There's a new philosophical argument and thought experiment that has recently been published, and I want to hear Yea Forums's thoughts on it. Do you think that it makes sense? Why or why not?
psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist
Other urls found in this thread:
Sounds interesting, thanks. Will add it to my list.
Are there any published rebuttals of this position?
i like the forthrightness and certainty of itself, but i haven't got high hopes. i'll pick up a copy and read it.
>a lot of people have had NDEs
>you should believe something a lot of people believe
Fucking lol. Materialism is obviously correct because people who don't believe in it are so fucking stupid.
Not particularly philosophical, and pretty thin. I didn't expect to be convinced but I'm still disappointed.
If something feels real then it might be real, or it might be that the realness dial in your brain is being fried. You have to consider the second possibility, but the article doesn't mention it. "Empirically certain" is just silly.
>extraordinary experiences like floating out of their bodies, viewing the scene from above, meeting deceased loved ones or other spiritual beings, and experiencing a beautiful, light-filled realm where they learned (or remembered) an astonishing amount about their life and its relationship to the rest of the universe.
Does anyone come away from this verifiably knowing anything they couldn't have? Haven't there been experiments with out of body experiences that flopped? That strongly suggests it's all hallucinated.
there is no such thing as a "soul"
there is no such thing as "reincarnation"
there is no such thing as an "afterlife"
none of these things have ever been observed or even begun to be proven, physically speaking
that is because the beginning of their so-called existence occurred as a thought in the minds of men and only as an idea, never as a tangible concept
yet we cling to these ideas because that's where our consciousness has taken us even though deep down we know it's not real
don't bother trying to convince me otherwise, my mind is already made up
What's the use of pondering this kind of question?
Wish fulfillment
Driving rn, will look at it later
You‘ll be able to respond with first hand experience if you keep posting whilst driving.
The major drawback is that it's written by a woman.
You want a life after this one?
Are you stupid or is that a failed tranny joke?
>chad
Figures
He's arguing from the perspective of materialism. In materialism in the sense you're using it there is no conscious substrate, which means that consciousness is coessential with matter and energy. Absolute death is only possible if you presuppose some kind of soul-body dualism where soul is not necessitated by body, because only in that case can soul or consciousness just cease to exist. Any scientific theory which tries to establish "what consciousness is", even if explained by physical factors, is already introducing a dualism, because consciousness is now defined as some particular (hypostatized) thing as opposed to a process inherent in matter. In other words, this matter is (or possesses) conscious/sness, that matter is not (or does not possess) conscious/sness. That is textbook dualism. Not to mention the absurdities involved with defining consciousness itself, which comes down to "this person or thing reminds me of my own behavior" as a metric for the degree of consciousness in any person or organism, which is basically unscientific.
Reincarnation is more pessimistic than eternal death from a certain perspective because it implies the possibility of eternal suffering. There is basically no necessary reason to believe in eternal death as opposed to eternal continuity or life. Dogmatists for both sides are driven by gut feeling. The atheist basically feels more comfortable with being eternally nullified, even though he will pretend he argues from a position of strength (he clearly doesn't because he still clings to life as much as the theist, and he is consoled by the belief that the seeds sown in this life have no consequences--for "him"), and the theist or metempsychosist feels more comfortable with being eternally continued, with his actions having consequences, with bearing the weight of the consequences either good or bad for the choices he makes, eternally. The theist is perhaps slightly less hypocritical because at least his conception of death is commensurate with his values in life. The atheist secretly longs for annihilation as a preferable alternative to what are viewed as horrors of eternal commitment and responsibility for one's actions (or if not that - then actually the horrors of the chaos of an indeterminate existence which cannot be empirically or rationally predicted), but in the deepest recesses clings to life like an unwitting child afraid to lose its mother in the darkness of night.
