternal oblivion. Nothing anyone can do about that in the absence of gods. Nothing to lose and if there is a lot to lose, there's nothing you can do about it anyway. I'm sure everyone, whether they realize or not, have come close to dying. Probably several times.

Me, I've accumulated tons of things I don't want to lose forever and ever and ever. And, three times, I have come close to dying. Twice [way, way back] by my own hand.


Good you didn't succeed.

In fact it was then that I came to appreciate the one true antidote for thanatophobia: being in so much fucking pain you want to die. Then what comes after hardly enters into it at all.


I imagine it wouldn't.

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
True. The only certainty is the existence of “I” and the things that appear within the sensory virtual reality or “matrix” that is one’s (primarily) visual perception.


But even here "I" may well be an entity embedded in a "reality" emanating from a sim world, a dream world, a matrix, a dimension of a multiverse we have no grasp of whatsoever.


There's "I" and then there's "all there is". And then one by one "I" dies. Then what?

Then all the various speculations that abound on this thread.


Death is generally believed to be cessation of the existence of consciousness as a result of cessation of function of the brain. As Karen Gervais states as quoted in Max More's, The Terminus of The Self:

"[H]uman death, understood as the death of a person, is a state in which the function of consciousness has been irreversibly lost as a result of one of several possible combinations of damage to the brain substratum" [150]. "[T]he individual's essence consists in the possession of a conscious, yet not necessarily continuous, mental life; if all mental life ceases, the person ceases to exist; when the person ceases to exist, the person has died" [157-58].

-Karen Gervais, Defining Death. New Haven: Yale University Press.

But if consciousness does not cease to exist as there is no such thing as physical energy (such that it is consciousness rather than physical energy that exhibits the properties of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics), and if there are no such things as mind-independent brains, much less the ability of mind-independent brains to create or cause the existence of subjective experience, then 'death' is just the absence of one's subjective experience in the mind of another subjectively experiencing person. If things do not cease to exist, "I" simply becomes "It" in the mind of another. If....the aforementioned "ifs" are true.

Again, it's not what is believed, but what is able to be demonstrated as that which all rational human beings are obligated to believe in turn.


But anything that is demonstrated or able to be demonstrated must consist of subjective experience: the subjective experience of the person to whom it is demonstrated. Anything that is not materially constructed of subjective experience cannot be demonstrated. Things materially constructed of subjective experience but is not the subjective experience of the person asking for demonstration also cannot be demonstrated.

What actually is the most sophisticated conclusion relating to the "empirical evidence of consciousness itself"?


The most sophisticated conclusion relating to the "empirical evidence of consciousness itself" is that the only thing that appears or demonstrates that it exists is consciousness.

As that relates to the afterlife?


The afterlife is conceived, made up, or imagined as being constituted of consciousness or subjective experience.

What are the odds that it is being conveyed to us here?


The 'odds' are only the level in which one believed it, if one were to claim the afterlife or parts of it were conveyed here. If one believed it, the odds are great, if one did not believe it, the odds would be astronomically unlikely or outright false.

What information is the least likely to come down to leaps of faith?


Only the existence of subjective experience itself.

But is there oblivion? Does consciousness cease entirely to exist ? How can something that exists simply stop existing?


Well, if consciousness is an inherent component of the brain and the brain is the inherent component of the material laws of nature, then some suggest that this brain reconfigures back to "star stuff". Star stuff that will someday [maybe] reconfigure back to another "I".


But we have no evidence of the existence of mind-independent brains, and it is probably unlikely that subjective experience can rationally have anything to do with something that is not subjective experience or made up of subjective experience. There is no evidence for the existence of mind-independent star stuff.

But then that's the part where brains here discussing oblivion were never able not to in a wholly determined universe. Then that going all the way back to an understanding of existence itself.


There is no evidence of the existence of mind-independent brains. There is only evidence of the existence of persons. Thus we are probably just subjective experience in the form of persons, and are not brains.

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
Fair enough. The afterlife, like the consciousnesses of other people, the ability of the brain to create consciousness, the ability of consciousness to cease entirely to exist or to magically come into existence after first never having existed at all….are all just matters of faith, that must be accepted on faith, and that are supported only by faith. One can choose to believe things that are matters of faith (like the existence of “real world” or mind-independent brains) or not.


Then basically we are more or less in agreement here.

And then it just comes down to grappling with the manner in which we may be construing "faith" in different ways. For me it revolves around...

1] not knowing if human consciousness is autonomous
2] and, if it is autonomous, not knowing if what "I" thinks and feels and says and does is even close to an understanding of why thinking and feeling and saying and doing even exist at all
3] then going back to why and how anything exists at all...and why this existence and not some other


As I use "faith", it means belief in something for which there is no evidence i.e., something not experienced by a person. For example, faith in an afterlife is belief in something that cannot be demonstrated with the "matrix" of current human experience. One has faith in an afterlife because (admittedly!) it is consoling against the idea of eternal oblivion and....well....regardless of whether or not it is believed for consoling purposes....objectively it's existence cannot be ruled out based on it's absence from the "matrix" of current human consciousness.

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
...Even if there were external world dwelling, non-person experienced trees, mountains, televisions, moons, stars, etc. they can have no rational or logical power to give rise to subjective, first-person experience because they are not and are not composed of first-person subjective experience. It is irrational to derive subjective experience from something that is not first-person experience. As it is more likely that there are no such things as mind-independent doppelgangers of the content of visual perception, everything scientists discover or observe---everything---is all in their heads. It’s all make-believe, the here and now is essentially a constructed reality consisting only of one's subjective experience that one may irrationally believe airbag deploys from a blob of flesh in their skull (but the blob of flesh and the skull are part of the matrix world that is one's consciousness, and probably has no "outside you" counterpart).


On the other hand, all of this being sheer speculation based on the assumptions that you have concocted "in your head" about these relationships.


Although concocted in my head, the fact remains that human consciousness is a "matrix" composed of one's experience of the "matrix". It's a fact we have no evidence of the existence of mind-independent things, as mind-independent things are you-independent things. And we have no evidence that things that do not exist can be brought into existence, or that things that exist actually go out of existence and not simply change form.

Only when we wake up one morning and hear on the news that scientists and philosophers are now all in agreement that your "analysis" of these relationships is in fact closer to the whole truth than any other "assessment" can we then take this beyond a thread here at ILP.


That would be great if we could move beyond the delusion of mind-independence.

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
But what you believe happens to “I” on the day your virtual brain seems to cease to operate, as real brains probably do not exist and cannot logically or rationally have anything to do with the existence of your virtual or “matrix” brain……also happens to be something you believe in your head here and now. And you believing it (based on the strength of your “evidence” that something outside of “I” cannot be demonstrated and “I”’s that have passed on do not return to report their afterlife experiences, tends to overlook the fact that an afterlife simply cannot be ruled out as absolutely non-existence despite the fact it cannot be demonstrated within the virtual realities depicting “this side of the grave”.


Yes, we both believe different things in our heads here and now. But what I believe is about as glum as it gets. "I" die and tumble over into the abyss that is oblivion.

And, here and now, "I" don't want to die. And here and now you have not convinced me that thinking like you do is how I ought to be thinking in turn. I have no "intellectual contraption" providing me with any measure at all of comfort and consolation.

So, sure, for all practical purposes, what you do believe now, now works for you.


I don't think I'll ever convince you that how I think is how you should think. You believe that consciousness ceases to exist at death. I believe, regardless of the psychological benefits, that it is objectively possible or even objectively true that things cannot come into nor go out of existence, thus consciousness cannot come into nor go out of existence. At the end of the live long day, I cannot demonstrate the afterlife and I admit and will continue to concede that I cannot demonstrate the afterlife.

Your argument, it seems to me, ultimately comes down to the conviction that truth must be visually demonstrated or b.s. should be called. But demonstration can only entail...and I mean only entails...the appearance of something within the "matrix" or artificial reality of your consciousness. We cannot experience anything objectively outside the "matrix" of our consciousness or anything conceived to be outside one's consciousness. If the afterlife is a different "matrix" or artificial reality made up of subjective experience lying outside our consciousness, it is in the same boat as the consciousness of other people, and as such cannot be demonstrated.

My entire rebuttal to your "demonstration" requirement is that things can exist without their ever being demonstrated, and given that demonstration is just one's subjective experience "morphed" into an absurd form, that which lies outside one's subjective experience is something objective to and separate from the "medium" of 'demonstration', thus logically, being separated, has no requirement (outside establishing the belief of a person) to appear.
J.Brewer
Image
The Truman Show, 1998 Paramount Pictures

Q: What lies beyond the "Matrix" that is consciousness?
A: The conscious and unconscious mind of God.


email me at: phenomenal_graffiti@yahoo.com
User avatar
phenomenal_graffiti
Thinker
 
Posts: 836
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:08 pm
Location: Texas

Re: AN INVINCIBLE ARGUMENT FOR THE AFTERLIFE (PART THREE)

Postby promethean75 » Sat Jun 22, 2019 3:15 pm

karp, what i'm claiming is very simple, but what it would mean is easily overlooked unless one knows the degrees of difference between empiricism and radical empiricism. this can be confusing. typically empiricism states that all knowledge is derived from experience, but it doesn't state that there are things in the world that cannot exist unless they are perceived. the variation of radical empiricism, which is as PGean as much as it is berkeleyean, states that nothing can exist unless it is perceived. this is quite a different claim than saying all knowledge is derived from experience.

with kant i believe that there are certain categories of reason that exist prior to experience and knowledge, which make these very things possible in the first place. substance, space, time, and causation are four such categories that not only exist prior to experience, but are the very foundation of experience itself. that is to say, they are not things that need to be experienced to exist... rather they must exist for experience to happen at all. they provide the structure and content for all empirical experience. if these categories are real, then there is quite a bit of 'reality' that is mind-independent.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1601
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: AN INVINCIBLE ARGUMENT FOR THE AFTERLIFE (PART THREE)

Postby surreptitious75 » Sat Jun 22, 2019 11:50 pm

Experience has to be temporal so time has to exist as a mind independent phenomenon
For the brain cannot function in a timeless state no more than any physical system can

And if time exists then space must exist also so that is another mind independent phenomenon
You cannot function as an organism without an external physical system so that has to be added

So time and space and matter have to first exist before the solipsist does as they cannot simply exist in a vacuum - if they did they would be dead
Even though knowledge or experience cannot be arrived at by mind independent means that does not mean that the mind creates all it perceives
Last edited by surreptitious75 on Sat Jun 22, 2019 11:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: AN INVINCIBLE ARGUMENT FOR THE AFTERLIFE (PART THREE)

Postby promethean75 » Sat Jun 22, 2019 11:54 pm

promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1601
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: AN INVINCIBLE ARGUMENT FOR THE AFTERLIFE (PART THREE)

Postby phenomenal_graffiti » Wed Jun 26, 2019 5:00 am

To surreptitious75:

Experience has to be temporal so time has to exist as a mind independent phenomenon


Experience is temporal as we experience ("experience", get it?) things temporally, that is, we have experience that changes from one thing to the next. Time is change and the measure of change. Timelessness, following Wheeler's notion of 'pre-geometry' is changelessness or the state of being forever frozen in one place, never evolving forward with a future difference or shift from one experience to another. We have never experienced timelessness so yes, experience is temporal.

Change, er, time is a mind-independent phenomenon only in the sense that time is an action (change) and not a person. But get this, since existence has only ever appeared in the form of subjective experience, and has only ever appeared in the form of a subjectively experiencing person...well....time is both mind-composed and mind-independent: it is mind-composed in the sense that time, er, change has only ever existed or appeared in the form of changing subjective experience, and it is mind-independent only in the sense that it is a subjectively experienced action, not the person perceiving or experiencing the action.

For the brain cannot function in a timeless state no more than any physical system can


Given, but besides the point. Given that, if one believes in the physical or something that is not subjective experience, there are two brains not one: there is the brain that is a visual and tactile "hologram" composed of the subjective experience of the perceiving person created by the brain, that would immediately vanish if the person viewing a brain were to suddenly fall unconscious or die, and there is the brain not created by a brain that exists in the external world, has never formed within or ejected from tiny neurons within a skull, and that supposedly exists even if no conscious being were perceiving it.

Within this ludicrous mythology, the brain not created by anyone's brain does not depend upon brains to exist in the first place, as it exists outside the skull and it would be hard put to see how this external brain was created by and ejected into external world from a brain within a skull. This external brain, that is not the phantom brain (the brain that would disappear as it is made up of the subjective experience of the person perceiving this brain-created 'brain') is not made up of subjective experience, as according to the mythology subjective experience did not exist until non-subjective-experience-composed-atoms accidentally and godlessly formed brains.

But as existence has only ever appeared or shown up in the form of a person and that which the person experiences, there is no evidence...

(...as evidence is subjective experience, and things that one has evidence for are ultimately only things one subjectively experiences that are made up of the subjective experience of the one subjectively experiencing them, otherwise they cannot be subjectively experienced as they would be made up of something that is not the subjective experience of the person that would have subjectively experienced them had they been made up of that person's subjective experience)

...of the existence things that are not the subjective experience of that person, and there is no evidence of the existence of anything that is not subjective experience nor made up of a persons' subjective experience.

Thus we have no evidence of the existence of mind-independent (not made up of subjective experience) brains, or of the existence of the 'physical'.

And if time exists then space must exist also so that is another mind independent phenomenon
You cannot function as an organism without an external physical system so that has to be added


Space exists as a mind-independent phenomenon only in the sense that it is the subjective experience of space, not a person.

There is no evidence of the existence of an external, non-brain created physical system (for those believing the brain creates consciousness). There is only evidence of a 'physical' system or organism composed of first-person subjective experience. Anything that is not subjective experience or not made up of subjective experience is entirely imaginary (and the imagination of things not made up of subjective experience are, ironically, made up of subjective experience).

So time and space and matter have to first exist before the solipsist does as they cannot simply exist in a vacuum - if they did they would be dead. Even though knowledge or experience cannot be arrived at by mind independent means that does not mean that the mind creates all it perceives


Time and space are made up of subjective experience or at least have only existed or shown up in the form of first-person subjective experience, in the form of first-person subjective experience of time (change) and space (room for stuff to occupy).

Now, as mind-independence (non-subjective experience) cannot logically have anything to do with subjective experience (independent of convenient magic, in which non-subjective experience conjures something that does not exist into existence or stops being non-subjective experience to inexplicably become first-person subjective experience [during which time it cannot both be non-subjective experience and subjective experience]), and there is no evidence for the existence of non-subjective experience, it is reasonable to assume that time and space outside a finite human person (a subjective experience that experiences change and room in finite form) is itself composed of subjective experience....not non-subjective experience, as non-subjective experience may not exist and as before, could have no logical or rational dealing with subjective experience.

