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 iambiguous » Wed Jan 30, 2019 6:26 pm

But what does [it] mean "for all practical purposes" relating to the interactions of men and women out in a particular world? And then "for all practical purposes" how that is pertinent to the afterlife?

For me, it's always about the extent to which someone is able to take their own assessment [however sophisticated it might appear as an intellectual contraption] "down to earth". Something more substantive that I might be able to experience myself.


phenomenal_graffiti wrote: It means that one's experience and one's experience of things that appear only in the form of one's point of view of it is the only thing that appears to exist. There is no evidence of the existence of things not made up of one's experience of them (say, mind-independent analogs of genetic/biological/chemical/neurological interactions that unfold inside mind-independent brains, for example, or even mind-independent chairs, buildings, mountains, galaxies, etc.).

Thus for all practical purposes humans are non-embodied minds or biblical spirits: all interactions, environments, objects, etc. experienced by the spirit is an artificial reality or "Matrix" of the spirit's experience of itself "in" or "having" a particular body, reacting with particular individuals, and experiencing a particular world (the world composed of the spirit's subjective experience, that the spirit is forced to experience).


You tell this to someone. And they say, "okay, but what does that really have to do with how you can in fact show me that I can in fact know what is in fact true about 'I' beyond the grave?"

Back again to "an invincible argument". The invincibility of which seems predicated entirely on the definition and the meaning that you give to the words in the arguments themselves. You are unable to connect these words [more substantively] to the world we interact in. To the actual experience of living and then dying in it.

Or so it seems to me.

This sort of thing...

phenomenal_graffiti wrote: ....it's artificial in the sense that the things one experiences is entirely arbitrary in terms of the things that "just so" happens to exist in one's experience, if there are no such things as mind-independent doppelgangers of the content of visual perception. If there are no mind-independent chairs, for example, the chairs you experience are arbitrarily existing objects composed of your subjective experience, that are participants in the particular world you are forced to experience; they exist for no other reason than that they are particular objects that happen to form form and appear within your particular consciousness. The same can be said for the arbitrary existence of bills and the consequences for not paying them, the predicament of federal employees in America thanks to the actions of that guy, and so on.


....is seen by me to be a "general description" of human interactions on this side of the grave. An intellectual contraption. How would you go about demonstrating it beyond a "world of words"?

As for what G. M. Woerlee learned about "the true nature of death", are scientists or philosophers or theologians able to devise actual experiments/experiences that others are themselves able to replicate?

Either with respect to oblivion or "I" beyond the grave.

And would all neuroscientists concur regarding the extent to which your own conclusions about the dependence/independence of the mind/body relationship are in fact true for all of us?

It's still just highly speculative. Eventually coming down to certain assumptions/premises that sustain certain conclusions.

This part in particular:

phenomenal_graffiti wrote: The joke is that there is no soul within a body but a body within a soul--in the form of a body composed of the subjective experience of the non-embodied mind or spirit the latter experiences as a particular object in the particular artificial subjective world (composed of its consciousness) the spirit has no choice but to experience.


Until you [or others] are able to connect the dots between this particular assumption and the actual things we choose to do from day to day, connected in turn to the fate of "I" on the slab, I -- "I" -- can only see it as an "invincible argument".

However intelligently articulated.

Thus:

[Since] most of us [myself included] are simply not educated/informed enough to respond in any really sophisticated manner.

So it all comes down to someone being able to actually demonstrate what consciousness either is or is not in the context of what existence itself either is or is not.


phenomenal_graffiti wrote: We only have consciousness, so it is probably impossible for that which is not consciousness to appear to show that something other than a person and that which a person experiences exists. Everything that appears, it turns out, must appear in the form of something the person experiences. Unconscious matter is something that is not any person or anything experienced by any person, nor subjective experience itself. It seems that in order to exist or at least in order to appear, a thing must be composed of the subjective experience of someone experiencing it, which, given that only that person is experiencing in according to their perspective and point of view (Schropenhauer), proves the thing exists only as part of the person, in terms of part of the person's consciousness and not something other than that consciousness or something apart from it.


This may well be a brilliant examination/explanation of these relationships.

But it doesn't get me [and I suspect many, many others] much beyond conjecture itself.

Now, Arthur Schopenhauer may well be in the position here and now to explain this better.

Or not of course.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 28692
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

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

Postby phenomenal_graffiti » Fri Feb 01, 2019 7:10 pm

You tell this to someone. And they say, "okay, but what does that really have to do with how you can in fact show me that I can in fact know what is in fact true about 'I' beyond the grave?"


I would respond that I cannot show them what is in fact true about the 'I' beyond the grave. I can only conceptually show them that if consciousness does not cease to exist at death, it may continue in the form of an artificial reality that might be different than the one currently experienced.

Back again to "an invincible argument". The invincibility of which seems predicated entirely on the definition and the meaning that you give to the words in the arguments themselves. You are unable to connect these words [more substantively] to the world we interact in. To the actual experience of living and then dying in it.

Or so it seems to me.


Certain definitions can point directly to the world we interact in, such as "consciousness", which in the case of discerning whether or not mind-independent objects exist, focuses primarily on visual perception. A person looking upon the world in which we interact will see that the world consists of the person's subjective experience, as the world only appears when the person is awake and attends to it. The aspect or part of the interactive world viewed by the individual disappears when the individual no longer attends to it.

