- Nov 29, 2020
Maybe we all should care less about what comes after death since nobody will ever truly know and focus more on how to improve our current state.
I know this is a very very old post but I just gotta say, that is some galaxy brain shit right there. I like the way you think.When you consider whether there's afterlife or not you need to ask - afterlife of WHAT? There are three things here - self, personality and body. I believe death is a destruction of both body and personality. Yet self is not destroyed simply because existence of self is not dependent upon existence of any particular body or personality. It's just people conflate personality with self but think of it this way - if long time ago say at age 3 you were put in entirely different enviroment then by this time you would have totally different memories and probably a different emotional structure too. Yet it would still be you wouldn't it? Or take you at 3 years old. Personally I don't even remember how it was, what this kid felt and remembered yet for him it was an immediate reality. So any kid at 3 right now is more like him than I am right now at my age of 35. Even though it was me. So in a way this kid is gone already and to me there's no problem here.
Using Christianity as an example, my understanding is that hell was originally described as a place of punishment, possibly temporarily, in the afterlife. The Catholic Church - which was really a conflation of Christianity with vast political masterminding - turned it into an eternal torture for non-Catholics. I think of it as the greatest scam of all time; manufacturing a terrifying problem that can never be disproven and then taking people's money and power in order to sell them an imaginary solution.There is no evidence of hell from any religion. Only written accounts.
There's a perspective which pretty much disagrees with it. The self of yours emerges inside the body of yours which already exists and is alive, i.e. the self is contained in the alive body, therefore the self "submerges" (ceases to exist) when the body dies. And the personality of yours is just an attribute of the self of yours.I know this is a very very old post but I just gotta say, that is some galaxy brain shit right there. I like the way you think.
There's a perspective which pretty much disagrees with it. The self of yours emerges inside the body of yours which already exists and is alive, i.e. the self is contained in the alive body, therefore the self "submerges" (ceases to exist) when the body dies. And the personality of yours is just an attribute of the self of yours.
A self has an important property: it references itself, it's both a subject and an object (a thing). It can examine itself and during that examination it finds out that it resides in a body.Body is a thing. Matter. So it's only things and other types of physical phenomena like electric impulses that can be inside the body. Self is not thing, rather things are part of self's experience. The only way and sense in which self can be actually inside the body is if self (you) opens it and looks or touches inside of it. Or in any other way feels inside of it like when your tongue feels inside of your mouth. In the same spirit memories are not 'inside' the brain, despite being dependent upon brain. "Inside", "outside" etc are all part of physical universe and as such are part of self's experience and self's memory.
A self has an important property: it references itself, it's both a subject and an object (a thing). It can examine itself and during that examination it finds out that it resides in a body.
Memories + current qualia of stimuli are identified with a self, if the self finds out that it resides in a body so do the pertinent memories.
(I have never experienced not being in my body.)
Yes, for me too.I and myself (or my self) has an identical meaning to me.
Beings are existing things and usually it's narrowed down to things imbued with selfness, but if you don't like that word we could use entity. (Btw. I'd probably say I'm not Platonist, a notion of a perfect mathematical circle isn't a being for me.)Being is not a thing.
Things induce qualia which are perceived by my self, but things aren't part of qualia. (I believe things which induce qualia exist.) My self also perceives I, here I concede that I is akin to a quale and not to a thing, the thing inducing it is probably a conrete activity in my brain (similarly as a whirl in water is a thing, at least I'd say it's a thing). I also believe there are other selfs which I cannot perceive, but I can perceive their acts in the environment.There is only one specific sense in which you can say that self is a thing. Which is that everything in the world, including things, are part of self's experience and thus part of self.
There's a boundary between me and the environment, on that boundary* I perceive qualia. When I touch my body, I feel pressure at two places on that boundary. When I look at my body I can see its image, where does that image exists? It's on the boundary, in this case retinas. This boundary isn't outside of my body.However the phrase 'inside the body' is not really correct. For once you can look at your finger, you can touch it too. You're clearly looking at it from outside and touching it from outside, not from inside.
Yeah, I'm not my body and with being a thing I'm not so sure anymore as I mentioned above. Nonetheless, my qualia have never been at other places than that boundary, I've never had perceptions outside of my body.What's not true is that neither you ARE a body nor you are some thing. It's just seems that you conflate you (your self) with some sort of imaginary substance, and then believe that this substance is located somewhere inside the body (inside the brain I guess). Which is a pure work, or rather malfunction, of imagination and has no bearing on reality.
That's where we differ, I believe there are other selfs which I cannot perceive.My point is that self survives simply because self is not distinct from one being to another.
If and only if I percieve being at two locations simultaneously, then my body would consist of two parts and yes I'd survive, I'd percieve being only at one location.Say I cloned you right now exactly as you are, body and personality wise, and put one copy of you on another planet, while another copy remains on Earth. Which one is you? Clearly both. Then say I killed one copy. Have you survived? You clearly did cause here you are walking the Earth, or another planet, doesn't matter.
I disagree, only a body would be killed, not the individual being, me, who was at two locations simultaneously.While it's also true that an individual being was killed.
If I can perceive from two parts of my body and control them, the perceptions would be integrated into common experiences and I would form common memories.Because both these copies are identical. But let's say a year passed. Now the copies are not identical. Different experiences, different memories, perhaps even different life outlooks. Which one is you? Still both right?
I don't identify with personality, I attribute personality to myself.Because they both are modifications of personality state that you identify as you.
Contrary to the magnitude of the physical universe, I only perceive being at one location.Given the magnitude of the physical universe it can even be that the exact copy of your body and personality exists right now either on Earth or on another planet, but in any case most likely the one exists which bears all the same qualities and types of memories of your personality which you consider as important, while some minor unimportant details may vary.
Therefore I'll cease to exist. Selfs have the same property of perceiving themselves, but they're distinct.Thus your individual death won't even annihilate your personality, cause another individual personality just like yours will carry on. And ofcourse it won't annihilate your self. Because even though to your state of mind self is inseparable from personality, in reality they are separate and self is the same not only from human being to human being, but even from human being to animal being. And so once again given the size of the universe, even if our planet explodes tomorrow - self will be in no slightest danger of disappearing.
A random reincarnation is a terrible idea, most lives in the planet are not worth having, and more than one reincarnation would expose you to even more suffering.Reincarnation would be neat. Another chance to actually live a decent life and be happy and maybe just maybe not be plagued with mental illness so bad that it completely ruins any resemblance of happiness. That being said there probably is no afterlife because that would mean we live in good and caring universe. We don't so we get jack and shit.
@MrNobody Please tell me more about the beer volcano! How often does it erupt or is it a 24/7 gusher???
True. I do like the idea of beginning again with a clean slate. But chances are you would be reincarnated into someone in a much worse place. And considering the approaching environmental apocalypse that new life might not last that long. I don't believe in any of it anyway.A random reincarnation is a terrible idea, most lives in the planet are not worth having, and more than one reincarnation would expose you to even more suffering