While it is not out of the question that non-human subjective experience could be non-person in shape, with the external world consisting of subjective experience in non-human form, it is more elegant and symmetrical that non-human subjective experience exists in the form of a Person occupying the external world, with humans existing within the mind of this Person, the inner mind of the Person being the true form of the external world itself.

Now the consciousness-substance of this Person is the true "godless matter" sustaining and providing the medium for non-human time and change....though the substance continues to depict non-human time and change in the form of subjectively experienced time and change, in terms of how the Person experiences time and change, not time and change independent of persons.

But all is but mere conjecture regarding the nature of the external world, apart from the empirical knowledge of that which unquestionably and undeniably exists---subjectively experiencing persons composed only of first-person subjective experience and the things they experience, composed of the subjective experience of the person subjectively experiencing them.
J.Brewer
Image
The Truman Show, 1998 Paramount Pictures

Q: What lies beyond the "Matrix" that is consciousness?
A: The conscious and unconscious mind of God.


email me at: phenomenal_graffiti@yahoo.com
User avatar
phenomenal_graffiti
Thinker
 
Posts: 836
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:08 pm
Location: Texas

Re: AN INVINCIBLE ARGUMENT FOR THE AFTERLIFE (PART THREE)

Postby surreptitious75 » Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:34 pm

There is no way that mind independent reality can be demonstrated to exist without it being filtered through the first person subjective experience of a human mind
[ or indeed any mind for that matter ] This is not merely a limitation of physics and of biology but of logic also. The solipsist can not disprove the existence of a mind independent reality no more than the non solipsist can prove it. The default position therefore would be to accept that reality might be either. Yet human minds both at the point of birth and immediately beyond it are just not sufficiently complex enough to be capable of perceiving reality as mind dependent. That would therefore suggest that it is not actually that at all rather the complete opposite

A mind independent reality does not require the existence of a sufficiently complex mind in the same way that a mind dependent one would. From my own subjective experience I have never attempted to perceive external reality beyond automatic sensory perception. If I am making zero conscious effort to perceive external reality as mind dependent that demonstrates to me that it must be mind independent instead. I simply can not accept from a logical perspective that external reality is mind dependent when I am not remotely thinking of that when perceiving what my sense organs are experiencing and what my brain is processing with regard to said reality
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: AN INVINCIBLE ARGUMENT FOR THE AFTERLIFE (PART THREE)

Postby phenomenal_graffiti » Thu Jun 27, 2019 9:09 pm

There is no way that mind independent reality can be demonstrated to exist without it being filtered through the first person subjective experience of a human mind


But if it appears as first-person subjective experience, it ceases to be mind-independent. Also, it's hard put to see how mind-independent reality, if it is not first-person subjective experience to begin with prior to filtering, can have anything to do with first-person subjective experience, since it is not first-person subjective experience. There is no good reason for mind-independence to exist. Even if it exists, it is not first-person subjective experience so it doesn't follow why it should magically turn into or conjure something that does not exist (first-person subjective experience) into existence.

[ or indeed any mind for that matter ] This is not merely a limitation of physics and of biology but of logic also. The solipsist can not disprove the existence of a mind independent reality no more than the non solipsist can prove it. The default position therefore would be to accept that reality might be either.


True. But why even entertain the idea of mind-independence (i.e. something that is not subjective experience) when only subjective experience appears to exist? But one can ask the same question about God, I suppose.

Yet human minds both at the point of birth and immediately beyond it are just not sufficiently complex enough to be capable of perceiving reality as mind dependent. That would therefore suggest that it is not actually that at all rather the complete opposite


Complexity is beside the point. There's just first-person subjective experience, and fanciful imagination of something that is not first-person subjective experience in the external world. If the second exists, it cannot rationally have anything to do with the existence of the first save through magic. The second is said to have something to do with the first out of denial that the first may be:

1. The only thing that exists and that has ever existed

2. Eternal

A mind independent reality does not require the existence of a sufficiently complex mind in the same way that a mind dependent one would. From my own subjective experience I have never attempted to perceive external reality beyond automatic sensory perception. If I am making zero conscious effort to perceive external reality as mind dependent that demonstrates to me that it must be mind independent instead. I simply can not accept from a logical perspective that external reality is mind dependent when I am not remotely thinking of that when perceiving what my sense organs are experiencing and what my brain is processing with regard to said reality


Err, the state of the external world is not dependent upon what you, I, or anyone else thinks or perceives: the external world is what it is and is not indicated or determined by our thoughts and perceptions, despite the fact we derive our thoughts and perceptions from it. I have only said the external world is probably and most logically made up of mind, i.e. first-person subjective experience, as it makes no sense to get first-person subjective experience from something that is not first-person subjective experience. The external world is "mind-dependent", then, only in this sense: I did not mean the external world is dependent upon a human's mind.

Also, you're not experiencing the external world: just yourself, i.e. your own first-person subjective experience in a "matrix"-like artificial reality made up...well...of you, i.e. your first-person subjective experience, as opposed to something that is not your subjective experience or the subjective experience of any other being in existence. This is proven by the very concept of unconsciousness or death (if unconsciousness or death exists). Everything around you is not the external world, just your first-person subjective experience in visual and tactile form (primarily) in a "matrix"-like virtual reality "Mystique-ing" into the various objects and environments and bodies of persons around you.

The brain doesn't do anything. It's just part of the "matrix" or artificial or virtual reality made out of you, that is, your first-person subjective experience, and is a redutio ad absurdum that irritates logic until one comes to find the brain is as useful as a brick when it comes to creating consciousness and reality. It certainly cannot logically create conscious experience.

There is no need for mind-independence in terms of something that is other than or that is not subjective experience. There is mind-independence in the sense "not-your-mind" or "not-my-mind", that is, something that is not you or me in the external world. But this other need not be something that is not or not made out of subjective experience. It is probably, given that our existence (as first-person subjective experiences) is indicative of the actual nature of all existence, just more subjective experience in the form of an outer Person.
J.Brewer
Image
The Truman Show, 1998 Paramount Pictures

Q: What lies beyond the "Matrix" that is consciousness?
A: The conscious and unconscious mind of God.


email me at: phenomenal_graffiti@yahoo.com
User avatar
phenomenal_graffiti
Thinker
 
Posts: 836
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:08 pm
Location: Texas

Re: AN INVINCIBLE ARGUMENT FOR THE AFTERLIFE (PART THREE)

Postby surreptitious75 » Thu Jun 27, 2019 10:11 pm

phenomenal graffiti wrote:
it is hard put to see how mind independent reality if it is not first person subjective experience to begin with prior to
filtering can have anything to do with first person subjective experience since it is not first person subjective experience

If mind independent reality exists then a mind could only interpret that through first person subjective experience
So there is therefore a direct causal link between an objective phenomenon and the interpretation of it by a mind

When the eye sees something it is because light has travelled from it to the object in question then back again to the eye and the brain which processes
this sensory experience. The object is mind independent but the sight of the object is mind dependent and so there exists a connection between the two

Another mind observing this interaction would treat both the object and the mind as mind independent. A mind can therefore be both mind independent and mind dependent depending on who or what was observing from a specific point. So for example everything that I see is mind dependent but from the external reference fame of another mind it is mind independent. It is simply not possible for two minds to occupy the same point in spacetime and have exactly the same perspective
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: AN INVINCIBLE ARGUMENT FOR THE AFTERLIFE (PART THREE)

Postby surreptitious75 » Thu Jun 27, 2019 10:33 pm

phenomenal graffiti wrote:
There is just first person subjective experience and fanciful imagination of something that is not first person subjective experience in the external world

The second part of this statement is unfalsifiable given that mind independent reality cannot actually be proven or disproven outside of subjective experience
An external mind or machine with mind like capability could prove or disprove it but this knowledge however would still have to be revealed to ones own mind
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: AN INVINCIBLE ARGUMENT FOR THE AFTERLIFE (PART THREE)

Postby phenomenal_graffiti » Fri Jun 28, 2019 6:30 pm

phenomenal graffiti wrote:
it is hard put to see how mind independent reality if it is not first person subjective experience to begin with prior to
filtering can have anything to do with first person subjective experience since it is not first person subjective experience


If mind independent reality exists, then a mind could only interpret that through first person subjective experience


I think a mind-independent reality exists as "mind-independent" only in the sense of the reality being a "your mind-independent" or "my mind-independent" external world. It is, in my belief, not an external reality made up of something that is not mind (subjective experience) itself. That is to say the mind-independent reality, in order to logically have anything to do with our first-person subjective experience, must itself be composed of first-person subjective experience.

If a mind-independent ("your mind-independent" or "my mind-independent") reality exists, a mind could only interpret the external reality through first-person subjective experience. This is correct: in order for something (or someone!) in the external world to communicate with you, it (or he/she/they) must form what it has (or he/she/they have) to "say" in the form of---not the subjective experience of any other person in the totality of existence...but your subjective experience. My whole point in this metaphysical regard is that the external message sender, in order to logically communicate to a subjectively experiencing person, must itself be composed of first-person subjective experience.


So there is therefore a direct causal link between an objective phenomenon and the interpretation of it by a mind


Only if the objective phenomenon is made up of first-person subjective experience. If it is not made up of first-person subjective experience it cannot logically causally link to or communicate with first-person subjective experience. Why? Because...well...it is something that is not first-person subjective experience, and one cannot rationally or logically derive subjective experience from something that is not subjective experience. There is absolutely no good reason that first-person subjective experience should not have existed for all previous eternity (i.e. there is no good reason for something that does not exist to come into existence without having already existed), and there is certainly no good reason to achieve the existence of first-person subjective experience with something that is not first-person subjective experience.

When the eye sees something it is because light has travelled from it to the object in question then back again to the eye and the brain which processes this sensory experience. The object is mind independent but the sight of the object is mind dependent and so there exists a connection between the two


The only thing we have evidence for the existence of is the visual perception itself, which is composed of first-person subjective experience. We have no evidence for the existence of mind-independent, non-subjective experience composed light; we have no evidence of the existence of a mind-independent, non-subjective experience composed doppelganger of the object being seen; the brain does not nor has it every produced conscious experience, as there is absolutely no evidence of the existence of mind-independent, non-subjective experience composed brains.

There can be no established connection between a non-subjective experience composed object purportedly existing in the external world and an object made up of one's subjective experience in visual form, as there is no evidence of the existence of non-subjective experience, much less external non-subjective experience in the form of sensory objects.

The entire process of perception is fictional: with the sole exception of the "Everlasting Gob-stopper" of the conscious experience that cranks out at the end of the "Willy Wonka contraption" that is the mind-independent object in the external world, the light or other physical energy that transmits from the object across space to enter the eye, the conversion of this energy into electrical energy in the nerves of the optic nerve, and final transmission of electrons from the optic nerve to the occipital lobe that magically creates the visual image, is entirely make-believe.

Another mind observing this interaction would treat both the object and the mind as mind independent. A mind can therefore be both mind independent and mind dependent depending on who or what was observing from a specific point. So for example everything that I see is mind dependent but from the external reference fame of another mind it is mind independent. It is simply not possible for two minds to occupy the same point in spacetime and have exactly the same perspective


Everything you see is mind-dependent in the sense that they are made up of your subjective experience, and disappear when you are no longer attending to or paying attention to them. From an external frame of reference of another mind, you and the objects are "mind-independent" in the sense that the other person is not you. Nowhere in this is there anything that is not subjective experience or not made up of subjective experience.

It is simply not possible for two minds to occupy the same point in spacetime and have exactly the same perspective


Intersubjectivity may be impossible (or at least improbable) in terms of usual sensory perception in which (if one believes the brain creates consciousness), difference of perspective occurs because in everyday reality brains of two different persons are always functioning non-isomorphically (non-identically), but there can in principle be experiential isomorphism or experiential mimicry, in which (if one believes the brain creates consciousness) the brains of two beings are manipulated in a way in which the brains are caused to operate identically, with the neurons of each brain firing identically, creating a shared experience between beings in which they share the same sensory experience from the same perspective although their bodies are, of course, lying side by side which would ordinarily lead to difference of visual perspective (see David J. Chalmers, Absent Qualia, Fading Qualia, Dancing Qualia).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
phenomenal graffiti wrote:

There is just first person subjective experience and fanciful imagination of something that is not first person subjective experience in the external world


The second part of this statement is unfalsifiable given that mind independent reality cannot actually be proven or disproven outside of subjective experience. An external mind or machine with mind like capability could prove or disprove it but this knowledge however would still have to be revealed to ones own mind.


True. In the meantime faith continues to do its poor job of "proving" what does or does not exist in the external world.
J.Brewer
Image
The Truman Show, 1998 Paramount Pictures

Q: What lies beyond the "Matrix" that is consciousness?
A: The conscious and unconscious mind of God.


email me at: phenomenal_graffiti@yahoo.com
User avatar
phenomenal_graffiti
Thinker
 
Posts: 836
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:08 pm
Location: Texas

Re: AN INVINCIBLE ARGUMENT FOR THE AFTERLIFE (PART THREE)

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jun 29, 2019 12:24 am

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:If we accept the belief that brains create consciousness (me for the sake of argument), and that there can be no instance, not a scrap, of subjective experience that is not created by the brain, everything a scientist knows and has discovered about the "world" must be generated by the brain.


Right from the start though both of us are required "for the sake of argument" to "accept" certain assumptions/beliefs about the relationship between the objective truth [going back to an explanation for existence itself] and our subjective speculations here and now given the gap between what we think we know and all that can be known.

For me then it is just a matter of pointing out [in these exchanges] the concommitant gap between my own willingness to admit my conjectures are basically WAGs while others seem entirely more adament about their own arguments being true.

What is the precise relationship between the human brain, human consciousness, "I", and all the rest of it?

And to what extent does someone seem convinced that they actually do understand it?

That's why I tack on this part:

"What on earth does that have to do with things that we can both know [and demonstrate] about this exchange and things that we cannot.

How would you take us out into the world and, empirically, experientially, experimently etc., prove to us that your own particular intellectual assumptions here have actual substance. Insofar as they can be related to our day to day interactions."


phenomenal_graffiti wrote:There is a 'dark energy' and a 'planet earth' that is created or generated by the scientist's brain, and there is a 'dark energy' and a 'planet earth' that is not created or generated by the scientist's brain (if we accept the existence of mind-independent doppelgangers of the content of visual person).

The 'dark energy' and 'planet earth' created by the scientist's brain is something completely different and something that is not one and the same as the 'dark energy' and 'planet earth' that is not a creation of the scientist's brain. For one thing, the 'dark energy' and 'planet earth' that is not a creation of the scientist's brain exists outside the skull and perimeter of epidermis forming the body of the scientist, thus 'planet earth', for example, not produced by the scientist's brain is too large to fit within the scientist's skull, much less can an actual planet squeeze itself into a neuron or neurons. So if the mind-independent planet even exists, it certainly didn't exist within the scientist's skull and certainly did not airbag deploy from the scientist's skull, the way the scientist's subjective experience of a planet does.


