AN INVINCIBLE ARGUMENT FOR THE AFTERLIFE (PART THREE)

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

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

Faith has nothing to do with the study of observable phenomena and science does not prove anything anyway

To Surreptitious 75:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

To iambiguous:

Sure.

True. I’m in the “more adamant” camp, but there it is.

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”.

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.

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

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”.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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).

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 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.

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).

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”.

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

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

To surreptitious75:

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(!))

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.

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).

By this logic, the only invincible argument is that you experience a virtual reality or “matrix” world composed of your first-person subjective experience.

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?

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:

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:’

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.

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:

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 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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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

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.

To iambiguous:

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.

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”.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

  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’)

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

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.

  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.

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”.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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: 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:

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:

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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…

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?

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.

“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.

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

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.

Okay, that’s reasonable enough. But: What “may be” goes on and on and on and on and on.

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?

Quite good, if enlightened!

Meno:

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.

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 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 true.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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).

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.


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.

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.

Sure, that is one possible explanation. Others have different explanations. But all I can keep coming back to then is the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, here and now, none of these explanations have demonstrated a capacity to either 1] definitively explain human existence on this side of the grave or 2] definitively resolve whether existence – “I” – continues on, on the other side of it.

Then, from my frame of mind, the gaps to be closed here are between this and full-blown solipsism, and between both and determinism.

You claim that…

But the gaps above don’t go away. Like me, you have no capacity to actually demonstrate empirically, experimentally [let alone ontologically] that the assumptions you embrace here are in fact true for all rational men and women in possession of at least some measure of free will.

But the “patently obvious” itself is no less embedded in the gaps above. And, thus, like you, I cannot demonstrate that what I think about these relationships reflects what all reasonable folks are obligated to think about them in turn going back to that definitive understanding of existence itself.

But this is the part that, from my perspective, hasn’t sunk in yet regarding your perspective.

Then around and around we go:

But to the extent the dots here either can or cannot be connected definitively between what I think I believe, how that makes me feel, and how that’s all intertwined in first person subjective experiences embedded in autonomy embedded in dasein embedded in an ontological assessment of existence itself, we are basically just posting back and forth various “worlds of words” predicated on different sets of assumptions.

Suppose we both die tomorrow. Would the either/or world going back to, say, the Big Bang be obliterated in turn? Would it cease to exist? Would you be able to demonstrate that there are in fact first person subjective experiences after you die?

Instead, we both just take our wild ass guesses here and now and post them.

And, then, way, way out on the “human reality” limb we go:

Okay, but what does that have to do with what you can in fact demonstrate to be true about the place of first person subjective experience here and now?

Other than to merely assume that what scientists and philosophers will know, say, 10,000 years from now, will confirm your own point of view. And you don’t believe that does not have more to do with your conjectures as psychological defense mechanisms than with anything you can actually know for certain about the part after the here and now “I” dies?

Iambiguous:

But how can others have different explanations from that explained above if others believe in the existence of mindless matter and believe that death is cessation of the existence of consciousness upon cessation of function of the brain?

If consciousness or “I” ceases to exist upon cessation of function of the brain, “I” disappears while mindless matter continues on, as mindless matter according to the 1st law of thermodynamics cannot die or cease to exist.

If a person that dies is “gone”, then that person is not made up of mindless matter, that cannot disappear. The person and the person’s experience of reality, then, if the person’s experience of reality ceases to exist at death, must be something other than the mindless matter that remains. The only logical conclusion is that the person and the person’s experience of reality is a temporary reality that overlays the irremovable mindless matter underneath. The person and the person’s experience of reality, if one believes in the existence of death, must be an artificial reality that is something other than the mindless matter that cannot die or cease to exist.

I don’t think closing gaps matter. Solipsism and determinism are beliefs. The afterlife and the non-existence of the afterlife are beliefs. None of these do not change the fact that:

[b]1. You and I (and anyone reading this) are and can be reductively defined as an experience. That’s essentially what you are. That’s what I am. We are experiences: a “movie camera POV shot” and the things and people that happen by chance to come into view before the “camera” to talk to the “camera” as it moves through whatever world that happens to appear within the “POV shot”.

