posted
This train of thought was spawned by a religious conversation I had with a friend of mine. I’m an atheist, he could be considered an agnostic, yet he believes in some form of afterlife. And I know a number of “agnostics”(this term is so broad, which is why i used quotes. does this include people who are "spiritual, but not religious"?) who believe in varying degrees of life after death. It’s interesting to me when people let go of the idea of god and religion, and yet hold on to concepts like this. To me, we are alive, and conscious of it. Consciousness is a product of certain physical states. Death is the total cessation of consciousness. As an atheist, the concept of an afterlife is bewildering. I mean, what part of you survives death? How is that possible? I don't believe in the concept of a soul(obviously), so I can't really be appealed to by that route. But after this conversation it struck my how strong this idea of an afterlife is and I began to think about how something like that would have developed in the first place, because when you think about it, it’s a pretty weird thing to come up with out of the blue. Why would your natural instinct be to believe when you die, you don’t really die? So here’s what I came up with.
The process of evolution has selected for beings to avoid death as much as possible so as to have a better chance at passing on their genes. This has been ingrained in us genetically. So at some point self awareness and intelligence develops in creatures when we already have an inherent avoidance of death. But, unlike in any of our previous history, we have the intellectual foresight to understand that eventually we all die, one way or another(an early existential crisis I guess you would call it). But we still of course have this innate avoidance/fear of death. So we create the concept of an “afterlife”. Don’t ask me the specifics. But it’s easy to imagine how well this idea would do. Obviously there is no scientific knowledge available. We have lots of questions and no answers. How does the world work? Why do things happen? Why am I here? I guess these questions start venturing more in the god realm of things. But, I still think the point is valid. When you don’t understand what physical life is, then your observations about physical death will of course be ill conceived. And an idea like this has much appeal for people.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
another thought: the afterlife is also a really good way to keep people in line, in a negative sense. "if you are a bad person, you will burn in hell fire for all eternity"
but i feel the concept of an afterlife existed way before this issue came up and is more fundamental to our nature.
Are there any cultures in history who don't or didn't believe in an afterlife?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with strider; it provides incentive. That could mean "you're going to burn in hell", but it could also mean," don't worry if you've suffered this life, the next one wil treat you far better. Just stick in there."
I believe that it can either give people hope or diminish it, depending on the POV.
Posts: 213 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The idea of an afterlife, in any form, stems from men's fear of the unknown. Nobody can tell us with certainty what will happen after we leave this mortal realm. So instead of living with one heck of a question mark always ahead, mankind has evolved several nice theories on the 'after death' situation. I'll readily admit that most of the theories (or beliefs if you will) that are out there are easier to live with than the notion that death is plainly the end of life. It must be rather soothing to be able to imagine sitting on a cloud and watching the events play out on the earth below, or to finally meet up again with those beloved persons that have passed on before. Or in the case of reincarnation, to know that eventually you will return into this world, (albeit in another shape) which is already familiar to you. All you have to do then is get to know the world form a different perspective. In the cases where the afterlife is split into a good and a bad realm, it can easily be seen as in incentive to work towards the good. Which is IMHO only a roundabout way to improve the life we lead on this earth. Too bad there's so much discord about the details that the set-up backfires far too often.
Posts: 993 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, you've sort of phrased or qualified your question so it can't really be answered. You denied the concept of the soul, and that's fine, but you can't deny the concept of the soul, or something at least soul-ish, and then pose a question about afterlife.
You have to accept that to ask the question is to accept the framework of those who DO believe in afterlife and all its implication, if as nothing else, then at least as a metaphor for explaining their belief. Simply, you can ask a question then deny me the metaphor to explain the answer.
It is possible to not believe in God as he is typically presented by most religions and not believe in the religions themselves, yet still believe in some form of afterlife.
I think part of the problem with God, Heaven, and afterlife is that, in order to have a framework to discuss it, we have had to mold God into our own image. I seriously doubt that Heaven is an earth like paradise. I seriously doubt that this thing that you call 'you' is the thing you will be in the afterlife.
Think of it from a Buddhist perspective. There is no God and there is no earth-like heaven, and your current identity is not your true 'Self'. Since Buddhist believe in reincarnation, how could your current earthly identity possibly be your true spiritual identity? It can't. There is no fantasy Christian Heaven, but there is the rejoining with the universal spiritual essense; the pure infinite white light.
