If you believe in an afterlife, why do you believe in it? nt

[raccoon]

[riqster]

1. I don't so much believe in an afterlife

...as I believe that all of what happens in the universe is cyclical in nature, and that human consciousness follows that model as well.

Why would our 'selves' be the only exception to the natural order of the universe? Makes no sense. So, I figure we come back again somehow or other.

[HereSince1628]

4. What makes you think all the happenings of the universe are cyclical?

Just wondering, because I don't know why that must be a conclusion of available evidence.

[riqster]

8. Good point - it's still just a theory

...just like the nature of human consciousness. Expansion/contraction of the universe, entropy and implosion, all are highly theoretical, but from what studying I have done seems to be the consensus.

My feeling on the usual "die and go heaven" model is that it does not follow that model - it is a linear process which seems to be yet another bit of anthropomorphic egotism, that our immortal souls are so golly-gee-whiz special, and so on. In reality, lots of people are flawed schmucks (myself included) and it's hard to see why we'd be the only exception to the natural 'rule'.

Again, it's all theory at this point, mine is no better or worse than anyone else's. :hi:

[HereSince1628]

13. It actually seems like the theorists think aspects of it are not cyclical

Expansion, yes and, not just an expansion but an acceleration of expansion. There seem to be no signs of coming contraction no matter how intellectually satisfying that idea might be.

As far as I can tell, and I'm just a tourist regarding physics, energy doesn't cycle within our universe. It seems (from our persepctive inside the universe) that with respect to energy the path is toward a uniformly dark, cold, steady state for which there is no internal mechanism to "recharge."

I am sure some cosmologist can can contribute to this conversation and keep me from running amok. But, I believe the oscillating universe model- bang->expansion->contraction->bang...etc., isn't what the theorists are contemplating anymore.

[riqster]

15. Wouldn't be the first time I was out of date

Very interesting stuff, I shall use "The Google" on "The Internets" to look this up. :)

[Silent3]

10. Even in nature the things that come back...

...cyclically aren't the exact same things that were there before. Trees that die aren't replaced with identical trees, they're replaced with similar trees. Even if you think you can generalize about cyclical patterns (a big mistake), that generalization shouldn't buy you much hope about you coming back to live again, as opposed to more new minds which are merely similar to yours to replace you.

[riqster]

11. Better phrasing than mine

...and I agree completely about the lack of continuity beyond the very general.

Frankly, I haven't a lot of concern about what happens after I finally lose the game of cat-and-mouse I've been playing with my mortality, lo these many years; too many near-death experiences to be scared anymore. It's an interesting subject for speculation, but I'd rather focus on living well (and for as long as practicable) than sweat what happens during my eventual trip through the recyling process.

[crikkett]

2. You go first, unless you're just trolling. n/t

[raccoon]

5. I don't believe in an afterlife. There was a time in my life when I did, because I

was raised with that idea. I later reconsidered that and decided I don't believe in one. I think it's just wishful thinking.

[rainy]

3. I think our energy comes back in another life form. Hopefully

human. I don't beleive in an afterlife but that our energy never dies but is recirculated.

[floridablue]

7. I like that idea but I don't want to come back as a puddle of oil.

[riqster]

9. Poo is more useful than oil overall

...but wouldn't be my first choice either, if it came to that.

[Silent3]

12. If you understand thermodynamics...

...our "energy" recirculates in the form of waste heat, and maybe some of it lingers on in some chemical bonds in our remains. Hope for immortality based on the conservation of energy has absolutely no basis in physics.

Now, if you wish to believe that there's some special separate category of "energy" somehow tied to our minds or spirits or souls, apart from what physicists measure and apart from anything for which there is any scientific proof, and that this energy follows conservation principles like the energy measured in physics, and that this type of energy somehow retains complex and individualized patterns which don't dissipate, and that nothing like the pesky Second Law of Thermodynamics degrades the quality of this energy over time... well, then you're welcome to your beliefs, but you're also off on a flight of fancy that in no way should pretend to be supported by science or scientific principles.