  1. Nothing else–and you can observe this for yourself here and now—appears or presents itself unless it appears within or to the POV shot. I mean, this fact proves itself every second, over and over: nothing can demonstrate or prove it exists unless it appears within the POV shot (air and other invisible things must be felt, smelt, heard, or tasted, but these are non-visual ways for something to “appear” within the POV shot).

  2. Anything appearing within your POV shot, as opposed to before the “cameras” of myself or anyone else in the entire universe, the thing must be materially composed of the substance of YOU….that is….the substance of your experience (just yours, and not the substance of anyone else in the entire universe).

If something is not composed of you (and you can discern this negatively from the existence of death, if death is cessation of the existence of “I” and the things “I” experience), it cannot experience it, as it is made up of something other than you, that is, your particular first-person subjective experience as opposed to anyone else’s in the totality of existence.
[/b]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2b0J9wwSzw[/youtube]

1-3 are irrefutable facts about the actual nature of existence itself. They are the “drawing board” anyone can philosophically return to anytime they become stuck in rumination upon the nature of existence. 1-3 exist before you now, are things that you can easily and readily observe now, any time you are conscious and having experiences.

Ignoring 1-3, it logically follows that anything other than you, a first-person subjective experience and the things that appear to and within the “POV shot” can only demonstrate its existence as being part of you, but can only demonstrate its existence as a part of you only in the form of your thought in the form of your idea of the thing, and/or thought in the form of your visual (or non-visual) imagination of the thing.

Ergo: anything that does not appear within the “POV shot” of your consciousness can only appear within existence in the form of an idea.

But 1-3 are not assumptions but irrefutable, instantly and constantly observed facts about the nature of that part of existence that appears and demonstrates itself. Rational men and women in possession of some measure of free will can immediately and constantly observe 1-3 to be actual facts about their existence…about that part of existence that actually shows up and makes itself known.

I state “all we have” not in the sense of my knowing everything that exists within every single consciousness and the entirety of the external world, but state it in terms of our knowledge of existence that appears and is experienced.

But the gaps do not matter. The gaps are only one’s idea of the gaps, or that there are gaps. Nor is there an obligation for “reasonable folks” to think in the way I present things when I speak of ideas (key word and concept here) lying beyond the pale of the existence-facts of 1-3. They are obligated, however, in order to be and remain “reasonable folks”, to accept the existence-facts of 1-3, as these are irrefutable facts about the nature of existence (because they are immediately and constantly observed).

I don’t think anyone should connect the dots between “how that makes me feel”, “how that’s all intertwined in first-person subjective experiences embedded in autonomy” with dasein (Hegelianistic term for existence or determinate being [external world or “behind everyone’s backs” as well as directly experienced existence?]= according to the Oxford dictionary), as one’s feelings about something—say the afterlife—has no bearing on actual daesin. I say feel the way you wish to feel about the afterlife (as the most pertinent subject of these talks) or God, or anything else. These have no bearing on the actual dasein.

As dasein in the form of your and my consciousness actually appears to us, (and let’s not kid ourselves, dasein appears in the form of “POV shots” and the thing appearing within the “roving camera shots…for how can it conceivably appear in any other form that would allow one to know something is dasein?), everything that does not appear to us as something that finds it way into the “POV camera shot” and is framed in a “world of words” as something that cannot appear within “POV camera shots”…exists only within “POV shots” as ideas: thoughts made up of…you guessed it…first-person subjective experience.

So this is what’s actually going on: you have actual dasein showing up, and only showing up, in the form of “POV camera shots”, and you have the idea of everything that does not appear as or within “POV camera shots”.

This is the only dichotomy: that which is experienced, and that which is experienced only in the form of an idea.

