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 » Tue Aug 27, 2019 5:14 pm

Meno:

Quite good, if enlightened!


Thanks. The "Invincible Argument" and "The Most Logical Form of Judeo-Christianity" is the culmination and final (?) iteration of almost 20 years of internal rumination on the possible nature of existence.
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: 833
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:08 pm
Location: Texas

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

Postby phenomenal_graffiti » Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:31 pm

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 was about to comment about your belief that mind evolved from mindless matter as a "pot calling the kettle black" moment, until I read your follow up below.

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?!


I hope I didn't come across as "making my beliefs true" by how strongly I place claims and believe them. That being said: in the mythology that the brain creates consciousness, given the belief that death (irreversible cessation of consciousness) exists, the "I" that is formed by the brain, given that it is something for which the brain is responsible, something that cannot exist outside or independent of the function of the brain, and something that would cease to exist when and if the neocortex were to stop functioning,....the "I" or the consciousness of anyone must be, according to this logic, an artificial reality or "matrix" made up of the person's subjective experience produced by the brain.

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.


This is true.

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.


But you must understand through direct observance of yourself that you are composed of first-person subjective experience, and that nothing else besides first-person subjective experience appears or manifests. This is the part that existence makes patently obvious. Everything else is make-believe that, if one believes in the objective existence of stuff we constantly "make up" in our minds, one can defend it's existence (poorly) by stating there is nothing that prevents it from existing outside the mind.

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?


Well...because the situation of 'the psychological illusion of first person subjective experience embedded in the actual objective reality that is encompassed in the laws of nature themselves' is entirely make-believe. It's just something that is "made up". And it has no real logic behind it.

Here's why.

We have nothing upon which to base the existence of anything that is not first-person subjective experience that would lend credence to any reason to the idea there is an objective reality not composed of subjective experience.

If something is not subjective experience, it can have nothing to do with the existence of subjective experience since one is not the other. There is no reason to suppose one can "turn into" or evolve into the other save in the fanciful imagination that one magically could. We only experience and knowledge of the existence of first-person subjective experience, nothing else. We have no evidence for the existence of something that is not first-person subjective experience. Thus the need to invoke make-believe and magical thinking in the formation of something that is not subjective experience, that is imposed, I suspect, out of disbelief that first-person subjective experience very well may be the only thing that exists, and that has ever existed.

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?


What else can there be besides the patently obvious? Can you or anyone demonstrate that we are something that is not first-person experience? Why suppose an 'extra', save, perhaps, out of the simple conclusion that only first-person subjective experience exists, and the only thing that has ever existed?

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.


And this has always ever been first-person subjective experience.

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.


But in the meantime, psychological motivation or not....everything could be just be made up of subjective experience, and nothing more. It doesn't matter that I "need" the elementary nature of a reality being made up only of first-person subjective experience to lend logical credence to an afterlife made up only of first-person subjective experience. It doesn't matter that in the end "we simply don't know". Neither does it matter if you are able to admit it faster or easier than I. None of this matters outside the fact that things could very well be "elementary" in that first-person subjective experience in the form of persons is the only thing that exists.

The only thing that we can objectively demonstrate to be true is that everything is made up of first-person subjective experience.

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.


We have no evidence of the existence of anything other than the existence of first-person subjective experience. There is no reason, in light of this, to glean that one has only a small fraction of information regarding the true, objective nature of existence (especially not enough to make the irrational jump to something that is not first-person subjective experience).

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


Others would, or should, come to the conclusion (in terms of 'dark energy' 'dark matter' etc.) that these supposed existences are made up only of first-person subjective experience in the form of ideas within the mind.

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.


The point here is that people believe the brain gives rise to or creates first-person subjective experience. Worse, they believe in the existence of something that is not first-person subjective experience of which the second brain (the external world brain as distinct from the brain made up of visual and tactile perception that winks out if one should fall asleep or die while viewing a brain) is made up of something that is not first-person subjective experience. Even worse, they believe that something that is not first-person subjective experience could possibly have anything to do with the existence and properties of first-person subjective experience.

Doesn't matter if we don't have a definite understanding of how a first-person subjective experience works given the function of a non-subjective experience composed brain. The idea of this is illogical, thus doesn't matter.

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.


Only, it is illogical for mind-independence or something that is not subjective experience to have anything to do with subjective experience. I think there's nothing to grapple with, given that we only experience and can only demonstrate 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: 833
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:08 pm
Location: Texas

Previous

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users