On the other hand, in a determined universe there is really no distinction at all. Both "mind" matter and "mind-independent" matter are intertwined -- wholly in sync with the only possible reality.

After all, what if that explains your arguments here? Or what if the explanation lies in the relationship between "I" and God?

And here we all seem to be stuck in that we can only fall back on speculation and conjecture given the gaps above.

But you have to be more specific. Given this very exchange that we are having using this technology invented by a life form on planet earth in the Milky Way galaxy embedded in a universe that astrophysicists have been able to speak of with extraordinary sophistication, how do you go about demonstrating that what scientists "erroneously believe are magically (through neural transformativism or incantationism) produced by neurons in a skull" is in fact erroneous.


phenomenal_graffiti wrote:It's erroneous because we cannot prove the existence of mind-independent versions of the objects and processes known to scientific discovery and knowledge. We have no evidence that a mind-independent earth exists. We have no evidence that a mind-independent Milky Way exists. We have no evidence of the existence of mind-independent technology. Everything consists of a person's subjective experience, and the Milky Way, earth, biological cells, and all the processes of physics are all subjective experiences experienced by a subjectively experiencing person. We have no evidence these things exist in the absence of persons.


All you are pointing out here [to me] is the gap between the evidence that has been accumulated so far and all the evidence that is actually available to be grasped in order to resolve all the conflicting theories out there about what it all means.

You offer us one theoretical construct to explain it. And no doubt within the philosophical and scientific and theological communities there are many other differing theoretical constructs predicated on many other different assumptions regarding the necessity --eventually -- to close the gap between theory and practice.

It's always the certainty with which one asserts the assumptions of his or her own argument that attracts me. Why? Because then I suspect that this certainty revolves less around what is believed and more around how what is believed manages to comfort and console the believer psychologically.

Clearly, a belief -- any belief -- in the existence of an afterlife will comfort and console most of us. But you flat out admit right from the start that what is invincible here is your argument...not any accumulation of evidence that demonstrates the validity of it "for all practical purposes."

Thus when I nudge the discussion down to earth here...

What on earth does that have to do with things that we can both know [and demonstrate] about tbis exchange and things that we cannot.

How would you take us out into the world and, empirically, experientially, experimently etc., prove to us that your own particular intellectual assumptions here have actual substance. Insofar as they can be related to our day to day interactions.


You take it back up into the clouds of abstraction...the "general description" argument. Or, rather, so it seems to me.

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:I can point to the scientists' own subjective experience and that the things known to be empirically and experientially true to the scientist have only appeared to the scientist when the scientist experienced them, they exist only as long as the scientist experiences them, and disappear when the scientist no longer experiences them. They only exist when the scientist experiences them. I can state that there is no evidence they exist when the scientist no longer experiences them.


What I want is for you to bring your points about the afterlife out into the world that you live in. What brings its existence into focus given the things that you see, hear, feel...experience...from day to day.

There's "I" and then there's "all there is". And then one by one "I" dies. Then what?

Then all the various speculations that abound on this thread.


phenomenal_graffiti wrote:Death is generally believed to be cessation of the existence of consciousness as a result of cessation of function of the brain. As Karen Gervais states as quoted in Max More's, The Terminus of The Self:

"[H]uman death, understood as the death of a person, is a state in which the function of consciousness has been irreversibly lost as a result of one of several possible combinations of damage to the brain substratum" [150]. "[T]he individual's essence consists in the possession of a conscious, yet not necessarily continuous, mental life; if all mental life ceases, the person ceases to exist; when the person ceases to exist, the person has died" [157-58].

-Karen Gervais, Defining Death. New Haven: Yale University Press.

But if consciousness does not cease to exist as there is no such thing as physical energy (such that it is consciousness rather than physical energy that exhibits the properties of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics), and if there are no such things as mind-independent brains, much less the ability of mind-independent brains to create or cause the existence of subjective experience, then 'death' is just the absence of one's subjective experience in the mind of another subjectively experiencing person. If things do not cease to exist, "I" simply becomes "It" in the mind of another. If....the aforementioned "ifs" are true.


"But if..."

Exactly. They provide an argument describing what they believe may be the case.

But then this part:

Again, it's not what is believed, but what is able to be demonstrated as that which all rational human beings are obligated to believe in turn.


phenomenal_graffiti wrote:But anything that is demonstrated or able to be demonstrated must consist of subjective experience: the subjective experience of the person to whom it is demonstrated. Anything that is not materially constructed of subjective experience cannot be demonstrated. Things materially constructed of subjective experience but is not the subjective experience of the person asking for demonstration also cannot be demonstrated.


There is still the part where aspects of any particular subjective experience is able to be related to others in what clearly appear to be objective truths embedded in experiences shared by others.

At least on this side of the grave. But where is the equivalent of that re the other side of grave. What objective truths can be shared in regard to that? For those who have in fact died.

But is there oblivion? Does consciousness cease entirely to exist ? How can something that exists simply stop existing?


Well, if consciousness is an inherent component of the brain and the brain is the inherent component of the material laws of nature, then some suggest that this brain reconfigures back to "star stuff". Star stuff that will someday [maybe] reconfigure back to another "I".


phenomenal_graffiti wrote:But we have no evidence of the existence of mind-independent brains, and it is probably unlikely that subjective experience can rationally have anything to do with something that is not subjective experience or made up of subjective experience. There is no evidence for the existence of mind-independent star stuff.


From my frame of mind [and that's all it is] this is basically intellectual jargon. In other words, evidence here revolves around going endlessly back and forth regarding the definition and the meaning given to words used in the argument itself. Based largely on assumptions one makes about that which is said to constitute evidence in regard to human subjectivity...given the nature of objectivity in a mindless world.

And it ever and always occurs on this side of the grave. Making any speculation about these relationships on the other side of the grave all that more obscure, ineffable.

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:Fair enough. The afterlife, like the consciousnesses of other people, the ability of the brain to create consciousness, the ability of consciousness to cease entirely to exist or to magically come into existence after first never having existed at all….are all just matters of faith, that must be accepted on faith, and that are supported only by faith. One can choose to believe things that are matters of faith (like the existence of “real world” or mind-independent brains) or not.


Then basically we are more or less in agreement here.

And then it just comes down to grappling with the manner in which we may be construing "faith" in different ways. For me it revolves around...

1] not knowing if human consciousness is autonomous
2] and, if it is autonomous, not knowing if what "I" thinks and feels and says and does is even close to an understanding of why thinking and feeling and saying and doing even exist at all
3] then going back to why and how anything exists at all...and why this existence and not some other


phenomenal_graffiti wrote:As I use "faith", it means belief in something for which there is no evidence i.e., something not experienced by a person. For example, faith in an afterlife is belief in something that cannot be demonstrated with the "matrix" of current human experience. One has faith in an afterlife because (admittedly!) it is consoling against the idea of eternal oblivion and....well....regardless of whether or not it is believed for consoling purposes....objectively it's existence cannot be ruled out based on it's absence from the "matrix" of current human consciousness.


Again, from my frame of mind, you are creating a thread entitled...

AN INVINCIBLE ARGUMENT FOR THE AFTERLIFE

...and then flat out acknolwedging that beyond the argument itself your faith in the existence of an afterlife is wholly entangled in the intellectual assessment itself. A psychological [consoling] contraption as much as anything else. But that, "objectively it's existence cannot be ruled out based on it's absence from the "matrix" of current human consciousness."

About which you have no capacity to actually demonstrate the meaning of those words. Calling something "a 'matrix' of current human consciousness" means what exactly in regard to the behaviors that you choose on this side of the grave as they pertain to what you imagine will be your fate on the other side of it?

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:But what you believe happens to “I” on the day your virtual brain seems to cease to operate, as real brains probably do not exist and cannot logically or rationally have anything to do with the existence of your virtual or “matrix” brain……also happens to be something you believe in your head here and now. And you believing it (based on the strength of your “evidence” that something outside of “I” cannot be demonstrated and “I”’s that have passed on do not return to report their afterlife experiences, tends to overlook the fact that an afterlife simply cannot be ruled out as absolutely non-existence despite the fact it cannot be demonstrated within the virtual realities depicting “this side of the grave”.


Yes, we both believe different things in our heads here and now. But what I believe is about as glum as it gets. "I" die and tumble over into the abyss that is oblivion.

And, here and now, "I" don't want to die. And here and now you have not convinced me that thinking like you do is how I ought to be thinking in turn. I have no "intellectual contraption" providing me with any measure at all of comfort and consolation.

So, sure, for all practical purposes, what you do believe now, now works for you.


phenomenal_graffiti wrote:I don't think I'll ever convince you that how I think is how you should think. You believe that consciousness ceases to exist at death. I believe, regardless of the psychological benefits, that it is objectively possible or even objectively true that things cannot come into nor go out of existence, thus consciousness cannot come into nor go out of existence. At the end of the live long day, I cannot demonstrate the afterlife and I admit and will continue to concede that I cannot demonstrate the afterlife.


Fair enough. You go as far as you can in "thinking it through" and arrive at a set of assumptions which if true allows for the existence of the afterlife "in your head" to be "objectively possible".

I'm not able to arrive at this conclusion myself because, in part, I am unable to grasp what it is that you think you believe yourself. Maybe that gap can be closed, maybe not. For me though thinking yourself to a particular conslusion about the afterlife is far, far, far removed from demonstrating to others why they should think that way too. Why? Because you are able to prove that the argument is not just a world of words. But that the dots are able to be connected between words and worlds. A world before and a world after the grave.

Your own rendition of a "matrix" as it relates to, say, me typing these words here and now and you reading them there and then is lost on me. Let alone in explaining how this matrix functions before the grave so as to allow me to grasp the consequences of it after the grave.

Thus, stuff like this...

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:My entire rebuttal to your "demonstration" requirement is that things can exist without their ever being demonstrated, and given that demonstration is just one's subjective experience "morphed" into an absurd form, that which lies outside one's subjective experience is something objective to and separate from the "medium" of 'demonstration', thus logically, being separated, has no requirement (outside establishing the belief of a person) to appear.


...has a meaning for you that simply goes over my head. As it relates to the things we do from day to day; and as that relates to what we imagine for "I" after the day we die.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 32668
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: AN INVINCIBLE ARGUMENT FOR THE AFTERLIFE (PART THREE)

Postby surreptitious75 » Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:30 am

phenomenal graffiti wrote:
mind independent reality in order to logically have anything to do with our first person
subjective experience must itself be composed of first person subjective experience

A mind independent reality can be interpreted through first person subjective experience while at the same time being entirely independent of that experience
An object that exists independent of a mind observing it can just as easily exist without a mind observing it - from its perspective there is no difference
It only matters to the mind doing the observing not to the thing being observed because the thing being observed has no consciousness or self awareness
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: AN INVINCIBLE ARGUMENT FOR THE AFTERLIFE (PART THREE)

Postby surreptitious75 » Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:51 am

phenomenal graffiti wrote:
There is absolutely no good reason that first person subjective experience should not have existed for all previous eternity

It simply is not possible for something as complex as a human mind to have always existed. From a purely logical non empirical perspective life would originate with the simplest biological form and then very gradually increase in complexity over time. Also nothing finite can have an infinite existence. The only thing that is truly infinite is existence itself because non existence is not a viable state
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: AN INVINCIBLE ARGUMENT FOR THE AFTERLIFE (PART THREE)

Postby surreptitious75 » Sat Jun 29, 2019 7:20 am

phenomenal graffiti wrote:
Everything you see is mind dependent in the sense that they are made up of your subjective
experience and disappear when you are no longer attending to or paying attention to them

Mind independent objects lack consciousness and would not know when a mind was not observing them and therefore could not disappear when required to
That is because their independent existence is not actually conditional on either the observation or non observation of any mind

Also two minds could be observing the same object at the same time but one could be observing it for longer than the other one
When the first mind is no longer observing it but the second one is the object either exists or does not exist as it cannot be both - so then which would it be
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: AN INVINCIBLE ARGUMENT FOR THE AFTERLIFE (PART THREE)

Postby surreptitious75 » Sat Jun 29, 2019 8:07 am

phenomenal graffiti wrote:
In the meantime faith continues to do its poor job of proving what does or does not exist in the external world

Faith has nothing to do with the study of observable phenomena and science does not prove anything anyway
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: AN INVINCIBLE ARGUMENT FOR THE AFTERLIFE (PART THREE)

Postby phenomenal_graffiti » Tue Jul 02, 2019 3:25 am

To Surreptitious 75:

A mind independent reality can be interpreted through first person subjective experience while at the same time being entirely independent of that experience


Sure, if the mind-independent reality is itself made up of first-person subjective experience. If it isn't, a mind-independent reality being interpreted through first-person subjective experience is logically impossible.

An object that exists independent of a mind observing it can just as easily exist without a mind observing it - from its perspective there is no difference. It only matters to the mind doing the observing not to the thing being observed because the thing being observed has no consciousness or self awareness


The object existing independent of a mind observing it may exist without a mind observing it, but in order to have anything to do with the human mind, it must be composed of the first-person experience of the mind experiencing it, or at least of first-person experience itself. If not, it is logically impossible for mind-independent objects to have anything to do with one's first-person subjective experience because...ummm...errr....they are not composed of the first-person subjective experience of the person that is to observe them. There's no way around it: first-person experience can only logically and rationally be derived from still more first-person subjective experience in the external world. It cannot logically be derived from something that is not first-person subjective experience. As an aside, It is illogical for things that do not exist to inexplicably start existing, without having been pieced together from something already in existence. Ergo, first-person subjective experience can only logically be explained as something that has eternally existed, from which human subjective experience is materialistically derived.

Also, for all we can know mind-independent objects that are conceived to be mind-independent, external world dwelling doppelgangers of the content of visual perception are entirely make-believe, and do not exist.

phenomenal graffiti wrote:

There is absolutely no good reason that first person subjective experience should not have existed for all previous eternity


It simply is not possible for something as complex as a human mind to have always existed.


Really, why? If there are no non-subjective experience composed mind-independent objects and substance, a human or human-like mind could easily exist simply by absurdly existing, and by absurdly existing for all eternity. God (who, let's face it, is a human consciousness the size of infinity [Genesis 1: 26,27]), by definition, is absurd.

(God is absurd in the sense of the philosophical doctrine of Absurdism, which states that existence is meaningless in the sense that things exist without reason, and exist for no other reason than that they luckily happen to exist.)

