Death, Atheism

[Received]

Assume, everyone, for the length of this thread that I'm not a Christian, so nobody can think I'm throwing down a secret little apologetic. I'm an atheist, I'm big and bad, I read my Russell, I give women great back massages.

 

[Received]

This would mean that the idea of an afterlife is based not upon fact or observation, but upon a limitation of personal experience.

More particularly, the idea of an afterlife is metaphysically plausible but obviously not biologically consistent from a materialist perspective, while the idea of death without an afterlife makes sense scientifically, but not metaphysically. Of course, it makes sense scientifically because science is by definition objective, it regards things out there, and has no inherent appreciation for the subjectivity of the individual. Facts are objective, not subjective. What I'm talking about when I speak of metaphysics is that nonexistence is a vacuous, meaningless concept from the vantage point of subjectivity, and that speaking of nonexistence makes sense objectively -- when speaking of things "out there" --, but not subjectively.

 

[Received]

If you guys think I'm being a stickler, you should try reading Heidegger sometime. You'd want to kill him. And he's considered by many as the greatest philosopher of the twentieth century.

 

[ragarth]

More particularly, the idea of an afterlife is metaphysically plausible but obviously not biologically consistent from a materialist perspective, while the idea of death without an afterlife makes sense scientifically, but not metaphysically. Of course, it makes sense scientifically because science is by definition objective, it regards things out there, and has no inherent appreciation for the subjectivity of the individual. Facts are objective, not subjective. What I'm talking about when I speak of metaphysics is that nonexistence is a vacuous, meaningless concept from the vantage point of subjectivity, and that speaking of nonexistence makes sense objectively -- when speaking of things "out there" --, but not subjectively.

I'm sorry, I'm ill equipped for this form of philosophy. To me free will and consciousness are illusions. We perceive the act of being conscious because it's a resultant property of bioelectrical properties of our brains. To negate the bioelectrical interaction within our brains is to negate our consciousness. I can't perceive not being alive because the very act of not being alive means I cannot perceive anything, and therefore my not being able to imagine being dead makes logical sense since death lacks perception or thought.

If I see nothing special about consciousness that sets it apart from other resultant properties, then your argument makes as much sense to me as saying that a car cannot go from 70mph to 0mph because 70mph cannot comprehend it's nonexistence.

 

[Received]

Well, what I'm saying in relation to what you're getting at is that the neural process is not the thought; that neural functioning viewed externally is not the same as the subjective experience involved. You can call it epiphenomenalism.

 

[ragarth]

Well, what I'm saying in relation to what you're getting at is that the neural process is not the thought; that neural functioning viewed externally is not the same as the subjective experience involved. You can call it epiphenomenalism.

I'm sorry, I simply don't follow your logic. I feel this is my fault, I am a very literal minded individual and this is keeping me from following your argument. I'll bail out here, I'm only a distraction at this point because I simply don't know what it is you're arguing.

 

[Received]

It's not your fault at all! Don't consider it a bail out. It's very technical, and that's why nerds like Eudaimonist, Wiccan_Child, and I are going so in depth at it. You live in a culture where science is a much higher value than metaphysical thought. It's nobody's fault at all. Just the movement of the times.

 

[Legion.As.One]

I'll simply say what I believe is utter chaos. The universe is controlled by orderly discord and random chance. I said it simply because I am a simple person.

 

[Received]

Chaos is a fun idea. You can't deny that.

 

[ragarth]

Chaos is misunderstood. It's like the red headed stepchild of science.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I always considered nonsense to be approximately tantamount to meaningless. If there is no sense to something, presumably it is vacuous with regard to meaning.

Why? Wave-particle duality and four dimensional topography make no sense to me, but I understand the meaning of those phrases. Indeed, I understand that they describe real things.

 

[Received]

I don't understand how something can't make sense but be meaningful to you. You can say that something might not make sense but be meaningful objectively -- but because it doesn't make sense to you, you are making a faith claim that it would make sense if you were to be intelligent enough to understand it. Maybe you're conflating understanding with observation (i.e., you know the way in which it works)?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't understand how something can't make sense but be meaningful to you.

Regardless, that's what happens.

You can say that something might not make sense but be meaningful objectively -- but because it doesn't make sense to you, you are making a faith claim that it would make sense if you were to be intelligent enough to understand it. Maybe you're conflating understanding with observation (i.e., you know the way in which it works)?

No, I'm being deliberately careful in my terms. To you, what does it mean for something to 'make sense'? What does it mean for something to 'have meaning'? Perhaps your confusion is simply in the semantics.

 

[Received]

Maybe! But I think we're in trouble if we have to philosophically analyze relatively intuitive, everyday things. 'Makes sense' is a colloquial way of saying something is comprehensible. Something is meaningful if it has meaning to it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Maybe! But I think we're in trouble if we have to philosophically analyze relatively intuitive, everyday things.

Then we are in trouble: our intuition has been proven wrong in countless ways. The inexoriable march of scientific knowledge pays no heed to our instincts and reflexes, our gut feelings and "obviously"s.

