Why the brain isn`t you

[Halbhh]

That is of course simply an assumption.

I had 2 thoughts at what you might refer to here, so let me mention them both, and then answer to the more likely sounding.

1) The less likely is that you mean I'm assuming I've not yet been to the afterlife, but could have in some sense been there already (that it's somehow subtle or deeper and I just didn't notice it yet)?

2) But more likely I think you mean an assumption about whether there is an afterlife -- that to believe that there is, or that there is not, either way -- is an assumption.

If the 2nd, here's my thought: suppose I read announcements from a long-time Governor in my state where I've noticed over time that things he says he will do he very consistently does. Suppose then one day I read in an announcement from that Governor that he says he will do action X later in time (not yet, but later). Then what is my view? This: because of the consistency in doing other things he said he would do over time, then I can have some confidence, yes, that it's very likely that he will do X also, as he has proven over time to do other things he said he'd do in his announcements. It's like that.

 

[partinobodycular]

I had 2 thoughts at what you might refer to here, so let me mention them both, and then answer to the more likely sounding.

1) The less likely is that you mean I'm assuming I've not yet been to the afterlife, but could have in some sense been there already (that it's somehow subtle or deeper and I just didn't notice it yet)?

2) But more likely I think you mean an assumption about whether there is an afterlife -- that to believe that there is, or that there is not, either way -- is an assumption.

First, my bad for not being clearer. And second, you had a 50/50 shot and you picked the wrong one. What I was suggesting was that this life may simply be one in a long line of lives, in which case you may have been to the 'afterlife' many times before, you just don't remember. I realize that I'm being a bit nitpicky, but you really can't say for sure that you've never been to the afterlife.

 

[Larniavc]

But I can be very sure I will get there some day.

I think it’s more accurate to say that you feel sure.

 

[Sorn]

First, my bad for not being clearer. And second, you had a 50/50 shot and you picked the wrong one. What I was suggesting was that this life may simply be one in a long line of lives, in which case you may have been to the 'afterlife' many times before, you just don't remember. I realize that I'm being a bit nitpicky, but you really can't say for sure that you've never been to the afterlife.

There are probably more people alive now than have existed so clearly we can't all have had many past lives, in fact a significant proportion would only be living their 1st lives.
However technically, if what you posit is the nature of reality, then assuming he had existed before then it would be more accurate to say that he has been to the 'beforelife' many times but has yet to go to the future life or the 'afterlife'. Picking one of his past lives as a point of reference makes far less sense than picking his current existence as the point of reference.

When I have a coffee, i don't think to myself "I am having the coffee that was the future coffee to myself 10 years ago" I instead think of todays coffee as the current coffee and the coffee I had as myself 10 years ago as the past coffee, along with all the other coffee's I have had, thats if I even think of them which as it happens i don't.
My current existence is the reference point not myself 10 years ago, & even less so of some prior life that I may or may not have lived that I have no sense, recollection or knowledge of and that also does not fit in my current world view and belief system.

 

[partinobodycular]

However technically, if what you posit is the nature of reality, then assuming he had existed before then it would be more accurate to say that he has been to the 'beforelife' many times but has yet to go to the future life or the 'afterlife'. Picking one of his past lives as a point of reference makes far less sense than picking his current existence as the point of reference.

You did notice that I put 'afterlife' in quotes... right. Which means that it's just an arbitrary designation for some supposed period that lies between lives. Call it heaven if you want, the name doesn't matter. What matters is the possibility that we've all been there 'before'. (Take note of those quotations marks, they're there for a reason.)

There are probably more people alive now than have existed so clearly we can't all have had many past lives, in fact a significant proportion would only be living their 1st lives.

Now you, like @Halbhh, are making an assumption, in your case that there are actually billions of people alive today. How can you be certain that they're not just an illusion. Maybe some are, maybe some aren't, there's no way to tell, or at least not one that I've been able to discern.

The whole point that I was trying to make is that it's often not the case that something is definitely true, most of the time we simply assume that it's true for the sake of convenience. Never having been to the 'afterlife' is one of those things.

But I do like the fact that you were thinking about the possible errors in my reasoning, meanwhile I'll try to think of the possible errors in your reasoning, and so long as neither of us are overly sensitive about criticism it's a win/win. I get a different viewpoint to consider, and hopefully so do you. In this case the point is, assumptions can be sneaky things, leading us to conclude that things are definitely true, when in actuality we only believe that they're true. To paraphrase an old saying, the best laid plans of mice and men are often derailed by assumptions.

 

[Sorn]

How can you be certain that they're not just an illusion.

