|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 2:46 pm
Krazy Lew as for gut feeling.. i guess mine says... we see them as we want to... I think that is how everyone views it, well, those who believe in an afterlife/afterlife resting period.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 5:12 pm
LibidinalCatharsis I've always wondered why it is so rare for people who have experienced past life regressions to remember being any of the following in the past: Animals Plants Beings from planets other than earth Well, I don't believe in past lives, but pretending I do: Maybe our consciousness prevents us from accessing memories or perceptions we couldn't handle? Maybe an animal, plant, or alien's experiences are so foreign to us that we'd just...block it out, as a defense mechanism. As to my actual views on death: I believe that we will all experience the presence of God.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:58 am
I especially like the attitude that a Russian writer Bulhakov had towards death - his idea was that everyone will get what they believed in. That would certainly be welcome, though I would cease to exist if it were true...
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 11:14 am
L ZbigniewLipka I especially like the attitude that a Russian writer Bulhakov had towards death - his idea was that everyone will get what they believed in. That would certainly be welcome, though I would cease to exist if it were true... John Brunner's "Traveller In Black" series is grimly funny along those lines. The traveller grants everyone's wishes, although they don't realize they may be wishing at the time. Just like people blurt out wishes without thinking. The result is always justice but sometimes harsh. it also reminds me of C.S. :ewis in "The Last Battle", where the dwarves think they're in a smelly stable eating rotten turnips because that is their (rational humanist) view of the afterlife. the others can see that they are in a fine banquet hall with a sumptuous feast, but that is a reality the dwarves cannot accept. so they got what they "wanted".
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 11:22 am
ZbigniewLipka I especially like the attitude that a Russian writer Bulhakov had towards death - his idea was that everyone will get what they believed in. That would certainly be welcome, though I would cease to exist if it were true... thats kind of how i see it. i believe in reincarnation, and my dad believes in heaven. the way i look at, we're both right, but we're both wrong.(but then, i see everything that way)
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 10:16 pm
Ah, here's a story. ------------------------------------------------------------- The Veribig Memorial Library has so many books that every fact in the history of the universe is written down somewhere in there. One day while walking through the library, Fred Schmidlap is struck on the head by a big volume falling off a high shelf, and he suffers complete amnesia; he ahas no idea what his name is, or what any of the facts of his past life are. He thinks that perhaps the enormous amount of information in the library can help im, so he sets out reading to try to find out who he is.
Fred spends some time reading the history of thirteenth century Albania, about methods of refining bauxite, and about Portuguese irregular verbs. This is all interesting, but he doesn't feel he's making progress in finding out who he is.
Soon he stumbles on a huge room filled with books of biography; this, he thinks, is the place to look. He spends an enormous amount of time reading every biography oin the place, including one about some guy named Fred Schmidlap. Fred now knows a large number of facts about this Fred Schmidlap. But what he does not know is that these are facts of his life. And, it would seem, no matter how detailed the information in that boigraphy was, the information would never tell Fred that this was him. The strange conclusion we must draw is that, however many facts he knows about what is in fact his own life, Fred still wouldn't know that these are facts about him; he still wouldn't know who he is. ------------------------------------------------------------- It made me think, that, well, he ISN'T Fred Schmidlap anymore. He's an entirely new person, even if he has the same brain and body. This has actually happened in history; people who's memories are erased actually are new people, who start their life after their birth.
What's more, people are not who they were, from one moment to the next. With every change in your personality, with every new memory and each passing thought, you change. And this makes you a new person; similar to your 'old' self, yes, but a new person.
So, what happens when "I" die? Well, I just did. And when My brain becomes defunct, I can only assume that I'll die again, this time with no new person replacing "me".
Anyway, I've got a question for people that believe that people are reincarnated, or there is an afterlife: Why do you believe this? I've never seen any logical basis for these beliefs before.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 11:21 pm
reincarnation could be tied to certain laws on the conservation of mass and energy; but they would be done so by an extreme loosening and redefining of the terms (though not so extreme as to redefine the two laws completely).
