Is the Dream State Our Afterlife?

[Zero]

Wow. All sorts of made-up fanciful stuff here! Most of it is wrong, but heck, its your time, waste it as you like.

When you die, generally, a guy or gal in a white lab coat removes your bodily fluids and replaces them with a preservative. At some point you get dressed in something formal, and your face gets painted up to look like a drag queen. Generally your friends and family look at your corpse, then they cry a lot and dump it in a hole.

 

[Canute]

I don't think that anyone is arguing otherwise. It's quite clear that our bodies cease to exist soon after our death.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Canute
I don't think that anyone is arguing otherwise. It's quite clear that our bodies cease to exist soon after our death.

Yep, and until otherwise shown, we are our bodies.

 

[Odin]

Yes I know but the point I am trying to get at is that humans know next to nothing about energy sofar, so could it not be possible that every bit of energy is carrying a piece of your "soul"?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Odin
Yes I know but the point I am trying to get at is that humans know next to nothing about energy sofar, so could it not be possible that every bit of energy is carrying a piece of your "soul"?

Its also possible that when we die, our "souls"(assuming their existence) go into stacks of firewood, or turn into lime Jello...you don't see anyone following those possibilities, do you? Anything is possible, but 99.99% is completely unfounded speculation, and IMO a waste of time. Especially since the whole debate is based on speculation about something else that has no foundation.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Zero
Yep, and until otherwise shown, we are our bodies.

That cannot be true. It is fairly easy to work out, and agreed by philosophers, that consciousness has no extension. It follows inevitably that we are more than our bodies.

This is not disputed by science. The dispute is over whether an unextended thing can be explained by science, not over whether it exists.

 

[FZ+]

It is fairly easy to work out, and agreed by philosophers, that consciousness has no extension. It follows inevitably that we are more than our bodies.

The claim that consciousness has no extension does not mean we are more than our bodies. It means consciousness is not an object - which materialists have never claimed it to be. If we are our bodies, consciousness is a process. And very plausibly, a process that is not permanent.

 

[Canute]

But it cannot be just a bodily process. Physical causes have physical effects, but if consciousness has no extension it isn't physical. So if want to argue that it's just a physical process you have to plump for epiphenominalism, the idea that consciousness is the waste product from a physical process. But a waste product is a thing by definition, not a process. Therefore there is a thing which is part of ourselves, whether it's the result of a process or not, which is not physical.

You can argue that brain is mind, but nobody has managed to make that argument work yet. It contradicts the facts.

It's very difficult to argue that a purely physical process can have non-physical outcomes. I would say that the only way of arguing that consciousness is just a physical process is to assume it doesn't exist. Behaviourists tried that one it doesn't work.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Canute
But it cannot be just a bodily process. Physical causes have physical effects, but if consciousness has no extension it isn't physical. So if want to argue that it's just a physical process you have to plump for epiphenominalism, the idea that consciousness is the waste product from a physical process. But a waste product is a thing by definition, not a process. Therefore there is a thing which is part of ourselves, whether it's the result of a process or not, which is not physical.

You can argue that brain is mind, but nobody has managed to make that argument work yet. It contradicts the facts.

It's very difficult to argue that a purely physical process can have non-physical outcomes. I would say that the only way of arguing that consciousness is just a physical process is to assume it doesn't exist. Behaviourists tried that one it doesn't work.

This is an assertion with absolutely no basis in fact. I have absolutely no problem with consciousness being purely physical, and here is no evidence to suggest otheriwse.

 

[Canute]

Hmm. You'll have trouble defending that position.

How can something with no extension be physical? If it is physical where is it? Why can't we see it with a microscope? What is the average mass of a feeling of pain? It a bad pain bigger and heavier than a mild one? How come our image and concept of the universe isn't as big and heavy as the real thing? And how come the mind can decide questions which the brain cannot? Etc...

Nobody has ever managed to come up with a plausible theory that suggests that consciousness is physical. It is to make a serious category error, as Gilbert Lyle is famous for pointing out.

