Agnosticism/Atheism in life after death

Offline

Jan 2012

367

What I consider myself to be is irrelevant in my opinion, I don't speculate on the metaphysics of some arbitrary entity that is just another entity among entities that has equivalent existence insofar as it can be related as an entity. In other words, god is just another entity among entities that has qualities that resemble the human ontological status but are just extrapolated to infinitude, e.g. omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence, etc. I regard this view as naive insofar as I have never met a religious individual who bases their faith on the ontological argument for the existence of god, the epistemological argument for the existence of god, the argument from design, the kalam cosmological argument etc. These arguments are only ever postulated after the fact and presuppose the said individual's existential reasons for believing in god(s). What is at heart here is the structural qualities of human existence that influence or direct us in positing a great Other. An Other who cares about us in some fashion or allows us to get up in the morning. Or directs our moral dilemmas. It resembles the statement that God is Dad, in the sense that God functions as an moral and existential guidance that can either be deleterious or positive to society as a whole. Nevertheless, to disregard such as view as just idiotic, is an act of superficiality as it disregards the more fundamental roots of religion e.g. teleological(purpose-oriented), axiological(value-laden) or existential reasons, over and against the metaphysical aspects. There was a period in time where Islam functioned as the heart of scientific, mathematical, and philosophically rigorous study. The same can also be said about movements within the Judeo-Christian belief systems. This phenomena of fundamentalism within America is something that I would consider as a modern phenomena, not a movement that strands the whole of religious history.

However, I also don't regard the view, as some have on this post, that postulates the human being as reducible to a function of its parts, e.g. a computer as somehow getting at the heart of reality comparatively to the religious. We fundamentally don't experience ourselves as such, we don't comport ourselves to the world as a computer, we don't treat other human beings or even animals as just a function of a computer system. It contradicts our whole world in our approach to science, as we approach neuroscience, as we approach any field, we are assuming the structure of how we care about our existence and the goals we want to achieve. For example, If we take a neuroscientist who is investigating another's brain for the sake of understanding what constitutes this individual, he is presupposing a whole lot, since it is only on the basis of our concern for the fact that we are, that we can pose questions such as, "What is it about human consciousness that allows us to function in X way?" That isn't to say that we have a soul, or have some weird metaphysical way of existing. What I am getting at isn't adjusting itself to be supernatural or theological claim. Instead, I am trying to convey how we expose ourselves, how we comport ourselves, how we appear in our day to day existence, and why we do the things we do. In essence, my argument is that the human being isn't reducible to what some others have said, e.g. the claim that we can account for every human emotion, experience, logical operation through reducing the brain to its parts. That isn't to say neuroscience is useless, or that I am just being hyper-skeptical to the point of ridiculousness, I am merely attempting to get at the core structural aspects about human existence and taking them at face value philosophical, rather than attempting to reduce them into oblivion.

Anyways, don't get the impression I believe in an afterlife, or a soul. I am strictly what may be called an atheist, or an agnostic atheist, but honestly, I don't give a shit anymore. My world does not revolve around claiming myself to be a theist, atheist, agnostic, agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist etc. I don't comport myself on those beliefs, and find them to be irrelevant positions in the way that I am the way that I am.

CitizeninsaneMar 7, 2014 5:27 PM

Mar 7, 2014 6:25 PM

#49

throwaway111

Offline

Jan 2014

3670

Beautiful.

Mar 7, 2014 6:42 PM

#50

Offline

Apr 2011

291

Citizeninsane said:
What I consider myself to be is irrelevant in my opinion, I don't speculate on the metaphysics of some arbitrary entity that is just another entity among entities that has equivalent existence insofar as it can be related as an entity. In other words, god is just another entity among entities that has qualities that resemble the human ontological status but are just extrapolated to infinitude, e.g. omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence, etc. I regard this view as naive insofar as I have never met a religious individual who bases their faith on the ontological argument for the existence of god, the epistemological argument for the existence of god, the argument from design, the kalam cosmological argument etc. These arguments are only ever postulated after the fact and presuppose the said individual's existential reasons for believing in god(s). What is at heart here is the structural qualities of human existence that influence or direct us in positing a great Other. An Other who cares about us in some fashion or allows us to get up in the morning. Or directs our moral dilemmas. It resembles the statement that God is Dad, in the sense that God functions as an moral and existential guidance that can either be deleterious or positive to society as a whole. Nevertheless, to disregard such as view as just idiotic, is an act of superficiality as it disregards the more fundamental roots of religion e.g. teleological(purpose-oriented), axiological(value-laden) or existential reasons, over and against the metaphysical aspects. There was a period in time where Islam functioned as the heart of scientific, mathematical, and philosophically rigorous study. The same can also be said about movements within the Judeo-Christian belief systems. This phenomena of fundamentalism within America is something that I would consider as a modern phenomena, not a movement that strands the whole of religious history.

However, I also don't regard the view, as some have on this post, that postulates the human being as reducible to a function of its parts, e.g. a computer as somehow getting at the heart of reality comparatively to the religious. We fundamentally don't experience ourselves as such, we don't comport ourselves to the world as a computer, we don't treat other human beings or even animals as just a function of a computer system. It contradicts our whole world in our approach to science, as we approach neuroscience, as we approach any field, we are assuming the structure of how we care about our existence and the goals we want to achieve. For example, If we take a neuroscientist who is investigating another's brain for the sake of understanding what constitutes this individual, he is presupposing a whole lot, since it is only on the basis of our concern for the fact that we are, that we can pose questions such as, "What is it about human consciousness that allows us to function in X way?" That isn't to say that we have a soul, or have some weird metaphysical way of existing. What I am getting at isn't adjusting itself to be supernatural or theological claim. Instead, I am trying to convey how we expose ourselves, how we comport ourselves, how we appear in our day to day existence, and why we do the things we do. In essence, my argument is that the human being isn't reducible to what some others have said, e.g. the claim that we can account for every human emotion, experience, logical operation through reducing the brain to its parts. That isn't to say neuroscience is useless, or that I am just being hyper-skeptical to the point of ridiculousness, I am merely attempting to get at the core structural aspects about human existence and taking them at face value philosophical, rather than attempting to reduce them into oblivion.

Anyways, don't get the impression I believe in an afterlife, or a soul. I am strictly what may be called an atheist, or an agnostic atheist, but honestly, I don't give a shit anymore. My world does not revolve around claiming myself to be a theist, atheist, agnostic, agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist etc. I don't comport myself on those beliefs, and find them to be irrelevant positions in the way that I am the way that I am.

You seem to have a very Freudian view of religion.
Putting aside the annoying esoteric jargon that you used, which only an advanced reader can follow, you make some good points.

I do agree that the logical reason to believe in God where not made or written with atheist in mind. St. Thomas Aquinas never imagined to use his arguments to persuade, but only to reinforced. It does annoy me to see religious people try to use logic to persuade one to believe, it is a futile pursuit.