[peruban]

79. The afterlife doesn't necesarily mean that the consiousness remains in tact.

And, from a scientific perspective, we must be open to the idea that there may be another form of energy yet undetected that helps to explain phenomena like consciousness and thought. If we reduce all thought and behavior to merely synaptic function we reduce our existence to mere mechanistic process and that endangers the concept of free will, which is another topic entirely. Just thinking.

[HereSince1628]

14. Energy, at least energy in the sense that thermodynamics considers

doesn't cycle. Consequently you seem to mean something other than what physicists mean when they say energy. Is it possibe for you to distinguish "your energy" from "their energy" so as to avoid semantic confusion?

[YOY]

6. I don't. I also don't disbelieve. There's no solid demonstrative fact either way.

Such is the beauty of agnosticism.

[ZombieHorde]

19. There's no solid demonstrative fact either way.

Are you certain? Do you believe this statement with all of your being?

[floridablue]

16. I believe in "one n done", then someone

cremates you and dumps you in the gulf where you feed the fished and stone crabs for a bit. So next time you go to Hooters and have stone crabs and beer, think of me.

[elshiva]

17. Agreed.

:rofl: :thumbsup:

[laconicsax]

18. Because I like to think that eternal suffering is a reasonable sentence for thoughtcrime comitted

during a finite lifetime.

:sarcasm:

[peruban]

20. I believe in an afterlife.

Because I believe that this is not all that we are, I believe that we are fifth dimensional beings trapped in a three dimensional body experiencing a fourth dimensional reality.

Did I just blow your mind?

First dimension: length
Second dimension: width
Third dimension: height
Fourth dimension: time
Fifth dimension: thought and consciousness

My descriptions of dimensions may not be the traditional physics definition which includes mathematical proof of existence, mine is more of a philosophical approach to dimensional analysis.

Also, I believe that we are creatures of energy and the first law of thermodynamics teaches us about the conservation of energy. Since we are energy, when we die that energy is released back into the universe where it may or may not retain its individual identity.

This is the essence of an afterlife.

[cosmik debris]

22. Why do you believe this?

Most beliefs are based on observation or teaching. Is that the case here or is there another option that I have missed?

[peruban]

23. Yes, my belief is based on physical observation and metaphysical constructs.

It just makes sense that our bodies are three dimensional, though we experience the fourth dimension through the passing of time. And thoughts have the ability to transcend time into abstraction, so I conclude that mental formations themselves are a dimension of their own.

[cosmik debris]

24. Amusing

I always find it amusing when people try to use scientific terminology to describe things that would never stand up to scientific scrutiny.

:)

[peruban]

25. Actually fourth dimensional vectors are perfectly scientifically valid.

They are used in physics, mathematics, and engineering.  It's
called a space-time vector and Einstein and Lorentz both used
them in their calculations on relativity.  The fifth dimension
I added is simply another measure in the same vector, it just
becomes a five dimensional vector which is perfectly
mathematically sound.  All that it requires is a numerical
value placed on thoughts and ideas and, poof, you a have fifth
dimensional vector to describe location in space, time, and
thought.  The use of consciousness as the fifth vector
component is something many physicists would have no problem
considering, much less a philosopher.  It would require a
rigorous mathematical definition of thought and assignment of
numerical values to abstract ideas.  Thus, with a five
dimensional vector you could describe a person's location in
space-time as well as the thoughts they are experiencing at
that said location.

I think perhaps it has been a long time since you took a
course in vector analysis, if ever.  A fifth dimensional
vector would appear like this: [x,y,z,t,c]  where x is the
location about a given x-axis, y along a y-axis, z along a
z-axis, t for placement along the time line, and c for a
numerical value assigned to a given thought or idea.

See?  It's not so hard to comprehend.  It lends itself to the
idea perfectly well.  In fact, c could be further broken up
into its own vector, depending on how we define consciousness
and thought.

[cosmik debris]

26. How deftly you side step!

"...so I conclude that mental formations themselves are a dimension of their own."

That conclusion is not testable by any scientific inquiry.

My point was that without testable evidence, science does not apply.

Thus scientific terminology is meaningless.

It is as if you just made it up.

