Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The first paragraph does nothing to discredit materialism.
That's good, because I am not trying to discredit materialism. I think that, given sufficient advances in physical theories, some form of materialism is probably true. (I use the term "physicalism" to express my position, but it is essentially the same thing.) My point has been that, even given the truth of materialism, we should still be agnostic concerning the potential to discover ourselves having experiences after death.
The probability of anyone's conscious awakening after death depends on two unknown variables: (1) What, exactly, is the minimal physical requirement for experiencing a sense of self, and some basic memories? (2) How big is Reality?
So the logic is straight-forward. If the estimation of a probability depends on two critical variables, and you don't know the values of these variables, then you don't have an good basis for estimating the probability. And if you can't reasonably estimate the probability, then the most rational answer is simply "I don't know."
The materialist's most rational answer to the question "Will I ever have any experiences after death" should be "I don't know."
Clearly, according to current materialism, you will lose consciousness at the point of death, just as you would lose consciousness if you were knocked unconscious by a brick falling on your head. According to materialism, you if you experience a conscious transition toward a tunnel of light etc., this will just be an illusion of your dying brain. But the subjectively relevant question for materialists is: "Will I ever wake up again?" And this is where the only rational materialist answer is "I don't know." Given our present level of ignorance, to proclaim with any high level of certainty that no one will never wake up again is sheer dogmatism based on no credible argument or evidence.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 04-18-2016 at 09:47 AM..
...we should still be agnostic concerning the potential to discover ourselves having experiences after death.
The probability of anyone's conscious awakening after death depends on two unknown variables: (1) What, exactly, is the minimal physical requirement for experiencing a sense of self, and some basic memories? (2) How big is Reality?
While the first variable seems relevant, the second does not; in fact, it seems irrelevant. Since we do know that individual experience appears to be entirely rooted in the brain, what difference does it make how 'big' the rest of reality is? As individual organisms, we're a component of the 'big reality', and individual components of reality cease to exist. [Except maybe matter and energy, but that's another discussion.]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
So the logic is straight-forward. If the estimation of a probability depends on two critical variables, and you don't know the values of these variables, then you don't have an good basis for estimating the probability. And if you can't reasonably estimate the probability, then the most rational answer is simply "I don't know."
While we can't know for certain, and probably can't discern an exact mathematical probability, we can look at the physiological evidence, and all such evidence indicates consciousness ceases upon death. While in epistemological terms we can't know for certain, technically we only know for certain that our own subjective experience exists. In terms of anything we perceive in the exterior environment, it could be illusory, but operating from such a premise seems impractical.
Since we can't 'know' anything for certain about external reality, the best we can do is discern the probability that something is or is not true. In the case of afterlife, evidence overwhelmingly indicates it probably does not exist. It could, but since evidence is lacking, it seems reasonable to operate from the premise it does not.
I am very close to someone who passed away in a terrible accident.
The last expression locked on his face (after death) was the most peaceful smile
I've ever seen. We all saw it.
I can't get into more detail, it's just too painful for me.
While the first variable seems relevant, the second does not; in fact, it seems irrelevant. Since we do know that individual experience appears to be entirely rooted in the brain, what difference does it make how 'big' the rest of reality is? As individual organisms, we're a component of the 'big reality', and individual components of reality cease to exist.
I may have confused you with a different poster. I thought you had agreed that if my critical brain functions were reproduced in a different brain, then "I" would be there, but you thought that the chances of this happening were astronomically small. Based on this understanding, I suggested that the size of Reality plays an important role in determining the probability of some minimum critical brain functions being recreated.
If you are denying this, then are you saying that I will only find myself reawakened if the same atoms constituting my brain at some point in my life constitute my brain at the time of my resurrected (say a billion years from now)? If se, then you certainly could be right, but if you think this is the most scientific position, or the position that is most popular among scientists, then I think you are mistaken. Most scientists will either say that they simply don't know (they see this as a philosophical question, not a scientific one), or they will favor some variation of a dozen other options - none of which require that a person's memories, etc., are identical with the particular set of atoms constituting their brain at a given time.
A brief thought experiment: If a neurosurgeon could remove 1/4 of your brain and (with the help of technology that is almost unimaginable at the current time) immediately replace these neurons with different neurons that function just exactly like the neurons that were removed (i.e., same proportional connection strengths between synapses, etc.), do you think you would feel like a 1/4 different person? Most scientists (if they are willing to take a guess at all) would say no. Why? Because the new neurons are functioning just like the old ones did, and it is this continuity of function that matters to a person's sense of identically.
There are a bunch of intricate philosophical puzzles surrounding all of this, but if you are trying to align your own intuitions with the intuitions of most scientists, then you should give some serious consideration to functionalism, or some variation of information theory.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 04-18-2016 at 06:54 PM..
Do you go to heaven, can you still see and breathe, will you have a next life?
My honest answer is probably (I say probably because I've never died and have no way of knowing the actua answer) that life after death is exactly like life before birth.
An idea I've sort of toyed with, but don't necessarily believe is that reincarnation is a thing and there's some force that allowing organic matter to be alive. The reason we have no memories of past lives is because memories are stored in our brains, which decay and don't come with the soul (I'm just calling it that because it's relatable) when it transfers to some new living thing. Again, I don't necessarily believe this to be true, but it's an interesting thought all the same.
My honest answer is probably (I say probably because I've never died and have no way of knowing the actua answer) that life after death is exactly like life before birth.