Humans cannot be reduced to just brain processes, however, every human action can be predicted and analyzed through science. If we are given enough information, what we view as consciousness becomes just another predictable process. What I mean, without going into detail, is that if we live in closed causal nexus, then the pursuits of the behaviorist and neuroscientist are warranted
and the only thing missing in the equation to fully understand the human condition is information.

Anyway, to get back to the topic. Most "religious" people here in the U.S are practical atheist. They say that they believe in a god, but this has no substantive effect in their livelihood or in their morality. Such people can easily have contradictory thoughts but this doesn't concern them because it doesn't have any practicality to their lives.

Albert Camus would say that even if there is an afterlife, since we can't verify or know it, then it shouldn't have any place in our lives. Why waste time with the uncertain, concentrate on the certainty. The universe is meaningless, and our human desire to understand meaningfully a world with no meaning is absurd. This absurdity is the only certainty of our lives....He goes on to say that so the only meaningful thing we can do is defy the absurd by living our lives to the fullest and cherishing our friends, family, and experiences. Worrying about the afterlife and such are just infantile cops out to avoid the tougher more substantive choice of living life defiantly.

That's my two cents...I try to not overdo it with the writing

The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.
-Albert Camus

Mar 7, 2014 7:13 PM

#51

"People who take anime seriously are autistic."

Offline

Jan 2012

367

yogotah said:

Citizeninsane said:
What I consider myself to be is irrelevant in my opinion, I don't speculate on the metaphysics of some arbitrary entity that is just another entity among entities that has equivalent existence insofar as it can be related as an entity. In other words, god is just another entity among entities that has qualities that resemble the human ontological status but are just extrapolated to infinitude, e.g. omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence, etc. I regard this view as naive insofar as I have never met a religious individual who bases their faith on the ontological argument for the existence of god, the epistemological argument for the existence of god, the argument from design, the kalam cosmological argument etc. These arguments are only ever postulated after the fact and presuppose the said individual's existential reasons for believing in god(s). What is at heart here is the structural qualities of human existence that influence or direct us in positing a great Other. An Other who cares about us in some fashion or allows us to get up in the morning. Or directs our moral dilemmas. It resembles the statement that God is Dad, in the sense that God functions as an moral and existential guidance that can either be deleterious or positive to society as a whole. Nevertheless, to disregard such as view as just idiotic, is an act of superficiality as it disregards the more fundamental roots of religion e.g. teleological(purpose-oriented), axiological(value-laden) or existential reasons, over and against the metaphysical aspects. There was a period in time where Islam functioned as the heart of scientific, mathematical, and philosophically rigorous study. The same can also be said about movements within the Judeo-Christian belief systems. This phenomena of fundamentalism within America is something that I would consider as a modern phenomena, not a movement that strands the whole of religious history.

However, I also don't regard the view, as some have on this post, that postulates the human being as reducible to a function of its parts, e.g. a computer as somehow getting at the heart of reality comparatively to the religious. We fundamentally don't experience ourselves as such, we don't comport ourselves to the world as a computer, we don't treat other human beings or even animals as just a function of a computer system. It contradicts our whole world in our approach to science, as we approach neuroscience, as we approach any field, we are assuming the structure of how we care about our existence and the goals we want to achieve. For example, If we take a neuroscientist who is investigating another's brain for the sake of understanding what constitutes this individual, he is presupposing a whole lot, since it is only on the basis of our concern for the fact that we are, that we can pose questions such as, "What is it about human consciousness that allows us to function in X way?" That isn't to say that we have a soul, or have some weird metaphysical way of existing. What I am getting at isn't adjusting itself to be supernatural or theological claim. Instead, I am trying to convey how we expose ourselves, how we comport ourselves, how we appear in our day to day existence, and why we do the things we do. In essence, my argument is that the human being isn't reducible to what some others have said, e.g. the claim that we can account for every human emotion, experience, logical operation through reducing the brain to its parts. That isn't to say neuroscience is useless, or that I am just being hyper-skeptical to the point of ridiculousness, I am merely attempting to get at the core structural aspects about human existence and taking them at face value philosophical, rather than attempting to reduce them into oblivion.

Anyways, don't get the impression I believe in an afterlife, or a soul. I am strictly what may be called an atheist, or an agnostic atheist, but honestly, I don't give a shit anymore. My world does not revolve around claiming myself to be a theist, atheist, agnostic, agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist etc. I don't comport myself on those beliefs, and find them to be irrelevant positions in the way that I am the way that I am.

You seem to have a very Freudian view of religion.
Putting aside the annoying esoteric jargon that you used, which only an advanced reader can follow, you make some good points.

I do agree that the logical reason to believe in God where not made or written with atheist in mind. St. Thomas Aquinas never imagined to use his arguments to persuade, but only to reinforced. It does annoy me to see religious people try to use logic to persuade one to believe, it is a futile pursuit.

Humans cannot be reduced to just brain processes, however, every human action can be predicted and analyzed through science. If we are given enough information, what we view as consciousness becomes just another predictable process. What I mean, without going into detail, is that if we live in closed causal nexus, then the pursuits of the behaviorist and neuroscientist are warranted
and the only thing missing in the equation to fully understand the human condition is information.

Anyway, to get back to the topic. Most "religious" people here in the U.S are practical atheist. They say that they believe in a god, but this has no substantive effect in their livelihood or in their morality. Such people can easily have contradictory thoughts but this doesn't concern them because it doesn't have any practicality to their lives.

Albert Camus would say that even if there is an afterlife, since we can't verify or know it, then it shouldn't have any place in our lives. Why waste time with the uncertain, concentrate on the certainty. The universe is meaningless, and our human desire to understand meaningfully a world with no meaning is absurd. This absurdity is the only certainty of our lives....He goes on to say that so the only meaningful thing we can do is defy the absurd by living our lives to the fullest and cherishing our friends, family, and experiences. Worrying about the afterlife and such are just infantile cops out to avoid the tougher more substantive choice of living life defiantly.

That's my two cents...I try to not overdo it with the writing

To a certain degree I agree, however, if we look at the function of the science and the implications of science in general, I think I might be able to express my point in a more convincing fashion. I ask, what has science changed about human existence that has radicalized the way that we value the things we value? I consider myself a student of physics and philosophy, however I would never say that physics has changed what it means to be in a relationship with another. Or what it means to be in love. Also, don't think because I invoked such an emotional language, that this only applies to some sort of mystical, gushy, experience. Rephrasing it more abstractly, science has not changed how experience things as temporal or spatial, it has, however, changed the accessibility in predicating phenomena temporally and spatially. However, it has never risen to answering why it is that way as such. It has not redefined the structural requirements in how we convey ourselves rationally, e.g. logic. It has not somehow challenged the logical operations that are utilized in our use of language. Science has, more specifically the study that I am much more familiar with, physics, created models of reality that provide predictable utility. However, that is where it stops. The Newtonian paradigm was created on the basis, and therefore Nature was thematized, to ascertain the motion of the planets through the invention of calculus. However, several paradigm shifts have occurred since then to address new issues within classical mechanics. Namely, the problem of black-body radiation lead the postulation of quantization, and lead to the birth of quantum mechanics; the assumed postulate of an ether, which was disapproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment, lead to the need of relativity and how light functioned as a constant without the need of a medium. All this progress, however I ask again, what has changed about the human condition? Granted, we have cellphones, better access to medicine, etc. Nevertheless, do not think I am claiming that science isn't useless, on the contrary, it is the very definition of utility. However, what does that change about me?