>Any scientific theory which tries to establish "what consciousness is", even if explained by physical factors, is already introducing a dualism, because consciousness is now defined as some particular (hypostatized) thing as opposed to a process inherent in matter. In other words, this matter is (or possesses) conscious/sness, that matter is not (or does not possess) conscious/sness
Another retard tier argument.
>Hey how do magnets work?
>Well in common iron magnets the alignment-
>Stop. By trying to explain what magnets using physical factors you've already induced a dualism
>What?
>Magnets are now defined as some hypostatized thing as opposed to processes in matter
>You're a fucking idiot
theist or metempsychosist feels more comfortable with being eternally continued, with his actions having consequences, with bearing the weight of the consequences either good or bad for the choices he makes, eternally
In other words wish fulfillment.
then why type any of this up retard
>Another retard tier argument.
Even if we take magnets as another example, magnetism is still a permanent fact which cannot be dissociated from matter, just like consciousness, so my argument still stands. If you were to say that magnetism (or the principles which underlie magnetism) no longer exist if a particular magnet were destroyed, that would indeed be a type of dualism, because magnetism would not be intrinsically related to the matter which produces it, magnetism would in essence be "something else": A separate substance from matter. In reality, magnetism, just like consciousness in the materialist view, is a process of matter, which is exactly what I've just stated.
>In other words wish fulfillment.
Yes, just as arguing the opposite, that death is eternal nothing, is also wish fulfillment. That was exactly my point. The difference is you refuse to admit that your own view is a form of wish fulfillment and you have no basis for your own assumption.
>If you were to say that magnetism (or the principles which underlie magnetism) no longer exist if a particular magnet were destroyed, that would indeed be a type of dualism, because magnetism would not be intrinsically related to the matter which produces it, magnetism would in essence be "something else.
Magnetism doesn't cease to exist if you demagnetize a particular magnet but that particular magnet is no longer a magnet. When you die and cease to have consciousness your particular consciousness is gone but consciousness still exists it's not like everyone else dies when you do. Magnets were a good example since they do have a complex internal structure comparable to the arrangement of a human brain. When you demagnetize one by heating it up that structure is gone and that particular magnet ceases to be a magnet.
>but that particular magnet is no longer a magnet.
There is no actual "particular magnet", just as there is no "particular consciousness", because these are all processes and never properly the same thing. If a magnet has no actual essence apart from the idea of "magnetism" (something which doesn't exist outside of the particular instantiations of magnets), then consciousness has no actual essence apart from the idea of "consciousness", which also doesn't exist beyond its instantiations. But these are not even instantiations properly speaking, they are just processes of matter in time, if consciousness is a process in time, and not a "thing" (separate from matter and time), then there is no proper distinction between this consciousness right now and one at any point in the future or past, which is exactly why time flows and will always continue to flow. For the same reason there is no proper distinction between one magnet and another, only attributes that are accidental to its being a magnet. There are no justifiable means for distinguishing between magnets qua magnetism except for attributes that are not bound up in what it means to be magnetic, like being heavy or light. Likewise there are no justifiable means for distinguishing between consciousnesses qua consciousness except for attributes that are not bound up in what it means to be conscious (like happiness, suffering, being a human, etc.) Another way to think about it is that, while you can explain the existence of consciousness in my body in physical terms, you cannot explain why "I" am "this" consciousness, because there is not actually a "this" consciousness, nor an "I." Just as you cannot explain why "this" magnetism exists in this particular magnet.
KEK!
i didn't type it to be disproven
>There is no actual "particular magnet", just as there is no "particular consciousness"
So we're all the same consciousness? Tell me what number I'm thinking of right now. You can't and your argument is a joke.
>Hey hand me that refrigerator magnet that fell off
>You fool there are no particular magnets only magnetism
>It's right there by your foot
>You mean your foot we are the same consciousness
So goddamn stupid it's sad
>So we're all the same consciousness?
No. You misunderstood my post. Please read it again.
Just that book title alone tells me a woman wrote this
>>So we're all the same consciousness?
