Faith in permanent death

[Willamena]

Up to and until there is some sort of significant evidence of the existence of some afterlife, the simplest, most logical and reasonable attitude is to assume that there is none.

Out of curiosity, do you have an opinion on the Tibetan Book the Dead version of afterlife?

[youtube]bRT_AXiKFpA[/youtube]
YouTube - ‪Tibetan Book of the Dead - The Great Liberation (Intro)‬‏

 

[Quagmire]

Are we still talking about post #118? It doesn't look like we are.

I am. You've been trying pretty hard to change the subject.

I stand by what I said. And I give up on fulfilling your expectations,

Or explaining your position.

which I find, in a word, weird.

You find the expectation that someone making a definitive statement should offer some sort of substantiation for that statement weird?

Don't worry, at this point you actually are fulfilling my expectations.

 

[Quagmire]

No, I don't think so.

Saying "there is no afterlife" is like saying "there is no teapot". Both are reasonable conclusions when presented with a claim that not only has no evidence to support it, but seems as if it was contrived to avoid being refuted by any possible evidence.

Saying "It's been established literally billions of times" etc, is more like saying (or at least implying) "We've gone into outer space in search of this teapot, countless times, and we've established that it isn't there".

 

[Otherright]

@ Copernicus, You are Bold


There is no evidence to suggest that consciousness is connected to the quantum level, although there is a popular pseudoscientific movement that is sometimes called "quantum mysticism", which advocates a connection.

Quantum mysticism is rubbish. What I'm talking about are the quantum effects studied in biology. The Penrose-Hameroff Orch-OR is built completely on consciousness being at a quantum level. In fact, there are a lot of research projects going on that are looking at quantum aspects of consciousness. David Auschelomb's work in coherence is showing that it is possible. While Auschelomb's work in coherence is not dedicated to consciousness, it does show that coherence in warm, wet environments does occur.

I think that you have completely missed the point. Computers can be programmed to simulate the same type of information processing that goes on in a human brain. We are already building autonomous robots that react to their environments in increasingly sophisticated ways. In principle, we should be able to build machines that behave like people. Self-awareness is a goal of AI nowadays.

Right, it is simulated, but is still bond by the limits of the programmer.

I'm sorry but your list has nothing at all to do with AI. It is just an attempt to list differences between brains and computers that ignores the fact that computers can be configured to do what human brains do.

Really, where is your self-aware AI then? Skeptic Magazine did a good article on this a while back. Skeptic » Reading Room » A.I. Gone Awry: The Futile Quest for Artificial Intelligence

I think its conclusion says it all: "After more than 50 years of pursuing human- level artificial intelligence, we have nothing but promises and failures. The quest has become a degenerating research program89 (or actually, an ever-increasing number of competing ones), pursuing an ever-increasing number of irrelevant activities as the original goal recedes ever further into the future — like the mirage it is."


I know that the things you list as challenges are not challenges at all in AI. As for neurology, you have yet to show how it is unreasonable, in principle, to think that we can build machines that can replicate neural behavior.

No one's ever got past my first point of that they fundamentally don't process information the same way. You've never even replied to that statement.
The computer strips the meaning from code so it can be executable through the compiler as machine code. If something is entered incorrectly, it can not discern what went wrong. The human brain does not do this.

 

[quadman19]

Out of curiosity, do you have an opinion on the Tibetan Book the Dead version of afterlife?


This looked so good i had to see it so i'm downloading it right now! thanks

 

[LuisDantas]

Out of curiosity, do you have an opinion on the Tibetan Book the Dead version of afterlife?

[youtube]bRT_AXiKFpA[/youtube]
YouTube - ‪Tibetan Book of the Dead - The Great Liberation (Intro)‬‏

I wouldn't call it an afterlife, myself. It is essentially a reminder of the transitory nature of existence.

 

[Otherright]

I wouldn't call it an afterlife, myself. It is essentially a reminder of the transitory nature of existence.

But the stream of consciousness moves on. Of course it won't be you. The ego dies with you, as it is part of the body, but you do believe the consciousness goes back into the stream, don't you?

 

[Copernicus]

@ Copernicus...

Our discussion has drifted off-topic, so I'll shift to another thread and post a link here when it is started. This thread should remain focused on the "permanent death" conundrum rather than the possibility that machines can be made self-aware.

 

[Otherright]

Our discussion has drifted off-topic, so I'll shift to another thread and post a link here when it is started. This thread should remain focused on the "permanent death" conundrum rather than the possibility that machines can be made self-aware.

I know man, I know. We have completely hi-jacked this thread, and I apologize to the OP for that.

Look, I think its best that we agree to disagree on this subject. We are obviously from two varying schools of thought, and we aren't going to agree on it.

I do hope that someday it will happen. I went back earlier today and counted six of my works that had characters that were AI. In a couple, published years ago, I had really good layouts for the AI, complete with mother algorithms, something that was big at the time of composition of the story. But it was a work of fiction, and my ideas on AI have changed over time. Maybe they will change again.

 

[839311]

It feels right.

Thats weak.

Why should being attractive be a consideration?