When you die, who you are today in this life time ceases to exist. The thing you identify as 'you' is just a shell, and is very transient. It is your true eternal spiritual 'Self' that lives on.
Orson Scott Card gave us a perfect model for non-religious heaven in the continuation of the Ender Sage. In this series, Heaven is called 'Outside'. Outside is the source of all life in our Universe, yet it is infinitely larger. The universal essense of 'being' exists 'Outside', and responds to a yearning for life that comes from 'Inside'. Each aspect of the Outside essense heeds the call to life in proportion to its own capacity. Some 'essense' hears the calling of atoms yearning to be, and it answers the call, sparking to life the individual atoms.
Other essense hears the calling for life of a human, and answers that call by moving 'Inside' and sparking to life a human being. This Aiui (spark of life, spirit, soul, whatever) is the master of all the other aiui that give their sparks of life to each atom that make up the body. It is the greater aiui.
When you die, these 'sparks of life' go back Outside until they are called again. Perhaps with each journey to 'Inside', they become more powerful and more confident and become higher life forces while they are on earth. They continue to improve until the reach Nirvana or a state of 'Heaven' and no long feel the need to heed the call for life 'Inside'. That ends the cylce of reincarnation. Once you are in Nirvana or Heaven, you are at eternal peace.
Perhaps each incarnation on earth is the Hell we speak of. According to Hindu and Buddhist philosophy, all life is suffering, and until you accept that, you can't be at peace. Once we rise to a level of acceptance of life's suffering, only then can we become Spiritually whole enough to move to Nirvana or Heaven, and no longer heed the calling of life from 'Inside'.
You can deny the concept of the soul, but to understand afterlife, you have to at least allow the discussion to consider that there is something greater than our physical Selves that makes up who and what we are. It is not our physical Selves or our physical idenity that lives on. When your body dies, that person represented by that body is gone forever. But the lessons that person learns while living, live on in your eternal intangible spiritual and true Self.
To even have this discussion, you have to, to some extent, except this duality of man; the 'Outside' self and the 'Inside' Self, the transient physical Self and the Eternal spiritual Self. You do not however have to accept God in the image of man or heaven in the image of earth.
posted
the thought of an afterlife is not necessarily or inherently a religious one. i definitely agree with eduardo - how do you think religion in general was created to begin with? how did the lightning come about? how were mountains formed? oh my goodness... it must be.. a god! religion in itself was basically formed on the fact that man did not understand key elements of the surrounding world, and needed an explanation.
the afterlife can be that necessary explanation for death - we die to continue to another life
but more to what you're talking about, strider, i don't believe that the concept of a soul is, again, inherently religious. yes, you can argue that it is, but i'm sure you can see there is a big religious difference between "i believe in ghosts" and "god created the world."
nobody knows what happens after death, so nobody knows if our consciousness simply ceases or if we continue. the interesting thing, though, is that if we do continue, then wouldn't we have existed in the first place? i like to think that if our consciousnesses are continual, that we actually chose to put ourselves in certain situations or certain locations because... i don't know i like to think interesting things but anything and everything is possible, religious or scientific.
especially a giant spaghetti monster. that just makes perfect sense.
Posts: 12 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think a much simpler theory for the origins of the concept of an afterlife can be found in our own brains and to a lesser degree our sensory perception.
First, we are creatures with memory. When someone dies, they don't disappear completely. We have a mental image of that person which is sometimes very vivid. Along with that, we have the ability to dream. It stands to reason that just as we can have vivid dreams of our departed loved ones, so did early man. At some point there was likely a creature who dreamed, yet didn't have the knowledge to distinguish a particularly vivid dream from waking reality. Does it not stand to reason that this creature might dream of a departed loved one and mistake it for a visitation of some sort?
Additionally, we are evolved for survival. In the earliest times, only the most alert and perceptive of our kind survived long enough to pass on genes. Many of us today have experienced subtle sensations that remind us powerfully of past events and people. We are aware that a subtle smell can trigger a strong, yet forgotten memory. We can sometimes "feel" someone watching us, or feel a "presence" and for whatever reason we sometime think we know who that "presence" is. I don't believe in Ghosts, but I do believe that we have an amazing capacity to sense things at the fringes of perception, and enough innate evolutionary paranoia to translate those senses into unknown immediate dangers. Tangentially, I believe we can desire something enough to conjure experiences of it. A lonely widower reports sensing his wife's presence, etc.