In short, there really is no need for simplicity evolving into complexity (see comment below this one). Consciousness, even complex human consciousness, can simply have always existed. Your use of the term "impossible" does not indicate, to me, any true measure of objective impossibility, but a measure of disbelief in the concept of eternal human consciousness.

From a purely logical non empirical perspective life would originate with the simplest biological form and then very gradually increase in complexity over time.


Life originating from a simple biological form is simply a myth or fable invented to explain the existence of biological life in the "matrix" that is human consciousness. As there is (in my belief) no non-subjective experience composed mind-independent objects and substances, every object is merely a part of the artificial or virtual reality that is human consciousness, not something pre-dating human consciousness.

Also nothing finite can have an infinite existence.


We can't know that consciousness or human consciousness is finite, in terms of existence. Well, we are finite, but the External Person (who essentially makes up the external world) is probably not.

The only thing that is truly infinite is existence itself because non existence is not a viable state


We seem to agree on something. I think non-existence is not a viable state not in the sense that there are not things that are non-existent, but because existing things do not come into or go out of existence (essentially).

phenomenal graffiti wrote:

Everything you see is mind dependent in the sense that they are made up of your subjective
experience and disappear when you are no longer attending to or paying attention to them


Mind independent objects lack consciousness and would not know when a mind was not observing them and therefore could not disappear when required to. That is because their independent existence is not actually conditional on either the observation or non observation of any mind


Well, we have no evidence of the existence of mind-independent objects, much less the existence of objects not composed of first-person subjective experience. Thus, they may be entirely non-existent and make-believe. And yes, if they existed they would not disappear as they are not created by the brain (for those believing the brain creates consciousness). The object created by the brain (for those believing the brain creates consciousness) would disappear when occipital lobe functioning changed to show something else or if the person falls asleep or dies, but the external doppelganger, as it wasn't created by the brain and is entirely unaffected by anything the brain does or goes through, would not disappear in response to what the brain does or what occurs to the brain.

Also two minds could be observing the same object at the same time but one could be observing it for longer than the other one. When the first mind is no longer observing it but the second one is the object either exists or does not exist as it cannot be both - so then which would it be


In the mythology that the brain generates consciousness, outside of mechanical or engineered isomorphism (see David J. Chalmers, Fading Qualia, Absent Qualia, Dancing Qualia), two beings would observe the same object but from different perspectives, no matter how slight the distinction because of the spatiotemporal positioning of their bodies. In engineered isomorphism, a hypothetical situation where a mad scientist hooked up two people to a machine that caused the brains of each individual to function in the exact same way yielding "identical twin" consciousness experienced by both beings, the perspective would be the same because, y'know, consciousness is essentially a virtual reality when it comes down to it.

phenomenal graffiti wrote:

In the meantime faith continues to do its poor job of proving what does or does not exist in the external world


Faith has nothing to do with the study of observable phenomena


Faith has everything to do with the study of observable phenomena.....when you believe that there are non-subjective experience, mind-independent doppelgangers of that phenomena in the external world outside the "matrix" that is magically formed within and airbag deploys from neurons in a bony skull.

and science does not prove anything anyway


I agree, as consciousness is but a "matrix" or virtual reality that probably has no mind-independent doppelgangers of the content of the artificial reality in the external world.
J.Brewer
Image
The Truman Show, 1998 Paramount Pictures

Q: What lies beyond the "Matrix" that is consciousness?
A: The conscious and unconscious mind of God.


email me at: phenomenal_graffiti@yahoo.com
User avatar
phenomenal_graffiti
Thinker
 
Posts: 836
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:08 pm
Location: Texas

Re: AN INVINCIBLE ARGUMENT FOR THE AFTERLIFE (PART THREE)

Postby phenomenal_graffiti » Tue Jul 02, 2019 5:25 am

To iambiguous:

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
If we accept the belief that brains create consciousness (me for the sake of argument), and that there can be no instance, not a scrap, of subjective experience that is not created by the brain, everything a scientist knows and has discovered about the "world" must be generated by the brain.


Right from the start though both of us are required "for the sake of argument" to "accept" certain assumptions/beliefs about the relationship between the objective truth [going back to an explanation for existence itself] and our subjective speculations here and now given the gap between what we think we know and all that can be known.


Sure.

For me then it is just a matter of pointing out [in these exchanges] the concommitant gap between my own willingness to admit my conjectures are basically WAGs while others seem entirely more adament about their own arguments being true.


True. I'm in the "more adamant" camp, but there it is.

What is the precise relationship between the human brain, human consciousness, "I", and all the rest of it?


We certainly observe (or at least those that observe it in medical context, among others) a human brain composed of first-person subjective experience. There is that. And one experiences an "I", also composed of first-person subjective experience. These two fall into the category of 'all that can be known'.

Everything else, given that existence only appears and manifests in the form of "I" and those things experienced by "I" made up of "I"'s first-person subjective experience, only exists in the form of an imaginary idea in the mind of "I" that "I" may or may not believe objectively exists outside "I".
And to what extent does someone seem convinced that they actually do understand it?


One can only believe one understands what may or may not exist and occur outside "I". In my opinion, some beliefs may be closer to the truth than others.

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
There is a 'dark energy' and a 'planet earth' that is created or generated by the scientist's brain, and there is a 'dark energy' and a 'planet earth' that is not created or generated by the scientist's brain (if we accept the existence of mind-independent doppelgangers of the content of visual person).

The 'dark energy' and 'planet earth' created by the scientist's brain is something completely different and something that is not one and the same as the 'dark energy' and 'planet earth' that is not a creation of the scientist's brain. For one thing, the 'dark energy' and 'planet earth' that is not a creation of the scientist's brain exists outside the skull and perimeter of epidermis forming the body of the scientist, thus 'planet earth', for example, not produced by the scientist's brain is too large to fit within the scientist's skull, much less can an actual planet squeeze itself into a neuron or neurons. So if the mind-independent planet even exists, it certainly didn't exist within the scientist's skull and certainly did not airbag deploy from the scientist's skull, the way the scientist's subjective experience of a planet does.


On the other hand, in a determined universe there is really no distinction at all. Both "mind" matter and "mind-independent" matter are intertwined -- wholly in sync with the only possible reality.


"Mind" matter and "mind-independent matter" can only be logically intertwined if "mind-independent" matter is first-person subjective experience.

After all, what if that explains your arguments here? Or what if the explanation lies in the relationship between "I" and God?


This is what I've been stating all along. The explanation lies in the relationship between "I" and God (for those believing God exists) in that the first-person subjective experience of which "I" is composed is a mitotic division of God's first-person subjective experience, which in my belief is the only "mind-independent ["you or I-mind" independent] matter".

And here we all seem to be stuck in that we can only fall back on speculation and conjecture given the gaps above.


True. We must, because everything we speculate and make conjecture about is outside "I" (if solipsism is false).

It's always the certainty with which one asserts the assumptions of his or her own argument that attracts me. Why? Because then I suspect that this certainty revolves less around what is believed and more around how what is believed manages to comfort and console the believer psychologically.


Well, I can claim with certainty that I, you, everyone else, and the objects, events, and environments around us are all made up of first-person subjective experience. This is a belief that has the evidence of oneself and that which one is composed to ground it. I can claim with certainty that first-person subjective experience is not derived from non-subjective first person subjective experience outside the magic of creation ex nihilo or existential transformativism---but this is based on sheer logic. An objectively existing afterlife, meanwhile, as it is not part of the artificial reality of current first-person subjective experience, is admittedly in the same camp as mind-independent doppelgangers of the content of visual perception. And yes, the afterlife is psychologically comforting and consoling. I admit it freely and repeatedly, and while my beliefs admittedly possess a measure of this, I present the further observation that the existence of the afterlife is not logically and necessarily false.

Clearly, a belief -- any belief -- in the existence of an afterlife will comfort and console most of us. But you flat out admit right from the start that what is invincible here is your argument...not any accumulation of evidence that demonstrates the validity of it "for all practical purposes."


True. For there is no accumulation of evidence demonstrating the validity of the afterlife "for all practical purposes"....save only the existence and possible eternal existence of first-person subjective experience itself.

Thus when I nudge the discussion down to earth here...


What on earth does that have to do with things that we can both know [and demonstrate] about tbis exchange and things that we cannot.

How would you take us out into the world and, empirically, experientially, experimently etc., prove to us that your own particular intellectual assumptions here have actual substance. Insofar as they can be related to our day to day interactions.


You take it back up into the clouds of abstraction...the "general description" argument. Or, rather, so it seems to me.


My assumptions, I think, have substance only in the nature and existence of first-person subjective experience itself, and the assumption that it does not nor cannot come into and go out of existence. Our day to day interactions are composed of first-person subjective experience, and the idea of the afterlife is an idea of day to day interactions composed of first-person subjective experience taking place after the first-person subjective experience of the "here and now" transforms into the "here and now" of the afterlife.

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
I can point to the scientists' own subjective experience and that the things known to be empirically and experientially true to the scientist have only appeared to the scientist when the scientist experienced them, they exist only as long as the scientist experiences them, and disappear when the scientist no longer experiences them. They only exist when the scientist experiences them. I can state that there is no evidence they exist when the scientist no longer experiences them.


What I want is for you to bring your points about the afterlife out into the world that you live in. What brings its existence into focus given the things that you see, hear, feel...experience...from day to day.


First-person subjective experience is the substance that composes the things we see, hear, feel, and experience from day to day. The afterlife, meanwhile, as it happens to exist and appear within the current state of our existence, appears only in the form of an idea of a world composed of first-person subjective experience. The objective existence of the idea, the existence of first-person subjective experience in the "here and now", brings the existence of the afterlife into focus as the imaginary substance making up the idea happens to be the same substance composing what we experience from day to day.

I, nor anyone else in this "matrix" can demonstrate the objective truth of the idea, as the idea, if it has an objectively existing counterpart, lies in the external world. You can't demonstrate anything that exists objectively in the external world, as it lies outside the "matrix" of the "here and now". Making an argument "for" the existence of the afterlife is to admit the afterlife may objectively exist in the external world. No different, really, from stating that there is mind-independent star stuff, or galaxies, or brains for that matter.

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
But anything that is demonstrated or able to be demonstrated must consist of subjective experience: the subjective experience of the person to whom it is demonstrated. Anything that is not materially constructed of subjective experience cannot be demonstrated. Things materially constructed of subjective experience but is not the subjective experience of the person asking for demonstration also cannot be demonstrated.


There is still the part where aspects of any particular subjective experience is able to be related to others in what clearly appear to be objective truths embedded in experiences shared by others.


But the objective truths are all composed of first-person subjective experience of the relater and those sharing the experience of the relater, in a "matrix" world or artificial reality composed of first-person subjective experience.

At least on this side of the grave. But where is the equivalent of that re the other side of grave. What objective truths can be shared in regard to that? For those who have in fact died.


The only objective truth that can be shared in regard to the other side of the grave, at least in regard to the idea of what exists on the other side of the grave if consciousness does not cease to exist, is first-person subjective experience, of which, in the idea of the afterlife (as the objective truth of the afterlife cannot be demonstrated or directly experienced as we are currently experiencing this "matrix"), the idea states that the afterlife is made up of first-person subjective experience. How can objective truths about the external world appear in the "matrix" of the "here and now"?

To wit:

iambiguous wrote:
Well, if consciousness is an inherent component of the brain and the brain is the inherent component of the material laws of nature, then some suggest that this brain reconfigures back to "star stuff". Star stuff that will someday [maybe] reconfigure back to another "I".


phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
But we have no evidence of the existence of mind-independent brains, and it is probably unlikely that subjective experience can rationally have anything to do with something that is not subjective experience or made up of subjective experience. There is no evidence for the existence of mind-independent star stuff.


From my frame of mind [and that's all it is] this is basically intellectual jargon. In other words, evidence here revolves around going endlessly back and forth regarding the definition and the meaning given to words used in the argument itself. Based largely on assumptions one makes about that which is said to constitute evidence in regard to human subjectivity...given the nature of objectivity in a mindless world.

And it ever and always occurs on this side of the grave. Making any speculation about these relationships on the other side of the grave all that more obscure, ineffable.


Evidence, to my understanding, is not a going back and forth between the definition of words in an argument, but is what is actually experienced as opposed to what exists within the mind as an idea. You mentioned that consciousness is an inherent component of the brain, but the only brains that have ever been experienced are brains composed of first-person subjective experience. Are there evidence of brains not composed of a person's subjective experience that are subjectively experienced? If these brains are not composed of first-person subjective experience, how can they be experienced or, for that matter, known to even exist, if they are not composed of subjective experience?

And of course these arguments and speculations occur on this side of the grave. We are in the 'this side of the grave matrix world'. We are not in the 'afterlife matrix world', if it exists.

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
As I use "faith", it means belief in something for which there is no evidence i.e., something not experienced by a person. For example, faith in an afterlife is belief in something that cannot be demonstrated with the "matrix" of current human experience. One has faith in an afterlife because (admittedly!) it is consoling against the idea of eternal oblivion and....well....regardless of whether or not it is believed for consoling purposes....objectively it's existence cannot be ruled out based on it's absence from the "matrix" of current human consciousness.


Again, from my frame of mind, you are creating a thread entitled...

AN INVINCIBLE ARGUMENT FOR THE AFTERLIFE

...and then flat out acknowledging that beyond the argument itself your faith in the existence of an afterlife is wholly entangled in the intellectual assessment itself. A psychological [consoling] contraption as much as anything else. But that, "objectively it's existence cannot be ruled out based on it's absence from the "matrix" of current human consciousness."

About which you have no capacity to actually demonstrate the meaning of those words. Calling something "a 'matrix' of current human consciousness" means what exactly in regard to the behaviors that you choose on this side of the grave as they pertain to what you imagine will be your fate on the other side of it?


My faith in the existence of the afterlife is entangled in the belief that consciousness...er...first-person subjective experience does not magically come into existence from a previous non-existence and does not magically cease to exist after having previously existed.

The meaning of the word "matrix" is easily demonstrated by your consciousness and the world you currently experience, and this based on your intellectual contraption of what happens when a person dies. It's simple: if you believe that your brain creates your consciousness, and that when your brain ceases to function your "I" ceases altogether to exist, I mean, your "I" suddenly is in the same boat as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny at death....then your "I" and the objects, environments, events, and bodies of persons are all made by your brain, and are sustained by your brain as long as it functions. The 'you' and the world you experience that are generated by your brain and that magically ceases to exist at death, is different and not the same thing as the world you believe is not created by your brain. They are two different things. The world created by your brain, which you believe (or that is generally believed) to have a mind-independent, not-subjective experience composed doppelganger that is not produced by the brain and that continues to effortlessly exist when one dies, is an artificial reality or "matrix" created by your brain.

It's really not that difficult to understand, as it is an intellectual assessment of a particular belief that actually exists in the world rather than a "linguistic contraption" (or so it seems to me).

