What Do You Put The Odds Of An Afterlife At? What Would It Be Like? (exist, perspective)

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by OpanaPointer

It means you only have to draw three cards to fill an inside straight.

Exactly. The only Meaning is the one we give it. Intrinsically, it has no meaning. But the meanings we give it are plenty good enough.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

If all a person addresses or seeks to understand in life is the physical, then their view is restricted, limiting, superficial, and simplistic.

I am in no way offended by you referring to people such as myself who are physical materialists as superficial and holding simplistic views. That is simply your opinion and not a personal attack.

So I hope that when someone else holds forth the opinion that you are, say, "wrong" -- even "completely wrong" -- or lacking in substantiation for your assertions, that you will return the favor.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

If all a person addresses or seeks to understand in life is the physical, then their view is restricted, limiting, superficial, and simplistic.

We are also emotions (our feelings), intellect (our thoughts), and spirit (our soul).

And I think most atheists are all for an exploration of those things. We can acknowledge the physical nature of the universe, while exploring the spiritual nature of our humanity, without ever finding or suffering from a contradiction.

The issue however is that an exploration of things "beyond the physical" is seen as an open invitation by many to start espousing the most egregiously unsubstantiated woo and nonsense and demand it, based on nothing more than them having chosen to espouse it, be treated as credible.

I see nothing about exploring the spiritual nature of the human condition.... our emotions, intellect, art, literature and so forth.... that requires us on any level to subscribe to unsubstantiated nonsense. Others simply do not recognize that fact so readily.

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

What is preordained in this physical world we inhabit as humans is that we have free will.

Even that has not been established as true and is very much in contention and divides the literature of scientists and philosophers alike. So I would not assert it outright as true as a foundation point in your posts if I were you.

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

For instance being born "appears" to be random, yet you chose not only to be born, but chose and designed the life circumstances

No idea what you are talking about here to be honest. Do elaborate. By all means inform me how and when and where I made choices before I was born. I am agog.

[Cruithne]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

I am not so pessimistic myself.

*snip*not sure where the pessimism comes into it**

Sure we do not know everything about how human consciousness works. But that does not mean we are making stabs in the dark.

The reality that purveyors of mystical woo want to ignore is that DESPITE our incomplete knowledge of human consciousness we do understand much. And not just much, not just most, but 100% all of that knowledge points to a link between consciousness and the brain and 0% of it.... nothing at all..... is even suggestive of a potential disconnect between the two. Let alone following the death of the brain.

So when talking about an after life where human consciousness or subjectivity survives the death of the brain, we are not making "stabs in the dark" here. There is NO reason at all to expect such an after life and MUCH reason to expect there to be no such thing.

I agree, there is nothing tangible, nothing measurable, nothing we can test, nothing physically that we can point at to suggest there may be an afterlife. We do however have the personal experiences of billions of people who have perhaps felt the presence of someone who has parted or having some kind of communication passed on. I once read that the vast majority of people, at some point on their lives have had or will have such an experience. Since I have shared my stories many times on here before I won't bother going into details about it, but suffice to say I an atheist who's brother is an atheist, who is married to a lifelong atheist, who's father is an atheist and who grandmother is an atheist. All of us have at one time or another had at least one individual inexplicable experience related to a person recently passed.
I would actually like yourself, put 'afterlife' at least in the context I think it is meant on this thread, at zero or next to zero. But as I briefly outlined in post #4 in this thread I'm not ruling out something being left behind, perhaps briefly, I don't know. I don't know what and it's not something I can explain to you.
There is much we still cannot explain Nozz. Nobody knows why it appears that two particles can become entangled and seemingly effect each another behaviour across possibly infinite reaches of space (quantum entanglement). Or how it seems to be that particles can move through walls (quantum tunnelling) or how two particles can seem to be in two places at once.
All I'm saying is that can't know everything. Correct, we cannot detect consciousness once the brain is dead. But we have no idea where consciousness comes from either. We know is that it needs a physical body to be aware of it. And since we know it exists, and since we expect that the laws of physics that exist on earth are the same laws that exists everywhere in the universe, the building blocks that allow consciousness to exist must be inbuilt into the universe somehow. Really that is the best I can explain it.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by Cruithne

All I'm saying is that can't know everything. Correct, we cannot detect consciousness once the brain is dead. But we have no idea where consciousness comes from either. We know is that it needs a physical body to be aware of it. And since we know it exists, and since we expect that the laws of physics that exist on earth are the same laws that exists everywhere in the universe, the building blocks that allow consciousness to exist must be inbuilt into the universe somehow. Really that is the best I can explain it.

I have enjoyed reading recently of the exertions of Charles Babbage and Ada Lovelace in the early 19th century, who attempted to build the first computer using the technology of the day (steam powered gears, basically). Their genius lay in the fact that they had to conceptualize "data" and "information" in ways it had never been thought of before, and they pretty much single-handedly invented or repurposed the necessary terminology, much of which we use to this day. The notion of manipulating data as if it were a physical "thing" using "algorithms" was a brilliant insight. The idea of abstracting this to the point that a general-purpose computing device could be constructed, was ultimately in my view the most important insight of that century, even if it would be another hundred years before Alan Turing and others came along and were able to actually do something with it and prove out the concept in a practical way.

