Life After Death
 

I don't believe there is any possible way any afterlife can exist. I think everyone here can agree that we experience the world without brain; which stops working when we die. So even if some subatomic matter (like your "soul") there will be no way to experience it because the thing that is "you (your brain)" is dead.

Before someone responds to this with the classic "ah! but you haven't died and there's no way to gather information from the dead so we can't know so it's useless to discuss it." I want to say unless you're going to live with Cartesian skepticism all your life then you have to accept that we have some intelligence and knowledge. This is my argument towards this and the basic summary of how I came to the above conclusion. I can understand thinking that way but it's never gotten anyone anywhere and when it comes to examining the big questions it can bring a measure of solace but I do think we've acquired a lot of knowledge beyond I think therefore I am. We know about the enormous size of our solar system all the way to the tiny building blocks of matter. We gained this knowledge through scientific examination. Science being ultimately the act of disproving something and accepting something as highly likely when all those avenues of disproof are exhausted. There are gaps in our knowledge but I believe that if they are to be filled it won't be with an old book but with science. I think in every bit of our life we apply logic. Most people (who are sane and alive and in good health) leave buildings by door because all evidence suggests that gravity will harm you if you exit via high window windows. I think logic can be applied to the spiritual realm (though most people choose not to for some reason even though they apply it to everything else) and when you do that I think the possibility of life after death no longer looks like a possibility; but an impossibility.

I have a major problem with grammatically constructing thoughts when I'm tired and can't sleep, sorry about all the run-on sentences.

I think scientific materialism is unable to account for subjectivity. Atoms, black holes, galaxies, even the brain are merely symbols which we have somehow been able to create out of nothing. As such, I don´t think I=my brain is a fair statement. I am able to create representations but as such I cannot be equivalent to them. I have the ability to create rules of logic and the trajectories of propositions to their conclusions, but I also have the ability to doubt the efficacy of language, even of the reality of my perceptions. What am I, the representations I generate or the force that generates them? To you I am the sum of my actions, and you assume that these actions are the results of thoughts or impulses I experience. But I am not their slave, I can rebel. I can refuse reason just as you refuse faith. I am able to transcend. I don´t necessarily think I´m going to Heaven after I die, but my essence may persist, even if only through others. To crudely paraphrase many great thinkers, nature does not know beginnings and ends, only progressive transformations. I can talk about this forever, I don´t have any firm beliefs one way or the other because this question is, like most interesting questions, beyond the limits of experience.

As much as I want to dismiss any sort of afterlife because of logic and science, I can't bring myself to believe that this is it. That this whole life and civilization is just a coincidence. That we're just here because of some random glitch in the universe. There has to be more.

Souls have brains, duh. It makes perfect sense.

We are EXACTLY here because of many random glitches. If many things did'nt happen to the planet then humans would almost certainly not be here. Simple as that

well, while i'll be fucking 100 virgins and sipping coors light with Allah, you guys will be contemplating where your atoms begin and someone else's end.

Though Allah forbids alcohol, I'm sure a weak American beer will be permitted.

How will I be contemplating if I'm dead as a doornail....

magic, duh.

Silly me :D

I believe that part yes, but even if you trace the universe back to nothingness there's still something being created from nothing. This is why I believe in some sort of higher power, though it's certainly not what they're describing in church.

But if you can't experience your essence's persistence then is it really life? What is your essence anyway? I consider myself defined by my thoughts and all my actions are usually presupposed by some thought. So if my brain dies and I stop thinking then I stop acting and ultimately experiencing any form of life as I know it. I don't believe that just because some subatomic matter continues that I will necessarily continue as I am now. I have never in my life heard someone define God or Soul or a soul in any way that can be really sensibility discussed.

I understand that the world exists to me only as a manifestation of my senses and for all I know I'm some alien experiment and this is all fake but I may as well operate in the reality I'm dealing with. And in doing that I've concluded that there can't really been an after life unless my brain somehow takes on a ghostly form, which I don't believe could happen. I think if you choose to operate and think within these rules than you'll find we know way more than you're giving credit for. As I stated there's rules of logic that everyone follows in every realm of life except the spiritual realm and when you apply it there the existence of an after life looks highly unlikely.