All of these things must have seemed to early man or even pre-man as strong evidence of a place where things existed outside of our daylight sober perception, and that this might well be where that unknown part that differentiates a mobile being from a corpse "goes".
On the flip side of this, while I think it's somewhat inconsistent to be agnostic, yet believe in an afterlife, it's not at all inconsistent to hold onto the possibility of one. We know so very little about the true nature of existence and what it means to live in multi-dimensional space-time. What does a four-dimensional being look like from a 5 (or 6 or 9) dimensional perspective? Isn't it at least theoretically possible that you, as a 4 dimensional construct are eternal in some way we don't fully understand from our limited perspective?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like the idea of an afterlife because it makes me think that life is worth something, you know? Like, why am I living this life if I will only die one day and that is that. I prefer to think that I will somehow live on.
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the concept of an afterlife came from the fact that it is simply the conclusion that naturally makes the most sense. Or, at least, that it is the simplest explanation.
After all, it is simpler to think of the conscious self as an eternal thing, like an elemental particle of matter. It gets far messier when you have to come up with a way to explan how a conscious self would come into existence and then leave existence - in the same way that it is simpler to think of an atom as an eternal thing, rather than get into how it can be split apart or put together or even how it could be created out of energy. It is very hard to conceive of what it really would be for your conscious self to come into existence, and would it what mean for it to cease existing.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I like the idea of an afterlife because it makes me think that life is worth something, you know? Like, why am I living this life if I will only die one day and that is that. I prefer to think that I will somehow live on.
How does that help explain why you are living this life? Does an infinitely long life mean it is more meaningful?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belief in the afterlife is the ultimate form of wishful thinking.
People desperately want to believe it is true. Death is scary, and it is far scarier when you realize that you cease to exist when it happens.
I wish I could convince myself of an afterlife, but to me it seems about as likely as convincing myself to believe in Fairies and Leprechauns. It would be so much easier if I could pretend that the loved ones I've lost are still around somewhere, like the religious do. I think myths of heaven or reincarnation are downright silly, however.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
whoosh... this would be a fun subject... I wish I had more time to really really get into it.
You said you don't believe in the soul. That right there explains why an afterlife is a silly concept to you. Most people, however, have an experience of themselves as being more than their physical body... there is an awareness of their awareness that is impossible to physically verify, but inescapable in a self-aware being (by definition). Since this self-awareness doesn't seem to be a physical thing, and seems to animate (pun intended) the physical body, it's natural to believe that it transcends the physical body.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you believe animals are self aware in the way you describe? If not, what "animates" them? How about plants?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
One problem I've always had with the concept of a "soul" is thus:
When I was a child, a man came to speak to our elementary school class.
This man was the son of the current mayor of our little city. He was around 35 years old and had had a stroke (or other brain injury) few years before which had completely and totally wiped out his memory. He had to relearn how to speak, how to eat, the whole shebang. I'd say it left him with the cognitive abilities of an eight year old.
He was probably the most friendly, kind-hearted, loving person I've ever met. He was happy as a clam, and went around to schools giving motivational speeches about the power of perseverance. He was a great guy, and no one would ever doubt that this "soul" would go to heaven.
But, what if he was a total jerk before the brain injury? Say he was a thief, an adulterer, a pedophile, or whatever. His personality and memories were completely wiped when the brain injury happened, so he became a completely different person.
If he was an atheist monster before the brain damage, and a kind hearted Christian after the event, does he go to heaven?
And if he gets to heaven, is he restored to full cognitive function there? Even if he was a complete jerk with full cognitive function?
The things which make up what people think of as a "soul" seem ultimately tied to the brain and brain chemistry to me. Your cognitive abilities, your personality, your memories. Name an aspect of your soul, and doctors could change it with the right medications or brain surgery.
So if your personality on earth can be changed by drugs and physical changes to the brain, what persists in heaven? What part of "you" is not dependent on your brain? If your personality on earth is a jerk because of brain chemistry, but could have been fixed with pills if you'd taken them, are you still a jerk in the afterlife?
Edit:
Person A and person B both have the same brain defect which causes them to be a jerk.