Where do you draw the line between reality & illusion? You could be just a head in a jar so there is nothing to stop you doing what you want, like not going to work, not paying for things, they're all illusions anyway. Even prison will just be an illusion, you will still really just be a head in a jar in an aliens lab.
Yes, people do make assumptions and take then to be real, we need to, thats how we operate in the world.

 

[partinobodycular]

Where do you draw the line between reality & illusion?

FYI, I'm an epistemological solipsist, so I draw the line at Descartes "Cogito ergo sum"... "I think therefore I am". Although to be perfectly clear I even have problems with that, as to whether I'm actually the thinker, or the thoughts. But that's a whole different rabbit hole.

You could be just a head in a jar so there is nothing to stop you doing what you want, like not going to work, not paying for things, they're all illusions anyway.

Of course there are things to stop me. In fact they're theoretically the exact same things that stop anyone else. Reality behaves exactly the same way regardless of whether it's physically real or an illusion. Even in an illusion a needle in the eye still hurts.

Even prison will just be an illusion, you will still really just be a head in a jar in an aliens lab.

As I said, illusion or not reality still feels the same. Things still obey the laws of physics, and I still feel pain and emotions. There is however some degree of comfort in the idea that reality may not be as cruel and heartless as it appears to be... for the only one suffering may be me. And what I gain from it may be far more valuable than what it costs me.

So ask yourself... even though life is often cruel and unjust, am I better for having lived it? The answer to that question may be intimately connected with the manner in which you choose to live it. So simply choose to live it well, and then the pain won't matter so much, and the prison won't matter so much, and loving thy neighbor won't seem like quite so much to ask.

But that's just me. I'm not suggesting that anyone else should be a solipsist. Perhaps you'd rather call yourself a stoic... or heaven forbid... a Christian. When it comes to being a righteous person, does it really matter how one gets there?

 

[Halbhh]

I realize that I'm being a bit nitpicky, but you really can't say for sure that you've never been to the afterlife.

Ok, but then I wonder how you'd think likely or explanatory for how some person or some people originated the idea that there are other lives....where did that idea come from for a person that had never heard of it (at some time in the past)? For example, is the idea of life other than this one lifetime somehow more fitting things we know or more feasible than other possibilities? Or is there another kind of reason for such a thought that comes from a different order of information than just a imaginative thought that then fits metaphorically into this life?

 

[Halbhh]

I think it’s more accurate to say that you feel sure.

You mean to say that when anyone says "I'm sure" they mean they 'feel sure'? But sure ( ) I 'feel sure' that my car will start later today, because it did this morning and the battery was strong, etc. At this point in time, for me, while my car I think would have like a 99.5+% chance to start right up in under 3 seconds I think by experience, I 'feel' (or think) more sure(ly) that there is an afterlife than only 99.5%, actually, it turns out.

 

[Larniavc]

You mean to say that when anyone says "I'm sure" they mean they 'feel sure'? But sure ( ) I 'feel sure' that my car will start later today, because it did this morning and the battery was strong, etc. At this point in time, for me, while my car I think would have like a 99.5+% chance to start right up in under 3 seconds I think by experience, I 'feel' (or think) more sure(ly) that there is an afterlife than only 99.5%, actually, it turns out.

Exactly! No matter how sure we are of something we know that new information can stroll along and bring our sureties crashing down around our ears.

So we must acknowledge that we can never be 100% sure of anything. This is the tentativity of the scientific method.

 

[Sorn]

So we must acknowledge that we can never be 100% sure of anything. This is the tentativity of the scientific method.

We can never be 100% of anything which then means that we are creatures that must operate on faith.
So is it mere coincidence then that God (the Christian one) says in His scripture that what we need to do is put our faith in Him?
Moreover, that faith alone is enough. Now of course if i put my faith in something (like that I will make a successful car trip to the local markets) then I live that faith by following through with the action of driving to the market assuming I wanted/needed to go there.

I could still be wrong & the car could break down or I could be involved in an accident, perhaps even fatal, on the way there or back.
Nevertheless I have acted on my faith.
Of course for a car trip I have a large body of evidence that says I can have a very high confidence rating that my trip will be a success, so high that I can for all intents & purposes treat it as 100%.

Of course many people treat their world view an ideas as 100% correct, that goes for religious people as well as non religious people & then act to impose their views on others at times. You can't be sure (by your own admission) evolution is correct as an example, though you can and probably do put your faith in that theory.

For what happens when this life ends, which we all must face, we still act in accordance with what we think is the most probable OR prudent course of action to take.