Chemical reactions created life even in it's most primitive forms. This is proved. It would be comforting to know of some higher purpose but it's all just molecules and accidents i'm afraid.

To our knowledge yes, but there may be something more at work. I don't know what, nor do I think I could ever understand such power... which is why I don't practice any religion. I just feel that there is something greater than us.

Listen to Bokonon.
We're all part of a plan.

In that case, I´ll attempt to define the soul and God. The soul is that which is common to all of us, can also be thought of as ´the will,´ it lies beneath our thoughts and is not defined by them. Rather, our personality is defined by our thoughts and actions, but these are simply the result of our soul interacting mechanically with every other soul. However, it only seems like there are a multitude of souls from our position, since we are entrenched in reality. Really there is only one soul, which reflects itself infinitely to interact with itself and avoid boredom. This is what is commonly refered to as God, so the only difference between us and God is that we are trapped in reality and hence have a limited perspective. The `random´ interaction of molecules or atoms is the will communicating with itself. Interpersonal interactions are the same. So are the movements of celestial bodies. When you die, you step outside your body and realize yourself as every soul simultaneously, which makes everything feel very very very pointless so you can either step into another body or into the void.

I only half-believe this, because it´s a somewhat comforting idea, but I think it´s pretty hard to disprove.

I guess it´s worth pointing out that I didn´t just pull this out my ass, Hinduism, Schopenhauer, Borges, Leibniz, Edgar Allen Poe and Erwin Schrodinger agree with me :p:

On the other hand I think that's equally hard to prove.

If your "soul" was to enter another body though would it carry your memories and intellect? If were defined by our thoughts and actions and we don't carry those over with us when we, well reincarnate, then is it really you living after your death? Or just an essence that is in us all moving on to another temporary vessel? Also if you take away the brain from this soul; are you just sort of...a general but ultimately unthinking and unfeeling force? I guess what I'm getting as is my basic problem with this idea. If your brain is gone and you don't carry your personality (I use personality not to describe random quirks but your intellect, thoughts, idealism, actions, memories, etc.) with you and you no longer have the thing (your brain) you use to experience everything you can never really know what happens and you can't really live or be aware of your existence; which I'd consider death.

I think pure self-awareness is consciousness of the self as nothing, in the sense that Sartre says. I don´t really define myself by my personality or intellect, that´s how other people define me. I feel like I could lose all my memories, my likes, my appearance, my opinions, and there would be something left (a general force, sure) that I recognize as being more fundamentally me. If all my personality experiences is ultimately my diffracted selves, then once I discard of it every personality would still be there, since they must in some sense be in the will/soul, ready to unfold. As such, I´d still be aware of what used to be `Tom´ but defining myself by what is ultimately just a perspective would seem absurd. The brain would just be a symbol Tom has constructed to attempt to understand himself, which seems equally absurd.

Ah-ha!!, but even the process of chemical reaction must originate from something else Jack. To suggest otherwise would contradict the existence of the universe itself.

Simply put, none of you are thinking on a high enough level here; if everything comes from something, then the processes you people assume have given rise to our rather coincidental existence must originate from something even further back. And ultimately, this train of thought can only keep leading us back and back and back, a straight line moving into the past that has no end. Hence, the source of what determines even the most basic of basics must be something beyond what a human being can define, and the closest concept that humanity has been able to conceive which provides an answer to this absurdity is a little thing called God.

All that aside, it doesn't matter what happens to us after death. The only meaning worth holding close at heart is that the potential of a greater force above us is undeniably there, and that possibility is enough for me in this life that I am living, even if I as a human being am worth no more to the universe than the stray cocckroach that gets crushed beneath the sole of my shoe.

I just have a hard time grasping that sort of idealism. I feel that ultimately everything I am is in my brain and once that dies the only way I'll live on is other people's brains but I won't be conscious of it so that's useless to me.