An idea I've sort of toyed with, but don't necessarily believe is that reincarnation is a thing and there's some force that allowing organic matter to be alive. The reason we have no memories of past lives is because memories are stored in our brains, which decay and don't come with the soul (I'm just calling it that because it's relatable) when it transfers to some new living thing. Again, I don't necessarily believe this to be true, but it's an interesting thought all the same.
The thought that I might have orgies with all the women I've ever wanted to have sex with in the afterlife is an interesting thought to me. That doesn't make it even remotely plausible.
Beliefs don't mean much without evidence, and evidence indicates that without a brain, any sort of afterlife, including reincarnation, is highly implausible at best. Being reincarnated or else going to some other 'realm' or whatever seems like nothing more than elaborate fantasy.
The thought that I might have orgies with all the women I've ever wanted to have sex with in the afterlife is an interesting thought to me. That doesn't make it even remotely plausible.
Beliefs don't mean much without evidence, and evidence indicates that without a brain, any sort of afterlife, including reincarnation, is highly implausible at best. Being reincarnated or else going to some other 'realm' or whatever seems like nothing more than elaborate fantasy.
First of all, interesting user name...
And that's fine that you think that. As I said, I think the most likely answer is nothing happens. You just stop being. And that's a scary thought, but everyone dies eventually so I'm not going to fret about it. As for those who believe in an afterlife, or consider the possibility, I don't think I would say that's a bad thing. I don't think exploring fantastical thought is negative. It may be a bit silly to believe it all as literally true, but I don't feel that having the thought experiment is bad. Surely it can lead to creativity and maybe even lead someone to discover some reason based truths.
My point being that I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, though am not a fan of your sentiment.
The
Beliefs don't mean much without evidence, and evidence indicates that without a brain, any sort of afterlife, including reincarnation, is highly implausible at best.
I agree that evidence supports the notion that conscious experience does not happen without a brain. But, in general, the concept of "evidence" does not have much application except in the context of a theory that guides our interpretation of some data as evidence. Theory: Experience depends on physical brain activity. Evidence: When you disrupt brain activity, you change people's experience. Inversely: when you change someone's experience in controlled ways while they are hooked up to a brain scanner, you can watch their brain activity shift in reasonably predictable ways. This is good evidence.
But the theory mentioned above is not really a "theory of consciousness." Proposing that consciousness depends on brain activity does not tell us how consciousness depends on brain activity. Why should any collection of atoms "experience" anything? We don't really have a theory for this. How much activity, or what type of activity, is required for a physical system to "feel like me"? We have some vague conjectures, but we don't really have a theory for this. Suppose some scientists study my brain and identify certain types of neural correlates that seem to be most closely associated with "the feeling of being me." Then suppose that they are able to re-create these same functional properties in the circuits of a robot's brain. Would the robot have the sentient "feeling of being me"? And since the electronic brain's functions were carefully modeled after my own brain functions, would "I" in some sense "be there" in the robot's body? These are the types of questions for which we have no theory to guide us. I say yes, you say no; in the absence of a theory, what data can we use to determine who is right?
I say that Reality is probably an infinite multiverse, or, at least, it is extremely big. Since we don't have a theory to tell us what types of physical systems are capable of correlating "close enough" to the types of brain activity that constitutes "the feeling of being me," I think there is currently no way to estimate the probabilities of these correlates occurring somewhere, somewhen in the vastness of the cosmos. And if/when these minimal correlates were to occur, would they "actually be me" or would they just be the qualitatively similar feelings of another being who "feels like me" but is not me? Again, we have to theory to guide us. There is no data that counts as evidence for or against your theory or mine because neither of us really has a theory to guide us.
I admit my speculation seems far-fetched, but that's not because of any evidence; that's just feelings based on our everyday habits of thought (and perhaps some knee-jerk reactions for or against certain metaphysical positions because they are associated with "us" or "them" in the great atheist/theist divide). Science has shown over and over that everyday intuitions can be wildly wrong when dealing with scales in time or space that are way beyond everyday life. Thus I say agnosticism is the only rational response to the question of "Will I ever have experiences again, after I die."
I just think it's funny that in Western culture we (some of us) try to improve, learn a whole bunch of things, make more money than we had, experience everything in life, just to not have it any more.
I mean if we have children then our children can experience it.
However none of that experience prepares us for death. Religion tries to but that's a less critical notion meant for comforting. The closest is Buddhism. And that's assuming that more than not there is nothing OR there's an alternate eternity.
People just don't think about their lives and their deaths as much as they probably should.
-----
The awesomeness of the universe, theories we don't understand, the eventuality that humans will probably go extinct at some point, and to be alive to witness and think about anything right now, is truly wonderful.
It's also strange that most of us don't mourn the past as much as we do the future. We don't remember being born and don't really care to be alive prior to when we were.
Plus the act of birth is very traumatic, possibly equal to dying in some respects.
----
When aided by certain "substances" everything in this life is literally insane. Separating consciousness from my body I recognize even more the absurdity of what we are and what we do. This is the closest I get to a brain in a vat, and in some ways it's freeing.
In the end if you had to make me choose, I'd wager my breakdown would be a mostly agnostic "I don't know," probably somewhere around 60%. "Absolutely nothing" would be 30% and 10% would be reincarnation or something else.
More trippy, it could be that all consciousness comes from a source and we pull from that source, when we die, it goes back to the source and from there it can be anything or anyone, and in a multiverse or quantumverse it could be at any time.
Another thing is that we can be living all lives at all times and just happen to be relegated to our current state. Various timelines etc...
I'm not big on past lives and all of that, but I'd think since we don't remember anything prior to birth that perhaps there is a genetic consciousness as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