If a person touches a tree, the person discovers that the way the tree feels is basically only the experience the person has when he or she touches the visual object. This experience is distinct from the brain, which itself is another visual experience composed of the person's experience of the experiential brain (if seen in medical and neuroscientific context).

If one believes brains create consciousness, the seeming existence of death and sleep indicates that the world in which we interact is an artificial reality created by the brain. Mind-independent objects and events are not created by the brain, do not depend upon the brain in order to exist, and do not cease to exist in response to malfunction or non-function of the brain. So the world in which we interact is an artificial reality regardless of whether or not the brain creates consciousness.

These observations define the world the individual actually exists and is involved in. They point directly to it.

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
....it's artificial in the sense that the things one experiences is entirely arbitrary in terms of the things that "just so" happens to exist in one's experience, if there are no such things as mind-independent doppelgangers of the content of visual perception. If there are no mind-independent chairs, for example, the chairs you experience are arbitrarily existing objects composed of your subjective experience, that are participants in the particular world you are forced to experience; they exist for no other reason than that they are particular objects that happen to form form and appear within your particular consciousness. The same can be said for the arbitrary existence of bills and the consequences for not paying them, the predicament of federal employees in America thanks to the actions of that guy, and so on.


....is seen by me to be a "general description" of human interactions on this side of the grave. An intellectual contraption. How would you go about demonstrating it beyond a "world of words"?


A person demonstrates everything I have described in 'the world of words'.

As for what G. M. Woerlee learned about "the true nature of death", are scientists or philosophers or theologians able to devise actual experiments/experiences that others are themselves able to replicate?

Either with respect to oblivion or "I" beyond the grave.


No.

And would all neuroscientists concur regarding the extent to which your own conclusions about the dependence/independence of the mind/body relationship are in fact true for all of us?


No. But the fact remains there is no evidence of a mind/body relationship.

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
The joke is that there is no soul within a body but a body within a soul--in the form of a body composed of the subjective experience of the non-embodied mind or spirit the latter experiences as a particular object in the particular artificial subjective world (composed of its consciousness) the spirit has no choice but to experience.


Until you [or others] are able to connect the dots between this particular assumption and the actual things we choose to do from day to day, connected in turn to the fate of "I" on the slab, I -- "I" -- can only see it as an "invincible argument".


The assumption demonstrates the actual things we choose to do from day to day. So the dots are connected there. The assumption cannot demonstrate the fate of "I" on the slab.

The assumption demonstrates the actual things we choose to do from day to day. So the dots are connected there. The assumption cannot demonstrate the fate of "I" on the slab.

But it doesn't get me [and I suspect many, many others] much beyond conjecture itself.


Everything other than subjective experience is conjecture supported by faith.
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: 784
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:08 pm

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

Postby iambiguous » Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:24 pm

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
You tell this to someone. And they say, "okay, but what does that really have to do with how you can in fact show me that I can in fact know what is in fact true about 'I' beyond the grave?"


I would respond that I cannot show them what is in fact true about the 'I' beyond the grave. I can only conceptually show them that if consciousness does not cease to exist at death, it may continue in the form of an artificial reality that might be different than the one currently experienced.


Okay, you are making what you construe to be an invincible argument. But so much is at stake with regard to death, many will inevitably want more than that. And if you are ever able to provide them with it, I hope you'll start with us here.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 28692
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

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

Postby phenomenal_graffiti » Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:40 am

Okay, you are making what you construe to be an invincible argument. But so much is at stake with regard to death, many will inevitably want more than that. And if you are ever able to provide them with it, I hope you'll start with us here.


That's fair as many people, including those who think death is the eternal cessation of consciousness, are probably interested to know if there are adequate counterpoints that could or might make them re-think their position.

But as I say now and have repeated before, I can't show you, or anyone, the afterlife, as we all only experience the current artificial or "virtual" reality of the world that appears before our eyes. So it is patently impossible for me to open a portal into the afterlife to show you or anyone and say: "See, there it is".

The only thing I can do is like a defense attorney provide reasonable doubt regarding the logic and existence of the common objects, relations, and procedures of commonly believed godless mythology. And by that reasonable doubt induce an individual's entertainment that the afterlife is possible if not probable. That's it.

So here's the thing. Those who do not believe in an afterlife do not just rest upon the belief: "there is no afterlife" without some sort of explanation as to why they believe this. To explain the belief, they must produce a mythology regarding the way things work and the way things are, and these deny the eternity of consciousness. In the typical or usual mythology of "what's really going on", there is an organ in the body called the brain that has been "pinpointed" or that is believed to be the source of our experience of the world and our experience of real consequences for doing this or that in this world.

But if the brain is behind the world we experience, the brain is producing an artificial or "virtual" reality that is the world of "the here and now". Either way you cut it it's an artificial reality. It's gotta be an artificial reality because it shuts on and off during dreamless sleep and death (if there are such things). In commonly believed godless mythology, the artificial world beams out, like holographic Princess Leia from R2D2, from a mass of flesh trapped in a skull, to seemingly hover outside the skull and body.

But even so it would be sorta weird to think the external world only contains floating mind-independent brains that collectively beam out artificial realities in the form of different persons or first-person subjects of experience experiencing the same world from their own individual reference or point of view. Thus cometh not the Iceman, but the mythology of something to support the existence of the arbitrarily existing experiential objects and events appearing in the artificial realities beaming from brains.