Though I do find one thing curious about that sort of thought. I just finished reading Pascal's Pensees which (you probably know this but for anyone else reading it) presents an idea that since we can't actually know for sure what there is after death we should wager that there is God exists and we have everything to gain in following his teachings and nothing to lose. Now I have several problems with this (there fairly obvious though, how do you know which religion is the correct one being the big gaping argument and then once you determine that somehow you have to hope that form of religion doesn't have a problem with your rather self-centered motives for following) but it seemed to be to be a commonly practiced idea even though most people aren't aware. I often hear sort of scaremongering arguments into following religions and rather selfish purposes for getting into religion, particularly Christianity (I hear from every kid in high school who argues with an atheist how do you comfort yourself without god and that just doesn't make sense to me. I don't understand how your primary motive for a belief is a benefit of the belief, you'd think that would come with a more concrete idea for it. I just think it's useless; its as if believing will simply make everything better. If you could manipulate reality like that so easily I think the world would've been blown up or something long ago.)

Anyway uh, what I was getting to it's interesting that that belief isn't motivated by the superficiality you typically see in most religious thought. Though I guess that has a lot to do with the lack of a moral code, or bible, or any sort of hint at a conscious interest in the human race. It kind of makes the idea seductive to me.

Lev Shetov makes an interesting point in Athens and Jerusalem, where he says that reason relies on essentially the same threats to justify itself.

A bit long, but definitely worth reading:

To Necessity all things are indifferent, but to Parmenides all things are not indifferent. On the contrary, it is infinitely important to him that certain things should be and that certain other things should not be — for example, that the hemlock should be dependent on Socrates and not Socrates on the hemlock. Or rather, to make the matter still clearer, let us say this: in the year 399 B.C. the aged Socrates, condemned to death by his fellow citizens, took from the jailer's hands the cup of hemlock and in that very moment, by Socrates' will, the hemlock became a healthful drink. And this is not imagination or fantasy but reality, that which actually was. Imagination and fantasy, rather, are all that is related of Socrates' death in the history manuals. And similarly, what Aristotle teaches us, "Necessity does not allow itself to be persuaded," is also only an invention. Necessity does listen and does allow itself to be persuaded, and it cannot oppose itself to Socrates; it cannot in general oppose itself to any man who has discovered the secret of its power and has enough audacity to command it without turning backward, to speak to it as "one who has power."

Aristotle would certainly have paid no attention to thoughts of this kind. And Seneca and Cleanthes would have completely ignored them as being of no concern to themselves. But Epictetus, perhaps because he was more sensitive or perhaps because he was less well-bred, would have been enraged by them. Is this not an attempt to escape the principle of contradiction? In his eyes, as in Aristotle's, this was clearly a mortal sin, and he considered that he had the right in this instance to give free reign to his anger. "I should have wished," he said, "to be the slave of a man who does not admit the principle of contradiction. He would have told me to serve him wine; I would have given him vinegar or something still worse. He would have become angry and complained that I did not give him what he asked. But I would have answered, ‘You do not recognize the principle of contradiction; hence, wine, vinegar or any loathsome thing are all the same. And you do not recognize Necessity; therefore, no one has the power to compel you to regard the vinegar as something bad and the wine as something good. Drink the vinegar as if it were wine and be content!' Or again, the master orders me to shave him, and I cut off his nose or his ear with the razor. He would again cry out, but I would repeat to him my argument. And I would do everything in the same way until I forced my master to recognize the truth that Necessity is invincible and the principle of contradiction omnipotent."

We see that Epictetus repeats what Aristotle said or, more precisely, gives a commentary of Aristotle's words. And, as almost always happens with the Stoics, Epictetus, in commenting, discovers what in Aristotle had been intentionally left in the dark, and so betrays the secret of the philosophical foundation of the Aristotelian truths. The principle of contradiction, as well as Necessity and the truth itself, with a capital letter or a small letter, are supported only by threats: one cuts off your ears or your nose, one pierces your eyes, etc... Before such constraint all living beings — men and devils and angels, and even the gods — find themselves equal. Epictetus speaks of an imaginary master, but he would say the same thing of Heraclitus, of Parmenides, of Socrates and of God Himself.