 

[partinobodycular]

Ok, but then I wonder how you'd think likely or explanatory for how some person or some people originated the idea that there are other lives....where did that idea come from for a person that had never heard of it (at some time in the past)? For example, is the idea of life other than this one lifetime somehow more fitting things we know or more feasible than other possibilities? Or is there another kind of reason for such a thought that comes from a different order of information than just a imaginative thought that then fits metaphorically into this life?

Well, when it comes to figuring out why people believe what they believe, I'm pretty much dumbfounded... I'm still trying to figure out why people voted for Trump, not just once, but twice!!!! Near as I can figure... I'm living in a computer simulation and the software designer either thought that it would be really, really funny... or he's doing this on the cheap, so he's reusing an old Nazi Germany subroutine. Either way I'm thinking that the future may not be as idyllic as I'd hoped it would be.

But seriously, why people believe what they believe... I don't know. Perhaps they just look at the cyclicality of the earth, and of the heavens, and they assume that that's the way it must be. Because from the stars, to the seasons, to life itself... all around them, everything that dies is inevitably reborn. In such a world is it really that difficult to understand why people would believe in reincarnation?

Now you and I know better, or at least we should. Then again, as it says in my favorite translation of a line from Cicero "Dum spiro spero"... "Hope dies last". Where there's hope, belief will inevitably follow.

 

[Larniavc]

We can never be 100% of anything which then means that we are creatures that must operate on faith.

Not so. If the absence of evidence leads to conviction then we are talking about faith. If the absence of evidence leads to a tentative conclusion of no conviction we have science.

 

[Larniavc]

So is it mere coincidence then that God (the Christian one) says in His scripture that what we need to do is put our faith in Him?

No, it’s not coincidence. It’s what the writers and editors of the scripture wanted people to believe.

 

[partinobodycular]

For what happens when this life ends, which we all must face, we still act in accordance with what we think is the most probable OR prudent course of action to take.

But here's the thing... for me the prudent course of action is to do what my heart compels me to do. Not because of what some preacher says, or what some book says, but because of what that still small voice says, and what it says is, "Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind... and thy neighbor as thyself."

Now some would say that lest a person calls themselves a Christian they've failed in their obligation to love thy God, but I would contend that there's nothing in a name that demonstrates a love for God, but rather, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." So let people object about what I am or am not called, I will stand or fall on what I've done, for therein lies the evidence of whether or not I'm a Christian.

And let it be known, that many are those who likewise shun the name Christian, but with whom I'd be proud to stand with on that day.

Sorry, I do get preachy sometimes... old habits.

 

[Sorn]

Not so. If the absence of evidence leads to conviction then we are talking about faith. If the absence of evidence leads to a tentative conclusion of no conviction we have science.

Right, if you don't want to believe me then perhaps you can believe this person

 

[Sorn]

No, it’s not coincidence. It’s what the writers and editors of the scripture wanted people to believe.

You can't say
"So we must acknowledge that we can never be 100% sure of anything. This is the tentativity of the scientific method."
which means, in reality we all MUST act on faith (see above video again) whether we like it or not or admit it or not & then take issue with a God who just happens to ask of humans the one thing He knows we must do, as in the only thing we can really do in order to operate int he world, ie put your faith in something. In this case of course its put your faith in Him for what follows this existence.

And if its just a contrivance of scripture writers, how lucky that for thousands of years they all stuck to the same line.

No, it’s not coincidence. It’s what the writers and editors of the scripture wanted people to believe.

Yes, it may have been what the writers wanted you to believe, they clearly did BUT it may also be what God actually wants you to do too because He knows it really is the ONLY thing you can do & you do it all the time in operating in this world.

 

[Sorn]

But seriously, why people believe what they believe... I don't know. Perhaps they just look at the cyclicality of the earth, and of the heavens, and they assume that that's the way it must be. Because from the stars, to the seasons, to life itself... all around them, everything that dies is inevitably reborn. In such a world is it really that difficult to understand why people would believe in reincarnation?

I'm not an American but if I was I'd vote for Trump, if you guys can't see what a mess Dem policies and wokeism are making of American culture .... anyway back to the program. This is a very good channel for those tough existential type questions one might have of Christianity & Frank Turek explains it far better than I could writing it out. Videos are short too mostly.

 

[Sorn]

Not that I want to spam with videos but here is another good short one (last one) to get you guys thinking

 

[Sorn]

Of course there are things to stop me. In fact they're theoretically the exact same things that stop anyone else. Reality behaves exactly the same way regardless of whether it's physically real or an illusion. Even in an illusion a needle in the eye still hurts.

But the pain is just an illusion, its not real, man up for goodness sakes!!.