44 replies to this topic

[TheBatman]

Is it possible to go from existing to not existing? When we die are we still ourselves minus our physical features?

[PWAIN]

First you need to identify what 'you' are. You are a complex pattern of chemicals and molecules with a unique energy flow through that structure. Cremate the body and that is gone - redistributed as gas and ash. What was is no more so you are no more. You cease to exist.....FOR ETERNITY, you will never ever exist again. THAT is why it is so important to try to preserve your brain structure so that there is a possibility of return however remote.

[TheBatman]

If there is a unique energy flow going through me now, where would it go when I died? Aren't all living things kept alive through energy? If so, I would remain as that energy once my body died

[mehisa]

If you believe in a soul like I do than the body is just a shell. But interesting theory about how energy is transferred i never thought of it like that.

[TheBatman]

If you believe in a soul like I do than the body is just a shell. But interesting theory about how energy is transferred i never thought of it like that.

Which would also mean we were something before we were even connected to our bodies. As energy, it wouldn't be possible for us to cease existing, we would just move on. So I think nothing is something we never were, are, or could ever be

[PWAIN]

The energy is not you, it is the combination of energy and the pattern that it flows through. When you are cremated, the energy has already long since dissipated on its path to higher entropy and the cremation takes away the patterns that the energy used to flow through. It is gone much like the electricity in a computer is gone when it is switched off. If you want to believe in magic or some such then that is faith and has no scientific backing. Without any evidence, there is nothing but faith.

[Julia36]

you're tying yourself in knots Batman!

You cant be nothing and something. That's a logical contradiction.

You could get rid of logic and posit Truth doesn't exist but I doubt you'd want to do that. Nothing isn't something but is a symbol for when not a thing is 'present'.

As philosophers we work in models.
Physics has models, religions other models of the self.

You must declare which model you are arguing in, then others can check if your argument is consistent with that model.

(It is VERY hard to step outside a model of soul in Abramistic cultures since we are raised in it and everyone eventhe state subscribes to it.
But it is arraigned against physics which gives technology and testably verifiable.

You probably have things you fundamentally believe in.

It can help to list these and deduce from there.

If your axioms include there are things of me that exist but which science could never know, that can be a starting axiom.

It has been dismissed by many philosophers eg by Wittgenstein's last proposition:

7. "What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence."


http://www.voidspace...tractatus.shtml

It's good to have a framework...seven pillars etc and declare propositions under each when named.

Lawrence of Arabia named this rock at Wadi Rum the Seven Pillars of Wisdom
.

I found I could know nothing after decades of searching, but it made me much surer of that.

Edited by Innocent, 10 September 2013 - 09:37 PM.

[TheBatman]

http://pickeledpuffi...-Slap-217419201

The batman is never in a knot

So then let me rephrase it without the axiom - how can we be something and instantly become nothing when we die? Wouldn't that contradict nature?

Edited by caliban, 11 September 2013 - 08:57 AM.

[TheBatman]

The energy is not you, it is the combination of energy and the pattern that it flows through. When you are cremated, the energy has already long since dissipated on its path to higher entropy and the cremation takes away the patterns that the energy used to flow through. It is gone much like the electricity in a computer is gone when it is switched off. If you want to believe in magic or some such then that is faith and has no scientific backing. Without any evidence, there is nothing but faith.

If you are implying we don't have spirits, nobody can prove you wrong at the moment. However science is a discipline that deals with the fundamental senses of man, feeling, seeing, hearing, talking, etc, etc. Since a spirit is not one of the fundamental senses, nor can it be measured via such a sense, I don't believe you can prove the existence of a/the spirit scientifically. This used to be true for viruses as well, until they were discovered. So just because you can't sense a spirit doesn't mean its not present. Keep in mind the human race has been around for thousands of years and only recently have we discovered atoms.

Lack of evidence, is not neccissarily evidence.

[Julia36]

So then let me rephrase it without the axiom - how can we be something and instantly become nothing when we die? Wouldn't that contradict nature?

Define the we.

[robosapiens]

"how can we be something and instantly become nothing when we die?

The problem is with our use of language - the self is not a discrete noun, but a process, it’s not a “thing in of itself” but an event, something that the brain does.