Thus cometh the mythology of mind-independent doppelgangers of the things we see in the artificial realities. These invisible, intangible objects (because they are outside and not part of the artificial reality beaming from our brains, as we are and can only experience the artificial reality beaming from our brain) are not part of the artificial realities but are imagined by us within the artificial reality (as they must be imagined as we can't experience anything that is not the artificial reality beaming from the brain) as larger-than-the-brain-and-body objects and events that cannot and do not reside within the body or skull, but must somehow send signals to the body and brain that is routed to and strikes that part of the brain that luckily, just happened to have a neural circuit sitting in it that purportedly produces an artificial reality subjective image of just that object that just happened to send the signal to the body and brain at that moment.

What does any of this have to do with the afterlife or providing more than just an argument for the afterlife?

Well...if I can conceptually show how preposterous it is for this big, large world we see--which seems to hover in front of us and seems to hover in front of us outside our skulls and brains---to have once either not existed at all or to have been folded and curled up like an airbag years before the fact to suddenly spring like a deployed airbag from tiny neurons trapped in a skull; if I can conceptually show how preposterous it is that neural circuits in the brain happen to have the ability to beam out experience of the future before the future even happens---

(Yes ladies and gents in case you didn't know it the brain, if brains create experience of the world, can predict the future, as the brain must have neural circuits sitting in the brain waiting years before the fact (as presumably neural circuits capable of producing the experience of what one will experience, say, 30 seconds from now cannot have the neural circuits responsible for this soon to happen experience forming in the brain in less than 30 seconds prior to the experience, as the experience is showing up in 30 seconds) capable of producing experiences of the future in order for us to have experiences of the near future. That is, neural circuits responsible for immediate and far future experience must "know" what future states the external world is going to come up with before the external world unknowingly and accidentally (because there are no gods) produces them.)

--if I can show how preposterous it is to hold that neurons, in the same way God caused light to exist ex nihilo in some interpretations of the Book of Genesis, can cause experiences that do not exist to come into existence, and for experiences to somehow go out of existence (rather than simply transform into new experiences); if I can show how preposterous it is for mind-independent doppelgangers of mountains, computers, chairs, stars, and movie celebrities to have anything to do with the artificial reality containing a person's first-person experience of these things when they are not one and the same thing (as one is created by the brain and the other cannot fit within the brain in order to come forth from it)---

---I can cast reasonable doubt on the common mythology regarding consciousness and death...I can conceptually cause the listener to infer that the entire mythology is make-believe (as one can only experience one's the artificial reality of one's experience and not the mind-independent fictions purportedly existing outside the artificial reality). If the mythology is ultimately just a made up, consisting of made up objects that supposedly lurk behind the one existence we can and do see (one's own consciousness)....consciousness is not necessarily produced by brains and does not necessarily come into and go out of existence. Rather, given that consciousness is the only thing that shows us it exists, rather than make-believe physical energy in the First Law of Thermodynamics being the thing that 'is neither created nor destroyed but only changes it's form', it's consciousness that does that instead, as it may be that consciousness is the only thing that exists.

In one can accept the possibility of that, and if one can accept the possibility that mind-independent doppelgangers of the content of visual perception do not exist and that brains do not create consciousness---

(The brain can be entailed in theological explanation to be a symbolic metaphor of what actually produces consciousness, with the brain, its function, and seeming correspondence with conscious states instilled by God as part of a game of logic or logic-game he plays with man, in which a human choosing to play discerns the illogical nature of the brain's "relation" to consciousness and from this deduces that persons are actually non-embodied spirits)

---one may infer that if consciousness is eternal and only or can only form persons that do not cease to exist at death (as persons cannot can cease to exist but only transform into another person or a different version of their former self according to a 'First Law of Psyche' that replaces the First Law of Thermodynamics) an afterlife is possible, given the eternal and transformative nature of consciousness.

The upshot being I hope to provide argument for the afterlife that causes a person to discern its logical possibility and the logical impossibility of godless mythology.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(Note: Despite the logical inconsistencies of mind-independence and relation between mind-independence and consciousness, belief in godless mythology and cessation of consciousness at death may still be saved by Ernst Mach's Phenomenalism, if one abandons mind-independence and materialism.)
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: 784
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:08 pm

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

Postby iambiguous » Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:38 pm

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
Okay, you are making what you construe to be an invincible argument. But so much is at stake with regard to death, many will inevitably want more than that. And if you are ever able to provide them with it, I hope you'll start with us here.


That's fair as many people, including those who think death is the eternal cessation of consciousness, are probably interested to know if there are adequate counterpoints that could or might make them re-think their position.


Points, yes. But to the extent that the points are only about other points comprising particular definitions and meanings, it's still just a world of words.

Consider for example the Manhattan Project: "a research and development undertaking during World War II that produced the first nuclear weapons."

No doubt these folks exchanged many, many points regarding the science involved in grappling with the creation of atomic bombs. But sooner or later the points had to be connected to actual physical/material/phenomenal interactions such that someone could actually manufacture this bomb. The bomb itself confirmed the objectives truthfulness of one set of points rather than another.

But suppose another group of folks got together to discuss whether or not those killed by the bomb went on to exist beyond the grave. Lots of points in lots of arguments could be made here too. But one set of points either leads to actual hard evidence that they did in fact continue to exist beyond the grave or it doesn't. And if the evidence isn't there to confirm one or another rendition of consciousness/life after death that doesn't necessarily mean that's the end of. Down the road, others may come up with new points leading to new discoveries. But the new discoveries either demonstrate the existence of life after death [for any particular one of us] or they don't. But will the evidence here be the equivalent of the actual existing bomb in the first project?