Intuitively, water is a fluid continuum. Actually, it's a vast array of of discrete compound particles.
Intuitively, the Earth is immobile. Actually, we have free reign over what we choose as our frame of reference.
Intuitively, we can accelerate as much as we like. Actually, we cannot go faster than c.
Intuitively, a pool ball has no chance whatsoever of spontaneously appearing one metre to the left. Actually, it does.

And so on. Our common sense evolved to help us find and defend monkeys and fruit. Our brains never evolved to cope with scenarios it would never encounter (near-luminal speeds, atomic scales, galactic scales, etc), but rather it evolved to superbly comprehend scenarios it would encounter (the general forms of various physical theories boil down to our intuitive guesswork in the limit of nice, safe values of speed, scale, etc).

'Makes sense' is a colloquial way of saying something is comprehensible.

Fair enough.

Something is meaningful if it has meaning to it.

Can you be more specific? That sounds tautologous.

 

[Received]

It is tautological. The definition is implied in the morphology: meaning ful, full of meaning. Unless you want me to get into details about the ontology of meaning. Sorry.

Your definition?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It is tautological. The definition is implied in the morphology: meaning ful, full of meaning. Unless you want me to get into details about the ontology of meaning. Sorry.

That was kind of what I was going for, yeah.

Your definition?

Of meaning? The meaning of a word or phrase is the concept one ascribes to it. The word "evolution" means "allele frequency change" because that is the concept we intend to get across when we author the word "evolution".

Thus, because there is a concept we are attempting to get across with the word "non-existence", it is not meaningless.

 

[Received]

But you can't get a concept out of "nonexistence", given that the only way we gain concepts out of our terms is by observing occurrences (literally or figuratively) in the world, or synthesizing these grassroots concepts into higher concepts (unicorns, etc.). You can't conceive that which by definition wouldn't allow you to conceive (or even allow you to be a "you"). I still insist you're conflating understand with observation, or knowledge that something acts in a certain way. I don't understand quantum mechanics, and so it makes no sense to me (is nonsensical), but I know that it exists because I have come to "see" by virtue of science. But subjective nonexistence makes no sense to me, and I can't even say I know that it exists, given that knowledge presupposes an experiential framework through which I gain a knowledge of something in question. And whereas with quantum mechanics I can realize that it exists (through observation and analysis), with subjective nonexistence I can't realize that it exists because the term intrinsically rules out realizing that it does exist. Of course, things are different with objective nonexistence, which I'm arguing is redundant given that nonexistence already presupposes objectivity.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

But you can't get a concept out of "nonexistence", given that the only way we gain concepts out of our terms is by observing occurrences (literally or figuratively) in the world, or synthesizing these grassroots concepts into higher concepts (unicorns, etc.).

I disagree. Our minds can synthesise wholly abstract and immaterial concepts that have no relation or parallel to reality. The mathematical concept of infinity, for instance, has no counterpart in the real world (unlike, say, the number 'two'). Yes, we used real numbers to come up with it, but it is still a completely novel and abstract concept.

The same, I think, is true for non-existence.

You can't conceive that which by definition wouldn't allow you to conceive (or even allow you to be a "you"). I still insist you're conflating understand with observation, or knowledge that something acts in a certain way. I don't understand quantum mechanics, and so it makes no sense to me (is nonsensical), but I know that it exists because I have come to "see" by virtue of science.

I disagree. You 'know' it exists because you trust those very smart men and women who devote their lives to its study. This doesn't mean you 'observe' it or its effects, since without understanding what it is you can't recognise when such an observation is made.

I acknowledge that observing something and understanding something are two different things: I see the Sun, but I don't necessarily know what it is or why it does the things it does. I don't think I'm conflating the two.

But subjective nonexistence makes no sense to me, and I can't even say I know that it exists, given that knowledge presupposes an experiential framework through which I gain a knowledge of something in question. And whereas with quantum mechanics I can realize that it exists (through observation and analysis), with subjective nonexistence I can't realize that it exists because the term intrinsically rules out realizing that it does exist.

I think you are misusing the term 'exists'. Quantum mechanics and subjective non-existence aren't things that 'exist'. What do you mean when you say you realise quantum mechanics exist? Do you mean that it is true (or, at least, accurate)?

 

[ragarth]

Using this same logic, we cannot conceive of life after death either. All our experiences are sensory- sight, sound, taste, smell, feel and these are our only methods of taking in information, taking in observation. We can conceive of the cessation of the body's function since it decomposes after death, and therefore if consciousness were to exist after death it would have no means of sensory input we can conceive of, and therefore exist in a state we cannot conceive of. Given this, and your definition, it would be a nonsensical existence.

Since we cannot conceive of nonexistence after death, nor can we conceive of existence after death, what can we conceive of in this form of logic?

//go easy on me. I find this form of thought very difficult to comprehend, it imposes an artificial stricture on my thought that I find it hard not to break from.