[peruban]

27. Look, if it's a flame war you're looking for you've got the wrong guy.

The conclusion of thoughts being another measurable dimension is philosophical construct and is not intended for scientific analysis. Science does not yet understand the nature of thought but it is self-evident that we are conscious and aware (at least I am) so allowing for that it is not inconceivable that thought can be measured, despite not having the correct metric to do so as of yet. Again, it's a metaphysical construct, not intended to be considered as a solid physical explanation.

So once again, I believe that we are fifth dimensional beings trapped in a three dimensional body experiencing a fourth dimensional reality. When we die it is MY belief that our consciousness survives in some form, thus my definition of an afterlife.

[cosmik debris]

28. Like I said:

"I always find it amusing when people try to use scientific terminology to describe things that would never stand up to scientific scrutiny."

Amusing, that's all.

[peruban]

29. If you actually took a second to respond to my idea intelligently

We might get somewhere with this. Nothing I've posted flies in the face of science. Multidimensional vector analysis is a valid field of scientific study. Assigning consciousness a value simply brings the rigor of mathematics into a metaphysical construct. What's your problem with rigorous philosophy or metaphysics? Did you not take that elective in college?

On edit:

Oh, ok, I get it now. You're a huckster:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x189126#189693

Just stirring up the pot a little.

[cosmik debris]

30. You have very clever insults for a Buddhist.

But you are still trying to describe non scientific ideas with scientific terminology.

And that's amusing.

Please continue.

[peruban]

31. Are you being purposefully dense out of amusement?

I called you a "huckster", neither is this an insult nor worthy of the plural "insults". It's simply an observation based on your demeanor and how seriously you take yourself and others in your posts. Not very much, from what I see.

It is also appearant you've never taken an actual philosophy course. Otherwise you would understand the logic involved in my argument and how philosophy is modeled after the scientific method. That is why they share similar terminology while discussing different modailities. You probably also don't have a good grasp of metaphysical concepts, you should do some research on the issue, you will find it most rewarding. And since you are just trying to push buttons here I won't waste my time further trying to re-explain what I've already elucidated perfectly well above.

If you have an actual question regarding anything I've posted please, by all means, ask away. My feeling is, however, that you're just trying to stir up shit. You can consider that one an insult.

[cosmik debris]

35. You have called it

a "philosophical construct and is not intended for scientific analysis" and a "metaphysical construct". But you have not called it science. Because it is not.

Please continue.

:)

[peruban]

38. Very good! You're getting it.

Philosophy is not science, hence the different courses you nave to take to learn them. Philosophy, however, does make extensive use of logic, which is a branch of mathematics. So, if A leads to B, and B leads to C, then A leads to C. Logical. And what exactly am I supposed to be continuing? You nave posed one question and one question alone, "Why do you believe this?". I have made my reasoning very clear, so clearly anyone with at least a GED could grasp it.

So, then, what exactly do you want me to "continue"?

[cosmik debris]

40. I guess the show is over.

My point was that you were using scientific terminology to describe things that are not science.

Now that you have conceded the point that it is not science, you can stop pretending that scientific terminology applies.

Thank you, come again.

[peruban]

43. Scientific analysis is used in philosophical arguments.

And since the original question was a philosophical one in nature, you incorrectly assumed that I was explaining things in a scientific context. This was YOUR mistake. You can't change the rules of the game once it's begun just because you don't like the way the game is being played. I never claimed to have a scientific explanation for the afterlife, this seems to be something you invented just for your own amusement. The scientific method is not just for "science", the method can be applied to all lines of thought and reason, you're the one who posed the limitations on it. I never argued that my opinion was anything more than just that, my opinion. I think post number 23 seems to have already answered what you're just getting at. If you don't like my opinion you are welcome to develop your own, something I see absent in any of your posts. So let's turn the tables for laugh.

Do YOU believe in an afterlife? And if so or not, why? Try not to pose your answer in the form of a question, this isn't Jeopardy.

[cosmik debris]

46. I'm just observing here.

I observed that you used scientific terminology to describe a non-scientific idea.

When I commented on that, you defended, for a while, the use of that language.

I find that amusing. I hope you don't mind.