Also there is overwhelming evidence that it is not physical. This is partly why Behaviourism is dead.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Canute
Hmm. You'll have trouble defending that position.

How can something with no extension be physical? If it is physical where is it? Why can't we see it with a microscope? What is the average mass of a feeling of pain? It a bad pain bigger and heavier than a mild one? How come our image and concept of the universe isn't as big and heavy as the real thing? And how come the mind can decide questions which the brain cannot? Etc...

Nobody has ever managed to come up with a plausible theory that suggests that consciousness is physical. It is to make a serious category error, as Gilbert Lyle is famous for pointing out.

Also there is overwhelming evidence that it is not physical. This is partly why Behaviourism is dead.

You are misdefining the terms, which makes my position seem impossible. What I'd like for you to do is go into your computer's monitor, and measure the mass of the words on your screen.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Zero
You are misdefining the terms, which makes my position seem impossible. What I'd like for you to do is go into your computer's monitor, and measure the mass of the words on your screen.

But I'm not suggesting that words don't have extension. It's not a similar case. It's perfectly possible to measure the physical attributes of words.

Which words do you feel I'm misdefining?

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Zero
Yep, and until otherwise shown, we are our bodies.

1) In order to experience you must exist.
2) You can only 'be' one existence. Multiple existences have multiple identities (duh).
3) Your body is billions of existences.
'Nuff said?

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Canute


How can something with no extension be physical?

Space physicaly exists - else there would be NOTHING between us and the sun and it would get awful hot :)

The soul is likely more etherial than material in nature.

If it is physical where is it? Why can't we see it with a microscope?

Inside you. Why can't you 'see' space?

What is the average mass of a feeling of pain? It a bad pain bigger and heavier than a mild one? How come our image and concept of the universe isn't as big and heavy as the real thing?

Why would you assume thought should have the property of mass?

And how come the mind can decide questions which the brain cannot? Etc...

The brain is just a lump of sophisticated mud - the being which wears it does the thinking.

Nobody has ever managed to come up with a plausible theory that suggests that consciousness is physical.

Guess I'm a nobody.. .

It is to make a serious category error, as Gilbert Lyle is famous for pointing out.

Also there is overwhelming evidence that it is not physical. This is partly why Behaviourism is dead.

Please cite the evidence.
Thanks

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Canute
But I'm not suggesting that words don't have extension. It's not a similar case. It's perfectly possible to measure the physical attributes of words.

Which words do you feel I'm misdefining?

"Pain", for instance, can be measured as a biological response. There's no mystery to it, only a matter of engineering proper measuring devices. There is no magical "otherness" to pain, no need to try to explain it that way. Physical injury causes a series of physical effects; we label those effects "pain". Why should there have to be anything else to it?

 

[Odin]

Devision

Originally posted by Messiah
1) In order to experience you must exist.
2) You can only 'be' one existence. Multiple existences have multiple identities (duh).
3) Your body is billions of existences.
'Nuff said?

A person is infinitely devisable, by length, hieght and depth. So how can we tell which existence is us? which is PURELY us? Or are we infinite beings? Can either be true at all?

I say that we exist on a different plain. A fourth dimension if you will, and these bodies only puppets in a bigger picture.

Theorise all you want on what is true and untrue about the afterlife but we know as much about it as we do the existence "god(s)". And my reasonings may be out there but they are as plausable as Christianity itself.

 

[einsof]

Nirvana

well if you think about it,
we will not be bound to our mortality any more and rest does make sence.
You are and your not.
thats the paradox that we can't comprehend because we think with matter and not the etheral.
My personal belifes are still unsorted.
I have to go back to the theroy of Electricity.
It dosent extinguish it becomes something else...
So maybe we are electric

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by einsof
well if you think about it,
we will not be bound to our mortality any more and rest does make sence.
You are and your not.
thats the paradox that we can't comprehend because we think with matter and not the etheral.
My personal belifes are still unsorted.
I have to go back to the theroy of Electricity.
It dosent extinguish it becomes something else...
So maybe we are electric

I think you would be more correct saying "you are or your not"

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Odin
A person is infinitely devisable, by length, hieght and depth. So how can we tell which existence is us? which is PURELY us? Or are we infinite beings? Can either be true at all?