Christ that was kind of hard to follow, I'm not completely sure I understood it because I don't know much about Socrates and my knowledge of Aristotle is completely political. Is Athens and Jerusalem a good read? I like the idea of contrasting reason and faith. I'm about to sleep...so I'll be more talkative about that bit if you want when I wake and am less tired.

I don't really understand your thought process here in the slightest. How could an indifferent universe make your life meaningless but an indifferent "God" make your life meaningful?

Yes, Athens and Jerusalem is really worth reading and was a big influence on Camus and others, plus it´s available for free online. It´s a great overview of philosophy in general, especially re the Greeks.

Because even if God is indifferent to the daily workings of our lives, he/she/it is still the creator in a certain sense correct? If the universe was given shape by some kind of sentience (a rather interesting thought compared to simply saying that there is nothing but emptiness and coincidence out there), then that would imply that our own development as a species has something to strive for beyond merely living as organisms of instinct. An indifferent universe, however, tells me that my ability to think is worthless and that when I die, I will just vanish into an inevitable state of nothing. Quite depressing really: Why BE HERE with our mental faculties if nothing we do in our lives matters to us personally after death?

So, following my logic that I described from the last post, I pick the indifferent God over the indifferent universe for rather obvious reasons. Maybe it won't be possible within any length of time we can fathom, but if there is something out there beyond the wall of night that started everything, then someday we will surely find it and answer certain questions that the scientific method is unable to touch.

The problem is that youre essentially making God in the image of man to justify man. We are plagued by seemingly unanswerable questions but if they were all answered what would be the point in thinking at all? The ultimate satisfaction would quickly become ultimate boredom. The reason why thinking is valuable is because it never ends, it continues to hit walls, paradoxes, contradictions and continues to struggle. If there were a point of resolution everything would collapse into undifferentiable nothingness, and the fate you seem to fear would be inevitable. Becoming one with God would be dissolving into absolute nothingness, which is pretty much the atheist conception too.

Isn't it only a supposition that becoming one with God would be the same as dissolving into a state of emptiness though? (just trying to clarify here. :))

Otherwise I completely agree, though I've never thought that even if a supposed entity is somehow brought to light through discovery, it would justify the existence of mankind. There's no way to know such a thing, and perhaps it would be for the best if we simply continue to search.

I tend to look at life very dialectically, so pleasure only means something when contrasted with suffering, thesis when contrasted with antithesis, master vs slave, etc. So a state of absolute unity, where both sides of the duality collapse, ie man into God, subject into object, must be a state where experience is no longer possible, and hence a state of emptiness.

Of course if becoming one with God meant becoming God and still being aware of people beneath you, the duality would still be intact and experience could continue, only now you´d be master instead of slave :)

I don't think a higher power necessarily implies a sense of purpose...there's just a much a chance this space god of yours sneezed and we know more to him than some bacteria in Russia means to you. Is that why you're Christian? Because you need to think that the beginning has to do with you to feel a sense of purpose?

Lmao. I am indeed a Christian (though I don't think you have the correct definition in the first place), but that has nothing to do with believing that I was born with a purpose. PEOPLE give meaning to their lives by living them; a higher deity only serves as a potential tool to motivate one to strive higher than their bodily confines allow them to go. Whether or not there is any reasoning to the creation of life in regards to this is completely and utterly irrelevant.

So give me a break here Ethan. Just because you can't see the link between an ideal being's existence and the quest for a living organism to find something more for itself than merely being here and moving in circles on every level of thought and action since the dawn of conciousness doesn't mean that its something others cannot see and reason for themselves.