I suspect that we are in a similar place with respect to Artificial Intelligence (AI). Our "not knowing" where consciousness "comes from" is no different than our "not knowing" at one time that data could be manipulated or how to go about "processing" it. Or not knowing that mathematical partitioning could be done using a formula rather than brute force or trial and error. We simply haven't correctly conceptualized the problem yet so that we might be successful in solving it. And even when we have the proper concepts we may lack the technology to implement it for a time. But I believe there will come a time when full-on conscious AI will be as obvious to humanity as digital computing systems are now.

When this happens it will create some interesting conundrums for humanity ... what rights does a human-created, inorganic sentience have? What constitutes mistreatment of it? And ... of course ... once we have de-mystified consciousness, what of our magical beliefs concerning our own sentience?

[Cruithne]

First of all apologies for my very badly written last post. I wrote it in a hurry with no time to edit so well done for actually being able to decipher it.

Originally Posted by mordant

I have enjoyed reading recently of the exertions of Charles Babbage and Ada Lovelace in the early 19th century, who attempted to build the first computer using the technology of the day (steam powered gears, basically). Their genius lay in the fact that they had to conceptualize "data" and "information" in ways it had never been thought of before, and they pretty much single-handedly invented or repurposed the necessary terminology, much of which we use to this day. The notion of manipulating data as if it were a physical "thing" using "algorithms" was a brilliant insight. The idea of abstracting this to the point that a general-purpose computing device could be constructed, was ultimately in my view the most important insight of that century, even if it would be another hundred years before Alan Turing and others came along and were able to actually do something with it and prove out the concept in a practical way.

Yes, I often think that real genius comes from not just being 'intelligent' (there are lots of bright people) but also having the ability to think 'outside the box'. This was Einsteins true genius. He came up with many concepts (not just relativity) that nobody else had even conceived of before. Even though Newtons equations worked perfectly well, Einstein saw gravity in an entirely new way and came up with a theory that explained why and how.
This is why I think we should not rule anything out and remain open minded. The minute you start thinking you know all the answers is the minute you stop learning anything new.

I suspect that we are in a similar place with respect to Artificial Intelligence (AI). Our "not knowing" where consciousness "comes from" is no different than our "not knowing" at one time that data could be manipulated or how to go about "processing" it. Or not knowing that mathematical partitioning could be done using a formula rather than brute force or trial and error. We simply haven't correctly conceptualized the problem yet so that we might be successful in solving it. And even when we have the proper concepts we may lack the technology to implement it for a time. But I believe there will come a time when full-on conscious AI will be as obvious to humanity as digital computing systems are now.

When this happens it will create some interesting conundrums for humanity ... what rights does a human-created, inorganic sentience have? What constitutes mistreatment of it? And ... of course ... once we have de-mystified consciousness, what of our magical beliefs concerning our own sentience?

Perhaps... you may be right.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Cruithne

*snip*not sure where the pessimism comes into it**
I agree, there is nothing tangible, nothing measurable, nothing we can test, nothing physically that we can point at to suggest there may be an afterlife. We do however have the personal experiences of billions of people who have perhaps felt the presence of someone who has parted or having some kind of communication passed on. I once read that the vast majority of people, at some point on their lives have had or will have such an experience. Since I have shared my stories many times on here before I won't bother going into details about it, but suffice to say I an atheist who's brother is an atheist, who is married to a lifelong atheist, who's father is an atheist and who grandmother is an atheist. All of us have at one time or another had at least one individual inexplicable experience related to a person recently passed.
I would actually like yourself, put 'afterlife' at least in the context I think it is meant on this thread, at zero or next to zero. But as I briefly outlined in post #4 in this thread I'm not ruling out something being left behind, perhaps briefly, I don't know. I don't know what and it's not something I can explain to you.
There is much we still cannot explain Nozz. Nobody knows why it appears that two particles can become entangled and seemingly effect each another behaviour across possibly infinite reaches of space (quantum entanglement). Or how it seems to be that particles can move through walls (quantum tunnelling) or how two particles can seem to be in two places at once.
All I'm saying is that can't know everything. Correct, we cannot detect consciousness once the brain is dead. But we have no idea where consciousness comes from either. We know is that it needs a physical body to be aware of it. And since we know it exists, and since we expect that the laws of physics that exist on earth are the same laws that exists everywhere in the universe, the building blocks that allow consciousness to exist must be inbuilt into the universe somehow. Really that is the best I can explain it.