You brought up Albert Camus, so I think you would appreciate the following passage. "Yet all the knowledge on earth will give me nothing to assure me that this world is mine. You describe it to me and you teach me to classify it. You enumerate its laws and in my thirst for knowledge I admit that they are true. You take apart its mechanism and my hope increases. At the final stage you teach me that this wondrous and multicolored universe can be reduced to the atom and that that the atom itself can be reduced to the electron, [you can add elementary particles, the point still stands]. All this is good and I wait for you to continue. But you tell me of an invisible planetary system in which electrons gravitate around a nucleus. You explain this world to me with an image. I realize then that you have been reduced to poetry: I shall never know..I realize that if through science I can seize phenomena and enumerate them, I cannot, for all that, apprehend the world."

CitizeninsaneMar 7, 2014 7:19 PM

Mar 7, 2014 7:14 PM

#52

deactivated30325

Offline

Dec 2013

3536

I believe in heaven and hell. Hopefully I end up in the first one.

Mar 7, 2014 7:15 PM

#53

deactivated30325

Offline

Dec 2013

3536

cabacc2 said:
Beautiful.

Thanks, I do try.

Mar 7, 2014 7:38 PM

#54

animeoshiri

Offline

Sep 2010

1272

NebulaC3I said:
"I don't believe in the way religion has those rules like if you're wearing too short shorts you're going to hell with a skin wearing cannibal. "- Animeoppai

Where did this come from?

A lot of religions think showing off too much skin is a sin. That's what I mean.

Mar 7, 2014 7:46 PM

#55

Offline

Apr 2011

291

Citizeninsane said:

To a certain degree I agree, however, if we look at the function of the science and the implications of science in general, I think I might be able to express my point in a more convincing fashion. I ask, what has science changed about human existence that has radicalized the way that we value the things we value? I consider myself a student of physics and philosophy, however I would never say that physics has changed what it means to be in a relationship with another. Or what it means to be in love. Also, don't think because I invoked such an emotional language, that this only applies to some sort of mystical, gushy, experience. Rephrasing it more abstractly, science has not changed how experience things as temporal or spatial, it has, however, changed the accessibility in predicating phenomena temporally and spatially. However, it has never risen to answering why it is that way as such. It has not redefined the structural requirements in how we convey ourselves rationally, e.g. logic. It has not somehow challenged the logical operations that are utilized in our use of language. Science has, more specifically the study that I am much more familiar with, physics, created models of reality that provide predictable utility. However, that is where it stops. The Newtonian paradigm was created on the basis, and therefore Nature was thematized, to ascertain the motion of the planets through the invention of calculus. However, several paradigm shifts have occurred since then to address new issues within classical mechanics. Namely, the problem of black-body radiation lead the postulation of quantization, and lead to the birth of quantum mechanics; the assumed postulate of an ether, which was disapproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment, lead to the need of relativity and how light functioned as a constant without the need of a medium. All this progress, however I ask again, what has changed about the human condition? Granted, we have cellphones, better access to medicine, etc. Nevertheless, do not think I am claiming that science isn't useless, on the contrary, it is the very definition of utility. However, what does that change about me?

You brought up Albert Camus, so I think you would appreciate the following passage. "Yet all the knowledge on earth will give me nothing to assure me that this world is mine. You describe it to me and you teach me to classify it. You enumerate its laws and in my thirst for knowledge I admit that they are true. You take apart its mechanism and my hope increases. At the final stage you teach me that this wondrous and multicolored universe can be reduced to the atom and that that the atom itself can be reduced to the electron, [you can add elementary particles, the point still stands]. All this is good and I wait for you to continue. But you tell me of an invisible planetary system in which electrons gravitate around a nucleus. You explain this world to me with an image. I realize then that you have been reduced to poetry: I shall never know..I realize that if through science I can seize phenomena and enumerate them, I cannot, for all that, apprehend the world."

As a fellow student of physics and philosophy, I understand your point, but I think you are undermining the effects that the scientific worldview has done to our society and our relationships. Martin Buber anticipated with his I-thou theory the effects of the scientific worldview. If you are unfamiliar with his works, I'll give you a quick synopsis.

I'm am extremely generalizing but Buber believes that they are only two ways to relate to an object or a subject. These two methods are I-You (I-Thou) and I-IT. The I-You relationship is personal and intimate. I-IT is relation is more of a third person point of view of a person. These two methods of relation with objects and subjects are valuable. Without the I-It relation, we wouldn't have made as much advances in biology, science, and technology. We use the I-It relation to put ourselves outside of the sphere of personal biases and we put demarcations on a object. This objects has boundaries and can be fully understood with enough information. The I-You relation has no boundary, as matter of fact, to use Freudian terms, such a relation has a shared ego with no demarcations at all.

Your last post states that science hasn't change our view of relation(or the relation of our inner self understanding) but it has. Science is slowly but surely becoming its own worldview, and in it, it challenges the idea of the I-You relation in favor for the I-it relation. You brought in cell phones, and kind of shrugged it off...but cell phones are exactly proof of the shift that our relations is taking.

We are going away from the "intrinsic" value of human and shifting towards the "instrumental" value of humans, this is entail by science. And again..if the closed causal nexus is the way the world is ( and this the foundation of science) then we are just reducible to processes that can be explained in the causal nexus.

This affects ourselves because now we do not believe that we have any control upon ourselves. Anytime someone has an issue, they believe that taking medication is the only way to help because their minds are like a machine, predictable. Language can be deciphered by science and can be created with it. Some animals are capable of communication, language isn't anything special to human kind.

This is by no mean my personal belief, but saying that science hasn't changed relations between humans or even the understanding of inner self is a bit naive.

The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.
-Albert Camus

Mar 7, 2014 8:12 PM

#56

Offline

Jan 2012

367

yogotah said:

Citizeninsane said:

To a certain degree I agree, however, if we look at the function of the science and the implications of science in general, I think I might be able to express my point in a more convincing fashion. I ask, what has science changed about human existence that has radicalized the way that we value the things we value? I consider myself a student of physics and philosophy, however I would never say that physics has changed what it means to be in a relationship with another. Or what it means to be in love. Also, don't think because I invoked such an emotional language, that this only applies to some sort of mystical, gushy, experience. Rephrasing it more abstractly, science has not changed how experience things as temporal or spatial, it has, however, changed the accessibility in predicating phenomena temporally and spatially. However, it has never risen to answering why it is that way as such. It has not redefined the structural requirements in how we convey ourselves rationally, e.g. logic. It has not somehow challenged the logical operations that are utilized in our use of language. Science has, more specifically the study that I am much more familiar with, physics, created models of reality that provide predictable utility. However, that is where it stops. The Newtonian paradigm was created on the basis, and therefore Nature was thematized, to ascertain the motion of the planets through the invention of calculus. However, several paradigm shifts have occurred since then to address new issues within classical mechanics. Namely, the problem of black-body radiation lead the postulation of quantization, and lead to the birth of quantum mechanics; the assumed postulate of an ether, which was disapproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment, lead to the need of relativity and how light functioned as a constant without the need of a medium. All this progress, however I ask again, what has changed about the human condition? Granted, we have cellphones, better access to medicine, etc. Nevertheless, do not think I am claiming that science isn't useless, on the contrary, it is the very definition of utility. However, what does that change about me?