Possibility is and has always been the only real reason for a human to try existing beyond insatible instincts which constantly need stimulation, because without something that goes above the inevitability of life and death the whole experience of living loses those colors that make it fun and vibrant. Hence, I see nothing wrong with trying to reach higher than what my paltry senses are able to perceive.

I'd define a Christian the same as the bible would: someone who believes they've found salvation in God. I don't understand how me saying you're a christian and assuming you believe in a higher power with an interest in you contradicts that definition...

I don't understand how a god who created us by accident and doesn't care about our existence is any different than an indifferent universe. You said you choose to believe it was a god because it gives you something to strive for; an indifferent universe gives you nothing but if you were just some sort of celestial sneeze that the means nothing to a god how is that any different then the indifferent universe? I think whether or not the god has an interest in the human race makes all the difference in the world and is completely relevant to having something to strive for. Can you explain how it's "completely and utterly irrelevant?"

I'm not trying to do away with your sense of purpose. I'm just curious about it because it doesn't make much sense to me, it strikes me as more hopeful than reasonable. The only times I really stop respecting someone's beliefs is when they start enforcing it on others. Though I don't think a sense of respect implies any sort of acceptance; not all ideas are equal. I can respect a Christian's beliefs but in my understanding of history and how the world operates I'm certain they're making a mistake. Also just because I'm skeptical doesn't mean I don't feel like I have a purpose. Don't get me wrong; I don't have a theistic purpose or any motivation to be "moral" and I believe an afterlife is completely impossible. I still strive to be an intelligent and good person though and I have dreams for what I want to do with my life. They're just not of god or existing outside of my body once it stops; they're of being happy.

Hmn. Okay, I'll explain why I think your definition is slightly off. Judaists are the ones who believe in salvation through an unscrupulous God; Christians are those who seek salvation in Heaven through the words of Jesus (the son), and who furthermore believe that he died so that human beings could get to this Heaven by acknowleding his identity and methods rather instead of what the rabbi at the local temple would tell you to do. It's a more conveniant path to something that people were once told you had to do a whole lotta **** for. I mean c'mon, what's easier here, taking a goat up on a mountain and slitting its throat, or thanking a 2000-year old dead guy for dying on a Roman cross?

Second, it doesn't matter if the indifferent God created you, can give you things, etc because the very fact that something eternal, powerful, and bodiless exists outside of you is pretty darn incredible. After all, there's quite a lot to learn simply by observing such an entity, assuming a time comes when we could ever see this hypothetical God in action. Learning and seeking are the same as striving towards something new. (And in regards of why a God is important even if It's indifferent: I guess its kinda like wanting to be like your parents even if they don't care what you choose to do with your life. I'm tired so it's difficult to explain well.)

Basically, my faith and my mind are on two different wavelengths here. I like to think and postulate and wonder about the possibilities of stuff, while at the same time maintaining a faith in the optimism of the God I hope exists. Neither my irrational beliefs or mental ponderings interfere with one-another or influence my life in negative ways, so what's the problem with it? :p:

I know that but I just said god because the bible teaches that god and his son are one.

Not to nitpick, but aside from the eternal thing (and even god had to have had a beginning but you presented the same argument for a universe existing instead of a higher power but please please please let's not get into this discussion because its an obvious and giant circle a universe is bodiless and powerful and immortal. So I think we can agree, a higher power and the universe are equally incredible things.


Here's what I'm getting at though...if the god is indifferent and you just die, no heaven, no floating around in space, you just die, then how would that god be any different to you than an indifferent universe which would do no more for you? Your christian idea of a god, okay, he gives you heaven, I can understand the purpose there but saying any form of god would give humanity a purpose, I feel, is flawed.

I don't have really have a problem with it...I just don't understand how your mental pondering could be complimentary or totally seperate from your idea of god.

I have to say im at a loss to explain my beliefs on this subject. The reasons for this are, on the one hand i'm an atheist and completely reject Christianity and the idea of a heaven and hell, i dont believe in a 'soul' either. On the other hand, i have experienced certain things, one could say paranormal events, in my life that are unexplainable, and believe me i've thought of all possible explanaitions.

tell me more tell me more

*I swear on my life this is all true

Well it all centred in my old house, specifically my room (always good...), i'd been living there since i was 4 months old and experienced nothing to my knowledge until i was around 17.