[peruban]

50. I apreciate your observations.

Your amusement is just an extra little bonus for you. I used scientific terminology to explain my beliefs because that is how I justify an afterlife to myself, I don't go on blind faith. I actually can see how an afterlife could naturally follow death. I was a mathematics major in college and so I can't help looking at everything analytically. If my scientific terminology seemed odd to you, that is because I was forming a philosophical argument on which my beliefs are based. Please read up on some philosophy before making fun of others for saying things you don't understand. The dialogues of Plato are a great place to start. I suggest you begin with "The Apology":

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html

It makes for great reading and his sarcasm may make you burst out in laughter, I sure did.

[cosmik debris]

53. You're welcome. n/t

[peruban]

54. I think you meant to say, "Thank you",

Since I did not say anything to warrant a "you're welcome". I provided you with a great link to a great piece of literature/philosophy that I believe you'll get a kick out of. Now, I say "you're welcome" because I offered you something of benefit and value. See how that works?

[cosmik debris]

57. I always say "You're Welcome"

when someone says they appreciate me. I thought it was the polite thing to say.

[peruban]

61. Oh, sorry.

This has turned into such a flame-fest I forgot my manners. I do appreciate your challenging my beliefs, it makes me hunker down and really think about them myself, which is always a good thing. But your refusal to put up your own thoughts on an afterlife doesn't exactly seem fair, since I'm consistently on the defense here.

[cosmik debris]

62. Since you are not familiar with this forum,

In this forum, ideas are scrutinized critically. And if they seem to be ridiculous, they are ridiculed.

You laid out some pretty preposterous ideas, and they got what they deserved.

If you don't want to be on the defensive, don't blow smoke like that.

[peruban]

64. I believe I've made a solid case for my beliefs.

You haven't pointed out any actual flaws in my belief system, just a consistent misunderstanding of what I've posited. And my reasons for believing in an afterlife are no more preposterous than any other's in this thread. Would you prefer that I just say I believe in a an afterlife because my priest tells me so? Where would that get us? I'm not sure why you singled me out but I suspect its because I believe in an afterlife with a sense of certitude based in physical observation and philosophical reasoning instead of dogma.

[cosmik debris]

66. You are welcome to believe anything you want to believe.

And I am welcome to believe that your ideas are nuts.

[peruban]

70. Again with the single sentence quips.

Your making me think that you couldn't hold a deep thought if it came with handles and a shoulder strap. You provide no basis for your attacks on my beliefs and sidestep every explanation I generously offer you. Is it the attention that you crave?

Do you just sit there and hit the refresh button constantly to see if someone responded to your drivel? If you are so confident that my basis for believing in an afterlife doesn't hold water why not try presenting your own. Oh, wait, that would leave you vulnerable to the criticisms of others and you don't like being on that side of the coin, do you? Maybe you just can't provide an answer and get your rocks off trashing others needlessly.

So what is it? Mommy not breast feed you or something? Get beaten up for being a smartass in in school so much you get your jollies off of anonymous online trolling? What's your deal?

[cosmik debris]

72. Oooooh it's back to the bitterness again.

You must really get frustrated by people who don't fawn all over your brilliant, deep, philosophical pseudoscience.

That's too bad.

[peruban]

75. Ahh, I see.

You've answered my question quite elegantly. All talk, no substance.

Goodbye.

[cosmik debris]

77. ENCORE! ENCORE! n/t

[peruban]

32. Oh, and are Buddhists not supposed to be able to make clever remarks?

Do you find them mutually noninclusive? You seem to amuse yourself quite a bit with your antics. Some of us are actually here to exchange ideas and the pot stirring helps no one. If you want to act like an ass the DU Lounge is always open.

[cosmik debris]

33. You're just more amusing than most buddhists.

And you don't get to decide where I post.

[peruban]

34. I feel sadness for you.

You obviously feel the need to bring people down to your own level because you can't find a tall enough highchair to elevate yourself to intelligent discourse. Post where you may, I was just suggesting a place where your antics would be more appreciated.

[cosmik debris]

36. Oooooh now it is just bitterness.

That's not amusing.

[peruban]

39. I expected about that much.

You're all talk, no thought. Now please pose a pertinent question or accept that I've fully answered the only question that you asked with rigorous, and frankly unnecessary, detail.

[cosmik debris]

41. You don't make the rules here.

You may insult me all you want, but you can't make me play by your rules.