>No. You misunderstood my post. Please read it again.
So you admit different consciousnesses exist. When you take one item from a set that item is referred to as the particular item. There are particular consciousness and particular magnets.
Spiritually, he is a woman. Don't @ me
>So you admit different consciousnesses exist.
Yes and no. Consciousness appears with different accidental modifications, and in that sense a multiplicity of consciousnesses appears evident to people who rely too heavily upon language for their thought. However, more importantly, there is no "I", and there is also no "we", so "I" cannot "know" "your" thoughts, just as "I" cannot "know" my own thoughts. So your attempted counterpoint is actually invalid. Secondly, for the same reason there is no "I", there cannot be an "I" to be dead or alive.
>There are particular consciousness and particular magnets.
No, there are particular objects which display particular properties. Calling something a "magnet" or a "consciousness" is just shorthand for being unable to properly describe an object's actual state. In reality, there is no such thing as a "magnet as such", or a "consciousness as such."
>However, more importantly, there is no "I", and there is also no "we", so "I" cannot "know" "your" thoughts, just as "I" cannot "know" my own thoughts. So your attempted counterpoint is actually invalid. Secondly, for the same reason there is no "I", there cannot be an "I" to be dead or alive.
Lol I guess I did miss a possibility. Your counterargument is that you don't exist. So I've successfully disproven your argument since you don't exist and can't have put forwards an argument to begin with
Holy fuck debating is gay
Materialism is obviously wrong because thought exists and people who believe in materialism are consciousless bofs
>Materialism is obviously wrong because thought exists and people who believe in materialism are consciousless bofs
Not according to this guy >However, more importantly, there is no "I", and there is also no "we", so "I" cannot "know" "your" thoughts, just as "I" cannot "know" my own thoughts.
>So I've successfully disproven your argument
No you haven't. Because you don't exist either. "You", if that really is a thing, is dying and being reborn in every single instant. And yet somehow you think metempsychosis is unfeasible, with seemingly no reason at all.
>No YOU haven't. Because YOU don't exist either.
Contradicting yourself in two short sentences. Absolute retard.
You can tell author hasn't taken enough drugs if they think NDEs or out of body experiences are something extraordinary.
>beyond astronomically likely
if one hundred monkeys hack on typewriters infinitely, it is beyond astronomically likely one of them will type Shakespeare's complete Hamlet by accident. I'd like to hear the full argument please.
Rofl that kid really killed himself.
>The existence of an afterlife is an empirical question, says Amberts, and the weight of available testimony is so great as to make life after death “empirically certain.” If the existence of an afterlife is not widely acknowledged, it's the result of ignorance, irrationality, or both.
I mean it's honestly a very poor argument in the form it takes here.
First of all, testimony does not imply certainty vis-a-vis empirical reality, even if that testimony is overwhelming - especially not in extreme conditions such as near-death. His point from the article that you link about phenomenological richness and coherence of a near-death experience is not much different from psychedelic users who insist they've discovered a "deeper" or more "fundamental" reality, which, in a metaphor, might have more to do with your television receiver being wonky and receiving static snow, which is uniform and coherent ,rather than a signal. Second of all, it is exactly near-death experiences we have testimony from, not death, meaning that whatever phenomenological certainty he draws on in establishing the reality of an afterlife is moot.
Did you just figure out that language is imperfect?
>Did YOU just figure out that language is imperfect?
If by imperfect you mean able to show how your argument is stupid bullshit yes language is imperfect.
>Hey I just gave a explanation in simple language why you're wrong
>LANGUAGE IS WRONG
Who is this "you"????
I feel sorry for you since you can't even get satisfaction from (You)s
You haven't given any arguments, though. You are just becoming unduly hostile and refusing to engage with any of the arguments I've provided from the basic materialist paradigm (all hypothetical no less, considering I am not actually endorsing the arguments I put forth, I am just taking materialism to its logical extreme and wondering how you can justify your own beliefs in lieu of that). You seem to be verging on positing the objective existence of an "I" in contrast to a "not-I", which is no longer materialism at all. If that's what you really want to believe, then so be it, it doesn't bother me. Just be consistent.