My cat had been acting strangely a couple of days before it started happening, one night we heard it screetching and hissing, went upstairs to see what wa wrong and we found her hiding behind my mums bed trembling hardcore.

Then a couple of days later it was just me and my sister, we were both downstairs watching TV when suddenly i heard an almighty crash from my bedroom. I ran upstairs not knowing what to expect and found my tv pretty much in bits on my bedroom floor. What was inexplicable about this was that my TV was on a shelving unit secured to the wall by 7 inch nails - the shelf was completely intact so the only way it could of fallen was by being pushed off. Yet my sister was the only other person in and she was in the same room as me.

The very next day i came home to an empty house and found my wardrobe had been pushed over onto my bed, now my wardrobe is pretty big, nobody in my house (i lived with 3 women, me dad was hardly there) wouldnt of been able to move it plus why the hell would they?!

Later on that night i AGAIN heard a crash, this time my mum ran up with a golf club bless her and found my bottom rung on the bookshelf had been smashed - like somebody had dropped a heavy object on it. There was hardly any books on it so it couldnt of been the weight.

Nothing else happened for a few days and then i went on holiday to Ibiza with my mates for my 18th. While i was gone my um had a huge argument with my dad and consequently slept in my room for the night. She was awoken in the early hours by what she thought was somebody whispering to her, she focused her eyes and saw a silhouette standing by my wardrobe looking at her in bed. She thought it was my dad and told him where to go but it just stood there silent before just seemingly disappearing. She was ****ting it and never went back in my room.

I came home after a week and all was ok for a few days after. Then one night i was trying to get to sleep when i suddenly felt my mattress sloop down as if somebody was sitting on it, i shot up and turned my light on but there was nobody there - yet there was a clear indent on my mattress where somebody had been sitting.

After that nothing happened for months. Then one eve in janurary i think a couple of mates were over before we went to a gig, it was a free house so we went over the road to get alcohol. Upon returning, me and one of the guys were ahead of the others and i took out my keys to unlock the door. As i went to put my hand on the door handle it suddenly shook violently like somebody was trying to open it from the otherside. We recoiled away in horror thinking there was a burgler, then, armed with bottles of beer, we stormed in and searched the place. Absolutely nothing. The dogs were in their basket happy as larry (and no, they were far too small to reach the handle, even by jumping up) and the place was spotlessly tidy and kept. No sign of anything.

Yet perhaps the scariest occurence was two nights before we moved out, my big sister ws down for a visit and we were all in the kitchen eating dinner when suddenly she shrieked and dropped her fork in her food. Everybody was asking what was wrong... it turns out as she was eating she had seen a dark haired boy peering around the bannister watching her as she ate. She said his eyes were undescribably hollow and dark and that he ran back up stairs when she saw him.

So i know something exists... i just do know how or why.

freaky. i'm not sure what i would think in your position either.

[quote=sleepy jack;567323]I don't believe there is any possible way any afterlife can exist. I think everyone here can agree that we experience the world without brain; which stops working when we die. So even if some subatomic matter (like your "soul") there will be no way to experience it because the thing that is "you (your brain)" is dead.

What Dreams May Come:
Albert: So what is the "me"?
Chris Nielsen: My brain I suppose.
Albert: Your brain ? Your brain is a body part. Like your fingernail or your heart. Why is that the part that's you?
Chris Nielsen: Because I have sort of a voice in my head, the part of me that thinks, that feels, that is aware that I exist at all.
Albert: So if you're aware you exist, then you do. That's why you're still here.

I think there must be something out there. To believe that a millenia of implosion, explosion and mass collision can create a mind capable of art, poetry, different languages, a sunset, is just a tad too much for me. It must've taken something with a little more imagination

prelife is so much more interesting than the afterlife.