My “World of words”, therefore, in terms of subject matter not demonstrable to first-person subjective experience springboards from first-person subjective experience and the irrefutable existence-facts of 1-3. Does it make it any better than stuff that does not springboard from the latter? Probably not? But it has the surest footing. The afterlife, for example, springboards from the existence facts of 1-3. Mindless matter, unfortunately, not so much.

But that’s irrelevant.

Here’s what’s relevant:

I realized I don’t have to demonstrate anything beyond the existence-facts of 1-3.

It doesn’t matter if the dots are connected or if there are metphysical gaps that must be closed, particularly if the dots and the gaps involve things outside 1-3. Why? Because the gaps cannot be closed. They cannot be demonstrated. In fact, they’re only ideas. One must take the existence-facts of 1-3 and build one’s ontology from these bricks. Not from make-believe ones, like mindless matter, imposed or even entertained from incredulity that only consciousness exists or can exist (if true).

My job, beyond the obvious marketing ploy of making bold assertions about the afterlife is to present the rational suggestion that the afterlife, that one nugget out of the ocean of nuggets of human ideas about what may exist outside 1-3, while not demonstrable can in principle exist behind everyone’s backs.

Why?

Because there are no rational grounds irrefutably and unquestionably demonstrating the afterlife cannot invisibly exist behind everyone’s backs.

I don’t have to convince “reasonable folks” that they must think as I do. I can only hope they concede to the existence-facts of 1-3, and at least respect the conjecture that uses 1-3 as a stepping stone (which the afterlife does).

There are no gaps to be closed, or at least, the gaps don’t matter. The gaps are only one’s idea of the gaps, or that there are gaps, after all.

Objectively, in terms of the existence that shows up and demonstrates itself, there are only the existence-facts of 1-3 above.

And the fact that the afterlife may, despite any and all disbelief in the existence of the afterlife, exist behind everyone’s backs. One can believe it does not exist, but can one demonstrate or prove a negative, that it does not exist? One can only believe it does not exist, while the possibility remains, despite one’s disbelief, that the afterlife quietly grins to itself in the external world despite the fact it cannot be demonstrated to exist. I suppose one can say the same about mindless matter, but the logic problems between subjective experience and that which is not subjective experience in terms of causal relation remains.

That’s my job, to listen to atheists, take their views seriously, before quietly laying the Joker card on the table that depicts that the afterlife can exist in the external world behind everyone’s backs. If mindless matter can exist behind everyone’s backs despite the fact there is no proof of the existence of mindless matter and one, being made up of first-person subjective experience, cannot demonstrate the existence of mindless matter in scientific experiment (as the “either/ought” world is actually a “matrix” that ceases to exist at death for those believing this non-sense)—there is no reason why the afterlife, too, can be something that actually exists behind everyone’s backs in the external world, that mindless matter really does not exist, and the only thing that exists is eternal consciousness that transforms into people and other people rather than cease to exist at death.

So it doesn’t matter whether or not one knows the whole “kit and caboodle” of existence “inside and out” to be qualified to dare to speak of the afterlife as something that could exist or to assert the existence-facts of 1-3. One can freely speak of the existence of the afterlife or the existence facts of 1-3 because regardless of whether or not one knows the entire “ins and outs” of daesin, it remains that the afterlife may be, for all we know or can know about existence, something that is in daesin, that is merely hidden to the “matrix” of the “either/ought world” but that nevertheless objectively exists outside.

Or not.

There’s certainly nothing that unquestionably and irrefutably falsifies the possibility of the afterlife.

Funny you should ask because…

….if it is objectively true that mindless matter exists and that mindless matter is something that is not first-person subjective experience but something that existed for all eternity before there were such things as brains as first-person subjective experience can only be created by brains or brain-like mechanisms……(catches breath)….then anything that is composed of mindless matter and not first-person subjective experience as first-person subjective experience is the only thing in existence that can magically come into existence from previous non-existence and go out of existence after having existed….(huff, gasp)…the either/ought world going back to the Big Bang would not be obliterated as the either/ought world is not our consciousness but is something that existed before brains and is thus not something the brain creates or controls and is therefore something that can survive and should survive the sudden non-existence of anyone’s consciousness (wheeze).