You brought up Albert Camus, so I think you would appreciate the following passage. "Yet all the knowledge on earth will give me nothing to assure me that this world is mine. You describe it to me and you teach me to classify it. You enumerate its laws and in my thirst for knowledge I admit that they are true. You take apart its mechanism and my hope increases. At the final stage you teach me that this wondrous and multicolored universe can be reduced to the atom and that that the atom itself can be reduced to the electron, [you can add elementary particles, the point still stands]. All this is good and I wait for you to continue. But you tell me of an invisible planetary system in which electrons gravitate around a nucleus. You explain this world to me with an image. I realize then that you have been reduced to poetry: I shall never know..I realize that if through science I can seize phenomena and enumerate them, I cannot, for all that, apprehend the world."

As a fellow student of physics and philosophy, I understand your point, but I think you are undermining the effects that the scientific worldview has done to our society and our relationships. Martin Buber anticipated with his I-thou theory the effects of the scientific worldview. If you are unfamiliar with his works, I'll give you a quick synopsis.

I'm am extremely generalizing but Buber believes that they are only two ways to relate to an object or a subject. These two methods are I-You (I-Thou) and I-IT. The I-You relationship is personal and intimate. I-IT is relation is more of a third person point of view of a person. These two methods of relation with objects and subjects are valuable. Without the I-It relation, we wouldn't have made as much advances in biology, science, and technology. We use the I-It relation to put ourselves outside of the sphere of personal biases and we put demarcations on a object. This objects has boundaries and can be fully understood with enough information. The I-You relation has no boundary, as matter of fact, to use Freudian terms, such a relation has a shared ego with no demarcations at all.

Your last post states that science hasn't change our view of relation(or the relation of our inner self understanding) but it has. Science is slowly but surely becoming its own worldview, and in it, it challenges the idea of the I-You relation in favor for the I-it relation. You brought in cell phones, and kind of shrugged it off...but cell phones are exactly proof of the shift that our relations is taking.

We are going away from the "intrinsic" value of human and shifting towards the "instrumental" value of humans, this is entail by science. And again..if the closed causal nexus is the way the world is ( and this the foundation of science) then we are just reducible to processes that can be explained in the causal nexus.

This affects ourselves because now we do not believe that we have any control upon ourselves. Anytime someone has an issue, they believe that taking medication is the only way to help because their minds are like a machine, predictable. Language can be deciphered by science and can be created with it. Some animals are capable of communication, language isn't anything special to human kind.

This is by no mean my personal belief, but saying that science hasn't changed relations between humans or even the understanding of inner self is a bit naive.

In that sense, I see your point. I agree to the extent that I should of rephrased and restricted my claims. I brought up the example of a cell-phone to emphasis the fact that we still aim for communication even it is through the use of a cell-phone. The fact that we communicate hasn't changed, but the medium through which communication is accomplished differs. Nevertheless, I think I can still retrieve some basic constituents of my argument for the reason that you pointed out that science obviously has a cultural impact and therefore shapes how we think about ourselves, e.g. the example you gave about medication. Nevertheless, If I restrict claim to an extent, science does not change the underlying ontological structure of the human being which was my main point and criticism. It is only on the basis of these ontological structures of how we are e.g. spatial, temporal, that something that you described can occur. It is only the basis of our human condition that we can develop in such a way as to basically treat ourselves as a mechanistic thing. However, the view of ourselves as caring about existence and the like still underlies your claim in a primordial way. Science has allowed for the possibility for a re-definition of what means to relate to myself in the way that you described, however does it address what I utilized the Camus' quote for, does it address the existential issues that we all encounter, but tend to forget about insofar as we don't want to address them given the absurdity of the issue? And fundamentally, I don't think science needs to rise to that task, don't think I am saying science ought to being answering these questions. I aim this critique at those who think everything ought to be reducible to a science, e.g. scientism.

Edit: P.S. I plan to read I and Thou later this spring, I have the book atm, but was reading Spinoza first given the Jewish tradition they both share.

CitizeninsaneMar 7, 2014 8:21 PM

Mar 7, 2014 8:38 PM

#57

Offline

Apr 2011

291

Well, If I may ask, what do you see as the underlying ontological structure of humans? I have the feeling that you are saying that though science may change our methods, it ultimately has not changed our human nature. I can't really agree or disagree until you specify what the human nature is...different people define it as different things.

Science does not concern itself with the "why", and like you, I am certainly wary of any theory uses science to answer existentialist questions. Camus also see science as lacking in this department.

I think you will enjoy the I-thou book by Martin Buber, he really has an axle to grind when it comes to the way we treat each other, and as a man living near the Holocaust periods, he really had a first hand experience in the entailment of the I-It method of viewing relationships.
I'm currently delving into Thomas Hobbes, and his view of the selfish nature of man. I'm already seeing some major problems with his views (not any original problems of course) but I still see his writings as fascinating.

The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.
-Albert Camus

Mar 7, 2014 8:56 PM

#58

OmegaSiets

Offline

Nov 2012

2102

Hawking's analogy with computers was mainly to draw a similarity between the mind/body relationship to the software/hardware relationship. In computers, we generally understand that software cannot function without the hardware to process it, and likewise the mind cannot live without the body. The point is to show the double standard that we assume the mind can just magically continue to persist after the body has ceased to function when all evidence points to the contrary, yet we don't make this same baseless assumption with computers when the hardware fails. I don't think it's an analogy meant to reduce the totality of human existence to a computer, but rather to address a specific similarity that reveals some cognitive dissonance that often occurs with our way of thinking.

kingcity20 said:
Oh for the love of
-_- nvm gotta love MAL

Mar 7, 2014 9:01 PM

#59

Offline

Jan 2012

367

yogotah said:
Well, If I may ask, what do you see as the underlying ontological structure of humans? I have the feeling that you are saying that though science may change our methods, it ultimately has not changed our human nature. I can't really agree or disagree until you specify what the human nature is...different people define it as different things.