The "matrix of human consciousness" is easily demonstrated because...why...it is your consciousness, which is a "matrix", regardless of whether or not the brain creates consciousness. To me, the brain does not create consciousness and my "matrix" is a mitotic copy of the "matrix" once experienced by the three personalities of God. But let's not get into that.

In regard to the behaviors that I, you, or anyone else chooses on this side of the grave and its relation to the "matrix of current human consciousness"? Well it's simple, the behaviors we choose on this side of the grave are part of the "matrix of current human consciousness" that is the artificial world, composed of first-person subjective experience, that is generated by your brain as opposed to the doppelgangers purportedly existing in the external world (for those believing the brain creates consciousness or that there are mind-independent doppelgangers of the content of visual perception in the external world).

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
I don't think I'll ever convince you that how I think is how you should think. You believe that consciousness ceases to exist at death. I believe, regardless of the psychological benefits, that it is objectively possible or even objectively true that things cannot come into nor go out of existence, thus consciousness cannot come into nor go out of existence. At the end of the live long day, I cannot demonstrate the afterlife and I admit and will continue to concede that I cannot demonstrate the afterlife.


Fair enough. You go as far as you can in "thinking it through" and arrive at a set of assumptions which if true allows for the existence of the afterlife "in your head" to be "objectively possible".


But are the assumptions really only "objectively possible" in my head? If so, why? Why aren't the assumptions objectively possible outside my head? How do we know they are only objectively possible in my mind?

I'm not able to arrive at this conclusion myself because, in part, I am unable to grasp what it is that you think you believe yourself. Maybe that gap can be closed, maybe not. For me though thinking yourself to a particular conclusion about the afterlife is far, far, far removed from demonstrating to others why they should think that way too. Why? Because you are able to prove that the argument is not just a world of words. But that the dots are able to be connected between words and worlds. A world before and a world after the grave.


I can't demonstrate to others why they should believe as I do about the afterlife. I can only use argument to arrive at the conclusion that, based on what we know about existence (which exists only in the form of first-person subjective experience), the existence of the afterlife (which manifests and can be demonstrated only in the form of an idea) as an idea of a world or reality that exists in the external world and not in brain-created consciousness (for those believing the brain creates consciousness) cannot be ruled out with absolute, irrefutable certainty.

The only dots to connect this side of the grave to the idea of the afterlife is, well, first-person subjective experience. It's simple: this side of the grave is composed of first-person subjective experience; the idea of the afterlife entails the afterlife is made up of the same thing this side of the grave is made of: first-person subjective experience. Yes, the idea is certainly not the same thing or in the same philosophical or existential league as that which is currently and directly experienced, but if the idea shares, in "Idea form", the same substance as the direct experience, it is logically possible. And that's the only 'win' that counts when it comes to argument for something that, if it exists, exists in the external world: it should logically link to actual first-person subjective experience, which actually exists.

Your own rendition of a "matrix" as it relates to, say, me typing these words here and now and you reading them there and then is lost on me. Let alone in explaining how this matrix functions before the grave so as to allow me to grasp the consequences of it after the grave.


As before, if you believe your brain creates the experience of you typing words here and now, and that my brain creates the experience of me reading them, given that there is another world not created by the brain that would continue to happily exist if both our brains were to stop functioning, the "matrix" is the experience you have, or that I have, that is generated from the brain. The "matrix" is composed of your first-person subjective experience that, according to your belief, magically ceases to exist and that magically did not exist at one time before magically "just started existing" when your brain began to function. The "matrix" is the first-person subjectively experienced world purportedly created by the brain, that winks out at unconsciousness or death (for those adhering to this belief).

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
My entire rebuttal to your "demonstration" requirement is that things can exist without their ever being demonstrated, and given that demonstration is just one's subjective experience "morphed" into an absurd form, that which lies outside one's subjective experience is something objective to and separate from the "medium" of 'demonstration', thus logically, being separated, has no requirement (outside establishing the belief of a person) to appear.

...has a meaning for you that simply goes over my head.
As it relates to the things we do from day to day; and as that relates to what we imagine for "I" after the day we die.


I think it's pretty simple: that which is demonstrated or that can be demonstrated "here and now" are composed of first-person subjective experience, which actually appears in the form of an artificial reality that can disappear when one falls asleep or dies, as opposed to a world that does not depend upon one's existence and that remains entirely unaffected when one falls asleep or dies. Stuff that exists in this outer world cannot be demonstrated, as anything that is or can be demonstrated must be made up of one's first-person subjective experience, and must be a part of the artificial reality made up of one's subjective experience. Thus asking for a demonstration of anything existing in the external world is a moot point.

And yes, we must imagine that "I" exists and imagine what "I" experiences after death. My whole argument is that that which is imagined, given that we based the idea itself upon first-person subjective experience as opposed to something that is not first-person subjective experience (the idea of the afterlife is based on something that actually exists), it is thereby logically possible. That's the most the "Invincible Argument For An Afterlife" can go for. It is "invincible" because it is unfalsifiable: it cannot be refuted or shown to be false within the current "matrix" of the "here and now".
J.Brewer
Image
The Truman Show, 1998 Paramount Pictures

Q: What lies beyond the "Matrix" that is consciousness?
A: The conscious and unconscious mind of God.


email me at: phenomenal_graffiti@yahoo.com
User avatar
phenomenal_graffiti
Thinker
 
Posts: 836
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:08 pm
Location: Texas

Re: AN INVINCIBLE ARGUMENT FOR THE AFTERLIFE (PART THREE)

Postby surreptitious75 » Wed Jul 03, 2019 5:43 am

phenomenal graffiti wrote:
first person subjective experience can only logically be explained as something that has
eternally existed
from which human subjective experience is materialistically derived

While human minds in cosmological terms are a very recent phenomenon indeed they could not exist without all that came before
There is a specific order to how physical reality evolved so physics came first then followed by chemistry then followed by biology
These distinctions are however academic in the sense that reality is a single eternally changing state that exists in whatever form it can
So while human minds are themselves not eternal or infinite the process that originally allowed them to come into existence however is
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: AN INVINCIBLE ARGUMENT FOR THE AFTERLIFE (PART THREE)

Postby surreptitious75 » Wed Jul 03, 2019 6:07 am

phenomenal graffiti wrote:
( the idea of the afterlife is based on something that actually exists ) it is thereby logically possible. That is the most the Invincible Argument For An
Afterlife can go for. It is invincible because it is unfalsifiable: it cannot be refuted or shown to be false within the current matrix of the here and now

There is nothing invincible about unfalsifiable arguments because they could actually be false even though they cannot be shown to be
Unfalsifiability is therefore a very unreliable metric upon which to base any philosophical position no matter how desirable it might be
A truly invincible argument by contrast is one that has actually been subject to potential falsification and yet is still found to be true
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: AN INVINCIBLE ARGUMENT FOR THE AFTERLIFE (PART THREE)

Postby phenomenal_graffiti » Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:38 pm

To surreptitious75:

While human minds in cosmological terms are a very recent phenomenon indeed they could not exist without all that came before. There is a specific order to how physical reality evolved so physics came first then followed by chemistry then followed by biology. These distinctions are however academic in the sense that reality is a single eternally changing state that exists in whatever form it can. So while human minds are themselves not eternal or infinite the process that originally allowed them to come into existence however is


Every single entity you mentioned other than the human mind is make-believe and may not actually exist.

(Though I really like the sentence-piece: '...reality is a single eternally changing state that exists in whatever form it can [emphasis mine]'. Why, that happens to be a good summation of the behavior of the God-substance that determines the shape and form of everyone that can and will exist(!))
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is nothing invincible about unfalsifiable arguments because they could actually be false even though they cannot be shown to be.


Nah. Unfalsifiable arguments are invincible precisely because they cannot be falsified. Doesn't matter if the content of the argument is false in the external world, that has nothing to do anything. The invincibility of the unfalsifiable argument lies in the inability of the argument to be shown or proven to be false.

Unfalsifiability is therefore a very unreliable metric upon which to base any philosophical position no matter how desirable it might be


I agree, using unfalsifiability to positively prove something exists in the external world is silly and not a reliable metric to base a philosophical position, but it works (easily, easily, works) against a joker asserting something does not exist in the external world.

That is, one can easily respond to someone stating that x irrefutably, unquestionably, and undeniably does not exist (if it is agreed by all parties that x either exists or does not exist in the external world outside the "matrix" of human consciousness) by making the very simple observation that one denying the existence of x cannot know that x does not exist if x exists outside the "matrix" of the unbeliever's consciousness. Making positive assertions that something does not exist, if the thing one denies is conceived to exist (or not) in the external world is a rather silly thing to do, as x exists (or not) outside the "matrix" of one's consciousness.

Unfalsifiability is, for this very reason, a simple (very simple) tool to metaphorically run the opponent through with a sword when the opponent makes the mistake of making positive statements about the nature of the external world (provided the person mistakenly asserts what is or is not in the external world rather than speak safely from the castle of belief).

A truly invincible argument by contrast is one that has actually been subject to potential falsification and yet is still found to be true


By this logic, the only invincible argument is that you experience a virtual reality or "matrix" world composed of your first-person subjective experience.
J.Brewer
Image
The Truman Show, 1998 Paramount Pictures

Q: What lies beyond the "Matrix" that is consciousness?
A: The conscious and unconscious mind of God.


email me at: phenomenal_graffiti@yahoo.com
User avatar
phenomenal_graffiti
Thinker
 
Posts: 836
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:08 pm
Location: Texas

Re: AN INVINCIBLE ARGUMENT FOR THE AFTERLIFE (PART THREE)

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:45 pm

What is the precise relationship between the human brain, human consciousness, "I", and all the rest of it?


phenomenal_graffiti wrote: We certainly observe (or at least those that observe it in medical context, among others) a human brain composed of first-person subjective experience. There is that. And one experiences an "I", also composed of first-person subjective experience. These two fall into the category of 'all that can be known'.

Everything else, given that existence only appears and manifests in the form of "I" and those things experienced by "I" made up of "I"'s first-person subjective experience, only exists in the form of an imaginary idea in the mind of "I" that "I" may or may not believe objectively exists outside "I".


This may or may not be sufficient as a philosophical description of "I", but sooner or later "I" is given the task of actually living a life that [for most] involves interacting with others.

Then "I" is required to demonstrate that what he or she believes is true, others are obligated [as rational human beings] to believe is true too. Either regarding this side of the abyss or the other side.

What else is there?

...in a determined universe there is really no distinction at all. Both "mind" matter and "mind-independent" matter are intertwined -- wholly in sync with the only possible reality.


phenomenal_graffiti wrote: "Mind" matter and "mind-independent matter" can only be logically intertwined if "mind-independent" matter is first-person subjective experience.


All I can say is that, until you intertwine intellectual speculation like this into descriptions of actual chosen behaviors in particular contexts, how am I to really grasp them?

The part where logic [and the limits of logic] meet actual and substantial "facts of life".

So, describe your meaning here given a specific context from your day today.

Same here:

phenomenal_graffiti wrote: The explanation lies in the relationship between "I" and God (for those believing God exists) in that the first-person subjective experience of which "I" is composed is a mitotic division of God's first-person subjective experience, which in my belief is the only "mind-independent ["you or I-mind" independent] matter".


The explanation will always be far more germane given the extent to which it can be demonstrated to be true through 1] experiments 2] experiences and 3] predictions.

For me, however, even empirical evidence falls into the gap between what it seems to be telling us is true and all that would need to be known about existence iself in order to encompass ontologically the whole of reality. So, what I focus more on is not the argument itself but the extent to which the argument is embraced [psychologically/comfortingly] as an example of what I call the objectivist frame of mind.

Especially in regard to moral and political values in the is/ought world, and to questions as big as this: "what happens after 'I' die?"

To wit:'

It's always the certainty with which one asserts the assumptions of his or her own argument that attracts me. Why? Because then I suspect that this certainty revolves less around what is believed and more around how what is believed manages to comfort and console the believer psychologically.


phenomenal_graffiti wrote: Well, I can claim with certainty that I, you, everyone else, and the objects, events, and environments around us are all made up of first-person subjective experience. This is a belief that has the evidence of oneself and that which one is composed to ground it. I can claim with certainty that first-person subjective experience is not derived from non-subjective first person subjective experience outside the magic of creation ex nihilo or existential transformativism---but this is based on sheer logic. An objectively existing afterlife, meanwhile, as it is not part of the artificial reality of current first-person subjective experience, is admittedly in the same camp as mind-independent doppelgangers of the content of visual perception. And yes, the afterlife is psychologically comforting and consoling. I admit it freely and repeatedly, and while my beliefs admittedly possess a measure of this, I present the further observation that the existence of the afterlife is not logically and necessarily false.


Again, this is all profoundly...abstract. Recount for us an interaction you have recently had with another. In terms of the behaviors being chosen, how would they fit into to this explanation. In other words, the point as it relates to this side of the grave. A reality that we are all embodied in here and now.

phenomenal_graffiti wrote: My assumptions, I think, have substance only in the nature and existence of first-person subjective experience itself, and the assumption that it does not nor cannot come into and go out of existence. Our day to day interactions are composed of first-person subjective experience, and the idea of the afterlife is an idea of day to day interactions composed of first-person subjective experience taking place after the first-person subjective experience of the "here and now" transforms into the "here and now" of the afterlife.


Yes, but on this side of the grave, we can exchange first-person accounts of our experiences and readily communicate a reality that is entirely in sync. Why? Because, given all of the objects and relationships that our conscious minds garner and make use of in the either/or world, material/phenomenological facts can be ascertained.

The tricky part though still revolves around whether 1] our sense of reality is embedded in so-called sim worlds, dream worlds, matrix worlds etc. and 2] whether in a wholly deterimned universe "I" am in turn just another of nature's dominoes toppling over solely in sync with the laws of matter.

Then back to this:

What I want is for you to bring your points about the afterlife out into the world that you live in. What brings its existence into focus given the things that you see, hear, feel...experience...from day to day.


phenomenal_graffiti wrote: First-person subjective experience is the substance that composes the things we see, hear, feel, and experience from day to day. The afterlife, meanwhile, as it happens to exist and appear within the current state of our existence, appears only in the form of an idea of a world composed of first-person subjective experience. The objective existence of the idea, the existence of first-person subjective experience in the "here and now", brings the existence of the afterlife into focus as the imaginary substance making up the idea happens to be the same substance composing what we experience from day to day.


Here we are clearly in two different discussions. I have no idea "what on earth" this means. This is a "world of words" "general description" of human interactions to me. I'm trying to grapple with how you relate this intellectual "assessment" to the "for all practical purposes" choices that you make in the course of actually living your life.