And, as in any number of criminal trials, "reasonable doubt" can become a particularly slippery slope. It's not like the jury can hold it in their hands like a rock to confirm beyond all doubt what the objective truth is.

As for how the brain is to be understood here as mind or the mind understood as "soul", we just don't have a precise understanding of that. Or, rather, I certainly don't.

What's "weird" here goes all the way back to why there is anything at all. And why this particular something and not another one. Weirder still [perhaps] have been attempts to explain existence through "logic". What is inherently logical about the existence of existence itself? To the best of our knowledge, the universe had been around for billions of years before matter evolved into life evolved into consciousness evolved into self-conscious entities. Like us. But we're not even really certain if what we are conscious of isn't all that we could only ever have been conscious of.

In the interim being able to think yourself into believing in life after death can only be that much more comforting and consoling than thinking yourself into believing the death of "I" equals oblivion.

Unless of course you no longer wish to exist at all. And then finding out that, to your horror, "I" really does continue on for all of eternity.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 28692
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

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

Postby phenomenal_graffiti » Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:11 pm

Consider for example the Manhattan Project: "a research and development undertaking during World War II that produced the first nuclear weapons."

No doubt these folks exchanged many, many points regarding the science involved in grappling with the creation of atomic bombs. But sooner or later the points had to be connected to actual physical/material/phenomenal interactions such that someone could actually manufacture this bomb. The bomb itself confirmed the objectives truthfulness of one set of points rather than another.

But suppose another group of folks got together to discuss whether or not those killed by the bomb went on to exist beyond the grave. Lots of points in lots of arguments could be made here too. But one set of points either leads to actual hard evidence that they did in fact continue to exist beyond the grave or it doesn't. And if the evidence isn't there to confirm one or another rendition of consciousness/life after death that doesn't necessarily mean that's the end of. Down the road, others may come up with new points leading to new discoveries. But the new discoveries either demonstrate the existence of life after death [for any particular one of us] or they don't. But will the evidence here be the equivalent of the actual existing bomb in the first project?


And this is an excellent metaphor of what you seek behind mere "argument for an afterlife". The physical, material "bomb" or actual, "look it's there" proof of the afterlife is not one and the same as argument for an afterlife which is comprised of just words expressing an idea without immediate or eventual connection to a hands-on "bomb". Got it.

When it comes to the afterlife, unfortunately, there is no "actual existing bomb", so all we have on this side of the grave are words, thoughts, and ideas for and against.

There are certain things, like bombs, for instance, that by the very premise of the idea of a bomb is an idea of something that can present itself to human sensory perception. Then there are things that are ideas of things that cannot present themselves to human perception. The afterlife, the Multiverse, and mind-independent doppelgangers of the content of visual perception are of the latter.

The Afterlife in terms of the idea of what it looks like is usually thought of from the third-person, but any third-person idea is seen from the point of view of the person having the idea. But the true idea of the afterlife should be considered in regard to the existence or non-existence of the person who died and may or may not be experiencing it.

Why?

Because the afterlife is an idea derived from and is an extrapolation of the "actual existing bomb" of an actual first-person subject of experience. You have an "actual existing bomb" of your first-person subjective experience and I have an "actual existing bomb" of mine, as I sit and type at 5:10am in the morning on a keyboard in Austin,Texas.

But from my point of view (solipsism be damned as it makes its point), your consciousness to me is simply an idea or "point" that may or may not exist for all I know, as I can only experience my own consciousness. I cannot render the objective truth of your consciousness or anyone's consciousness save mine, there can be no connection between points given in support of the existence of your consciousness and the actual, hard evidence of it, as it is something I cannot experience and can only believe objectively exists.

But suppose another group of folks got together to discuss whether or not those killed by the bomb went on to exist beyond the grave. Lots of points in lots of arguments could be made here too. But one set of points either leads to actual hard evidence that they did in fact continue to exist beyond the grave or it doesn't. And if the evidence isn't there to confirm one or another rendition of consciousness/life after death that doesn't necessarily mean that's the end of. Down the road, others may come up with new points leading to new discoveries. But the new discoveries either demonstrate the existence of life after death [for any particular one of us] or they don't.


The afterlife, if it exists, comprises the consciousness of everyone that has deceased from the beginning to end of man. In the same way I cannot experience your consciousness, the living cannot experience the consciousness (if they exist) of those that have "gone on", and can only have and express ideas for or against the survival of these consciousnesses that we can never experience. The point being, there can never be any new discovery that can demonstrate to oneself the consciousness of another person (one could make an argument for isomorphism, in which two beings share the same identical experience, but this would be "identical twin" experience from two separate perspectives and points of view, not one person intermittently becoming another person, such that only one experience between persons exist).

Thus any connection between points and the objective truth concerning the afterlife may never manifest in sensory perception. Why? Because the metaphor between the bomb and the idea of the bomb does not apply to the idea of the existence of the consciousness of another person and the ability to see another person's consciousness from your consciousness. One will not be able to produce or objectively demonstrate the consciousness of another person, living or dead.