The brain is “self-ing”

The structures that make up our brains are arranged in such a way as to produce a phenomena we call “a self”, once those structures are disorganized the brain cannot produce a self, or it stops self-ing.

just as a Guitar burnt to ashes can no longer produce music, although its atoms remain.

[TheFountain]

I always wondered why the concept of not existing scares people so much, since prior to this existence we did not exist.

It is a fucking question that is sooooooo hard to answer.

Why is it that we can not remember not existing prior to existing? And why is the thought of not existing again so terrifying?

Wait, did I answer my own question?

[TheBatman]

"how can we be something and instantly become nothing when we die?

The problem is with our use of language - the self is not a discrete noun, but a process, it’s not a “thing in of itself” but an event, something that the brain does.

The brain is “self-ing”

The structures that make up our brains are arranged in such a way as to produce a phenomena we call “a self”, once those structures are disorganized the brain cannot produce a self, or it stops self-ing.

just as a Guitar burnt to ashes can no longer produce music, although its atoms remain.

True but a guitar was never actually "living". A robot can be programmed to preform certain functions that humans can preform. Even though there are chemical and physical reactions taking place inside a robot, you wouldn't necessarily call a robot alive would you?

[TheBatman]

I always wondered why the concept of not existing scares people so much, since prior to this existence we did not exist.

It is a fucking question that is sooooooo hard to answer.

Why is it that we can not remember not existing prior to existing? And why is the thought of not existing again so terrifying?

Wait, did I answer my own question?

Not sure what scares people so much either, but people are usually horrified of things that are unaccepted to them.

The memory is a tool for keeping track of things that happened or you have learned. Not having a memory of what happened before you were created doesn't mean you didn't exist before hand.

Sadly my grandmother has dementia. I'm sure she wouldn't remember going for a ride in the car last week, but that doesn't mean she wasn't there.

[TheBatman]

So then let me rephrase it without the axiom - how can we be something and instantly become nothing when we die? Wouldn't that contradict nature?

Define the we.

There is no definition I can think of for "we" because "we" is always changing. Based on what I did today, (with which my brain was envolved), my behaviors, thoughts, desires, etc, will probably be altered tomorrow, in some way, either minor or major.

The complexities of what I just described make it almost impossible for a set frame in which I would call "me"

Edited by TheBatman, 14 September 2013 - 03:19 AM.

[robosapiens]

"how can we be something and instantly become nothing when we die?

The problem is with our use of language - the self is not a discrete noun, but a process, it’s not a “thing in of itself” but an event, something that the brain does.

The brain is “self-ing”

The structures that make up our brains are arranged in such a way as to produce a phenomena we call “a self”, once those structures are disorganized the brain cannot produce a self, or it stops self-ing.

just as a Guitar burnt to ashes can no longer produce music, although its atoms remain.

True but a guitar was never actually "living". A robot can be programmed to preform certain functions that humans can preform. Even though there are chemical and physical reactions taking place inside a robot, you wouldn't necessarily call a robot alive would you?

That it isn't alive is not relevant to the simple point - its physical structure, its organization in a very specific way, makes it capable of producing music, just as the brain must be a certain structure to produce a self - a very simple idea.. brains produce, or rather re-create the complex and changing event we call selves, not rocks or stars or harmonicas. As far as gramma loosing her memory, our personas are unique because our memorys are unique, once memory is gone, so is identity.

[sthira]

Is it possible to go from existing to not existing?

I don't think it is. Everything appears to exist all at once right now. Nothing doesn't appear to exist anywhere (by definition.). Nothingness as an idea certainly exists within brains; but the idea of nothingness is only pointing, and only a word we use to communicate the idea. And by this logic it follows love doesn't exist, either, or truth or dignity or peace or logic or any abstract concept that doesn't "contain" tangible physical, sensory-knowable presence.

Someone mentioned Wittgenstein, and I think his contributions are so valuable. We get trapped in words. And yet realities may exist for energy patterns for which we have no words. Ineffabilities exist.