That is a tall order lol. People have written whole books in the name of that project and I don't think of myself highly enough to really engage a proper account of human ontology. But what I don't intend to say, is the claim that human's have this metaphysical essence that constitutes what it means to be a human being and persists indefinitely independent of time. Instead, I am pointing to the structures of what it means to be and have a world where we experience entities as such. To give a expression of this claim it would be as follows, "Why is that we experience entities as existing rather than not-existing? What are the structures for the possibility of experiencing things as such? Why is that we convey ourselves through care, care in the sense that we care about existence (that care can manifest in a nihilistic fashion or a theological one, or a secular one, however it is only on the basis that we care to begin with that we can pose such a question or statement "Life has no meaning" or "Life has some grand purpose via a designer"). I would refer you to Martin Heidegger, as he has influenced me the most in this respect, and if you want the roots of those aims then you can also look into Aristotle's notion of the practical philosophy, e.g. action and production (praxis and poeisis), and Kant's schematism. I would first direct you to those authors, since they deal with issues such as ontology, the "subject" (or Dasein, which translates to human existence, for Heidegger), and human action, much more eloquently than I could ever hope to.

yogotah said:

I think you will enjoy the I-thou book by Martin Buber, he really has an axle to grind when it comes to the way we treat each other, and as a man living near the Holocaust periods, he really had a first hand experience in the entailment of the I-It method of viewing relationships.
I'm currently delving into Thomas Hobbes, and his view of the selfish nature of man. I'm already seeing some major problems with his views (not any original problems of course) but I still see his writings as fascinating.

Yea, I am pretty sure I will. For some reason, I think philosophy is the only topic where I enjoy reading everything, including things I don't necessarily agree with. For example, I don't mind reading Leibniz, even though I vehemently disagree with him, or even modern theologians such as Alvin Plantinga. Above everything else, I enjoy immersing myself in the discussion of philosophy, which is why I decided to double major in philosophy, (I don't think my physics professors are very happy about that decision lol).

Mar 7, 2014 9:21 PM

#60

Jackrabb1t

Offline

Jan 2014

2938

You missed at least one option:

"I am nonreligious and I believe in all the above."

Thus I did not vote.

Mar 7, 2014 9:31 PM

#61

Offline

Apr 2011

291

I read "Being and Time" about six years ago in high school...and it was probably the toughest read that I have done to date. Heidegger really goes deep into the human condition, but I think that at the time that I read it, he was over my head. It may be worth it to revisit him in the future. However, I do remember thinking that he emphasized too much what we did ( as hobbies, jobs,etc..) with who we are. Like I said, my memories of him are fuzzy, I always plan on revisiting him.

My bad. I shouldn't have asked you to describe human nature. To even give an adequate general synopsis would have taken you hours. I just figured that if we are working with a different notion of human nature, we will not be able to understand the relation of science to it.

I used to be a fervent Kantian, so I am very much aware of his philosophy. My whole case of the "closed causal nexus" is inspired by his works. He was very much a determinist, and he would have largely agreed that the human consciousness can be reduced to processes except for the phenomenon of morally salient situations. I'm sure you already know about his idea of "inclination" and "will". It's a very powerful philosophy that is still prevailing to this day. I have never been able to find any inherent flaws with the Kantian paradigm of reality, and I only stopped being a Kantian partially due to small nuances that ticked me off.

I am not as enthusiastic as you. I like philosophy, but only the topics that interest me. I tried reading William James, and couldn't get past the first chapter. It bored me to death, and there are only rare readings about Aesthetics that really captures me. The rest seems to be jargon to me. I tend to stick to theology, anthropology, social, and moral philosophies.

Yeah, I relate. I'm triple majoring in theoretical mathematics, Mechanical Engineering, and Philosophy, and I tell you man, I had more than one advisor ticked off at my decision. They called it something like..."being indecisive". I always sigh when I hear stuff like that. I tend to see connections in every subject. Everything ties together, and for some reason, modernity has forgotten that, and has emphasizes specificity. Of course, there are benefits to that, but for someone like me who wants to know about the bigger picture, this poses problems. At least, I can comfort in that there's at least one more person in the world willing to tackle both a science major and a liberal arts major.

The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.
-Albert Camus

Mar 7, 2014 9:56 PM

#62

redmoth11

Offline

Jan 2014

1015

okey well i just wrote a ton then i went like no well i am none of the above so yeah.
yeah i rewrote in a smaller format

outline
1 no religion not atheist cuz I think you are better off no religion than atheist meaning no matter what you won't believe I hate the definite due to the fact they are harding to keep. A promise where you stay I will get An A+ is harder than I promise to try to do my very best. (as in you won't do it just attempt it and not getting A+ just doing the best you can even if it is f-)
2 think heaven and hell shouldn't exist instead goes for and equal but different gray for everything like when you die you just go to a parallel world and continue life without your prior memories as a baby
3 religion is gay, because I hate judgment, why? Because that is a unfair right. In my religion this is removed completely. Because I don't like it. (stealing from the rich to donate to the poor is wrong, but also right. Just how you are looking at it. Entropy which is increasing. So that is why a few rich people pop up then get killed by the majority just to cycle over, cuz entropy some may try to decrease it but most try to increase it.)
4 if you harm a being with plan to kill it, it is only to increase entropy and make equal.
(doesn't really apply with lessor without break the thought more brain storming in the future.)

redmoth11Mar 7, 2014 10:26 PM

anime with cute girls is my thing.

Mar 7, 2014 9:59 PM

#63

xMizu_

Offline

May 2013

13109

i believe that life itself has no limits

I CELEBRATE myself,
And what I assume you shall assume,
For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you.

Mar 7, 2014 11:08 PM

#64

fiddle_shnibs

Offline

Feb 2013

884

I am nothing and believe in nothing

Mar 8, 2014 1:39 PM

#65

Online

Mar 2008

47129

There is so much wrong here that I do not know where to start

Atheism and Agnosticism are not the same meaning as being with non religious. You can be a religious atheist or agnostic.

Being a Theist is ot the same meaning as being religious. You can be a non religious Theist.

Religion is a group of beliefs. Obviously being an atheist or agnostic and believing in something metaphysical is not a contradiction at all. As well as being a theist even a religious one at that and not believing every bit of a religion.

However if you are religious for example a Christian who believes in jesus and reject the Bible (the only thing that really talks about Jesus) then THAT is a contradiction. I've heard of people like this before.

"clearly a large portion of atheists still believe in life after death, even though that is purely a religious benefit"
Its not associated with any specific religion. That is not a religious belief. That is a metaphysical or spiritual belief. The beleif in the afterlife could also be considered philosophical. Religion is a group of beliefs not a single belief. Now if an Atheist believed in Divine Punishment/Reward then THAT is a contradiction since divine punishment requires a god. (keep in mind karma is not divine punishment) . Afterlife or other beliefs predates organized religion.

"to what extent is religion shaping our beliefs? or is religion a creation of our perception in the first place?"
Hard to say. All I know is some religions seems to have partially created a damaging mindset of non-action by just praying things away.

"Do we naturally believe in life after death?"
Hard to say really because of how big an impact religion has on society. Hard to imagine without it. Obviously the belief came from somewhere. I think some are inclined while others are not. I recall reading an article before about how skepticism is partially an inborn trait.

Mar 8, 2014 2:12 PM

#66

Kousoku11

Offline

Nov 2011

688

animeoppai said:
There should be another option for "I am Agnostic and I'm not sure".

+1. There's no way to know, therefore no commitment to either side.