TWO things in a composite are held together by electro-magnetic bonds. To separate them only requires the force of the bond be overcome by the device used to cleave it. In order to separate part of a SINGLE entity from itself would require some point within its structure to cease to exist. Change is a function of existence. Before something could cease to exist it would lose its ability to change or be changed. Entities - unique beings comprised only of themselves - cannot be wrent asunder.

I say that we exist on a different plain (plane?). A fourth dimension if you will, and these bodies only puppets in a bigger picture.

An XYZ axis represents three dimensions. There are an infinite number of dimensions within the realm of the polar coordinates which may be derived from these. There are in infinite number of planes and all exist in the real world - else they would not exist.

Theorise all you want on what is true and untrue about the afterlife but we know as much about it as we do the existence "god(s)". And my reasonings may be out there but they are as plausable as Christianity itself.

What about the beforelife - and before that. Do you really think you were 'created' when you were born? Existence is eternal - being itself. Life is transient - a state of being.

 

[Odin]

Originally posted by Messiah
TWO things in a composite are held together by electro-magnetic bonds. To separate them only requires the force of the bond be overcome by the device used to cleave it. In order to separate part of a SINGLE entity from itself would require some point within its structure to cease to exist. Change is a function of existence. Before something could cease to exist it would lose its ability to change or be changed. Entities - unique beings comprised only of themselves - cannot be wrent asunder.

An XYZ axis represents three dimensions. There are an infinite number of dimensions within the realm of the polar coordinates which may be derived from these. There are in infinite number of planes and all exist in the real world - else they would not exist.

What about the beforelife - and before that. Do you really think you were 'created' when you were born? Existence is eternal - being itself. Life is transient - a state of being. [/B]

If you cut off your finger (if you can't chose your least favorite one go for the other one, no the OTHER one) which part would you be? the finger? or the Person missing a finger or two? My Point is WHERE do we get to the point of us being in the matter? Are you your brain, heart, kidneys or liver? If any of these in which atom are you? Then to be more specific, Devide the atom which is solely your essence until there is nothing but you. GET THE POINT!
What I've been trying to say is at which point do we truly exist in our own bodies? Being that matter will always be divisble to our understanding and even to an infinite level.
E.G. 1.77154417724648713514841354413151846161613214544
we can keep going if you want. When do we stop being our bodies and START being us? When? If you can tell me that with a straight even proof to back it up then I will remove myself from my body.

As for the creationism speach, where you find the beginning you will find the end. Simply meaning that if you find the start of time there I will have been created but if there was no beginning? WHEN was i created? AND where will I be destroyed? IF you don't think that I was created when CONCIEVED. Birth is just the release of you from your mothers womb (if you came from one )
And no I am quite ANTI-Christian

 

[einsof]

Sometimes we can pick things apart to much.
If the heart of man is the souls seat, I guess you can start there.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Messiah
Space physicaly exists - else there would be NOTHING between us and the sun and it would get awful hot :)

If space is physical then it has extension. All physical things have extension by definition.

The soul is likely more etherial than material in nature.

I don't like the term 'soul'. However if you mean consciousness then I agree with you.

Inside you. Why can't you 'see' space?

If a thing cannot be observed or infered in principle then it cannot be physical. I agree that reality lies inside us, but it makes no sense to say it is physical. This is the reason science cannot do metaphysics.

Why would you assume thought should have the property of mass?

I don't. But if they are physical then they do.

The brain is just a lump of sophisticated mud - the being which wears it does the thinking.

Sort of agree.

Guess I'm a nobody.. .

If you can prove consciousness is physical you are not a nobody, or at least you won't be for very long.

Please cite the evidence.