Your sense of superiority is not well earned.

[peruban]

44. If you get your head out of the sandbox for a second

You'll see I'm making no rules here. Posing on cross does not make you a victim. And chastising me for having an opinion is, what's that word? Oh, yeah, pompous.

[cosmik debris]

47. Your demands are no more potent than your insults. n/t

[peruban]

51. And I've "demanded" what, exactly? n/t

[Silent3]

37. "Nothing I've posted flies in the face of science"

How would you know? You don't seem to understand what science is about.

Multidimensional vector analysis is a valid field of scientific study.

No, "multidimensional vector analysis" a mathematical tool which can be applied to scientific study. But it has to be applied appropriately. It has to be applied in a way that makes sense, that yields a useful analysis, not just in a way that sounds good to you and appeals to you emotionally.

First dimension: length
Second dimension: width
Third dimension: height
Fourth dimension: time
Fifth dimension: thought and consciousness

1-3 are measured in units such as meters. 4 is measured in units such as seconds. 1-4 are all simple scalar quantities. What, pray tell, should 5 be measured in? If collectively these "dimensions" are supposed to signify a 5-tuple vector, how do you turn "thought and consciousness" into a simple scalar?

If you can't answer those questions, you're nowhere near performing any "multidimensional vector analysis".

Did I just blow your mind?

No, this stuff is laughable, not mind-blowing. It might wow drunk people at a party with how very "deep" you are, but there's no substance here.

[peruban]

42. You haven't read my other posts here.

Sure, you can pick out that multidimensional vector analysis is more properly deemed a tool of scientific study than a field of its own, but mathematics treats it as a field of study calling it matrix or linear algebra.

If you read my other posts here you'll see that I assign a theoretical numerical value to thought and consciousness. This brings the concept into the field of philosophical reasoning. Just because we don't have a defined scientific value for thought and consciousness doesn't mean we can't consider it a factor in a metaphysical construct. I also suggest that thought and consciousness could be considered its own vector, depending on how we define it. It's philosophy, not science.

The question posed was "If you believe in an afterlife, why do you believe in it?". I believe I have provided more than my share of why I believe in an afterlife. I just used logic as a tool for justifying my beliefs and ideas, something that is normally done in philosophical considerations.

I just don't understand why some people are taken so aback when I use logic to justify my beliefs and not just senseless theological babble. No one else here is getting the third degree on whatever their opinions are. I think that my use of the scientific method in my approach just sticks in some people's craw.

Oh, and I guess the Robot Chicken reference of "Did I just blow your mind?" was wasted here. It was said by a giant carrot who jumped out of a garden and bit the head off of a rabbit. It's just humor. Liven up a little.

Oh, and your assumption that three dimensional space is necessarily measured in meters and time in seconds is, just that, an assumption. It's really arbitrary what units are used in this case, since we are dealing with, once again, a philosophical consideration.

Now if I haven't addressed all of your interrogatories to your particular satisfaction, feel free to pose the question again more specifically.

[cosmik debris]

45. Now that's the part that's amusing.

When you just make up shit out of thin air:

"I assign a theoretical numerical value to thought and consciousness."

:rofl:

[peruban]

48. You've never taken a single philosophy course, have you?

Just admit it and we can move past the parts you don't understand. For example, presuppositions are a common tool when developing a philosophical argument. If the question is "Do you believe in an afterlife" this question presupposes that we have a life to begin with - something that can be argued validly. In philosophy "making shit up out of thin air" is called "conjecture". This may be a new word for you so I'll define it:

con·jec·ture:
–noun
1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.
2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation
–verb (used with object)
3. to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to ensure reliability.
–verb (used without object)
4. to form conjectures.


It's a necessary process we perform every day when discussing anything, otherwise we would get lost in semantic argument and no thought would develop further and nothing would ever get done.

You're beginning to bore me with your quibbles. Do you actually have a thought or point to make here?

[cosmik debris]

49. It's not about me. It never was.

It's about you making shit up out of thin air.

And bringing joy to the world.

Thank you.

[peruban]

52. You density is a pose, of course.

No one can repeat what you just did after reading what I posted just above. Your "making shit up out of thin air" is called conjecture. You do it every day in your goings about. Society can't function without conjecture. Please re-read my post, it appearantly did not sink in.