There is still the part where aspects of any particular subjective experience is able to be related to others in what clearly appear to be objective truths embedded in experiences shared by others.


phenomenal_graffiti wrote: But the objective truths are all composed of first-person subjective experience of the relater and those sharing the experience of the relater, in a "matrix" world or artificial reality composed of first-person subjective experience.


There was the existence of planet Earth before the existence of "I" --- a conscious human mind able to note the existence of planet Earth before the existence of "I". Now, unless one is a full-fledged solipsist insisting that the existence of planet Earth past and present is wholly predicated on the existence of "I", planet Earth will continue to exist even after "I" am dead and gone.

But how am "I" to know for certain what my fate is after "I" am dead and gone? The Earth is still around objectively. Am "I"? You say that consciousness never ceases to exist. But only in your argument. To me it's much like the "discovery" of peacegirl's author re determinism. The "reality" about the future is only in his head. He thought it was true and for him that made it true. But how does he make it true for others if he is unable to move much beyond the argument [the world of words] itself?

phenomenal_graffiti wrote: Evidence, to my understanding, is not a going back and forth between the definition of words in an argument, but is what is actually experienced as opposed to what exists within the mind as an idea.


Yes, but then you bump into others. And, through their own experiences, they have come to different conclusions regarding the relationship between things believed to be true "subjectively" and things demonstrated to be true "objectively".

And that can revolve around interactions on this side of the grave, or on speculations regarding reality on the other side.

But, from my frame of mind, it always comes down to that which can be proven to be true. One's words can either be connected to a demonstrable set of of facts or they can't.

Or they can up to a point and the rest becomes conjecture.

phenomenal_graffiti wrote: You mentioned that consciousness is an inherent component of the brain, but the only brains that have ever been experienced are brains composed of first-person subjective experience. Are there evidence of brains not composed of a person's subjective experience that are subjectively experienced? If these brains are not composed of first-person subjective experience, how can they be experienced or, for that matter, known to even exist, if they are not composed of subjective experience?


I can only note that I am not at all clear regarding what your point is here. What brains performing what tasks in what contexts?

Again, from my frame of mind, you are creating a thread entitled...

AN INVINCIBLE ARGUMENT FOR THE AFTERLIFE

...and then flat out acknowledging that beyond the argument itself your faith in the existence of an afterlife is wholly entangled in the intellectual assessment itself. A psychological [consoling] contraption as much as anything else. But that, "objectively it's existence cannot be ruled out based on it's absence from the "matrix" of current human consciousness."

About which you have no capacity to actually demonstrate the meaning of those words. Calling something "a 'matrix' of current human consciousness" means what exactly in regard to the behaviors that you choose on this side of the grave as they pertain to what you imagine will be your fate on the other side of it?


phenomenal_graffiti wrote: My faith in the existence of the afterlife is entangled in the belief that consciousness...er...first-person subjective experience does not magically come into existence from a previous non-existence and does not magically cease to exist after having previously existed.


Well, the religious folks would probably call this their "soul". God implants it at birth and, if one is righteous enough, He sends it to Heaven after one dies.

But what "consciousness" is here for you is beyond my own capacity to grasp. Other than as an intellectual contraption encompassed in a world of words. A determinist might argue that, for reasons science and philosophy have yet to fully grasp, mindless matter somehow evolved into living matter somehow evolved into brains somehow evolved in human minds somehow evolved into "I".

Why and how still being a complete mystery.

phenomenal_graffiti wrote: The "matrix of human consciousness" is easily demonstrated because...why...it is your consciousness, which is a "matrix", regardless of whether or not the brain creates consciousness. To me, the brain does not create consciousness and my "matrix" is a mitotic copy of the "matrix" once experienced by the three personalities of God. But let's not get into that.

In regard to the behaviors that I, you, or anyone else chooses on this side of the grave and its relation to the "matrix of current human consciousness"? Well it's simple, the behaviors we choose on this side of the grave are part of the "matrix of current human consciousness" that is the artificial world, composed of first-person subjective experience, that is generated by your brain as opposed to the doppelgangers purportedly existing in the external world (for those believing the brain creates consciousness or that there are mind-independent doppelgangers of the content of visual perception in the external world).


I can only ask you once again to intertwine this in the life that you live.

You interact with another in a particular context. You choose particular behaviors which precipitate consequences which precipitate behaviors on their part. After an hour or so of interacting how would you encompass "what happened" given your "anlysis" here.

Forget about the aftelife for now. Let's explore more in depth how your thinking here is applicable only to the things we do on this side of the grave.

You go as far as you can in "thinking it through" and arrive at a set of assumptions which if true allows for the existence of the afterlife "in your head" to be "objectively possible".


phenomenal_graffiti wrote: But are the assumptions really only "objectively possible" in my head? If so, why? Why aren't the assumptions objectively possible outside my head? How do we know they are only objectively possible in my mind?


Well, I can't be inside your head and you can't be inside mine. For all I know your posts are generated entirely by a computer. We must make certain aassumption about the minds of others given the assumption that we make about our own.

That may well be as close as we can come to an objective reality. But at least "here and now" this exchange seems to confirm two minds exchanging what they think is true. And that may well continue on after we are both dead and gone. Only "there and then" is simply not the same as "here and now" in terms of what can be demonstrated to be true. What happens "there and then" would seem to be entirely conjectural.

Your own rendition of a "matrix" as it relates to, say, me typing these words here and now and you reading them there and then is lost on me. Let alone in explaining how this matrix functions before the grave so as to allow me to grasp the consequences of it after the grave.


phenomenal_graffiti wrote: As before, if you believe your brain creates the experience of you typing words here and now, and that my brain creates the experience of me reading them, given that there is another world not created by the brain that would continue to happily exist if both our brains were to stop functioning, the "matrix" is the experience you have, or that I have, that is generated from the brain. The "matrix" is composed of your first-person subjective experience that, according to your belief, magically ceases to exist and that magically did not exist at one time before magically "just started existing" when your brain began to function. The "matrix" is the first-person subjectively experienced world purportedly created by the brain, that winks out at unconsciousness or death (for those adhering to this belief).


Then we're stuck. How your point addresses mine is still lost on me. Until it is possible for you to take this world of words out of your head and situate them in an actual context involving human interactions so as to illustrate your text.

I can imagine the brain creating the experience of me typing these words such that, in a determined universe, my brain also creates the psychological illusion of me choosing to type them freely.

But your own thinking here is still beyond me.

This part in particular:

phenomenal_graffiti wrote: My whole argument is that that which is imagined, given that we based the idea itself upon first-person subjective experience as opposed to something that is not first-person subjective experience (the idea of the afterlife is based on something that actually exists), it is thereby logically possible. That's the most the "Invincible Argument For An Afterlife" can go for. It is "invincible" because it is unfalsifiable: it cannot be refuted or shown to be false within the current "matrix" of the "here and now".


Human logic to me is either a necessary component of a wholly determined universe [and thus interchangable with illogical thinking] or, given some measure of human autonomy, can only be grasped fully once the ontological -- teleological? -- nature of existence itself is grasped.

If that is even within the grasp of an autonomous human mind.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 32668
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: AN INVINCIBLE ARGUMENT FOR THE AFTERLIFE (PART THREE)

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Jul 17, 2019 10:21 am

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:

By this logic, the only invincible argument is that you experience a virtual reality or "matrix" world composed of your first-person subjective experience.
I would say that is the most parsimonious and has the least onus. It could also be worded as a solipsism, which is also impervious, but in part because it is not falsifiable. Any evidence or testing will only occur in the phenomenology/experience of the experiencer and so can never assuredly point 'outside' of experience.

As far as Surrpetitious' statement

Surreptitious: A truly invincible argument by contrast is one that has actually been subject to potential falsification and yet is still found to be true
From a scientific point of view something like this might reach theory status, but it is hardly invincible. There have been many theories in science that met these criteria but which are no longer considered true or even remotely likely. Falsifiability is not something that one can close off forever on a particular belief. There we didn't falsify it, so it is invincible, is a confused idea about falsifiability. That door is always open.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2408
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: AN INVINCIBLE ARGUMENT FOR THE AFTERLIFE (PART THREE)

Postby phenomenal_graffiti » Fri Aug 02, 2019 6:49 pm

To iambiguous:

This may or may not be sufficient as a philosophical description of "I", but sooner or later "I" is given the task of actually living a life that [for most] involves interacting with others.


True. And "I" and the life one lives and the interactions "I" have with others is basically nothing more than an artificial reality or "matrix" composed of first-person subjective experience. In your case, you believe this artificial reality or "matrix" is created by the brain.

Then "I" is required to demonstrate that what he or she believes is true, others are obligated [as rational human beings] to believe is true too. Either regarding this side of the abyss or the other side.


On this side of the abyss, "I" can demonstrate to others what he or she believes to be true, but the demonstration itself is made up or composed of the person's first-person subjective experience. He or she has no proof that the others are conscious, but has faith that they are. If they are, what "I" demonstrates to them must be orchestrated by something outside everyone's "matrix" to take the form of the very thing "I" perceives or experiences in his or her "matrix".

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
"Mind" matter and "mind-independent matter" can only be logically intertwined if "mind-independent" matter is first-person subjective experience.


All I can say is that, until you intertwine intellectual speculation like this into descriptions of actual chosen behaviors in particular contexts, how am I to really grasp them?

The part where logic [and the limits of logic] meet actual and substantial "facts of life".

So, describe your meaning here given a specific context from your day today.


Well, let's choose an actual chosen behavior like someone choosing a shirt to wear before going out.

1. The person choosing the shirt is a first-person subjective experience composed of first-person subjective experience.

2. The shirt, while the person is alive and conscious, is a construct made up of the first-person subjective experience of the person looking upon it and handling it.

3. The experience of looking at the shirt and handling it is made up of the first-person subjective experience of the person. For those believing the brain creates consciousness, this entire scene is an artificial construct made up of first-person subjective experience, that sort of emerges or "airbag deploys" from the brain.

4. If there is mind-independence, there are things not created by or within the brain that exist outside the body of a person, that is something completely different from the artificial construct made out of subjective experience that comes from or exudes from the brain. This is the case of the mind-independent version or doppelganger of the physical body of the person and the shirt being selected, as part of an actual chosen behavior. These doppelgangers are not the same thing as the first-person subjective experience artificial constructs flowing from the brain like a movie from a movie projector.

Ergo, for those believing in "mind-independent matter", there is the first-person subjective experience of the shirt of the person choosing the shirt, and there is the mind-independent doppelganger of the shirt in the external world, that would fall to a mind-independent floor and continue to exist if the first-person experience shirt were to wink out of existence if the person should die or fall unconscious while handling the shirt.

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
The explanation lies in the relationship between "I" and God (for those believing God exists) in that the first-person subjective experience of which "I" is composed is a mitotic division of God's first-person subjective experience, which in my belief is the only "mind-independent ["you or I-mind" independent] matter".


The explanation will always be far more germane given the extent to which it can be demonstrated to be true through 1] experiments 2] experiences and 3] predictions.


Unless the explanation involves ideas of things that, within the idea, exists in the external world.

And, as has been said before (and shall be said a thousand times more, because it's the way things are) anything demonstrated to be true through experiment, experience, and prediction.....well....are and can only be artificial constructs composed of first-person subjective experience in a "matrix" world composed of first-person subjective experience.

For me, however, even empirical evidence falls into the gap between what it seems to be telling us is true and all that would need to be known about existence iself in order to encompass ontologically the whole of reality.


Er, empirical evidence certainly tells us that first-person subjective experience in its seven modes exist. And empirical evidence basically takes the form of first-person subjective experience in the shape and form of a certain artificial reality. Everything that would need to be known about existence itself in order to encompass ontologically the whole of reality, therefore, must take the form of something subjectively experience and must consist of first-person subjective experience.

It's all we have, and are, empirically. There's...uh...nothing else that appears.

So, what I focus more on is not the argument itself but the extent to which the argument is embraced [psychologically/comfortingly] as an example of what I call the objectivist frame of mind.


That is, you look past the argument to see how much the person believes the argument and the fervor for which the content of the argument is "preached". With, based on past statements, a suspicion that the amount of fervor is directly proportional to the hope in the one making the argument that the content of the argument is true or objectively exists, independent of or in the impossibility of actual demonstration of its truth.

That's cool, but to quote Bane it is 'admirable, but mistaken.' A person's fervor and embrace of an argument, hell, even outright perceived or observed desperation for the subject of the argument to be true despite it is invisible and cannot be demonstrated in the "here and now" does not, by the existence of the fervor, the comfort the content of the argument, or desperation for the invisible and non-demonstrable subject to be true, in and of themselves negate the logical possibility or possible or actual existence of the content.

The amount to which an arguer (is that a word?) embraces the subject of their argument is a poor barometer to gauge the ontological truth or falsity of the subject of their argument. It just means a person is really passionate and finds comfort from the subject of their argument (for example....the existence of the afterlife). The passion and comfort, in and of themselves, does not (necessarily) indicate that the person avidly pushing the subject secretly knows the subject does not exist but pushes it anyway out of desperation for it to be true. Even if the latter part of the previous sentence was true, this secret "I know in my heart it's b.s." would not, by its very presence in the desperately believing person, negate the actual existence, in the external world, of the secretly existing subject of the desperate person's argument.

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
Well, I can claim with certainty that I, you, everyone else, and the objects, events, and environments around us are all made up of first-person subjective experience. This is a belief that has the evidence of oneself and that which one is composed to ground it. I can claim with certainty that first-person subjective experience is not derived from non-subjective first person subjective experience outside the magic of creation ex nihilo or existential transformativism---but this is based on sheer logic. An objectively existing afterlife, meanwhile, as it is not part of the artificial reality of current first-person subjective experience, is admittedly in the same camp as mind-independent doppelgangers of the content of visual perception. And yes, the afterlife is psychologically comforting and consoling. I admit it freely and repeatedly, and while my beliefs admittedly possess a measure of this, I present the further observation that the existence of the afterlife is not logically and necessarily false.


Again, this is all profoundly...abstract. Recount for us an interaction you have recently had with another. In terms of the behaviors being chosen, how would they fit into to this explanation. In other words, the point as it relates to this side of the grave. A reality that we are all embodied in here and now.


Well...let's use the belief that the brain creates consciousness to do so.

I recently comforted another employee at my job who feared being fired due to unthinkingly doling information he should have kept to himself. I chose to comfort the guy by letting him know that the Board was not going to tragically throw away 13 years of faithful service over a slip of the tongue. This happened yesterday and was on this side of the grave, a reality in which we are all embodied in here and now.

Ergo:

If the brain creates consciousness.....

1. My brain created my first-person subjective experience of the employee (the body of the employee and the clothes upon the body, not the consciousness of the employee, as I can only experience my consciousness).