Person A lives in a first-world country and gets medication to fix the defect, living a good life.
Person B lives in a third-world country and goes their whole life as a "bad person".
Which one goes to heaven? Which one has the better soul?
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion: I like the idea of an afterlife because it makes me think that life is worth something, you know? Like, why am I living this life if I will only die one day and that is that. I prefer to think that I will somehow live on.
You could think the other way too. That without an afterlife, what you do in the here and now, is what really matters. You have to create a world (and children) that you want to leave behind as a legacy, since there is no spiritual intervention to give you a second chance, so to say.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:You can deny the concept of the soul, but to understand afterlife, you have to at least allow the discussion to consider that there is something greater than our physical Selves that makes up who and what we are.
No, you don't. You merely have to allow the discussion to "consider" that people like believing there is something greater than our physical selves. It is irrelevant to the question whether or not a "soul" exists; it is only important that some people need to think so.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not here concerned to convince anyone there is a "soul".
I'm saying that most people, even alive today, and certainly throughout history, have an experience of one... and that if you don't believe in one then it's natural that an afterlife makes no sense, but if you do believe in one, there's nothing inherently silly about it surviving past the death of the body.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm saying that most people, even alive today, and certainly throughout history, have an experience of one...
I know what you're saying, but I think the "experience" bit is laying it on a little thick. It'd be more correct to say "have believed in one." I'm not at all sure how someone could experience their non-material soul.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are many observable things in life that are not quantifiable. Most social issues fall in this category including interpersonal relationships.
Even scientifically quantifiable studies produce multifaceted viewpoints.Many scientific discoveries were considered definite scientific impossibilites before the application of new theories and facts were able to redefine perspectives.
Right now science has no way to prove or disprove the existence of afterlife.
I am not saying that this is proof that it is there. I am just saying that beating the drum of scientific achievement as definite proof there is no god or afterlife is as unscientific as declaring the world flat, or the earth the center of the universe until there is definite proof either way.
It is a subject that can only be discussed using conjecture. For instance if you beleive in evolution (which I emphatically do) I can say because there is evolution there is no god because that contradics the bible, therefore there is no afterlife. But if I do that I am making a few very specific assumtions. Including but not limited to assuming that the only form of afterlife possible can only be connected to the christian form of thought. And that afterlife can only be attained through god or gods.
I have personally experienced things that cannot be explained through a scientific lense at this time.
I am all right with that because I don't think we are anywhere near real universal scientific understanding.
To some people the prospect of not being able to put everything they encounter in this life in its specific definiable category is just as frightening as the prospect of ceasing to exist when dying may be for others.
Let me reiterate that I understand the belief structure inherent to those who don't think there is an afterlife. I dont find fault in it.
I have just had experiences that cannot be quantified that I know are not hallucinations, or superstition. I will not relate them here because they are mine to share with those I know well.
The point I am trying to make does not involve saying that you are wrong, it merely involves your willingness to apply a blanket terms like superstitious, unscientific and uneducated to a large protion of the population of this planet. Admittedly there are many that fall under those discriptions, however there are many who do not.
In my opinion a blanket denial or dissmissal of other peoples spiritual beliefs displays just as much ignorance as some who will deny the fascinating and well documented process of evolution or other scientific theories that have redefined my perceptions of the world.
Posts: 686 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: I'm not here concerned to convince anyone there is a "soul".
I'm saying that most people, even alive today, and certainly throughout history, have an experience of one... and that if you don't believe in one then it's natural that an afterlife makes no sense, but if you do believe in one, there's nothing inherently silly about it surviving past the death of the body.
Again, I think you can accept the possibility of conciousness independent of your current physical body without postulating a "soul".
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
ok... how about "have an experience that they consider 'being a soul'"?
I feel like I'm trying to say "I need to do my laundry" and you guys are trying to debate the merits of different detergents with me because you know I like "Cheer" and you think "Cheer" sucks.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree. It seems to me that the definition of the extra carporeal state is just a semantics exercise.
It seems like the issue discussed is the potential for the human body to incorperate anything other than just the basic elements. Is there an interface between the conciousness of the body and something that existed before or will exist after that body ceases to function.
Some call this entity a soul, others will debate this because they feel thier definition does not fall under the broadly assumed definition of a soul. But to people that dont believe there is any such entity a debate about what to call and how to define something they dont believe exists is moot.