It is to some people. But this isn't what I was getting at. I was thinking along the lines that if people are to have alternatives to religion, to Christianity or Hinduism or whatever, then those alternatives should also offer these people as much as they can. A person who has just lost their faith in Christianity and hears atheists preaching permanent death may be impressed. This person might say, "Gee, seems like most atheists think that theres no afterlife. That must mean there isn't one!" So they put their faith in this idea, and maybe for the rest of their time as atheists they will intentionally ignore concepts like eternal return as plausible, because they have been deluded to blindly accept the various ideas of mainstream atheism, including the emo idea of permanent death.

For me, this is a problem, because Im trying to pull people in the same direction as generally atheists do to. But the pitiful, depressing, hope-sapping idea of permanent death being trumpeted by mainstream atheism is undermining the speed at which the populace should be deconverting. And ofcourse I care about the welfare of atheists too. Its sad to see people convinced that there is no afterlife when it is irrational to do so. Our limited understanding of consciousness, the possibility of God(s) existing (an unlikely possibility, as I see it), the possibility that this is a simulation, the idea that the matter and energy that makes up your consciousness will at some point in the future, say a decillion years from now, come together again in another being... "NO! When were dead were dead! So what that we don't understand consciousness as well as wed like to yet? There definitely is no god! We are absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt not in a simulation! No! the matter and energy that makes up my consciousness has a zero percent chance of ever forming in another being and sparking up my life again!" Is this not totally irrational? The problem with this belief is that it has rooted itself into the creed of mainstream atheism, and has deluded people to the point that they are ignorant of all the possibilities out there.

 

[839311]

For me, it's not a matter of faith. But the basis for my conclusion to reject the idea of an afterlife is based on the significant amount of evidence I've seen that we are entirely physical creatures. When physical injury or disease can change the very personality of a person, or in some cases actually "kill" the original personality altogether even before physical death, what is left to survive into an afterlife that could properly be called the person?

This doesn't address the possibility that God might swoop up your consciousness. But, seeing as Im very well familiar with strength of conviction that atheists have regarding this matter, lets skip to point 2.

This may be a simulation. At your death, a new program will start up with you in it again. Or you will be disconnected from the 'matrix' to hang out in what people might think is the real reality.

Your explanation doesn't address eternal return at all, or point 4. I think that, if there is no god or advanced civilization controlling something like the matrix for the benefit of its citizens, that these points almost certainly are true and that we will indeed be 'reincarnated strictly in a physical sense', for lack of a better way of putting it.

What about point 5? These ones I personally think are a stretch. But, I admit that our understanding of consciousness is limited, so I have to say that it could be.

The only scenario under which the chance that our death here will be the permanent, eternal cessation of our conciousness, is as follows. There is no god. There is no advanced civilization running this simulation. There is no cosmic consciousness. Here, however, is where I feel like I have to stretch myself. Our matter and energy that makes up our consciousness will never again form in another being. The laws of physics are such that this energy will be scattered into some eternally dusty corner of reality, never being part of another big bang or other event in which the conditions of life will be created and under which a possibility would exist for our consciousness to be booted up again. I think its highly unlikely that this will occur. So, as I understand it, even if there is no god, no simulation, or some kind of cosmic consciousness or something, it is still highly likely that we will wake up in some reality in the future. Whether it happens in the next big bang, or in a hundred big bangs, or in a decillion big bangs or other such events. Even if it happens after a decillion to the power of a decillion years, as long as there is a possibility that it will happen, then it will happen.

Also, I think it's a bit silly to claim that there exists a real, physical realm that has some sort of one-way connection to the visible universe but is otherwise completely indetectable. That's a proposition that I think has to be defended on its own merits, but the way it's been set up, no evidence could ever support it.

To claim, yes, unless someone actually knows that this is a fact. And I dont mean in the way that religious people assume the things they believe are facts. I mean that if a person has actually been to this otherwise indetectable physical realm, explored it, studied it, and then was sent back here again without any hard proof for whatever reasons. Such experiences, however, only have any truth value to the person who has them. If I heard this person tell me of his experience, I would think there is a very high probability that they are crazy or had a hallucination of some kind while on drugs. I certainly wouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt, just as I don't give any modern day eccentric preachers that benefit. Prove it. If you can't, keep it to yourself or reasonable people are going to think your nuts. But then, the world is full of credulous people who will believe any such nonsense if it is presented with enough skill.

 

[839311]

Really? There is no evidence of that...

How would you expect me to provide evidence that Im in a simulation if the simulation is created so well that it emulates reality perfectly? As far as I know, your not even a real being but just part of the program.

Evidence?

How do you expect evidence for eternal return??? Even if a being was born in the future who had the same consciousness as a being in the past, and another being knew that person and now knows this new person, I doubt he would be able to tell they are the same person. The memories would be wiped out. The only thing that would be the same would be that persons consciousness. I don't think there would be any way to tell. But, perhaps there might be a way that we might figure out through advanced technology.

These are just ideas, they prove nothing...

Just ideas?? JUST ideas?!?!

I presented them as possibilities, not as proof. But your the boss! You continue to put your faith into one of the possibilities if thats what you want to. But your choice has FAITH written all over it.