2. The body and words coming from the employee, and my responses to the employee, since they all come from something within my skull, are all not something outside my body but things that originated from star-shaped pieces of flesh compacted into a blob of flesh inside my skull, that then sprung out of the organ to form a "hologram" made up of my first-person subjective experience in the form of the body of the employee, my experience of the auditory sounds coming from the employee, my mental idea of what to say to the employee, and the auditory sounds of my voice stating something to the body of the employee, that sprung from my brain to stand before me, that I believe (as I cannot experience the consciousness of the employee, if it even exists) comforts the employee.

The only thing that exists in any experience of any person is that person's first-person subjective experience hanging before the person in the form of objects and environments surrounding the person that are all made up of the person...that is, of the person's first-person subjective experience.

Hopefully that's not abstract, as this is the only thing that exists or at least, the only thing that demonstrates its existence.

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
First-person subjective experience is the substance that composes the things we see, hear, feel, and experience from day to day. The afterlife, meanwhile, as it happens to exist and appear within the current state of our existence, appears only in the form of an idea of a world composed of first-person subjective experience. The objective existence of the idea, the existence of first-person subjective experience in the "here and now", brings the existence of the afterlife into focus as the imaginary substance making up the idea happens to be the same substance composing what we experience from day to day.


Here we are clearly in two different discussions. I have no idea "what on earth" this means.This is a "world of words" "general description" of human interactions to me. I'm trying to grapple with how you relate this intellectual "assessment" to the "for all practical purposes" choices that you make in the course of actually living your life.


It's elementary, I think. "For all practical purposes" choices and the course of one living one's life is made up of first-person subjective experience. There's really nothing else.

There was the existence of planet Earth before the existence of "I" --- a conscious human mind able to note the existence of planet Earth before the existence of "I". Now, unless one is a full-fledged solipsist insisting that the existence of planet Earth past and present is wholly predicated on the existence of "I", planet Earth will continue to exist even after "I" am dead and gone.


Well heck man, in the last sentence you've just described mind-independence in practical "flesh and blood" terms! How about that?

We certainly can't know that there is an Earth outside the artificial one made up of first-person subjective experience. The existence of planet Earth past and present appears only in the form of something experienced by an "I". It does not appear unless there is an "I" perceiving an object everyone calls "Earth" made up of the perceiver's first-person subjective experience. It follows that a mind-independent Earth may not exist and as such cannot continue exist after "I" ceases to exist (if things can cease to exist).

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
Evidence, to my understanding, is not a going back and forth between the definition of words in an argument, but is what is actually experienced as opposed to what exists within the mind as an idea.


Yes, but then you bump into others. And, through their own experiences, they have come to different conclusions regarding the relationship between things believed to be true "subjectively" and things demonstrated to be true "objectively".


Yep. Because people come to different conclusions regarding the relationship between things believed to be true "subjectively" because the subject of the conclusions are ideas about things that may or may not exist in the external world.

Things demonstrated to be true "objective" are....once again...only artificial constructs made out of first-person subjective experience that are commonly believed to "airbag deploy" from neurons within a skull.

But, from my frame of mind, it always comes down to that which can be proven to be true. One's words can either be connected to a demonstrable set of of facts or they can't.


And that which can be proven to be true, words that can be connected to a demonstrable set of facts are...(drum roll please)....words that can only be connected to a "matrix" or artificial reality, made up of first-person subjective experience, commonly believed to "airbag deploy" from a skull.

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
You mentioned that consciousness is an inherent component of the brain, but the only brains that have ever been experienced are brains composed of first-person subjective experience. Are there evidence of brains not composed of a person's subjective experience that are subjectively experienced? If these brains are not composed of first-person subjective experience, how can they be experienced or, for that matter, known to even exist, if they are not composed of subjective experience?


I can only note that I am not at all clear regarding what your point is here. What brains performing what tasks in what contexts?


1. People believe the brain creates consciousness.

2. That which (in your words mind you)...'can be proven to be true'...'a demonstrable set of of facts'...if the brain creates every single instance of everything you experience from birth to death---are and must be created by the brain. Everything one experience in the either/ought world, the either/ought world itself, appears and manifests only if it pops out of the brain. There are, if mind-independence exists, two things:

a. Everything that is created by your brain
b. Everything not created by your brain (i.e the 'planet Earth [that] will continue to exist even after "I" am dead and gone')

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
My faith in the existence of the afterlife is entangled in the belief that consciousness...er...first-person subjective experience does not magically come into existence from a previous non-existence and does not magically cease to exist after having previously existed.


Well, the religious folks would probably call this their "soul". God implants it at birth and, if one is righteous enough, He sends it to Heaven after one dies.

But what "consciousness" is here for you is beyond my own capacity to grasp[...]


Consciousness=first person subjective experience in seven modes or types.

[....]Other than as an intellectual contraption encompassed in a world of words. A determinist might argue that, for reasons science and philosophy have yet to fully grasp, mindless matter somehow evolved into living matter somehow evolved into brains somehow evolved in human minds somehow evolved into "I".


I only note that we have, and have never had, any evidence for the existence of mindless matter. We have, and have always had, only evidence of the existence of mind. The evolution of mindless matter into mind and brains, therefore, is probably (or to be fair, possibly) just an idea whose objective content never existed, as the only thing that may exist is mind. But I digress, as this is just another "uh-huh"/"nuh-uh" argument regarding things outside the "matrix" of human experience.

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
The "matrix of human consciousness" is easily demonstrated because...why...it is your consciousness, which is a "matrix", regardless of whether or not the brain creates consciousness. To me, the brain does not create consciousness and my "matrix" is a mitotic copy of the "matrix" once experienced by the three personalities of God. But let's not get into that.

In regard to the behaviors that I, you, or anyone else chooses on this side of the grave and its relation to the "matrix of current human consciousness"? Well it's simple, the behaviors we choose on this side of the grave are part of the "matrix of current human consciousness" that is the artificial world, composed of first-person subjective experience, that is generated by your brain as opposed to the doppelgangers purportedly existing in the external world (for those believing the brain creates consciousness or that there are mind-independent doppelgangers of the content of visual perception in the external world).


I can only ask you once again to intertwine this in the life that you live.

You interact with another in a particular context. You choose particular behaviors which precipitate consequences which precipitate behaviors on their part. After an hour or so of interacting how would you encompass "what happened" given your "anlysis" here.

Forget about the aftelife for now. Let's explore more in depth how your thinking here is applicable only to the things we do on this side of the grave.


1. The life that I live is made up of my first-person subjective experience.

2. My interaction with another in a particular context is made up of my first-person subjective experience.

3. The particular behaviors I choose are made up of my first-person subjective experience.

4. The consequences precipitated by my choices are made up of my first-person subjective experience.

5. The behaviors of others, which I experience, are made up of my first-person subjective experience.

6. Everything done on this side of the grave that I experience is made up of my first-person subjective experience.

7. My first-person subjective experience is the substance that makes up everything I experience, the persons I experience, and every reaction and interaction in the real world which is....er...made up of my first-person subjective experience.

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
But are the assumptions really only "objectively possible" in my head? If so, why? Why aren't the assumptions objectively possible outside my head? How do we know they are only objectively possible in my mind?


Well, I can't be inside your head and you can't be inside mine. For all I know your posts are generated entirely by a computer. We must make certain assumption about the minds of others given the assumption that we make about our own.

That may well be as close as we can come to an objective reality. But at least "here and now" this exchange seems to confirm two minds exchanging what they think is true. And that may well continue on after we are both dead and gone. Only "there and then" is simply not the same as "here and now" in terms of what can be demonstrated to be true. What happens "there and then" would seem to be entirely conjectural.


True. "There and then" are, to us and within us, only ideas that may or may not exist outside their appearance as ideas within a mind. For things I believe, I place greater emphasis on "may".

As before, if you believe your brain creates the experience of you typing words here and now, and that my brain creates the experience of me reading them, given that there is another world not created by the brain that would continue to happily exist if both our brains were to stop functioning, the "matrix" is the experience you have, or that I have, that is generated from the brain. The "matrix" is composed of your first-person subjective experience that, according to your belief, magically ceases to exist and that magically did not exist at one time before magically "just started existing" when your brain began to function. The "matrix" is the first-person subjectively experienced world purportedly created by the brain, that winks out at unconsciousness or death (for those adhering to this belief).


Then we're stuck. How your point addresses mine is still lost on me. Until it is possible for you to take this world of words out of your head and situate them in an actual context involving human interactions so as to illustrate your text.


It seems elementary, at least to me.

1. If you believe the brain creates consciousness, then the brain creates a "matrix" world or artificial reality, made up of first-person subjective experience, that is not one and the same thing as the world not created by the brain, that does not depend upon the brain for its existence, and that would not cease to exist when the consciousness created by the brain temporarily ceases to exist in dreamless sleep, or permanently ceases to exist at death (for those believing this nonsense).

2. If you believe the brain creates consciousness, actual human interactions are made up of first-person subjective experience created by the brain.

Or to use real life, "flesh and blood" examples for illustration---you turn on the news to hear a press conference given by Donald Trump. Your television, the press conference, the body of Donald Trump and the auditory sounds he makes as he speaks during the conference are created by your brain. If you should fall asleep (or die) while watching the brain-generated televised press conference, the television, the press conference, the body of Donald Trump and the auditory sounds he is making disappears as the brain no longer generates or creates them or you, for that matter.

It is believed that outside or independent of the brain-created Donald Trump, television, and press-conference, a doppelganger of what your brain created until you feel asleep (or....the other thing) not created by your or anyone's brain continues to exist and go about its way in the absence of you.

In a nutshell I do not believe the doppelganger exists or that brains create consciousness. Does this clear things up a bit?

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
My whole argument is that that which is imagined, given that we based the idea itself upon first-person subjective experience as opposed to something that is not first-person subjective experience (the idea of the afterlife is based on something that actually exists), it is thereby logically possible. That's the most the "Invincible Argument For An Afterlife" can go for. It is "invincible" because it is unfalsifiable: it cannot be refuted or shown to be false within the current "matrix" of the "here and now".


Human logic to me is either a necessary component of a wholly determined universe [and thus interchangable with illogical thinking] or, given some measure of human autonomy, can only be grasped fully once the ontological -- teleological? -- nature of existence itself is grasped.

If that is even within the grasp of an autonomous human mind.


And existence appears and manifests in the form of first-person subjective experience, so there's that at least. Everything else appears only as an idea ironically made up of first-person subjective experience.
J.Brewer
Image
The Truman Show, 1998 Paramount Pictures

Q: What lies beyond the "Matrix" that is consciousness?
A: The conscious and unconscious mind of God.


email me at: phenomenal_graffiti@yahoo.com
User avatar
phenomenal_graffiti
Thinker
 
Posts: 836
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:08 pm
Location: Texas

Re: AN INVINCIBLE ARGUMENT FOR THE AFTERLIFE (PART THREE)

Postby iambiguous » Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:40 pm

This may or may not be sufficient as a philosophical description of "I", but sooner or later "I" is given the task of actually living a life that [for most] involves interacting with others.


phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
True. And "I" and the life one lives and the interactions "I" have with others is basically nothing more than an artificial reality or "matrix" composed of first-person subjective experience. In your case, you believe this artificial reality or "matrix" is created by the brain.


Over and again:

You make claims like this as though, in and of itself, making them is all the demonstration that we need in order to make them true.

I'm certainly not arguing that what I believe is true about life and death make it true. After all, how on earth could I possibly know that?!

This is the most important distinction that I make between us. You argue certain things about the afterlife and "subjective experience" on this side of the grave, and then seem considerably more inclined to feel confident in those arguments than I am in mine.

I do "mind the gap" here between "I" and an understanding of existence itself. Including the part where "I" may well be but another of nature's dominoes compelled even to type these words.

Then "I" is required to demonstrate that what he or she believes is true, others are obligated [as rational human beings] to believe is true too. Either regarding this side of the abyss or the other side.


phenomenal_graffiti wrote:On this side of the abyss, "I" can demonstrate to others what he or she believes to be true, but the demonstration itself is made up or composed of the person's first-person subjective experience. He or she has no proof that the others are conscious, but has faith that they are. If they are, what "I" demonstrates to them must be orchestrated by something outside everyone's "matrix" to take the form of the very thing "I" perceives or experiences in his or her "matrix".


Exactly. There is what we think is true about our own conscious mind and the conscious minds of others and there is the actual proof that what we think we think is true is in fact demonstrated to be true.

On either side of the grave going back to the most comprehenisive understanding of existence itself.

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:"Mind" matter and "mind-independent matter" can only be logically intertwined if "mind-independent" matter is first-person subjective experience.


All I can say is that, until you intertwine intellectual speculation like this into descriptions of actual chosen behaviors in particular contexts, how am I to really grasp them?

The part where logic [and the limits of logic] meet actual and substantial "facts of life".

So, describe your meaning here given a specific context from your day today.


phenomenal_graffiti wrote:Well, let's choose an actual chosen behavior like someone choosing a shirt to wear before going out.

1. The person choosing the shirt is a first-person subjective experience composed of first-person subjective experience.

2. The shirt, while the person is alive and conscious, is a construct made up of the first-person subjective experience of the person looking upon it and handling it.

3. The experience of looking at the shirt and handling it is made up of the first-person subjective experience of the person. For those believing the brain creates consciousness, this entire scene is an artificial construct made up of first-person subjective experience, that sort of emerges or "airbag deploys" from the brain.

4. If there is mind-independence, there are things not created by or within the brain that exist outside the body of a person, that is something completely different from the artificial construct made out of subjective experience that comes from or exudes from the brain. This is the case of the mind-independent version or doppelganger of the physical body of the person and the shirt being selected, as part of an actual chosen behavior. These doppelgangers are not the same thing as the first-person subjective experience artificial constructs flowing from the brain like a movie from a movie projector.

Ergo, for those believing in "mind-independent matter", there is the first-person subjective experience of the shirt of the person choosing the shirt, and there is the mind-independent doppelganger of the shirt in the external world, that would fall to a mind-independent floor and continue to exist if the first-person experience shirt were to wink out of existence if the person should die or fall unconscious while handling the shirt.


If. If, if, if, if, if.

But how is it then demonstrated that this entire sequence of first person subjective experiences isn't actually embedded instead in the psychological illusion of first person subjective experience embedded in the actual objective reality that is encompassed in the laws of nature themselves?

Or that the subjective sense of having experienced this sequence of behaviors isn't really just a manifestation of this: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/10/opin ... e=Homepage

In other words, however fascinating speculation of this sort might be in exchanges like this, I always come back to this:

For me, however, even empirical evidence falls into the gap between what it seems to be telling us is true and all that would need to be known about existence iself in order to encompass ontologically the whole of reality.