Though, I will tell you that I believe in an afterlife, simply because I cannot even begin to comprehend complete non-existence after existence. That to me makes no sense. For example (and this is where that redefining will begin), when one eats food, it is converted into more energy and less mass. That energy is then used to fuel some system, thus that energy is put to use, and after it is used, it is refined into something new; maybe more energy, maybe not.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:15 am
chaoticpuppet reincarnation could be tied to certain laws on the conservation of mass and energy; but they would be done so by an extreme loosening and redefining of the terms (though not so extreme as to redefine the two laws completely). Note; they're not really two different laws. Because e=mc^2, and they're interchangable, I think it's more correct to say that there's a conservation of 'stuff'. It seems to me that life is not a type of energy; That life is a process which uses energy. And besides, it seems a bit absurd to think that all new life is reincarnated from somewhere else; We know that mass/energy is conserved because when one form disappears, another form, from the same stuff, forms in the same place. But when life ends, if the 'life substance' still exists, it's not in the same place, and so it's not exactly like energy and mass. You could say that it's made out of ether or something, but you gotta remember... Occam's Razor. Quote: Though, I will tell you that I believe in an afterlife, simply because I cannot even begin to comprehend complete non-existence after existence. That to me makes no sense. For example (and this is where that redefining will begin), when one eats food, it is converted into more energy and less mass. That energy is then used to fuel some system, thus that energy is put to use, and after it is used, it is refined into something new; maybe more energy, maybe not. When you eat food, no mass is lost. It is excreted through the CO2 we breath. Where does the energy come from? The chemical bonds of the molecules. Also: Why can you not comprehend non-existence? Afterall, up until you were born, you didn't exist, eh?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 7:45 am
Contingent Why can you not comprehend non-existence? I just can't comprehend the thought of nothing for eternity; I can barely comprehend eternity to begin with, but within that comprehension, I can only see it with me in it. Some great philosophers (Berkeley, with Idealism), said that one cannot even begin to comprehend the world without their experiences in it, and that they can say nothing of that world. For me to think of eternity without me, is the same as trying to grasp the idea of the world without using my experiences. Quote: Afterall, up until you were born, you didn't exist, eh? Maybe this is true, maybe this is not true. Simply because I have no recollection of what happened before I was born, does not mean that I did not exist. Remember your amnesia story? Before the guy got amnesia, did he not exist? Do not be so quick to come to such conclusions, lack of knowledge has never proved anything, besides the fact that one has lack of knowledge.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:15 am
chaoticpuppet Contingent Why can you not comprehend non-existence? I just can't comprehend the thought of nothing for eternity; I can barely comprehend eternity to begin with, but within that comprehension, I can only see it with me in it. Some great philosophers (Berkeley, with Idealism), said that one cannot even begin to comprehend the world without their experiences in it, and that they can say nothing of that world. For me to think of eternity without me, is the same as trying to grasp the idea of the world without using my experiences. Well, I admit that I have a hard time comprehending a universe with noone that has conciousness. There's noone to be aware that this universe exists, so does it? Quote: Quote: Afterall, up until you were born, you didn't exist, eh? Maybe this is true, maybe this is not true. Simply because I have no recollection of what happened before I was born, does not mean that I did not exist. Remember your amnesia story? Before the guy got amnesia, did he not exist? Do not be so quick to come to such conclusions, lack of knowledge has never proved anything, besides the fact that one has lack of knowledge. The way I'm thinking, Fred Schmidlap actually died at the moment that he got amnesia. He would, in fact, be ressurected if the memories were restored, but the fact is, The new guy, that has amnesia, doesn't have any of Fred's experiences, and HE didn't exist before he was "born".
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 12:20 am
Well, with Fred Schmidlap, lets say that instead of amnesia, he got split personality syndrome. Now, let us suppose, that only one person can show themselves at one time. For example, there cannot be person a with person b, it is either person a and not person b, or not person a and person b. Now, first off, do you think person a and b are two different people living in one body? Secondly, lets pick a moment when person a switches to person b, does person a die and is person b born? Now, let us pick the moment when person b switches back to person a. Did person b die, and was person a reborn? Or is it simply a case of two people in one body, each of which can only show themselves at one time?