Having said that, I argue that everything in the universe -- from unimaginably massive to unimaginably tiny -- is "located" within a single ball of energy. The universe. When life passes out of your body that energy "spreads" through space and re-manifests into new patterns. Our "you" becomes ineffable, but no less existent. We de-solidify. We become more diffuse. So then it follows that everything that has ever existed still exists right now. All of the other "you"s, all people who died, are still here yet now manifesting within new patterns.

I've no idea "where" this universe exists. Even if the universe is a giant ball of energy right here, right now, "where" is that totality? And perhaps that's a question Wittgenstein means for us to pass over in silence? Are there ultimate unknowables? Death, for example, is it ultimately unknowable?

[TheBatman]

"how can we be something and instantly become nothing when we die?

The problem is with our use of language - the self is not a discrete noun, but a process, it’s not a “thing in of itself” but an event, something that the brain does.

The brain is “self-ing”

The structures that make up our brains are arranged in such a way as to produce a phenomena we call “a self”, once those structures are disorganized the brain cannot produce a self, or it stops self-ing.

just as a Guitar burnt to ashes can no longer produce music, although its atoms remain.

True but a guitar was never actually "living". A robot can be programmed to preform certain functions that humans can preform. Even though there are chemical and physical reactions taking place inside a robot, you wouldn't necessarily call a robot alive would you?

That it isn't alive is not relevant to the simple point - its physical structure, its organization in a very specific way, makes it capable of producing music, just as the brain must be a certain structure to produce a self - a very simple idea.. brains produce, or rather re-create the complex and changing event we call selves, not rocks or stars or harmonicas. As far as gramma loosing her memory, our personas are unique because our memorys are unique, once memory is gone, so is identity.

I'm not sure I'm following your point though... this is more about life before and after death and i'm not quite sure what memory or an identity has to do with existing other than making it more enjoyable. Sure I may no be able to feel or use any of my senses when I die, but that doesn't mean I (or a part of me) wont be there.

BTW i'm trying to take this whole argument from a theoretical standpoint. I can't quite say that I believe in Christianity or atheism. In my mind, either one is plausible. So who knows you may be right.

Edited by TheBatman, 14 September 2013 - 04:40 AM.

[TheBatman]

Is it possible to go from existing to not existing?

I don't think it is. Everything appears to exist all at once right now. Nothing doesn't appear to exist anywhere (by definition.). Nothingness as an idea certainly exists within brains; but the idea of nothingness is only pointing, and only a word we use to communicate the idea. And by this logic it follows love doesn't exist, either, or truth or dignity or peace or logic or any abstract concept that doesn't "contain" tangible physical, sensory-knowable presence.

Someone mentioned Wittgenstein, and I think his contributions are so valuable. We get trapped in words. And yet realities may exist for energy patterns for which we have no words. Ineffabilities exist.

Having said that, I argue that everything in the universe -- from unimaginably massive to unimaginably tiny -- is "located" within a single ball of energy. The universe. When life passes out of your body that energy "spreads" through space and re-manifests into new patterns. Our "you" becomes ineffable, but no less existent. We de-solidify. We become more diffuse. So then it follows that everything that has ever existed still exists right now. All of the other "you"s, all people who died, are still here yet now manifesting within new patterns.

I've no idea "where" this universe exists. Even if the universe is a giant ball of energy right here, right now, "where" is that totality? And perhaps that's a question Wittgenstein means for us to pass over in silence? Are there ultimate unknowables? Death, for example, is it ultimately unknowable?

That's an interesting theory and I kinda agree. I've always thought if a spirit were to exist, it would be more of a verb if that makes sense. Like a form of energy that is always in motion acting on the matter we see around us. I think it's more of having spirit rather than having a spirit.

Edited by TheBatman, 14 September 2013 - 04:55 AM.

[sthira]

...I've always thought if a spirit were to exist, it would be more of a verb - if that makes sense. Like something that is always in motion acting on the matter we see around us. I think it's more of having spirit rather than having a spirit.

That's my fragile understanding of spirit, too. Spirit may be non-corporeal or less corporeal "energy" that's "wider" in any direction -- like a new species of smoke we just discovered (by wider I mean more involved in patterns beyond "itself". And I do think spirit has a self. Spirit self is just less apparent because we only consciously use five senses to gather information. But not all human intelligence is information-gathering).