Posts: 686 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, when I try to picture what it's like when I'm dead I have a very hard time... Because it's not blackness, it's nothingness. Like before you were born.. You weren't sitting in blackness, you just weren't there. There was no darkness, light, time, nothing... And that's how it will be after I die. But I still have trouble conceiving of it.
It's a very easy jump from that to coming up with an eternal part of us. And from that, the concept of rewards and punishments grow.
Then someone tells their child like it's fact and that child grows up believing in it whole heartedly and passes it on to their children. And blief grows and grows becuase kids tend to have the same faith as their parents. Especially in the old days when people didn't stray more than 5 miles from where they were born.
The idea of a soul is very powerful and alluring. It was the last string that held me to my faith when I was losing it.
quote:I like the idea of an afterlife because it makes me think that life is worth something, you know? Like, why am I living this life if I will only die one day and that is that. I prefer to think that I will somehow live on.
How does that help explain why you are living this life? Does an infinitely long life mean it is more meaningful?
It gives meaning to my life because I know that there will be something after it. That I'm not living just because some amoebas decided to evolve, but rather because there is something more out there.
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never figured out what people meant by "having a soul" anyway. m-w.com's definition lists at least 6 reasonable possibilities, and some of them aren't too clear either.
Main Entry: 1soul Pronunciation: 'sOl Function: noun Etymology: Middle English soule, from Old English sAwol; akin to Old High German sEula soul 1 : the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life 2 a : the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe b capitalized, Christian Science : GOD 1b 3 : a person's total self 4 a : an active or essential part b : a moving spirit : LEADER 5 a : the moral and emotional nature of human beings b : the quality that arouses emotion and sentiment c : spiritual or moral force : FERVOR 6 : PERSON <not a soul in sight> 7 : PERSONIFICATION <she is the soul of integrity> 8 a : a strong positive feeling (as of intense sensitivity and emotional fervor) conveyed especially by black American performers b : NEGRITUDE c : SOUL MUSIC d : SOUL FOOD e : SOUL BROTHER
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: If he was an atheist monster before the brain damage, and a kind hearted Christian after the event, does he go to heaven?
X - this statement shows that you live under the premise that our "works" get us into heaven -- in other words, it is by our own hand, or effort, that we get to heaven, which is why this logic doesn't work for you. Because it's a false premise
quote:It gives meaning to my life because I know that there will be something after it.
If life goes on forever, there definitely cannot be anything after it. I suppose you could say there is a second life after the first, but if the first life isn't important in its own right, why would the second life be any more important?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not at all sure how someone could experience their non-material soul.
The experience of having a soul is the experience of existing.
My guess is that virtually everyone has experienced existing. Some people don't recognize or don't believe that that necessarily indicates you have a soul, though.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:X - this statement shows that you live under the premise that our "works" get us into heaven -- in other words, it is by our own hand, or effort, that we get to heaven, which is why this logic doesn't work for you. Because it's a false premise
If that part doesn’t apply to you, there is a lot about my post that I would be interested in hearing your opinions on, Farmgirl.
Whatever you believe about what it takes to get into heaven, I'm far more interested in people's opinion of the nature of the described person’s, both pre and post brain trauma.
People who believe in souls usually believe that souls impart essential pieces of an individual's personality. That a person can have a "good soul", and likewise an “evil soul”. I am very interested in how those people reconcile the apparent dominance that the brain (both physical and chemical) seems to have on a person's personality with the idea that a "soul" determines who you are.
And further, if the personality of a person is wholly dependant on the brain (which it appears to be), then what makes it into the afterlife? Is your eternal soul influenced by your physical brain? Is there a mix of soul/brain in a person’s personality? If so, what parts of a person’s personality cannot be changed with drugs or surgery?
I'm reasonably confident that even the most altruistic individuals can be changed into raving amoral lunatics with the right combination of drugs/surgery. Do enough damage to certain parts of your brain, and you no longer have a conscience. Give you paranoia inducing drugs...
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Belief in the afterlife is the ultimate form of wishful thinking.
People desperately want to believe it is true. Death is scary, and it is far scarier when you realize that you cease to exist when it happens.
I disagree strongly. I think a lot of people are terrified at the idea that an afterlife might exist, and dread the thought.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by calaban: Is there an interface between the conciousness of the body and something that existed before or will exist after that body ceases to function.