Monad said:
There is no such thing as agnosticism. Atheist are pretty much agnostic. Agnostic is just a term that people invented so they can say they don't believe in God without being attacked.

Well thanks for dictating my beliefs to myself, as you clearly know them better than me.

I may dislike being intentionally hostile in a serious way, but that statement seriously feels like a personal insult.

Mar 8, 2014 2:14 PM

#67

Online

Mar 2008

47129

Do I even have to mention there are agnostic atheists as well as agnostic theists? Because I forgot that since its so obvious and common knowledge although most miss out on it

Mar 8, 2014 2:37 PM

#68

Offline

Dec 2013

360

I don't believe in life after death, as in an extension of your current existence, but I cannot disprove reincarnation, or even alternate realities, so to think that death is eternal nothingness is rather silly. Just cause you loose your memories, that doesn't mean you can't possibly exist ever again. Just think about it for a second. What exactly are you? Do you even know? Sure, you have your physical body, and your sensory input, and you experience it all as a result of everything your brain does... but what exactly does it mean to experience it?

Mar 8, 2014 2:49 PM

#69

Offline

Dec 2013

360

As far as god goes...
Perhaps the supposed "proofs of god's existence" eg: traits that aren't easily explainable by survival of the fittest, are actually just lingering archaeological evidence of an ancient extinct species that was equal to or even superior to our own intelligence, selectively breeding those traits for their own purposes. Or maybe aliens did it.

Mar 8, 2014 2:56 PM

#70

Kurobozu

Offline

Jul 2013

36

i am an agnostic believer because i do want to believe there is something more to this world that can not be seen, wether that be "the human soul" or maybe "god" nobody knows. i also actually believe that pretty much everyone is agnostic too, no one can believe in something for 100% we all have that 10-20% of doubt left in our "hearts"..

although most people tend to ignore that (hard atheists, jehova's witnesses)
and push their believes on to you (has happened to me alot!)

in the end people should just have the freedom to believe what they want to believe and let others do the same.

Imagine books and music and movies being filtered and homogenized. Certified. Approved for consumption. People will be happy to give up most of their culture for the assurance that the tiny bit that comes through is safe and clean. White noise.

--Chuck Palahniuk

Mar 8, 2014 3:25 PM

#71

Offline

Dec 2013

360

Kurobozu said:
i am an agnostic believer because i do want to believe there is something more to this world that can not be seen, wether that be "the human soul" or maybe "god" nobody knows. i also actually believe that pretty much everyone is agnostic too, no one can believe in something for 100% we all have that 10-20% of doubt left in our "hearts"..

although most people tend to ignore that (hard atheists, jehova's witnesses)
and push their believes on to you (has happened to me alot!)

in the end people should just have the freedom to believe what they want to believe and let others do the same.

I used to be one of those people who pushed my beliefs on people... and I did it out of fear. I was afraid of going to hell. When I finally started being honest to myself, I realized how illogical that whole religion is... I try to be careful not to end up becoming the polar opposite, pushing my disbelief onto people who are content believing it, but I might come off that way sometimes.

Mar 8, 2014 4:22 PM

#72

Momono

Offline

Nov 2012

2078

Kousoku11 said:
[

Monad said:
There is no such thing as agnosticism. Atheist are pretty much agnostic. Agnostic is just a term that people invented so they can say they don't believe in God without being attacked.

Well thanks for dictating my beliefs to myself, as you clearly know them better than me.

I may dislike being intentionally hostile in a serious way, but that statement seriously feels like a personal insult.

Nothing he said looks insulting, I think you're really reading beyond what is written.

I agree with what he said to some extent because atheism is simply the lack of a belief in deites. If agnostics lack this belief because whatever reason doesn't that make the term alone pretty redundant? There's no middle ground in boolean logic, it's either true or false. You either have a belief, or you don't have it. There isn't a half-have/half-lack. So I don't see the point in the term Agnostic alone simply because if you don't have a positive belief in the existance of 1 or more gods, than that makes you an atheist by elimination.
I'm open to corrections though, if you disagree elaborate on why.

Mar 8, 2014 4:28 PM

#73

bloodgods

Offline

Oct 2011

281

This is an awesome thread, personally I don't define my religious beliefs as anything because I think it restricts what I am "allowed" to believe in. As much as I dislike avoiding a word just because of its connotation, I do this with religion. If I had a gun to my head and I had to put myself to a word, it would probably be atheist, though. (I do define my philosophical beliefs though, but that's a different story)

Anyway, I think the whole people just want the "hyper-individualism" point is a cop out... that's basically saying that if someone's beliefs aren't mainstream or don't fall into a certain category, then their beliefs are invalid. At the end of the day, who gives a fuck what you "call yourself" religion wise, and you don't have to completely endorse everything that a religion does, for example, I used to identify as Buddhist, but I have never believed in reincarnation. That doesn't mean I can't say that I'm not Buddhist!

sargos7 said:

Kurobozu said:
i am an agnostic believer because i do want to believe there is something more to this world that can not be seen, wether that be "the human soul" or maybe "god" nobody knows. i also actually believe that pretty much everyone is agnostic too, no one can believe in something for 100% we all have that 10-20% of doubt left in our "hearts"..

although most people tend to ignore that (hard atheists, jehova's witnesses)
and push their believes on to you (has happened to me alot!)

in the end people should just have the freedom to believe what they want to believe and let others do the same.

I used to be one of those people who pushed my beliefs on people... and I did it out of fear. I was afraid of going to hell. When I finally started being honest to myself, I realized how illogical that whole religion is... I try to be careful not to end up becoming the polar opposite, pushing my disbelief onto people who are content believing it, but I might come off that way sometimes.

I was the same way, I was forced to put into a lot of religious activities as a kid and had to spend a lot of time in church. I started thinking for myself and a lot of that sense of doubt changed and I accepted it.
Although, I really disagree with the "i also actually believe that pretty much everyone is agnostic too, no one can believe in something for 100% we all have that 10-20% of doubt", there are certainly people who are 100% committed to their convictions, whether they firmly believe in god or firmly don't believe in anything. Nothing against you, but you probably don't understand because you DO identify as agnostic, and you see limitless possibilites when most people only see one.

Mar 8, 2014 4:52 PM

#74

Online

Mar 2008

47129

tiro_finale said:

Kousoku11 said:
[

Monad said:
There is no such thing as agnosticism. Atheist are pretty much agnostic. Agnostic is just a term that people invented so they can say they don't believe in God without being attacked.

Well thanks for dictating my beliefs to myself, as you clearly know them better than me.

I may dislike being intentionally hostile in a serious way, but that statement seriously feels like a personal insult.

Nothing he said looks insulting, I think you're really reading beyond what is written.

I agree with what he said to some extent because atheism is simply the lack of a belief in deites. If agnostics lack this belief because whatever reason doesn't that make the term alone pretty redundant? There's no middle ground in boolean logic, it's either true or false. You either have a belief, or you don't have it. There isn't a half-have/half-lack. So I don't see the point in the term Agnostic alone simply because if you don't have a positive belief in the existance of 1 or more gods, than that makes you an atheist by elimination.
I'm open to corrections though, if you disagree elaborate on why.