Spirit may move the winds and the rains, it may be fire or earth or water or air, it may move animal migrations and ants building leaf bridges, and spirit may cause this discussion, or then again maybe not. It's illusive, transitory, fleeting, uninterested in caution. If we sense it we may fear it. We lose that fear through intimacy -- move closer in toward spirit. The yogis advise us to move inward closer to self in order to glimpse the vastness. We stay humble and quiet about spirit (or we mock it) because we're like stubborn children in its space.

[robosapiens]

What I mean to say in another way is a self is something the brain does, not a thing stuck inside a brain like genie. Perhaps like the objects you see on your computer monitor, the characters in a video game arent things, they are virtual events, when the harddrive crashes,there are no players in the game tjat live on in spirit. They are virtual events that dissapear likeva wave crashing upon the shore.

[robosapiens]

The morphing forms of a flock of starlings is an emergent property of the collective behaviors of individual birds, and that shape is a transient event, where does it go when the birds don' t fly?
http://i.telegraph.c...ng_1758597c.jpg

[TheBatman]

What I mean to say in another way is a self is something the brain does, not a thing stuck inside a brain like genie. Perhaps like the objects you see on your computer monitor, the characters in a video game arent things, they are virtual events, when the harddrive crashes,there are no players in the game tjat live on in spirit. They are virtual events that dissapear likeva wave crashing upon the shore.

Would you agree that a human is living and a video game character is not? If so what makes something alive or is there even such a thing?

[N.T.M.]

The only way the OP's question can even have validity is if you postulate on Cartesian dualism, which is, in itself, grossly untenable.

Does that answer your question?

[Julia36]

There is no definition I can think of for "we" because "we" is always changing.

That's truie from a spacetije model.

I wonder if memory is important in the definition of we?
If so you may be able to get it more defined?



By fractal theory we should be able to see our future shapes right now.

By we I mean human beings as a knowledge-based community/species.

[revenant]

As things stand now, when a person, dies, they are gone. Our minds are like the flame of a candle... once it goes out,.. that's it. Physics do not entertain an afterlife for any of us just yet.

[TheBatman]

As things stand now, when a person, dies, they are gone. Our minds are like the flame of a candle... once it goes out,.. that's it. Physics do not entertain an afterlife for any of us just yet.

Interesting opinion revenant. Until you have died however, I don't think you can actually know that for certain.

[TheBatman]

There is no definition I can think of for "we" because "we" is always changing.

That's truie from a spacetije model.

I wonder if memory is important in the definition of we?
If so you may be able to get it more defined?



By fractal theory we should be able to see our future shapes right now.

By we I mean human beings as a knowledge-based community/species.

I think memory is without a doubt our most important asset as part of our body, but I still don't think it's relevant to us existing after death. Even if our memories are nonexistent, we aren't visible, or tangible, i think we (or at least a part of us) will still be there with an ability to act upon matter. It may sound irrational to you, but everyone has irrational beliefs.

BTW I'm all for biologically engineering our immortality, but honestly I think we would run into some very serious problems. 1. We will have an over population of people and limited supplies. In this case, who will be deciding who stays and who goes? . 2. The Earth will still have its natural disasters ice ages, solar flares, ect. ect.. Take Yellowstone Volcano for example. When that thing goes we all go, despite your preserved mind and conditionally "immortal" body. 3. The Earth is eventually going to be destroyed, no doubt about it along with anyone who lives long enough to see it. These are just a few of the problems off of the top of my head..

So despite my irrational belief on spirituality, I see it more plausible than our modern day quest of engineered immortality, which will eventually fail one way or another.

Edited by TheBatman, 18 September 2013 - 08:45 PM.

[TheBatman]

The only way the OP's question can even have validity is if you postulate on Cartesian dualism, which is, in itself, grossly untenable.

Does that answer your question?

Haha not sure what that means N.T.M., my vocabulary doesn't quite extend that far yet.

[AgeVivo]

if humans still "are" before and after body life, shouldn't it be the same for animals? (/for single cells even? for lipid drops in water even?)
Could there be a frontier between what exists after death and what doesn't?