Thus the metaphor fails, and will continue to fail, when asking for a demonstration of the afterlife because when asking for a demonstration of the afterlife one is asking for demonstration of the subjective experience of other persons, whose subjective experiences are commonly believed to have ceased to exist. But this is the same, really, as asking for a demonstration of the subjective experience of a living person.

But will the evidence here be the equivalent of the actual existing bomb in the first project?


The bomb is a sensory object that presents itself in the (believed to exist) artificial realities of several persons who have built the bomb and are looking upon the sensory object. The afterlife is the idea of the first-person experiences of persons and what they invisibly experience in the afterlife if consciousness continues after seeming cessation of the brain, itself another aspect and event of the artificial reality that is human consciousness. Asking if the evidence of the bomb is equivalent to evidence of the afterlife is like asking if evidence of a bottle of water is equivalent to your evidence of my consciousness.

Ideas are ideas, but what do ideas represent? Do they represent things that can appear to the senses, that can appear before an observing first-person subjective point of view and reported by other first-person subjective points of view as the thing observed by the first? Or is the idea about the first-person subjective point of view itself, and what that point of view experiences for itself that cannot be reported as observed by other first-person points of view? The afterlife is of the latter.

Does this mean the latter cannot or does not exist because the experience of a first-person subject of experience in the afterlife, if the person and afterlife exists, is incapable of demonstrating its existence and experiences to those still inside the artificial reality of having a biological body in an artificially contrived world containing experience of the body? No. To deny the existence of persons surviving death and their experiences following death is akin (in principle) to denying the existence of the consciousness of another person.

As for how the brain is to be understood here as mind or the mind understood as "soul", we just don't have a precise understanding of that. Or, rather, I certainly don't.

What's "weird" here goes all the way back to why there is anything at all. And why this particular something and not another one. Weirder still [perhaps] have been attempts to explain existence through "logic". What is inherently logical about the existence of existence itself?


Existence just is. It exists for no other reason than that it happened to exist. Things exist for no other reason than that, out of everything that could or might have existed in its place, the thing that exists happened to win the "lottery" of existence.

To the best of our knowledge, the universe had been around for billions of years before matter evolved into life evolved into consciousness evolved into self-conscious entities. Like us.


As consciousness is an artificial reality with nothing behind it to ground it (according to my belief), the age of the universe is an imaginary fiction invented or placed in the mind by something, other persons, or a Person outside the human mind. I don't think matter can evolve into consciousness, as it involves a magic in which that which is not subjective experience suddenly stops being what it is to magically transform into something it previously essentially was not. I don't think that sort of magic exists, nor do we need that magic or the magic of creation ex nihilo to arrive at consciousness.

I think subjective experience doesn't have to come from something that wasn't subjective experience, and that we don't need subjective experience to start from something or have anything to do with something other than itself. It can simply be eternal, and can easily eternally exist for all time in the form of a Person that imagines other persons, that themselves while residing in the mind of the Person bear the substance of this naturalistic Novelist* (borrowing the Novelist's own subjective experience which inwardly forms their own).

Those imagined by the Novelist come into existence when the Novelist happens to invent them within the mind, with the substance of the Novelist forming a "consciousnesses within a consciousness" (as it is commonly believed that the people we imagine or dream about are philosopher's zombies without an inner consciousness of their own) that have their own private experiences within the Novelist and die when the Novelist closes their individual stories and stops thinking of them. An afterlife in this simple scenario of the eternity of consciousness would entail the Novelist ceasing to think of certain persons as punishment for the person's evil within the mind of the Novelist, and to eternally think of a joyful existence for those who please the Novelist within the Novelist's mind.

(*Novelist=Judeo-Christian God)
Last edited by phenomenal_graffiti on Sun Feb 10, 2019 6:29 am, edited 5 times in total.
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: 784
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:08 pm

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

Postby Exuberant Teleportation » Sat Feb 09, 2019 6:08 pm

Even if we can’t prove soul stuffs and spirit, there’s all kinds of miracles and wonders of inexplicable origins that only a higher power could’ve fashioned. Love from God builds a better vehicle for giving us ecstatic views of the beyond and, if God could give us a vision, then all of the heavenly fruits and treasures would be opened to us.
RaptorWizard - Secret Garden of Rare Quotes - viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194124
The value of a novel is not that it is real or will ever happen but rather it represents reality in an architectural model of how it could be or should be. Similarly, when theoretical physicists dream of a utopian golden age of scientific discovery where humans have evolved to the point of mastering hyperspace and bending the universe to their will, the value of it is not that logical calculations indicate humans are too insignificant for this to be our destiny, but rather the value is in the theory itself of creating a vastly unprecedented and advanced society, the architectural model of how humanity could evolve and what humanity should achieve. Achieving this in the imagination, the world of the mind would be the focus that could manifest itself into a better reality. The value is in the journey of humans becoming the lords of creation rather than the destination.
User avatar
Exuberant Teleportation
 
Posts: 478
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 10:34 pm
Location: Tin Tower

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

Postby iambiguous » Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:30 pm

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
When it comes to the afterlife, unfortunately, there is no "actual existing bomb", so all we have on this side of the grave are words, thoughts, and ideas for and against.


Okay, and some accept this because it's better than nothing at all. But it still comes down to words that prompt someone [anyone] to go beyond them. To connect the words to experiences, experiments, behaviors etc., that make the afterlife something that we can all believe in more substantively.

The bottom line: thinking that something is true is not the same as demonstrating it.