No

Theism / Atheism pertains to belief

Gnosticism / Agnosticism pertains to perceived level of knowledge.

Most atheists are agnostic-atheists since they admit they could be wrong however there are some arrogant people out there that think they know with 100% certainty.

There are Agnostic-Theists

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

Mar 8, 2014 5:05 PM

#75

Momono

Offline

Nov 2012

2078

traed said:

tiro_finale said:

Kousoku11 said:
[

Monad said:
There is no such thing as agnosticism. Atheist are pretty much agnostic. Agnostic is just a term that people invented so they can say they don't believe in God without being attacked.

Well thanks for dictating my beliefs to myself, as you clearly know them better than me.

I may dislike being intentionally hostile in a serious way, but that statement seriously feels like a personal insult.

Nothing he said looks insulting, I think you're really reading beyond what is written.

I agree with what he said to some extent because atheism is simply the lack of a belief in deites. If agnostics lack this belief because whatever reason doesn't that make the term alone pretty redundant? There's no middle ground in boolean logic, it's either true or false. You either have a belief, or you don't have it. There isn't a half-have/half-lack. So I don't see the point in the term Agnostic alone simply because if you don't have a positive belief in the existance of 1 or more gods, than that makes you an atheist by elimination.
I'm open to corrections though, if you disagree elaborate on why.

No

Theism / Atheism pertains to belief

Gnosticism / Agnosticism pertains to perceived level of knowledge.

Most atheists are agnostic-atheists since they admit they could be wrong however there are some arrogant people out there that think they know with 100% certainty.

There are Agnostic-Theists

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

And how dows that contradicts what I said?
I pointed against the use of the word Agnostic alone, as in, standing on the same ground of the words Atheist/Theist.
Pairing it up with Theist/Atheist, makes actually sense and is exactly what you said.

Edit: bolded up my quote to support previous statement

MomonoMar 8, 2014 5:09 PM

Mar 8, 2014 5:14 PM

#76

Offline

Dec 2013

360

tiro_finale said:

traed said:

tiro_finale said:

Kousoku11 said:
[

Monad said:
There is no such thing as agnosticism. Atheist are pretty much agnostic. Agnostic is just a term that people invented so they can say they don't believe in God without being attacked.

Well thanks for dictating my beliefs to myself, as you clearly know them better than me.

I may dislike being intentionally hostile in a serious way, but that statement seriously feels like a personal insult.

Nothing he said looks insulting, I think you're really reading beyond what is written.

I agree with what he said to some extent because atheism is simply the lack of a belief in deites. If agnostics lack this belief because whatever reason doesn't that make the term alone pretty redundant? There's no middle ground in boolean logic, it's either true or false. You either have a belief, or you don't have it. There isn't a half-have/half-lack. So I don't see the point in the term Agnostic alone simply because if you don't have a positive belief in the existance of 1 or more gods, than that makes you an atheist by elimination.
I'm open to corrections though, if you disagree elaborate on why.

No

Theism / Atheism pertains to belief

Gnosticism / Agnosticism pertains to perceived level of knowledge.

Most atheists are agnostic-atheists since they admit they could be wrong however there are some arrogant people out there that think they know with 100% certainty.

There are Agnostic-Theists

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

And how dows that contradicts what I said?
I pointed against the use of the word Agnostic alone, as in, standing on the same ground of the words Atheist/Theist.
Pairing it up with Theist/Atheist, makes actually sense and is exactly what you said.

Edit: bolded up my quote to support previous statement

Well, first of all, you should probably start by doing some basic etymological research for the words you are claiming to understand. They weren't coined a few months ago, as a part of some hipster fad. They are very old words, with very distinct meanings, that are not in any way redundant.

Mar 8, 2014 5:30 PM

#77

Momono

Offline

Nov 2012

2078

sargos7 said:
Well, first of all, you should probably start by doing some basic etymological research for the words you are claiming to understand. They weren't coined a few months ago, as a part of some hipster fad. They are very old words, with very distinct meanings, that are not in any way redundant.

Now isn't that a lazy answer?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

This is the usage that stands in the same ground as atheist and theist. Which in my eyes is pretty redundant for reasons which I already aforementioned.

And this is one of the more recent usages, which wasn't mentioned in my post, but in traed's

+I don't care about old meanings or how they were used 999 years ago. If there are any hidden meanings repertinent to ancient usages which you might be referring, can you point how are these any relevant to what is used today? And please don't throw the easy escape card "lol research the words" as an alternate to providing points as to why you disagree on the usage of the word Agnostic alone, i.e not subdivided into agnostic _theism.

Edit: fixed tags

MomonoMar 8, 2014 5:34 PM

Mar 8, 2014 5:36 PM

#78

Offline

Dec 2013

360

tiro_finale said:

sargos7 said:
Well, first of all, you should probably start by doing some basic etymological research for the words you are claiming to understand. They weren't coined a few months ago, as a part of some hipster fad. They are very old words, with very distinct meanings, that are not in any way redundant.

Now isn't that a lazy answer?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

This is the usage that stands in the same ground as atheist and theist. Which in my eyes is pretty redundant for reasons which I already aforementioned.

And this is one of the more recent usages, which wasn't mentioned in my post, but in traed's

+I don't care about old meanings or how they were used 999 years ago. If there are any hidden meanings repertinent to ancient usages which you might be referring, can you point how are these any relevant to what is used today? And please don't throw the easy escape card "lol research the words" as an alternate to providing points as to why you disagree on the usage of the word Agnostic alone, i.e not subdivided into agnostic _theism.

I'm not talking about old meanings. Agnostic currently doesn't just refer to gods. It refers to all sorts of things. Like ghosts, and aliens and alternate dimensions. That's why I said to do some etymological research. Not check Wikipedia. Etymology isn't just the origin of a word- it's the whole history, including the most recent breaking news.

Mar 8, 2014 5:47 PM

#79

NostalgiaDrive94

Offline

Jan 2014

1661

I'm Agnostic, so I don't believe in any Gods and divine punishments, but I wanna believe in something peaceful.

Mar 8, 2014 6:17 PM

#80

Online

Mar 2008

47129

sargos7 said:

Well, first of all, you should probably start by doing some basic etymological research for the words you are claiming to understand. They weren't coined a few months ago, as a part of some hipster fad. They are very old words, with very distinct meanings, that are not in any way redundant.

It was more to monad i was directing that.

Agnostic alone is possible because its someone who takes more equal odds. They dont have a preference of belief.

Mar 8, 2014 8:09 PM

#81

rTz

Offline

Mar 2009

1214

I think it is inevitable that after trillions of trillions of untold years, across this universe and every universe, it is eventually inevitable that either a random vacuum fluctuation will lead to a big bang that perfectly reproduces this universe, or to resurrection as a short-lived Boltzmann brain. Whether consciousness between the two would be continuous, however, I don't know.

Whether consciousness in general is the result of continuity is pretty cloudy in general. We could very well have a cessation of continuity every time we sleep, and we wouldn't even know it.