That's unfair, the proof is all over the literature. Try Chalmer's site for papers on this.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Zero
"Pain", for instance, can be measured as a biological response. There's no mystery to it, only a matter of engineering proper measuring devices. There is no magical "otherness" to pain, no need to try to explain it that way. Physical injury causes a series of physical effects; we label those effects "pain". Why should there have to be anything else to it?

It is impossible to measure pain with an instrument in principle. All we can do is ask a subject how the pain seems to them.

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Odin
If you cut off your finger (if you can't chose your least favorite one go for the other one, no the OTHER one) which part would you be? the finger? or the Person missing a finger or two?

Neither. Your body is something you wear, not what you are.

My Point is WHERE do we get to the point of us being in the matter? Are you your brain, heart, kidneys or liver? If any of these in which atom are you? Then to be more specific, Devide the atom which is solely your essence until there is nothing but you. GET THE POINT!
What I've been trying to say is at which point do we truly exist in our own bodies? Being that matter will always be divisble to our understanding and even to an infinite level.
E.G. 1.77154417724648713514841354413151846161613214544
we can keep going if you want. When do we stop being our bodies and START being us? When? If you can tell me that with a straight even proof to back it up then I will remove myself from my body.

If you think the only form of existence is material, you must not believe in space. You are wearing a mud pack genetically engineered over eons of evolution. It is a tool. Without it, it would be difficult to drive a car or go bowling. Eventually you will wear it out and it will fall off of its own accord - that's OK, though, 'cause there wouldn't BE any evolution if that didn't happen.
((Now do we get to see you truly NAKED))

As for the creationism speach, where you find the beginning you will find the end. Simply meaning that if you find the start of time there I will have been created but if there was no beginning? WHEN was i created? AND where will I be destroyed? IF you don't think that I was created when CONCIEVED. Birth is just the release of you from your mothers womb (if you came from one )
And no I am quite ANTI-Christian

Existence is not the product of cause and effect. There was no creation. The phenomenon of existence is explained by a principle, not a process - sic the balance of nature

 

[phoenixthoth]

man, it's like we've opened a can of worms by seeking knowledge...

 

[Odin]

Originally posted by Messiah
Neither. Your body is something you wear, not what you are.
If you think the only form of existence is material, you must not believe in space. You are wearing a mud pack genetically engineered over eons of evolution. It is a tool. [/B]

Thankyou, I stated that fact ages ago. I only posted my last few posts to get you to agree with me and I thank you for doing so.

 

[phoenixthoth]

dear odin,
existence is NOT futile! but then again, It Is. because you are eternal, it is impossible to resist existence, odin.

 

[Odin]

Mrrrr

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
dear odin,
existence is NOT futile! but then again, It Is. because you are eternal, it is impossible to resist existence, odin.

Tis just a play on the phrase "Resistance is futile". But you just had to ruin it didn't you! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!?

 

[phoenixthoth]

i know that resistance is futile, in certain situations.

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Odin
Thankyou, I stated that fact ages ago. I only posted my last few posts to get you to agree with me and I thank you for doing so.

OK...OK...NOW I remember you.
Weren't you the one who said the Big Bang wouldn't last over an eon?

 

[phoenixthoth]

ROFL!

 

[Deeviant]

Ageless and infinite existence has no meaning.

There is no right without wrong,
There is no light without dark,
There is no life without death.

 

[phoenixthoth]

maybe.

 

[Odin]

Originally posted by Messiah
OK...OK...NOW I remember you.
Weren't you the one who said the Big Bang wouldn't last over an eon?

Uh Not that I can remember, I don't remember stateing that but it sounds like me so I'm going to go with "your thinkin' of someone else".

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Odin
Uh Not that I can remember, I don't remember stateing that but it sounds like me so I'm going to go with "your thinkin' of someone else".

No - it was DEFINITELY you. Remember . . . we were all silicon based beings swimming in an atmosphere of methane and hydrogen - It used to bleach our claws purple . . .