Some call this entity a soul, others will debate this because they feel thier definition does not fall under the broadly assumed definition of a soul. But to people that dont believe there is any such entity a debate about what to call and how to define something they dont believe exists is moot.
See, I disagree that it is "just semantics". I suspect that there is nothing "pre-existing" to any individual other than the atoms from which their body is formed. I do believe that something "more" than "just the physical substructure" arises from the unique way in which intelligence has evolved, but that does not necessitate belief that such a thing can exist independently of some physical sub-structure. Is this "something more" a soul by your definition? I don't know. It could be. I might even agree to call it a soul, but I don't think such things are merely semantic. I think they are essential points requiring clarification if one is to discuss the topic.
There is quite a difference between believing in a pre-existing entity temporarily inhabiting a meat-vehicle and in an entity potentially separate from yet born of and currently dependent on the physical body.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I disagree strongly. I think a lot of people are terrified at the idea that an afterlife might exist, and dread the thought. [/QB]
quote:I disagree strongly. I think a lot of people are terrified at the idea that an afterlife might exist, and dread the thought.
If such people exist, I don't think their numbers are significant, and it doesn't invalidate the statement for the the other 4+ billion believers.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: [QUOTE] Whatever you believe about what it takes to get into heaven, I'm far more interested in people's opinion of the nature of the described person’s, both pre and post brain trauma.
People who believe in souls usually believe that souls impart essential pieces of an individual's personality. That a person can have a "good soul", and likewise an “evil soul”. I am very interested in how those people reconcile the apparent dominance that the brain (both physical and chemical) seems to have on a person's personality with the idea that a "soul" determines who you are.
And further, if the personality of a person is wholly dependant on the brain (which it appears to be), then what makes it into the afterlife? Is your eternal soul influenced by your physical brain? Is there a mix of soul/brain in a person’s personality? If so, what parts of a person’s personality cannot be changed with drugs or surgery?
I'm reasonably confident that even the most altruistic individuals can be changed into raving amoral lunatics with the right combination of drugs/surgery. Do enough damage to certain parts of your brain, and you no longer have a conscience. Give you paranoia inducing drugs...
I think that everything that happens to us as incarnate beings effects us - physical, emotional, experiences, chemical - whatever. Our souls evolve and change based on what happens to us, how we deal with it, who loves us - all of it. It is a risky thing, incarnation.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
okay, I'm gonna do my best to respond to as many points as I can, I hate having to play catch up!
BlueWizard
quote:You denied the concept of the soul, and that's fine, but you can't deny the concept of the soul, or something at least soul-ish, and then pose a question about afterlife.
of course i can! I realize that if you're coming at this question from a religious/spiritual perspective there is a point where no further conversation is possible. I see no physical, philosophical, historical basis for the concept of a soul. To me, it's as baseless as the concept of a diety. I say this not to attack anyone's religious beliefs, but as a way to explain that where I'm coming from. You obviously tie the concept of an afterlife in with the concept of soul. My question is asking, assuming there is no soul, is some form of an afterlife possible? And if so what is the nature of that. Actually, that's not my question at all, because i already know(in my mind) the answer to it. My main question was, how did this concept of an afterlife come about? Pre religion.
quote:When your body dies, that person represented by that body is gone forever. But the lessons that person learns while living, live on in your eternal intangible spiritual and true Self.
To even have this discussion, you have to, to some extent, except this duality of man; the 'Outside' self and the 'Inside' Self, the transient physical Self and the Eternal spiritual Self.
agreed. the only way I can see believing in some form of afterlife is by believing in the duality of man. in a seperation of the "mind" and the brain. yet, i think there is no seperation, and see no basis for the belief that there is. Science can explain to my complete satisfaction not only that consciousness is a material phenomenom, but also that the idea of dualism is impossible(in the sense you're talking about).
KarlEd, I like most of your thoughts on the evolution of the idea of afterlife, they mesh with mine well. Just a few thoughts on what you say at the end.
quote:We know so very little about the true nature of existence and what it means to live in multi-dimensional space-time. What does a four-dimensional being look like from a 5 (or 6 or 9) dimensional perspective? Isn't it at least theoretically possible that you, as a 4 dimensional construct are eternal in some way we don't fully understand from our limited perspective?
quote:Again, I think you can accept the possibility of conciousness independent of your current physical body without postulating a "soul".