"When he will, the weary world
Of the senses closely curled
Like a serpent round his heart
Shakes herself and stands apart."
- A.C., Equinox I/I

Mar 8, 2014 8:51 PM

#82

Offline

Dec 2013

360

rTz said:
I think it is inevitable that after trillions of trillions of untold years, across this universe and every universe, it is eventually inevitable that either a random vacuum fluctuation will lead to a big bang that perfectly reproduces this universe, or to resurrection as a short-lived Boltzmann brain. Whether consciousness between the two would be continuous, however, I don't know.

Whether consciousness in general is the result of continuity is pretty cloudy in general. We could very well have a cessation of continuity every time we sleep, and we wouldn't even know it.

When you get right down to it, there's not much difference between not dreaming at all, and forgetting your dreams. And of course the subject of forgetting stuff always makes me think of alzheimer's patients... that's some freaky shit.

Mar 8, 2014 9:39 PM

#83

rTz

Offline

Mar 2009

1214

sargos7 said:

rTz said:
I think it is inevitable that after trillions of trillions of untold years, across this universe and every universe, it is eventually inevitable that either a random vacuum fluctuation will lead to a big bang that perfectly reproduces this universe, or to resurrection as a short-lived Boltzmann brain. Whether consciousness between the two would be continuous, however, I don't know.

Whether consciousness in general is the result of continuity is pretty cloudy in general. We could very well have a cessation of continuity every time we sleep, and we wouldn't even know it.

When you get right down to it, there's not much difference between not dreaming at all, and forgetting your dreams. And of course the subject of forgetting stuff always makes me think of alzheimer's patients... that's some freaky shit.

What I was referring to was more:

Let's say you die in your sleep, and 10^999999 years later a vacuum fluctuation randomly create a new Earth, with an inhabitant that has an atomically identical brain, the same memories, emotions, and preferences as you, and whose last memory is your memory from before going to your final sleep. Is this the same person as you?

Let's say you teleport to another planet -- your present body is annihilated atom-by-atom, and then a reserve of atoms on a distant planet recombines to form your body, with exactly the same atomic structure. To the reconstituted person, they feel no time has passed, like they stepped into the teleportation booth and stepped out orbiting Alpha Centauri. Is that the same person as you?

Let's say your brain is infected with a virus that causes degeneration, leading to death. The treatment involves replacing every neuron in your brain quickly with a mechanical replacement, a cyber-neuron. The process takes under ten seconds. In the end, you wake up feeling like no time has passed, but no part of your brain remains. Is this the same "you" as before the transplant?

Let's say the same thing happens, but the replacement happens gradually over the course of a year. In the end, is that person the same as you before the operation? Or at what point did it stop being you, even if at any given time there was no lapse in subjective continuity?

How about the previous two cases, except that they replace neurons not with machines, but with genetically modified, immune versions of your very own neurons?

What if you had a deadly disease, were frozen, and thawed several centuries later -- nanomachines undo the damage from the ice, and you re-awake exactly the same as when you went to sleep, except that your brain at one point decayed, and was artificially restored by robots -- would you be the same person?

Let's say you go to sleep and wake up. without dreaming; is the you from before sleeping the same person as the you after sleeping? Or is the previous "you" dead, replaced by a consciousness with all your memories and with a subjective sense of continuity from the night before?

"When he will, the weary world
Of the senses closely curled
Like a serpent round his heart
Shakes herself and stands apart."
- A.C., Equinox I/I

Mar 8, 2014 10:15 PM

#84

Offline

Dec 2013

360

rTz said:

sargos7 said:

rTz said:
I think it is inevitable that after trillions of trillions of untold years, across this universe and every universe, it is eventually inevitable that either a random vacuum fluctuation will lead to a big bang that perfectly reproduces this universe, or to resurrection as a short-lived Boltzmann brain. Whether consciousness between the two would be continuous, however, I don't know.

Whether consciousness in general is the result of continuity is pretty cloudy in general. We could very well have a cessation of continuity every time we sleep, and we wouldn't even know it.

When you get right down to it, there's not much difference between not dreaming at all, and forgetting your dreams. And of course the subject of forgetting stuff always makes me think of alzheimer's patients... that's some freaky shit.

What I was referring to was more:

Let's say you die in your sleep, and 10^999999 years later a vacuum fluctuation randomly create a new Earth, with an inhabitant that has an atomically identical brain, the same memories, emotions, and preferences as you, and whose last memory is your memory from before going to your final sleep. Is this the same person as you?

Let's say you teleport to another planet -- your present body is annihilated atom-by-atom, and then a reserve of atoms on a distant planet recombines to form your body, with exactly the same atomic structure. To the reconstituted person, they feel no time has passed, like they stepped into the teleportation booth and stepped out orbiting Alpha Centauri. Is that the same person as you?

Let's say your brain is infected with a virus that causes degeneration, leading to death. The treatment involves replacing every neuron in your brain quickly with a mechanical replacement, a cyber-neuron. The process takes under ten seconds. In the end, you wake up feeling like no time has passed, but no part of your brain remains. Is this the same "you" as before the transplant?

Let's say the same thing happens, but the replacement happens gradually over the course of a year. In the end, is that person the same as you before the operation? Or at what point did it stop being you, even if at any given time there was no lapse in subjective continuity?

How about the previous two cases, except that they replace neurons not with machines, but with genetically modified, immune versions of your very own neurons?

What if you had a deadly disease, were frozen, and thawed several centuries later -- nanomachines undo the damage from the ice, and you re-awake exactly the same as when you went to sleep, except that your brain at one point decayed, and was artificially restored by robots -- would you be the same person?

Let's say you go to sleep and wake up. without dreaming; is the you from before sleeping the same person as the you after sleeping? Or is the previous "you" dead, replaced by a consciousness with all your memories and with a subjective sense of continuity from the night before?

Yeah I know what you were saying, and those are all awesome examples. I like to look at it like this: it doesn't really matter if it's the same you or not. You are you, in this current waking moment, not doubt about it. Maybe all your memories are fabricated, and the you you are now never was the you you remember you were. But if you continue to be you in this current waking moment, or if you once again become you when you wake up, the you you will be will be you, so who cares if it's the same you or not?

When you get right down to it, you can't even actually answer the question what is you, exactly? You just are. You might say you're your brain, but current neuroscience is disproving the once-held belief that the brain cells you are born with are the same ones you have your whole life. They actually regenerate just like the rest of you. So that example of replacing neurons is more real than you think. It happens every 10 years or so. But you're you right now, right?

So even if you aren't the you you were 10 years ago, you're still a you. That means whatever you is isn't the physical matter your brain cells are made of. So then you might say you are the "program" that your brain is running. If that's the case, then you do cease to exist every time you lose consciousness, but then you come back into existence once you regain consciousness.

So you can come and go into and out of existence on a regular basis, and it's not tied to any specific physical matter. Not enough to call it proof of the soul, but still pretty comforting to me.

Mar 8, 2014 10:26 PM

#85