I myself view that Fred Schmidlap with split personality is really two people confined to one body, and that when the switch occurs, neither person dies, it's just that the two people are limited in a way that prevents them from being in the same place at the same time (we can see something similar in the world of physics, no two [physical] objects can occupy the same space at the same time). Now, I also view Fred Schmidlap with amnesia this same exact way. That really, there are two people that are living inside Fred Schmidlap, and they have been living there since birth, and it took the book falling to bring out the other person.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:08 am
Personally, I'd say that someone dies when their memories and personality (values, priorities, behaviourisms) cease to exist. In the case of somebody with a split personality, there are still parts of the brain which allow for the presently non-functioning personality to be, so maybe their both alive, but at any time, at least one of them is 'sleeping'. But I'm not so sure about this. Afterall, a brain can hypothetically be constructed; it's just an arrangement of atoms. So, someone with specific memories and personality could theoretically be ressurected. But then they weren't really dead, because the atoms which would allow for the person to be are still there. That means that noone dies. No, that can't be right. So, I will define death as a condition where a "person" is not presently aware... of anything. By that definition, only one of the split-personality people is alive at one time. Quote: hat really, there are two people that are living inside Fred Schmidlap, and they have been living there since birth, and it took the book falling to bring out the other person. But it's an entirely new person; they don't have any memories. This new person that doesn't have any memories might have theoretically existed at Fred's birth (or the birth anybody that doesn't have a very different brain), but they certainly weren't "there" until Fred got amnesia; If that were true, then every possible person exists, at all times, just because they might exist in the future, right?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:47 am
Contingent Personally, I'd say that someone dies when their memories and personality (values, priorities, behaviourisms) cease to exist. Now, if this where the definition of death, how would I know when one is really dead? I wouldn't. Just because the physical body is lifeless, does not mean that the "person" is lifeless. In other words, I am not a monist. I believe that there are two sides to a person, a mental side that is not is not always connected to the physical, and a physical side that is not always connected to the mental. I believe this to be true, because, I have empirical evidence to suggest that when I get impacted by something physically, my mind does not necessarily feel it. For example, when I get hit in the stomach, my stomach hurts, there is no impact on my mind, the impact is on my physical body. Also, a person in a coma, let's say that a person got in a car accident, and the result placed them into a coma, part of there body no longer works (for the time being) however, their mind is still functioning. If you haven't noticed by now, I am rather fond of Descartes philosophies. So, can one really say whether or not memories and personality dies? No, what we can say is that death is a term that applies to something that physically exists in this reality, that death is the ceasing of a set of functions that are a necessity of life, for example, death in humans is that in which there is no longer a functioning brain, no longer respiration, no longer a beating heart, etc. Quote: No, that can't be right. So, I will define death as a condition where a "person" is not presently aware... of anything. By that definition, only one of the split-personality people is alive at one time. What determines awareness? Is that something that we can actually measure? And lastly, what constitutes a person, and a self? Let me give you a hint with the last question, very few, if any, philosophers have been able to make a good definition of what a self isQuote: Quote: that really, there are two people that are living inside Fred Schmidlap, and they have been living there since birth, and it took the book falling to bring out the other person. But it's an entirely new person; they don't have any memories. This new person that doesn't have any memories might have theoretically existed at Fred's birth (or the birth anybody that doesn't have a very different brain), but they certainly weren't "there" until Fred got amnesia. Well, do they really not have any memories of the previous Fred, or do they not have access to memories of the previous Fred, there is a huge difference between the two. Quote: If that were true, then every possible person exists, at all times, just because they might exist in the future, right? No, unfortunately, we cannot know how many people lived in one body until the physical death of the person in question, and we will assume, because it seems reasonable, that if there were other people in one person, then they would have shown themselves before the death of that person. We will also assume, because it seems reasonable, that at the time of physical death, the number of people shown inside one person, is the number of people that existed in that one person. In other words, we need to be able to tell the future to be able to know how many people exist in one person.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 12:18 pm
I don't think we have souls. When we die, that's it. There's nothing after death (or at least that's my opinion).
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 12:36 pm
X_HardRocker_X I don't think we have souls. When we die, that's it. There's nothing after death (or at least that's my opinion). What determines one to think? Is thinking merely a process of something physical, such as a functioning brain of a physically living organism? Are you certain that this reality is even real? What if it is just a farce placed by some sort of great deciever, and we are merely mental beings with no physical body? If that's the case, what is death? If I always have the ability to think, because I am merely a mental projection, would I ever die? What is nothing but the absence of everything? If nothing is to exist, than there is the absence of every other thing; this brings us to the conclusion that truth (that which is always true, and never not true) will no longer exist. Truth will no longer exist because there is the absence of everything, meaning that nothing exists. The statement then, "nothing exists" then becomes false. Therefore, by definition of nothing, nothing cannot exist, thus, that means that after death there must be something, because the absence of nothing is something, and since nothing cannot exist, that leaves only one option, something. So, there is an afterlife. Also note that nothing, always, never, and truth are paradoxes.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|