And that is really the only distinction we can make with regard to things that are not able to be demonstrated as true for all of us in the either/or world.

In other words, that critical gap between "you are making an argument here at ILP about the existence of an afterlife" and "your argument here proves that an afterlife does in fact exist".

It's like that James Randi wager. He offered a million bucks to anyone who could demonstrate the existence of that which most of us call the "supernatural". Believing in its existence is not the same showing us its existence.

In fact it would be interesting if some billionaire would offer, say, a ten million dollar reward to anyone who could in fact demonstrate the existence of the afterlife.

If you google "reward for proving life after death" you get this: https://www.google.com/search?ei=2odgXM ... c6up7kSVDg

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:But from my point of view (solipsism be damned as it makes its point), your consciousness to me is simply an idea or "point" that may or may not exist for all I know, as I can only experience my own consciousness. I cannot render the objective truth of your consciousness or anyone's consciousness save mine, there can be no connection between points given in support of the existence of your consciousness and the actual, hard evidence of it, as it is something I cannot experience and can only believe objectively exists.


Sure, all of this "metaphysical speculation" can take us anywhere. Do we really have the capacity to know for certain that "I" is not just a manifestation of a sim world or a dream world or a matrix...or of solipsism or of a wholly determined universe?

Back again to those things that we consciously believe to be true "in our head" and attempts to demonstrate that in fact they are true.

This and any possible limitations imposed on philosophers here in delving into it.

This part:

But suppose another group of folks got together to discuss whether or not those killed by the bomb went on to exist beyond the grave. Lots of points in lots of arguments could be made here too. But one set of points either leads to actual hard evidence that they did in fact continue to exist beyond the grave or it doesn't. And if the evidence isn't there to confirm one or another rendition of consciousness/life after death that doesn't necessarily mean that's the end of. Down the road, others may come up with new points leading to new discoveries. But the new discoveries either demonstrate the existence of life after death [for any particular one of us] or they don't.


phenomenal_graffiti wrote: The afterlife, if it exists, comprises the consciousness of everyone that has deceased from the beginning to end of man.

In the same way I cannot experience your consciousness, the living cannot experience the consciousness (if they exist) of those that have "gone on", and can only have and express ideas for or against the survival of these consciousnesses that we can never experience. The point being, there can never be any new discovery that can demonstrate to oneself the consciousness of another person (one could make an argument for isomorphism, in which two beings share the same identical experience, but this would be "identical twin" experience from two separate perspectives and points of view, not one person intermittently becoming another person, such that only one experience between persons exist).


Okay, demonstrate to us how, if the afterlife does in fact exist, it is in fact comprised of this.

Instead, in my view, you merely assert this to be the case if in fact your argument for the afterlife turns out be demonstrable. Thus [to me] it is basically a two-part intellectual contraption:

1] there is an afterlife
2] this is what it consist of

Also, you make certain assumptions about the profound mystery that would seem to be embedded in matter either evolving or not evolving into minds becoming conscious of itself as matter evolving or not evolving into minds in what may or may not be an existence created by God.

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:...when asking for a demonstration of the afterlife one is asking for demonstration of the subjective experience of other persons, whose subjective experiences are commonly believed to have ceased to exist. But this is the same, really, as asking for a demonstration of the subjective experience of a living person.


As I see it, the demonstration of an existing afterlife is the first order of business before we can explore the nature of subjectivity with respect to particular contexts.

Until then, your assessments are [to me] truly sheer speculation.

As for how the brain is to be understood here as mind or the mind understood as "soul", we just don't have a precise understanding of that. Or, rather, I certainly don't.

What's "weird" here goes all the way back to why there is anything at all. And why this particular something and not another one. Weirder still [perhaps] have been attempts to explain existence through "logic". What is inherently logical about the existence of existence itself?


phenomenal_graffiti wrote:Existence just is. It exists for no other reason than that it happened to exist. Things exist for no other reason than that, out of everything that could or might have existed in its place, the thing that exists happened to win the "lottery" of existence.


And this [substantively] tells us what about the existence of existence itself? It is no less a profoundly problematic mystery to us now then it must have been to philosophers centuries and centuries ago. Only we have access to the knowledge that scientists have provided us in regard to the very, very large and the very, very small worlds.

Fitting "I" into all of that [either before or after the grave] would appear to be even more daunting a task for us here and now. The more we learn the more there seems the need to learn.

To the best of our knowledge, the universe had been around for billions of years before matter evolved into life evolved into consciousness evolved into self-conscious entities. Like us.


phenomenal_graffiti wrote:As consciousness is an artificial reality with nothing behind it to ground it (according to my belief), the age of the universe is an imaginary fiction invented or placed in the mind by something, other persons, or a Person outside the human mind. I don't think matter can evolve into consciousness, as it involves a magic in which that which is not subjective experience suddenly stops being what it is to magically transform into something it previously essentially was not. I don't think that sort of magic exists, nor do we need that magic or the magic of creation ex nihilo to arrive at consciousness.


We can only imagine you taking this to forums populated by physicists or neuroscientists. And in imagining how they might react to it.