 

[839311]

Up to and until there is some sort of significant evidence of the existence of some afterlife, the simplest, most logical and reasonable attitude is to assume that there is none.

The most logical and reasonable attitude is definetely not to assume there is none. With so many possibilities under which our physical death would not be permanent, the assumption that it is permanent seems like an irrational leap of faith. How do you know your not in a simulation whose rules you have chosen yourself? Maybe when making this program you wanted it to be more or less like this, and threw in some random elements like where you'd be born, whether you'd be really rich or average in wealth, just to make it more interesting. Maybe you actually have all eternity to live and dont want to get bored so you do this once in a while to spice things up. Who knows. But assuming that there isn't any kind of afterlife is flat out irrational.

 

[PolyHedral]

With so many possibilities under which our physical death would not be permanent, the assumption that it is permanent seems like an irrational leap of faith.

It's not irrational for a very good reason: every possible theory of temporary death requires that an entity that we haven't seen exists. Assuming an entity exists, when we have no evidence to think so, is irrational.

 

[Willamena]

I wouldn't call it an afterlife, myself. It is essentially a reminder of the transitory nature of existence.

And yet, it is afterlife. The monks pray for 43 days (I think that was the number) after death to guide the spirit through its passage, to its rebirth.

Edit: 49 days.

 

[Willamena]

It's not irrational for a very good reason: every possible theory of temporary death requires that an entity that we haven't seen exists. Assuming an entity exists, when we have no evidence to think so, is irrational.

An entity we haven't seen, but we each are. It would seem your evidence is particular.

 

[Nooj]

Thats weak.

I don't understand.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This doesn't address the possibility that God might swoop up your consciousness. But, seeing as Im very well familiar with strength of conviction that atheists have regarding this matter, lets skip to point 2.

Actually, it does, though I may have assumed that we were taking as given that a person's "afterlife" begins after their natural life.

But there are problems with the idea of "God swooping up your consciousness". To begin with, what is "your consciousness"? What is "you"? If the physiological changes of, say, mental degradation caused by disease in old age don't count and don't affect your "soul", then why would the physiological changes of, say, growth and experience from birth to adulthood?

And also, it suggests that there are real living and breathing people who don't have "souls". Consider this:

- Steve is a unique person with identifying characteristics.
- Steve suffers a brain injury. Those identifying characteristics become so altered that it's no longer reasonable to call him the same person as he was before.
- "Old Steve" has effectively died, but "New Steve" is most definitely alive. What has happened?

If we assume your "swooping God", I see two possibilities:

- at the moment before the injury, God swooped down, scooped up Old Steve's "soul" so that it would not be affected by the injury. But then where did New Steve come from? Does New Steve have a soul?

- God chose not to "swoop", Steve was injured, killing Old Steve and replacing him with New Steve. What happened to Old Steve? Does he not get an afterlife?

This may be a simulation. At your death, a new program will start up with you in it again. Or you will be disconnected from the 'matrix' to hang out in what people might think is the real reality.

That doesn't actually have anything to do with the question of the afterlife. If we're all just brains in vats, well, brains do die.

If all the death in this world is only a simulation, then it's not really death. Therefore, you wouldn't be able to call the simulation beyond it an "afterlife".

Your explanation doesn't address eternal return at all, or point 4.

Yes, because you didn't bother to actually give a position on the issue for me to address. A link is not an argument.

I think that, if there is no god or advanced civilization controlling something like the matrix for the benefit of its citizens, that these points almost certainly are true and that we will indeed be 'reincarnated strictly in a physical sense', for lack of a better way of putting it.

Why?

They're definitely not all true, since they're mutually exclusive.

What about point 5?

Consciousness is not "energy", so none of that mumbo-jumbo about conservation of energy really applies to it.

However, if it did, then this would be a demonstration that consciousness is entirely physical, which is the position that suggests that there is no afterlife.

To claim, yes, unless someone actually knows that this is a fact. And I dont mean in the way that religious people assume the things they believe are facts. I mean that if a person has actually been to this otherwise indetectable physical realm, explored it, studied it, and then was sent back here again without any hard proof for whatever reasons. Such experiences, however, only have any truth value to the person who has them. If I heard this person tell me of his experience, I would think there is a very high probability that they are crazy or had a hallucination of some kind while on drugs. I certainly wouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt, just as I don't give any modern day eccentric preachers that benefit. Prove it. If you can't, keep it to yourself or reasonable people are going to think your nuts. But then, the world is full of credulous people who will believe any such nonsense if it is presented with enough skill.

Okay... it sounds to me that we agree on this point: someone saying "I've been to Heaven!" does not necessarily suggest the existence of Heaven.

 

[Willamena]

I don't understand.

As it's your reason, it's good enough.

(Pretty much has to be.)

 

[839311]

It's not irrational for a very good reason: every possible theory of temporary death requires that an entity that we haven't seen exists. Assuming an entity exists, when we have no evidence to think so, is irrational.

Apparently you arent aware of points 3 or 4. I suggest you do a little reading, its well worth it in this case.