Only I have no way [objectively, essentially, ontologically] of comprehending even the extent to which "I" here have the free will needed to opt for one assessment rather than another. And then the part where, given some measure of free will, "I" is always subject to change, given, in turn, new experiences, new relationships and access to new ideas, information, knowledge.

Instead, from my frame of mind, you fall back entirely on intellectual contraptions of this sort:

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:Er, empirical evidence certainly tells us that first-person subjective experience in its seven modes exist. And empirical evidence basically takes the form of first-person subjective experience in the shape and form of a certain artificial reality. Everything that would need to be known about existence itself in order to encompass ontologically the whole of reality, therefore, must take the form of something subjectively experience and must consist of first-person subjective experience.

It's all we have, and are, empirically. There's...uh...nothing else that appears.


All we have...are? How can any of us possibly be privy to all that would need to be known in order to assert that?

When I speak of "it's all we have" I speak of those things/interactions that conscious human minds do seem able to demonstrate as "true for all of us" in the either/or world.

So, what I focus more on is not the argument itself but the extent to which the argument is embraced [psychologically/comfortingly] as an example of what I call the objectivist frame of mind.


phenomenal_graffiti wrote:That is, you look past the argument to see how much the person believes the argument and the fervor for which the content of the argument is "preached". With, based on past statements, a suspicion that the amount of fervor is directly proportional to the hope in the one making the argument that the content of the argument is true or objectively exists, independent of or in the impossibility of actual demonstration of its truth.


Pretty much. It is only after taking that into consideration that speculations of the sort we are exchanging here either can or cannot actually be demonstrated -- re experiment, prediction, replication etc. -- to possibly be in sync with what can ultimately be known about the human condition in sync with an understanding of existence itself.

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:That's cool, but to quote Bane it is 'admirable, but mistaken.'


Which others can then turn around and propose regarding his own conclusions. It always works both ways. But the measure of human psychology's importance here is no less entangled in all those "unknown unknowns" still embedded at the very heart of exchanges like this.

This part -- "gaug[ing] the ontological truth or falsity of the subject of their argument" -- remains as elusive as ever.

Unless...

1] this truth has been made known and I am simply not aware of it
2] this truth has been brought to my attention but I am unable to grasp it

But that may well be true for any of us.

Either the "whole truth" here is known and makes its way into discussions like this one, that, collectively, make their way into "the next big thing" being discussed across the globe or...

And that certainly isn't the case. Not to my knowledge.

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
Well, I can claim with certainty that I, you, everyone else, and the objects, events, and environments around us are all made up of first-person subjective experience. This is a belief that has the evidence of oneself and that which one is composed to ground it. I can claim with certainty that first-person subjective experience is not derived from non-subjective first person subjective experience outside the magic of creation ex nihilo or existential transformativism---but this is based on sheer logic. An objectively existing afterlife, meanwhile, as it is not part of the artificial reality of current first-person subjective experience, is admittedly in the same camp as mind-independent doppelgangers of the content of visual perception. And yes, the afterlife is psychologically comforting and consoling. I admit it freely and repeatedly, and while my beliefs admittedly possess a measure of this, I present the further observation that the existence of the afterlife is not logically and necessarily false.


Again, this is all profoundly...abstract. Recount for us an interaction you have recently had with another. In terms of the behaviors being chosen, how would they fit into to this explanation. In other words, the point as it relates to this side of the grave. A reality that we are all embodied in here and now.


phenomenal_graffiti wrote:Well...let's use the belief that the brain creates consciousness to do so.

I recently comforted another employee at my job who feared being fired due to unthinkingly doling information he should have kept to himself. I chose to comfort the guy by letting him know that the Board was not going to tragically throw away 13 years of faithful service over a slip of the tongue. This happened yesterday and was on this side of the grave, a reality in which we are all embodied in here and now.

Ergo:

If the brain creates consciousness.....

1. My brain created my first-person subjective experience of the employee (the body of the employee and the clothes upon the body, not the consciousness of the employee, as I can only experience my consciousness).

2. The body and words coming from the employee, and my responses to the employee, since they all come from something within my skull, are all not something outside my body but things that originated from star-shaped pieces of flesh compacted into a blob of flesh inside my skull, that then sprung out of the organ to form a "hologram" made up of my first-person subjective experience in the form of the body of the employee, my experience of the auditory sounds coming from the employee, my mental idea of what to say to the employee, and the auditory sounds of my voice stating something to the body of the employee, that sprung from my brain to stand before me, that I believe (as I cannot experience the consciousness of the employee, if it even exists) comforts the employee.

The only thing that exists in any experience of any person is that person's first-person subjective experience hanging before the person in the form of objects and environments surrounding the person that are all made up of the person...that is, of the person's first-person subjective experience.

Hopefully that's not abstract, as this is the only thing that exists or at least, the only thing that demonstrates its existence.


All this demonstrates [to me] is how the manner in which you have thought yourself into thinking about these interactions, becomes the explanation for them.

You still have not demonstrated that your thinking here is not just an inherent mainifestation of nature unfolding only as it must; or is not just the product of a computer simulated reality or a matrix world or a dream world.

You merely describe an experience that you had and explain what you think is behind it. Just as I am now describing my own reaction to your reaction. We are all in the same boat here. We think it all through until we come to the parts where the "proof" is embedded in a set of assumptions encompassed in a world of words that define and defend each other.

Then around and around we go:

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
First-person subjective experience is the substance that composes the things we see, hear, feel, and experience from day to day. The afterlife, meanwhile, as it happens to exist and appear within the current state of our existence, appears only in the form of an idea of a world composed of first-person subjective experience. The objective existence of the idea, the existence of first-person subjective experience in the "here and now", brings the existence of the afterlife into focus as the imaginary substance making up the idea happens to be the same substance composing what we experience from day to day.


Here we are clearly in two different discussions. I have no idea "what on earth" this means. This is a "world of words" "general description" of human interactions to me. I'm trying to grapple with how you relate this intellectual "assessment" to the "for all practical purposes" choices that you make in the course of actually living your life.


phenomenal_graffiti wrote:It's elementary, I think. "For all practical purposes" choices and the course of one living one's life is made up of first-person subjective experience. There's really nothing else.


Again, in my view, you have merely thought yourself into believing it is all "elementary". You have demonstrated none of it such that all rational men and women can then clearly be shown as obligated to think the same.

Which just brings me back around to the manner in which psychologically it has become important for you to believe that this "elementary" explanation need be as far as you go. Why? Because the explanation works for you in that it allows you to anchor "I" in that which you feel [through argument] is at least an intellectual font of sort.

And you need such a font on this side of the grave in order to at least establish an argument for the existence of a font on the other side of the grave.

Only I immediately recognize that this is all no less true of my own arguments here. It still comes down to that which I am in turn able to demonstrate as in fact true objectively about you.

Not much. Again, being in the same boat here that you are. That, seemingly, we all are.

There was the existence of planet Earth before the existence of "I" --- a conscious human mind able to note the existence of planet Earth before the existence of "I". Now, unless one is a full-fledged solipsist insisting that the existence of planet Earth past and present is wholly predicated on the existence of "I", planet Earth will continue to exist even after "I" am dead and gone.


phenomenal_graffiti wrote:Well heck man, in the last sentence you've just described mind-independence in practical "flesh and blood" terms! How about that?


Only I am the first to acknowledge I have no way in which to demonstrate that, beyond all doubt, any of what I believe here is in fact true. Sollipsism may actually explain it. Or determinism. Or computer simulations. Or the Matrix conjectures. Or the speculations from Inception. Or the AI implications posed in the Terminator movies.

I still have explained nothing definitive about the "flesh and blood" human condition. Right? But: how much more convinced are you that your own explanation here is much closer than anyone else's?

You only concede that...

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:We certainly can't know that there is an Earth outside the artificial one made up of first-person subjective experience. The existence of planet Earth past and present appears only in the form of something experienced by an "I". It does not appear unless there is an "I" perceiving an object everyone calls "Earth" made up of the perceiver's first-person subjective experience. It follows that a mind-independent Earth may not exist and as such cannot continue exist after "I" ceases to exist (if things can cease to exist).


In other words, you are just like the rest of: flailing about trying to explain something you almost certainly have only a small fraction of information and knowledge regarding.

Dark energy? Dark matter? The quantum world? Something instead of nothing? Mind as matter? Determinsim? Leave that for others to figure out?

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:You mentioned that consciousness is an inherent component of the brain, but the only brains that have ever been experienced are brains composed of first-person subjective experience. Are there evidence of brains not composed of a person's subjective experience that are subjectively experienced? If these brains are not composed of first-person subjective experience, how can they be experienced or, for that matter, known to even exist, if they are not composed of subjective experience?


I can only note that I am not at all clear regarding what your point is here. What brains performing what tasks in what contexts?


phenomenal_graffiti wrote:1. People believe the brain creates consciousness.

2. That which (in your words mind you)...'can be proven to be true'...'a demonstrable set of of facts'...if the brain creates every single instance of everything you experience from birth to death---are and must be created by the brain. Everything one experience in the either/ought world, the either/ought world itself, appears and manifests only if it pops out of the brain.


But we still have no definitive understanding of how, given a particular behavior that we choose in a particular context, this "first-person subjective experience" actually works given how the human brain works given how that reflects the evolution of mindless matter into living matter given how that came to exist at all.

It's not what people believe so much as explaining how and why belief itself came into existence going back to, as some speculate, the Big Bang itself.

phenomenal_graffiti wrote: There are, if mind-independence exists, two things:

a. Everything that is created by your brain
b. Everything not created by your brain (i.e the 'planet Earth [that] will continue to exist even after "I" am dead and gone')


"There are, if..."

Bingo. Then [for me] it always comes down to the extent to which "if" is truly grappled with by any particular individual when the questions get this big. And that is far more a manifestation of dasein in my view. But then this view in itself is no less embedded in my own set of assumptions here.

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:My faith in the existence of the afterlife is entangled in the belief that consciousness...er...first-person subjective experience does not magically come into existence from a previous non-existence and does not magically cease to exist after having previously existed.


Well, the religious folks would probably call this their "soul". God implants it at birth and, if one is righteous enough, He sends it to Heaven after one dies.

But what "consciousness" is here for you is beyond my own capacity to grasp[...]


phenomenal_graffiti wrote:Consciousness=first person subjective experience in seven modes or types.


Unless, perhaps, it's six or eight modes or types.

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:The "matrix of human consciousness" is easily demonstrated because...why...it is your consciousness, which is a "matrix", regardless of whether or not the brain creates consciousness. To me, the brain does not create consciousness and my "matrix" is a mitotic copy of the "matrix" once experienced by the three personalities of God. But let's not get into that.

In regard to the behaviors that I, you, or anyone else chooses on this side of the grave and its relation to the "matrix of current human consciousness"? Well it's simple, the behaviors we choose on this side of the grave are part of the "matrix of current human consciousness" that is the artificial world, composed of first-person subjective experience, that is generated by your brain as opposed to the doppelgangers purportedly existing in the external world (for those believing the brain creates consciousness or that there are mind-independent doppelgangers of the content of visual perception in the external world).


I can only ask you once again to intertwine this in the life that you live.

You interact with another in a particular context. You choose particular behaviors which precipitate consequences which precipitate behaviors on their part. After an hour or so of interacting how would you encompass "what happened" given your "anlysis" here.

Forget about the aftelife for now. Let's explore more in depth how your thinking here is applicable only to the things we do on this side of the grave.


phenomenal_graffiti wrote:1. The life that I live is made up of my first-person subjective experience.

2. My interaction with another in a particular context is made up of my first-person subjective experience.

3. The particular behaviors I choose are made up of my first-person subjective experience.

4. The consequences precipitated by my choices are made up of my first-person subjective experience.

5. The behaviors of others, which I experience, are made up of my first-person subjective experience.

6. Everything done on this side of the grave that I experience is made up of my first-person subjective experience.

7. My first-person subjective experience is the substance that makes up everything I experience, the persons I experience, and every reaction and interaction in the real world which is....er...made up of my first-person subjective experience.


Okay, but the person that you are explaining this to has another set of assumptions about human consciousness. And about their subjective experiences. About how "for all practical purposes" in going about the business of interacting with others there are clearly things which seem readily applicable to everyone. The either/or world interactions which we must take for granted if we are to have interactions at all.

All the stuff you speculate about seems so far, far removed from the lives that we actually live. Or, rather, so it seems to me.

Again, I am making the assumption here that solipsism, determinism, Matrix and Inception realities, sim worlds, demonic dream worlds etc., are not a factor in explainimg our assessments of what is true.

And that's before we get to our interactions in the is/ought world. Or the part about God.

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:But are the assumptions really only "objectively possible" in my head? If so, why? Why aren't the assumptions objectively possible outside my head? How do we know they are only objectively possible in my mind?


Well, I can't be inside your head and you can't be inside mine. For all I know your posts are generated entirely by a computer. We must make certain assumption about the minds of others given the assumption that we make about our own.

That may well be as close as we can come to an objective reality. But at least "here and now" this exchange seems to confirm two minds exchanging what they think is true. And that may well continue on after we are both dead and gone. Only "there and then" is simply not the same as "here and now" in terms of what can be demonstrated to be true. What happens "there and then" would seem to be entirely conjectural.


phenomenal_graffiti wrote:True. "There and then" are, to us and within us, only ideas that may or may not exist outside their appearance as ideas within a mind. For things I believe, I place greater emphasis on "may".


Okay, that's reasonable enough. But: What "may be" goes on and on and on and on and on.

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:My whole argument is that that which is imagined, given that we based the idea itself upon first-person subjective experience as opposed to something that is not first-person subjective experience (the idea of the afterlife is based on something that actually exists), it is thereby logically possible. That's the most the "Invincible Argument For An Afterlife" can go for. It is "invincible" because it is unfalsifiable: it cannot be refuted or shown to be false within the current "matrix" of the "here and now".


Human logic to me is either a necessary component of a wholly determined universe [and thus interchangable with illogical thinking] or, given some measure of human autonomy, can only be grasped fully once the ontological -- teleological? -- nature of existence itself is grasped.

If that is even within the grasp of an autonomous human mind.


phenomenal_graffiti wrote:And existence appears and manifests in the form of first-person subjective experience, so there's that at least. Everything else appears only as an idea ironically made up of first-person subjective experience.


All of this asuming the assumptions you make here are actually in sync with the broadest possible understanding of existence itself.

And, come on, seriously, what are the odds that a single mere mortal on a single planet in a single solar system in a single galaxy in what may well turn out to be but a single universe in a vast, vast, vast multiverse can possibly have pinned that all down?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 32668
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: AN INVINCIBLE ARGUMENT FOR THE AFTERLIFE (PART THREE)

Postby Meno_ » Sun Aug 11, 2019 11:43 pm

Quite good, if enlightened!
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5454
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users