What there would you be able to demonstrate to them? Few of us here at ILP are sophisticated enough to grapple with the points you make. All we can do is note the extent to which you are in fact able to demonstrate the existence of an afterlife on a level that we could understand. For example, by experiencing it ourselves.
Last edited by iambiguous on Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 28692
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

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

Postby iambiguous » Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:32 pm

Exuberant Teleportation wrote:Even if we can’t prove soul stuffs and spirit, there’s all kinds of miracles and wonders of inexplicable origins that only a higher power could’ve fashioned. Love from God builds a better vehicle for giving us ecstatic views of the beyond and, if God could give us a vision, then all of the heavenly fruits and treasures would be opened to us.


Okay, provide us with the most convincing evidence of this.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 28692
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

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

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Feb 10, 2019 10:24 pm

So here's the deal. If we ever stopped existing in the past or the future, we wouldn't exist right now.

Let me try to explain THAT even better.

If I stopped existing at any point in the timeline, then I have stopped existing at every point in the timeline, thus, I wouldn't be here right now. The fact that we are here right now, shows that we haven't unexisted at any point in the timeline.

You talk about the afterlife.

The gods have something called the "seamless", where you travel from one dimension to another without realizing that you've already died.

Existence is stranger than you imagine currently, I'm going to teach you: understand in every moment that you have already died and you are in your afterlife. This will help you wake up more.

Life is a dream until you've interpreted all dreams, then, you are awake.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7569
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

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

Postby phenomenal_graffiti » Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:35 pm

Okay, and some accept this because it's better than nothing at all. But it still comes down to words that prompt someone [anyone] to go beyond them. To connect the words to experiences, experiments, behaviors etc., that make the afterlife something that we can all believe in more substantively.

The bottom line: thinking that something is true is not the same as demonstrating it.

And that is really the only distinction we can make with regard to things that are not able to be demonstrated as true for all of us in the either/or world.


I agree. Thinking something is true is certainly not the same as demonstrating it. That goes for the afterlife, the multiverse, mind-independent doppelgangers of the content of visual perception, and the evolution of unconscious matter into a subjectively experiencing person.

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
But from my point of view (solipsism be damned as it makes its point), your consciousness to me is simply an idea or "point" that may or may not exist for all I know, as I can only experience my own consciousness. I cannot render the objective truth of your consciousness or anyone's consciousness save mine, there can be no connection between points given in support of the existence of your consciousness and the actual, hard evidence of it, as it is something I cannot experience and can only believe objectively exists.


Sure, all of this "metaphysical speculation" can take us anywhere. Do we really have the capacity to know for certain that "I" is not just a manifestation of a sim world or a dream world or a matrix...or of solipsism or of a wholly determined universe?


We know for certain that we exist in the form of something that is a manifestation of a sim or dream world or "Matrix". And we exist in the form of something that is of solipsism. One experiences it now.

Back again to those things that we consciously believe to be true "in our head" and attempts to demonstrate that in fact they are true.

This and any possible limitations imposed on philosophers here in delving into it.


I agree. The only thing that actually demonstrates it exists is the current experience of a subjectively experiencing person.

A person and that which the person currently experiences is the only thing that has ever bothered to show up to the party of existence. Everything else threw away the invite and stayed home. Thus everything other than a living person and that which the person is currently experiencing is indeed only "in the head"....but they are "in the head" only as far as the person can see and experience.

Does this mean, then, that things that are "in the head" definitely, irrefutably does not exist? Not at all: it simply means they are of a nature that they cannot demonstrate their existence, if they exist. For example, when it comes to unconscious matter, one has "in the head" a concept of something that is not subjective experience nor any subjectively experiencing person. Unconscious matter, therefore, cannot demonstrate that it exists because existence only manifests in the form of a person and that which the person subjectively experiences and unconscious matter is not any person and that which any person experiences. Indeed, it is not subjective experience itself.

When it comes to the afterlife, if the afterlife exists, the term 'life' in 'afterlife' implies the concept of life, and life, as it empirically or actually demonstrated itself, exists in the form of a person and that which the person experiences. An afterlife, then, is an "in the head" idea of a person and that which the person experiences existing after a previous experience of being a certain person in what seems to be a biologically operating body composed of the person's consciousness.

Therefore, given that an afterlife is conceived as the experience of a person, unlike unconscious matter that can never demonstrate it exists and therefore can only be imagined to magically transform into a person, the concept of an afterlife may be conceived (and is conceived) as something that, if it exists, is something that does not yet demonstrate it's existence.

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
The afterlife, if it exists, comprises the consciousness of everyone that has deceased from the beginning to end of man.

In the same way I cannot experience your consciousness, the living cannot experience the consciousness (if they exist) of those that have "gone on", and can only have and express ideas for or against the survival of these consciousnesses that we can never experience. The point being, there can never be any new discovery that can demonstrate to oneself the consciousness of another person (one could make an argument for isomorphism, in which two beings share the same identical experience, but this would be "identical twin" experience from two separate perspectives and points of view, not one person intermittently becoming another person, such that only one experience between persons exist).


Okay, demonstrate to us how, if the afterlife does in fact exist, it is in fact comprised of this.


I can't demonstrate it, as we are currently in the current artificial reality comprised of our subjective experience. The idea or concept of the afterlife, the form the idea takes, is one of the survival of the consciousness of all deceased persons. This is the form of the idea. It is an idea that could be true for all we know, can or cannot demonstrate, or believe or not believe. It is futile, therefore, to ask me to demonstrate it as it is merely an idea that could be true for all we know outside the artificial reality that is our current consciousness.

