Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What is "spiritual" existence, and how would it be determined to be a possibility?But there ain't no speculation. I mean non-existence as not just physical non-existence, which could open the possibility of a "spiritual" existence or whatever. But if non-existence means complete non-existence of the person, we can't even speculate, because speculation implies some type of existence "after" the so-called non-existence.
Because, basically, death *DOESNOTCOMPUTE* but the idea of a continued existence after death does.
It doesn't compute with our life experiences, I agree. But, when life as we know ceases to exist, what are experiences were while living, may not matter too much as to what computes or not.
I think, the brain can not contemplate what non existence is like, because it no ability to.
And that line of thinking, to me, requires more faith than believing that because nonexistence is meaningless we should, reductio ad absurdum, believe that it somehow continues to exist.
It would depend on how you define 'consciousness'. Do you think of it as a thing, or a process?For whatever else it's worth, I never said *how* I had tried to kill myself. I never set myself on fire or shot myself in the head; as I said, "probably"--and I mean very probably--what I did simply didn't do the job.
Even so, having moved mostly past my suicidal ideation (a recurring problem for me, but one my religious beliefs have helped me overcome better than before), I am not currently interested in testing whether more extreme forms of self-harm would accomplish what I failed to accomplish before. My point now is just epistemic.
I think the most honest response, for the average even scientifically-informed person, to the question, "Does our consciousness cease when our bodies stop moving of their own accord?" is: how would I know? There's nothing we can infer an answer from, at least if we're to be deductively valid about the inference. And no inductive inference, from our perception of other people's perception (which we don't even directly see!) ceasing or not ceasing on death, or from perception of our own death, is available. That leaves us more or less with just an inference-to-the-best-explanation, but whether, "Consciousness permanently ceases when the brain permanently ceases to operate," is not, as far as I am aware, a good explanation for anything.
Why? I don't follow.
Because you're having more faith in dying, which is unlike anything we've ever "experienced" before and indeed can't experience, versus continuing to exist. Something requires more faith if it is more removed from experience or reasoning. Death without continued existence is more removed from experience or reasoning because it's unlike anything we've ever "experienced" and indeed can't experience. Therefore, death without continued existence takes more faith than death with continued existence (which technically isn't death).
*Being nothing" or "not being" can´t.So nothingness can't be conceptualized? I guess not.
Well, we won´t experience anything that is impossible.Best question I've heard in a while. My guess is death invites questions precisely because it's an impossibility. Anything we're going to "experience" that's impossible causes our heads to swim, increase anxiety, ergo death anxiety.
Which supports my point that it is not an "incomprehensible mystery" but just nonsense.But we don't.
Oh brother.And that line of thinking, to me, requires more faith than believing that because nonexistence is meaningless we should, reductio ad absurdum, believe that it somehow continues to exist.
It would depend on how you define 'consciousness'. Do you think of it as a thing, or a process?
Whats so hard about a world existing without ME?In an objective, outside-of-you sense, e.g., another person not existing. Not in the subjective sense, where it's nonsense -- literally, "no sense".
A waterfall is the process of water flowing over a certain ground shape; if you stop the water flow, where does the waterfall go?Things vs. processes is not a dichotomy I've defined well for myself; I haven't studied e.g process philosophy enough yet.
The latter would be consistent with neuroscience.With that in mind... If the mind is like the brain itself, like a ghost-brain attached (ineffably) to a corporeal one, then we could imagine the mind surviving death. If the mind is something the brain does, well then of course without a working brain or brain-isotope, there'd be no mind.
There certainly does seem to be; however, introspection may not be a reliable means of discovery; if the brain functions in a way that creates the illusion of self, then we cannot rely on introspection. We may not be the experts we think we are when it comes our own brain.Now research shows strong correlations between mental states and brain states. On the other hand, if we cut into a person's head while he or she is dreaming, we don't see three-dimensional phantasms floating around in the brain's physical space. So where are dream objects? They have extension, but it doesn't seem to overlap physical space as we perceive it. And there seems to be a "me" who is looking at the physical world through my brain,
Before working on the verdict, look to see if you are asking the right question.and the dream world through... something. Dreaming is correlated with brain states, too, though, in the sense that there are apparent connections between people saying that they had dreams, and examinations of brain states of people during the time they said they were having dreams... But without venturing into neo-Cartesian kinds of territory I have yet to fully explore, I can't honestly render even a personal verdict re: the question.
Whats so hard about a world existing without ME?
For me conceptualizing you not here, nothing at all. For you conceptualize you not here, everything -- it's impossible to conceptualize, it makes no sense, and it's the only thing in the entire cosmos you're required to "undergo" that is not just difficult but impossible (nonsensical) to comprehend.
Are you saying, because our living brain can not conceptualize something, it can't happen?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?