>You haven't given any arguments, though.
When confronted here with different consciousnesses existing you denied here that you or I exist. You then proceeded to talk about you and I in your responses an obvious idiot level contradiction.
I never stated "different consciousnesses" exist. "Consciousnesses" do not exist. Things exist, at least in whatever sense that term can be used here. There is a huge difference. You have not yet even comprehended the terms of the argument, and you're positing an imaginary contradiction based on a misunderstanding of my prior posts.
>different consciousnesses existing
Can you prove this? The answer is no. I don't need to prove it because my argument does not rely on it.
>I never stated "different consciousnesses" exist. "Consciousnesses" do not exist
You don't even have basic reading comprehension. I confronted you here in my post and you responded here. I said different consciousnesses exist and you denied that and said you and I don't exist.
oh no no no no nominalist materialist nihilist atheist scientismist logical positivist bros we've been refuted by our own beliefs...
we can't prove anything we say even though we place ultimate value in proving things...
it's over...
Skip the Svens. Start with the 'Jeets.
>I said different consciousnesses exist and you denied that and said you and I don't exist.
So where is the contradiction? That is indeed what I said, I just fail to see what reason you have to argue that different consciousnesses exist.
>So where is the contradiction? That is indeed what I said, I just fail to see what reason YOU have to argue that different consciousnesses exist.
Because as I've repeated over multiple posts you continue to use you and I even though you claim you and I don't exist. Your own post contradicts your position as I've pointed out repeatedly. You're incredibly stupid
>ou continue to use you and I
So replace every instance of "you" and "I" with "thing" and "other thing", and then respond to my argument please.
>So replace every instance of "you" and "I" with "thing" and "other thing", and then respond to MY argument please.
Since you're so goddamn stupid notice the capitalized MY you used. Again your post contradicts your position.
So this thing will only respond to other thing's argument if other thing adheres to strictly non-conventional language, which would naturally make it more difficult for this thing to follow the argument, all because this thing is desperate to win an argument through semantics?
What is just semantics about this? Your position can't even talk about your position. It's trivially incoherent. You have to admit that different consciousnesses exist to use you and I. You don't want to admit that
>Your position can't even talk about your position.
What is it doing right now?
>ou have to admit that different consciousnesses exist to use you and
Do I have to admit that God exists to use the word God? This is quite literally the hinge your argument is resting on. It's pathetic.
I don't want to admit reincarnation is real even though it obviously is because it would mean all the Easterners were right and smarter all along.
To understand superstition and religion, look to man's fears and you will see their purpose as an attempt to lessen the dread of what faces us...All fears are derived from the fear of death and so mankind has created its most ancient and enduring delusions in order to live in ignorance of the truth that soon he will be nothing and nowhere
>>Your position can't even talk about your position.
>What is it doing right now?
So you admit it's your position lol? You just keep contradicting yourself.
>Do I have to admit that God exists to use the word God?
If you say something is God's argument that implies you think God exists.
>If you say something is God's argument that implies you think God exists.
How does that follow? If I say that Athena is the daughter of Zeus, I am not lying, yet I don't think that either Zeus nor Athena are real. I could be giving an account of something totally hypothetical, which is exactly what I'm doing right now. Reality is bracketed because reality cannot properly speaking be defined.
Belief in the void is what made the West what it is today
>If I say that Athena is the daughter of Zeus, I am not lying, yet I don't think that either Zeus nor Athena are real.
If you say something is Athena's argument and then deny Athena exists then that argument can't be Athena's. Also note the repeated use of I in your response which you claim doesn't exist. You can't help but make yourself look dumber and dumber.
The Japanese believe in both reincarnation and ephemerality at the same time