Instead, in my view, you merely assert this to be the case if in fact your argument for the afterlife turns out be demonstrable. Thus [to me] it is basically a two-part intellectual contraption:

1] there is an afterlife
2] this is what it consist of


True.
Also, you make certain assumptions about the profound mystery that would seem to be embedded in matter either evolving or not evolving into minds becoming conscious of itself as matter evolving or not evolving into minds in what may or may not be an existence created by God.


The point of the assumption is that empirically, that is, from the starting point of the 'actual existing bomb' that right in front of us in regard to the nature of existence is subjective experience, and that in the form of oneself and that which one is currently experiencing, that did not exist prior to one experiencing it "now" and that does not exist after one no longer experiences it. This is the 'actual existing bomb' of existence as it just happens to really exist. Matter or unconscious matter is an idea "in the head" of something that is the polar opposite of that which really exists (subjective experience and a subject of experience).

When one speaks of matter evolving into minds, one merely speaks of something that is not that which really exists and consistently and constantly demonstrates its existence magically transforming, slow or fast, into that which currently demonstrates that it exists. One even goes so far as to actually believe the thing that does not demonstrate that it exists actually exists outside that which demonstrates it existence. Touche. Turns out I do the same thing in regard to God and an afterlife whose content is governed and directed by God rather than unconscious matter.

Unconscious matter, then, is in the same boat as the afterlife in regard to the need for someone to demonstrate it in order to substantiate their argument regarding the evolution of matter into mind. Otherwise it, too, is entirely speculative. I think its easier that subjective experience is eternal but transforms, rather than having to go to all the trouble of getting it from something it isn't.

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
...when asking for a demonstration of the afterlife one is asking for demonstration of the subjective experience of other persons, whose subjective experiences are commonly believed to have ceased to exist. But this is the same, really, as asking for a demonstration of the subjective experience of a living person.


As I see it, the demonstration of an existing afterlife is the first order of business before we can explore the nature of subjectivity with respect to particular contexts.

Until then, your assessments are [to me] truly sheer speculation.


The assessments are sheer speculation, as an existing afterlife cannot be demonstrated by a living person. My point, the entire point of the argument for an afterlife is not to demonstrate it, as this is existentially impossible, but to argue that an afterlife, despite it being sheer speculation “in the head” may despite the speculation objectively exist.

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
Existence just is. It exists for no other reason than that it happened to exist. Things exist for no other reason than that, out of everything that could or might have existed in its place, the thing that exists happened to win the "lottery" of existence.


And this [substantively] tells us what about the existence of existence itself?


It tells us the only thing we can know about existence: that it simply exists, and does for no other reason than it happens to exist.

It is no less a profoundly problematic mystery to us now then it must have been to philosophers centuries and centuries ago. Only we have access to the knowledge that scientists have provided us in regard to the very, very large and the very, very small worlds.


But the knowledge that scientists provided us in regard to the very large and very small worlds are only things composed of the subjective experience of persons that occur in the artificial reality of human consciousness. Science tells us of nothing about what exists outside the artificial reality that is a person and that which the person experiences.

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
As consciousness is an artificial reality with nothing behind it to ground it (according to my belief), the age of the universe is an imaginary fiction invented or placed in the mind by something, other persons, or a Person outside the human mind. I don't think matter can evolve into consciousness, as it involves a magic in which that which is not subjective experience suddenly stops being what it is to magically transform into something it previously essentially was not. I don't think that sort of magic exists, nor do we need that magic or the magic of creation ex nihilo to arrive at consciousness.


We can only imagine you taking this to forums populated by physicists or neuroscientists. And in imagining how they might react to it.


I would love to do that.

What there would you be able to demonstrate to them?


I would conceptually demonstrate, asking the physicists and neuroscientists to use their own consciousness to demonstrate my point, that the world they perceive and in which they interact is empirically comprised only of their subjective experience, and as such must be an artificial or virtual reality composed only of their consciousness...if, given they believe the brain creates and produces consciousness the entire body of their knowledge, everything they have learned about the world and how it works, is just part of an artificial reality that "air bag deploys" from a mass of flesh inside their skull.

If their knowledge of the world and how it "really" works is just a "Matrix" that comes from something inside a skull and is not anything existing outside a skull, then everything they have thought and believed about the world is a "put on" created by the brain....as things that lie outside the brain and body if they exist cannot reach into the skull (without destroying it and the brain) to influence or instruct their shape, form, and behavior to the brain inside the skull.

All we can do is note the extent to which you are in fact able to demonstrate the existence of an afterlife on a level that we could understand. For example, by experiencing it ourselves.


As an afterlife is an idea of something that exists outside a person and that which the person currently experiences, it cannot be demonstrated. It is conceived as something that you could experience for yourself but by the power of a person(s) or unconscious but composed of consciousness mechanism, if the person(s) or mechanism exists, lying outside human experience.

The only thing I can do is present the idea of the afterlife and argue---not that I can demonstrate it--- but that even if it is sheer speculation it is conceived to be comprised of something that actually exists and is demonstrable (subjective experience), and as such may objectively exist as an addition or extension of the thing that actually exists and as such, given that it is an existential segue rather than something that must conjure subjective experience from non-existence or magically and arbitrarily stop being something other than subjective experience to mutate into or transform into a person and that which the person experiences….more logically exists outside consciousness, as an afterlife is an idea of ‘more of the same’ (consciousness).

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: 784
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:08 pm

Previous

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users