Do we actually know that we will die?

[Davian]

Because, basically, death *DOESNOTCOMPUTE* but the idea of a continued existence after death does.

Continued existence of what, exactly?

On the side of neuroscience, and going with Thomas Metzinger's model of how the brain works, and idea of the "phenomenal self", I (my "self") ceases to exist each night I (my body) goes to sleep. In the morning, a new "I" is created by my brain from memory - "I" remember myself to "me".

Being No One with Thomas Metzinger - YouTube

 

[Davian]

Spiritual means "unembodied personal power,"

"Unembodied"? If it is not "embodied", what is it?

"Personal power"? Is this measurable, and subject to entropy?

and it would be determined to be a possibility if you lived after death.

lol. Can we apply this to other explorations of reality? "Evolution is a fact - but you need to die to find that out".

 

[Received]

"Unembodied"? If it is not "embodied", what is it?

"Personal power"? Is this measurable, and subject to entropy?

Here we go assuming science is the only metric again.

lol. Can we apply this to other explorations of reality? "Evolution is a fact - but you need to die to find that out".

*Pulls up a popcorn lawn chair*

 

[Received]

Continued existence of what, exactly?

On the side of neuroscience, and going with Thomas Metzinger's model of how the brain works, and idea of the "phenomenal self", I (my "self") ceases to exist each night I (my body) goes to sleep. In the morning, a new "I" is created by my brain from memory - "I" remember myself to "me".

Being No One with Thomas Metzinger - YouTube

I'm not sure about the distinction between I and me here, but the self is basically just an idea that's fundamentally no different than any other idea we can have about things. If the "I" refers to consciousness, then I'll take Sam Harris at his word when he says neuroscience has nothing to say about consciousness but everything to say about the contents of consciousness, of which the self is one example.

 

[bhsmte]

Naw.

Going back to our earlier discussion, I'm saying that it's more reasonable to believe in something possible than impossible, and it takes more faith to believe in something that's impossible than something possible.

Who is saying something is; impossible?

 

[Davian]

Here we go assuming science is the only metric again.

Religious dogma as a metric does not work nearly as well.

*Pulls up a popcorn lawn chair*

Is sitting in a chair the only way to see if it will hold you?

 

[Received]

Religious dogma as a metric does not work nearly as well.

Even when applied to science, right.

Is sitting in a chair the only way to see if it will hold you?

It is a popcorn chair, Davian.

 

[Davian]

I'm not sure about the distinction between I and me here, but the self is basically just an idea that's fundamentally no different than any other idea we can have about things. If the "I" refers to consciousness,

No, not in the context of my post. I am referring to the phenomenal self.

then I'll take Sam Harris at his word when he says neuroscience has nothing to say about consciousness but everything to say about the contents of consciousness, of which the self is one example.

You said, "...but the idea of a continued existence after death does."

Continued existence of what, exactly?"

 

[Received]

No, not in the context of my post. I am referring to the phenomenal self.

You said, "...but the idea of a continued existence after death does."

Continued existence of what, exactly?"

The phenomenal self is consciousness?

If so, then the continued existence part refers to that.

 

[Davian]

Even when applied to science, right.

There was that saying about science being the worst something or other...

It is a popcorn chair, Davian.

I said, "a chair".

Pretend you are in a philosophy forum.

Is sitting in a chair the only way to see if it will hold you?

 

[Received]

There was that saying about science being the worst something or other...


I said, "a chair".

Pretend you are in a philosophy forum.

Is sitting in a chair the only way to see if it will hold you?

You have no idea how hard I'm lol'ing given your last sentence following the one before that.

 

[Davian]

The phenomenal self is consciousness?

No, I am not trying to define consciousness. I am talking about a process in the brain.

If so, then the continued existence part refers to that.

The phenomenal self ceases to exist each night when you fall asleep. There is no "continued existence", even day-to-day.

When you say "continued existence", what do you mean?

 

[Davian]

You have no idea how hard I'm lol'ing given your last sentence following the one before that.

is that the second to last, or third to last?

 

[Received]

is that the second to last, or third to last?

Your last two sentences (sorry, it's late and I'm too sleepy here):

Pretend you are in a philosophy forum.

Is sitting in a chair the only way to see if it will hold you?​

We're in a philosophy forum here! Pay attention! Okay, so back to sitting in chairs and how they hold you up.

 

[durangodawood]

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.

I can easily imagine the world without me. No idea why its so difficult for you to do the same.

 

[Received]

No, I am not trying to define consciousness. I am talking about a process in the brain.

The phenomenal self ceases to exist each night when you fall asleep. There is no "continued existence", even day-to-day.

When you say "continued existence", what do you mean?

It sounds like you're referring to consciousness. I'm distinguishing this from the self, which refers to the "me" and probably the "I", which refer basically to constructions. The I/me involves qualities, characteristics, actions, etc., all of which are fused into this I/me label.

The self that ceases to exist each night -- I don't know if that would be consciousness or the I/me. I'd say there very much is consciousness going on, just we're conscious of totally different things than our waking lives.

 

[Davian]

Your last two sentences (sorry, it's late and I'm too sleepy here):

Pretend you are in a philosophy forum.

Is sitting in a chair the only way to see if it will hold you?​

We're in a philosophy forum here! Pay attention!

Okay, so back to sitting in chairs and how they hold you up.

So, is sitting in a chair the only way to see if it will hold you?

 

[Davian]

It sounds like you're referring to consciousness.

I am avoidng that word, as we have not agreed upon a definition.

I'm distinguishing this from the self, which refers to the "me" and probably the "I", which refer basically to constructions.

Constructs of the brain, processes created as needed when your body is awake. Variants on that for dreaming, perhaps.

The I/me involves qualities, characteristics, actions, etc., all of which are fused into this I/me label.

Sure. The subjective experience.

The self that ceases to exist each night -- I don't know if that would be consciousness or the I/me.

The phenomenal self - the bit that says "I think therefore..." without actually having grounds to do so.

I'd say there very much is consciousness going on, just we're conscious of totally different things than our waking lives.

Define what you mean by "consciousness".

 

[Mark51]

Perhaps Ecclesiastes 9:5, 6 and Romans 6:23 will be helpful.

 

[Davian]

Perhaps Ecclesiastes 9:5, 6 and Romans 6:23 will be helpful.

How so?