The philosophical mindset necessary to objectively extrapolate the locus of consciousness (NOT its origins) is not typical or common. We have little difficulty understanding that TV stations broadcast signals that carry their programs untold distances from the station. It is even speculated that distant civilizations may someday be able to intercept them and receive the programs. Those signals are simply vibrations in the EM spectrum that properly manipulated can confer to our senses a composite program interpretable by consciousness. Because we routinely use this compositional feature of our consciousness we seldom consider its implications. We certainly do not typically consider that our consciousness itself is a composite. Since we know it requires a consciousness for these composites (like a melody) to exist, it follows that our composite consciousness would require a consciousness to exist IN. That consciousness is the consciousness of God or the unified field. If we believe that loved ones continue to exist in our consciousness after they are departed, how long do you think we remain in God's consciousness???

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

...the most egregiously unsubstantiated woo and nonsense...
No idea what you are talking about here to be honest. Do elaborate. By all means inform me how and when and where I made choices before I was born. I am agog.

Sarcasm, hostility, and condescension in your post are duly noted.

Your soul chose to be born into this current lifetime and selected and designed the body, family and life circumstances that would offer you the optimum opportunity for the specific needs of your individual growth.

Throughout your life every day you make choices about how you respond to whatever you are facing. That is your exercise of free will, how in each moment you choose to express through your thought, speech, action, and feeling.

After death, when your soul leaves the body and returns to the afterlife which is the same realm as the before-life, there is a review of your life, sort of like a post game show, where you evaluate how you met the goals and objectives and based on that you design your next life.

And so it goes. You don't do this alone, but in collaboration with other souls, and with input from beings more advanced. Sort of like how a thesis advisor and doctoral committee give feedback and guidance to someone trying to get an advanced degree.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by Cruithne

*snip*not sure where the pessimism comes into it

I merely mean that I do not think our postulations about the probability of an after life are mere stabs in the dark and I think we can have more confidence in our ability to do so.

Originally Posted by Cruithne

We do however have the personal experiences of billions of people who have perhaps felt the presence of someone who has parted or having some kind of communication passed on.

Which is not evidence at all of an after life. It is just an impression living people get. And in fact it is perfectly understandable given the human brain is a machine that represents, and makes real to us, the minds of others. Feeling the presence of people not there, be they dead or simply elsewhere, is just something our brain does. It is not magical or unusual or at all relevant to postulation about the after life.

Originally Posted by Cruithne

But as I briefly outlined in post #4 in this thread I'm not ruling out something being left behind, perhaps briefly, I don't know. I don't know what and it's not something I can explain to you.

I myself do not "rule anything out" either. But refusing to rule things out is not the same as recognizing that those things are not just slightly, but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated at this time. And some of them not only have evidence for them, but positive evidence against them.... such as the after life.

I think it is an ongoing problem in discourse (not with you, I am speaking generally now) that people do conflate not accepting unsubstantiated nonsense as positively ruling out the possibility. Take the existence of god for example. I see NO REASON AT ALL to think there is one. Nothing. But I do not, have not, and likely will never rule out the POSSIBILITY that there is one.

I think there are a lot of people in the world who would do well to recognize the difference between being open to a possibility, and thinking that possibility at all credible.

Originally Posted by Cruithne

There is much we still cannot explain Nozz.

There very much is! But that does not, and should never, lend credence to things people just make up. Our uncertainty about things unexplained should add MORE skepticism to unsubstantiated claims, not less. The fact there is a lot yet to explain in NO WAY adds credibility to the idea there is an after life.

Originally Posted by Cruithne

But we have no idea where consciousness comes from either.

Again I fear that to be a pessimistic appraisal of the facts. We do not have a COMPLETE understanding of consciousness or where it comes from. But saying we have "no idea" at all is far from the truth. It is not all or nothing..... we either explain something or we know nothing about it at all...... but we can be in between the two.

Everything we know about it shows it to be an emergent process of the brain. Nothing we know about it at this time suggests anything otherwise. So while that is limited, it does not mean we know nothing at all.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

Sarcasm, hostility, and condescension in your post are duly noted.

If you want to invent tone that was not actually there then this is your prerogative, but if you want to actually reply to what I write, I am here for you.

However if something looks like it is a spade, I will call it a spade. And will do so without judgement or hostility. If something looks like unsubstantiated nonsense, I will call it unsubstantiated nonsense.

And you are free to invent any tone you like on my behalf after I do so. You will merely be wrong. Plus you would do well to look up the word "agog" before you presume to take offence at it.

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

Your soul chose to be born into this current lifetime

Do you have ANY support for this narrative whatsoever? As thus far you appear to be simply making it up as you go.

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

That is your exercise of free will

And as I said you are not safe in merely assuming any of that. The concept of free will, whether we have it, or where it is illusory, is very much a contentious issue under no small amount of debate.

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

After death, when your soul leaves the body and returns to the afterlife which is the same realm as the before-life, there is a review of your life, sort of like a post game show, where you evaluate how you met the goals and objectives and based on that you design your next life.

Again I am agog to know if you have any substantiation for any of this. It really does come across as you simply making it up as you go along. I see no way for you to know any of this other than simply making it up.