Here's the problem I have with these two quotes. I freely admit the possibility that consciousness as we know it is only one form/variety of what consciousness can be because of the way it is tied to the physical manifestation of life and our bodies and our brain activity, etc...and while the physical building blocks that create the construct that is me, may continue to exist after I "die", that in no way leads me to accept the possibility of an afterlife in any way, shape, or form. Because the fact is, who I am, what I define as myself is a product of physical states. When those states cease to function, I don't believe it's possible for my consciousness(as I know it) to continue. Those electrical and chemical signals that produce thoughts and an awareness of myself and the world around me will no longer exist, so how can I?
But lets even say for a moment that what you're talking about is possible. I agree there's so much we don't know, and can possibly never understand given the nature of our brains evolution to cope in a three dimensional environment. But this possible consciousness that continues to exist in some other plane of existence is not ME. To me, what I know as myself is a funciton of memory. I use my memory and my present state of awareness to define who I am. The me I know ceases to exist when I die(when my memories and awareness die with my body). And whatever consciousness continues to exist after the ME is dead, has no relation to me.
AoD
quote:I like the idea of an afterlife because it makes me think that life is worth something, you know? Like, why am I living this life if I will only die one day and that is that. I prefer to think that I will somehow live on.
other people have touched on this, but I see no reason to believe that a never ending life is in any way more meaningfull than a mortal life. A neverending life would probably make me question my purpose and the nature of existence even more. To me, knowledge that "this is it" gives me a much greater appreciation for life and a desire to to live as fully as I can during my time(if only practice was as easy as theory!).
calaban
quote:I am not saying that this is proof that it is there. I am just saying that beating the drum of scientific achievement as definite proof there is no god or afterlife is as unscientific as declaring the world flat, or the earth the center of the universe until there is definite proof either way.
I disagree with you very strongly. We know an extremely large amount about the nature of our minds and how they work. We know which areas of the brain correlate to certain things. We're learning more and more about the nature of consciousness and memory. And most telling, like Xavier says, we know that damage to different areas in the brain effect our consciousness/mind/functioning tremendously.
To postulate the concept of a soul, you would have to explain how this soul communicates with the body. with the brain. and then you would have to explain how people's nature changes so much when damage to either of those things(but particularly the brain) occur. To say that the souls ability to communicate with the body is weakened(that the soul is still speaking, but because of the damage our physical bodies can't listen), again seems to have no scientific basis to me. There is nothing else non-physical in the universe. certain religions believe only humans have souls. Why should such a small amount of matter in the whole entirety of the universe have some sort of non-materialistic quality to it, and nothing else?
I'd also just like to say that I am very attracted to the eastern religious ideas of letting go of your consciousness and realizing the connectivity of all life. But to me, this doesn't then lead to some sort of soul or eternal quality to life. It just helps me remember how limited in scope this construct that I know as myself really is. That sometimes all this awareness and the individual quality to life, takes away from the idea of "just being". It's a way, or a tool, as I see it, to help be more at peace. But I don't take it to a higher level.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Our souls evolve and change based on what happens to us, how we deal with it, who loves us - all of it. It is a risky thing, incarnation
So if I were to do nasty things to your brain, changing your personality, your soul would then change as well?
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:See, I disagree that it is "just semantics". I suspect that there is nothing "pre-existing" to any individual other than the atoms from which their body is formed. I do believe that something "more" than "just the physical substructure" arises from the unique way in which intelligence has evolved, but that does not necessitate belief that such a thing can exist independently of some physical sub-structure. Is this "something more" a soul by your definition? I don't know. It could be. I might even agree to call it a soul, but I don't think such things are merely semantic. I think they are essential points requiring clarification if one is to discuss the topic.
There is quite a difference between believing in a pre-existing entity temporarily inhabiting a meat-vehicle and in an entity potentially separate from yet born of and currently dependent on the physical body.
I agree that this point is not just semantics and is in fact extremely important to the conversation.
I would also be very interested in hearing not the specifics surrounding your belief of what form consciousness takes after death, but the way in which you came to believe these things. If it doesn't fit with the thread, feel free to email.