If the atheists are right, no. If they are wrong, still no. Even in the afterlife, one could only demonstrate one’s first-person subjective experience to oneself, and not other people in the afterlife.

Wild ass guesses are cool! And imo they should be posted only with the stipulation that they be logically coherent and possible–you know— taking existence facts 1-3 into consideration, and springboarding from 1-3, working to demonstrate that the guess could exist behind everyone’s backs in the external world regardless of whether or not it is believed.

The place of first person subjective experience is that it’s the only that that actually shows up and demonstrates it exists. Nothing else, and I mean nothing else, does that. Even so, I can only demonstrate my first-person subjective experience to myself. That will have to suffice. You can only demonstrate your first-person subjective experience to yourself, and not anyone else in the totality of the universe. The rest of us must have quasi-religious faith that your “I” even exists. The existence of your consciousness, to everyone that isn’t you, is in the same boat as God. God may exist, but we can only have faith that his consciousness, like we can only have faith that your consciousness, actually exists. But take heart: I have faith in the existence of iambiguous. I can’t prove iambiguous’ consciousness actually exists, as I can only experience my own consciousness…but to spite solipsism I’m going to believe it does.

Scientists 10,000 years from now confirming my point of view would be awesome, if they could somehow have the non-demonstrable become demonstrable. As far as existence-facts 1-3? They must confirm this, as these are basic facts about the nature of our existence one easily confirms simply by existing.

At the end of the day, it really doesn’t matter if my conjectures are psychological defense mechanisms against the non-existence of the consciousness of myself and my loved ones at death. Turns, out, the non-existence of me and my loved ones at death may be objectively false for all we know or can know.

Regardless of my feelings or subconscious fear, the fact remains that the afterlife is still, and shall remain, something that might actually exist behind our backs regardless of whether or not one accepts or denies its existence, and despite the fact the afterlife cannot be demonstrated. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander: if mindless matter can be said to exist behind our backs even if one denies its existence and its existence cannot be demonstrated, the same goes for the afterlife. Both cannot be demonstrated, and one or the other may be true for all we know or can know.

Psychological defense mechanisms are meaningless given the metaphysical possibility, as it does nothing to negate or falsify the metaphysical possibility and as such, has no bearing one way or the other on the objective existence of the afterlife.

Joined with part 1 & 2 it would take an afterlife to read it all. That would make me regret if there actually is one. I think I’ll stick with oblivion!

The afterlife needs no invincible argument. It’s a certainty. Even if we die when we die, that’s an afterlife.

Monad:

Oblivion requires magic and is an irrational belief. How does something that does not exist come into existence? How can something that exists, like the brain, neurons making up the brain, and electrons flowing within a brain create something that does not exist (conscious experience before it is “created” by the brain)? Experiences are transient and exist only in the form of first-person subjective experience and the subjective experience of something. What is experience before it is experienced?

Any answer to the last question must be something entirely made up and not something anyone can know, as we can only experience first-person subjective experience: we cannot experience something that is not first-person subjective experience as it is not first-person subjective experience, thus there is not experiential and thus no rational grounds for the existence of anything that is not first-person subjective experience.

Any make-believe asserting that it answers or can answer the question that is the last sentence of the paragraph prior to the above paragraph can be argued to be created only out of denial that consciousness (first-person subjective experience) may in fact be eternal, and is not something that:

  1. Does not exist that is magically created or conjured into existence

  2. Something that can stop existing rather than just change into different first-person subjective experience, or:

  3. Something that is not the fact or act of experiencing that can magically transform into the fact or act of experiencing.

It’s far simpler that consciousness is fortuitously and absurdly eternal, such that the 1st Law of Thermodynamics should be changed to state that:

Consciousness is neither created nor destroyed, but merely changes form.

PG

Aware-ness:

Ha, ha.