Though I think this thread is pretty sprawling, and has already completely moved away from the initial reason I started it. Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think so. There may be some parts of my brain or personality that are unreachable, but generally, yes.
Hmmm. I've never heard idea before.
It is my opinion that the "soul" was a concept invented by man in order to explain how individuals have different personalities.
Now that the brain has been found responsible for that, it seems as if the concept has stuck around because of all of the mythologies which were developed when what makes you "you" was still in so much question.
Now that we know what the brain does, and that we know that nothing outside our physical bodies is required to explain personality, I wonder why the majority of humanity still believes in the soul.
If you give the brain 100% credit, there is no need for a soul, and without a soul, any afterlife becomes very unlikely.
Your brain determines who you are, no brain, no "you". Seems pretty clear-cut to me.
I'll bet that most religious people don't give the brain 100% credit, however.
Edit:
And to tie this tighter to the original post...
When the brain was not given credit for personality, we invented the soul.
Here I am defining "soul" as: the idea of a non-physical "thing" which controls personality.
When giving the soul characteristics, it was easy to determine that if the soul is not physical, that it would not be destroyed when the body was destroyed. Hence the idea of an afterlife was the most logical conclusion once you accepted a non-physical soul.
People want to believe that there is something after death, and something which makes them more special than the bag of blood, bones, organs and neurons they carry around. Hence a belief in the soul, and a belief in the afterlife.
Like I said, I wish I could convince myself it was true, so I include myself in this statement.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now that we know what the brain does, and that we know that nothing outside our physical bodies is required to explain personality, I wonder why the majority of humanity still believes in the soul.
If you give the brain 100% credit, there is no need for a soul, and without a soul, any afterlife becomes very unlikely.
Your brain determines who you are, no brain, no "you". Seems pretty clear-cut to me.
The brain can explain how you act the way you do. However, how you act the way you do is NOT all there is to being "you". After all, a sophisticated computer could act just as I do (it could simulate my personality perfectly) and yet it would not be me. I am much more than the set of my actions.
The brain cannot explain how you experience things. A sophisticated computer (with no soul) could not experience pain the way I experience it, or experience happiness the way I experience it, or experience the color red as I experience it. It could act like it does, but it doesn't.
This qualitative conscious experience is essential to be "you". You are not a person without it. You don't even exist as a self without it, because you must have a viewpoint from which you experience the world in order to exist as a self.
Thus explaining your personality does not 100% explain what "you" are. In fact, that leaves out the most important part of being a self - having a perspective and experiencing life (or the afterlife) from it.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The brain cannot explain how you experience things.
You've already had this conversation with Tom, and I don't have any illusions that me and you would have better luck.
Regardless, I think this statement is dead wrong.
quote:Thus explaining your personality does not 100% explain what "you" are. In fact, that leaves out the most important part of being a self - having a perspective and experiencing life (or the afterlife) from it.
"Having a Perspective" is another name for having a mind, which also comes from the brain. Injure the brain, and your "perspective" has now changed.
"Experiencing Life" is also from your brain, in the firing of neurons and the processes of memory. Injure the brain, and your ability to "experience" goes down the drain.
I agree that personality is not 100% who you are. But everything else which is part of who you are is also determined by your brain.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
ditto what Xavier said. I'd just add to this:
quote:I agree that personality is not 100% who you are. But everything else which is part of who you are is also determined by your brain.
assuming you're using a broad definition of the word "personality" I agree. The point being that everything that makes up who you are is completely physical in nature.
quote:A sophisticated computer (with no soul) could not experience pain the way I experience it, or experience happiness the way I experience it, or experience the color red as I experience it. It could act like it does, but it doesn't.
I don't know why you would think this. What is so special about us as opposed to an intelligent machine? I believe that's all we are. Our experiences are just electrical signals that cause other electrical or chemical reactions. You say that you "see" red, or "feel" pain, etc...but those are just words you've created to describe what is happening. There is nothing special about what you "feel" as pain as opposed to what an intelligent machine would "feel" as pain.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But it’s easy to imagine how well this idea would do. Obviously there is no scientific knowledge available. We have lots of questions and no answers. How does the world work? Why do things happen? Why am I here? I guess these questions start venturing more in the god realm of things. But, I still think the point is valid. When you don’t understand what physical life is, then your observations about physical death will of course be ill conceived. And an idea like this has much appeal for people.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