Oh, and yes, when you post an idiotic statement without understanding what you're commenting on you do make it about yourself, specifically your ignorance. Please try not to be so dense, you're just flame-baiting here and I'm just indulging your twisted sense of humor.

[cosmik debris]

55. When you post an idiotic statement

about your "metaphysical construct" and pretend that it is real science, it is just about you.

I thought you liked it that way.

You certainly seem to love drawing attention to yourself.

[peruban]

58. You keep sidestepping the obvious point here.

We are discussing PHILOSOPHY, not science. A conjecture is required to build any philosophical idea. The entire thread is a philosophical subject. You are the one who incorrectly assumed I was making some scientific argument to justify my beliefs. If you don't understand what philosophy is I'll try to define it for you here:

phi·los·o·phy:
–noun
1. the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
2. any of the three branches, namely natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy, that are accepted as composing this study.
3. a system of philosophical doctrine: the philosophy of Spinoza.
4. the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, esp. with a view to improving or reconstituting them: the philosophy of science.
5. a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.

We are specifically discussing metaphysics here. "Meta" being the Greek for "beyond" and if I need to define physics for you, so help me God, I'm might just piss myself laughing.

[cosmik debris]

59. No, YOU are discussing pseudo science

And I am enjoying the show.

[peruban]

63. What you call pseudoscience has long been considered "metaphysics".

Scientists generally avoid discussing philosophy because meaning can change instantly with the change of a basis of foundation. If we define a+a to equal 3a, all of algebra falls apart. Similarly, a philosophical argument must have a basic foundation of axiomatic identities. In this case, I conjecture that man is a fifth dimensional being and that the conservation of energy can account for the prolonged existence of a soul after death. It's not pseudoscience, its metaphysics. I know scientists don't like to entangle themselves with philosophical quandaries but I don't have that fear of treading across science and into philosophy. So please, just stop with the pigeonholing and try to make an effort to see where I'm coming from here, you might actually learn something about yourself.

[cosmik debris]

65. You say potato, I say bullshit.

Your excuses amuse me.

[peruban]

67. You really can't respond with more than a single sentence at a time, can you?

Please do the world a favor an educate yourself a little if you're going to engage in a conversation about something. I'm literally having a conversation with what feels like a junior high schooler. If I have to stop and explain everything to you I'll be here all night.

Read up on logic, philosophy, and specifically metaphysics and then maybe we can conduct an intelligent discourse on this matter. Just because you don't like what I say doesn't make it invalid, it just points out your close mindedness and inability to accept ideas other than your own.

You still have, as of yet, failed to provide any counter-thought to my argument or any opinion of your own on the subject. Does it hurt you to see someone with belief in an afterlife with such confidence because you're secretly afraid of death and can't explain belief in an afterlife for yourself? I'm just trying to figure out your angle here. I'd like to think that your doing it out some psychological necessity rather than just trolling, but I usually try to see things in a more positive light.

[cosmik debris]

69. You're talking to yourself

I'm just the audience for your monologue.

And I find it quite amusing. But I've said that already.

Please continue.

[peruban]

71. What exactly do you want me to continue?

You ask no questions, you're just trolling.

[cosmik debris]

73. Making a fool of yourself. n/t

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cosmik debris]

78. After all your ad hominem attacks you accuse ME of attacking you?

That's why we all love you so much.

:rofl:

[Silent3]

56. You can't just pull presuppositions out of your ass, however.

You have to a good reason for them, to be able to show that making those presuppositions takes you somewhere useful, yields some sort of fruitful analysis, answers some other questions you couldn't answer before, etc.

What fruit does presuming "thought and consciousness" are a dimension yield? Where does such a presupposition take you? I could presume "thought and consciousness" are like temperature, but I'd better have a plan involving something like a thermometer, and something impressive to show for what happens when I treat "thought and consciousness" like temperature.

What does your idea of applying "dimensions" have going for it, other than an appeal to a vague notion of "dimension" as a place inhabited by mystical forces that luckily turn out to be whatever you need or want them to be?

[peruban]

60. My conjecture was sound and provided adequate basis for my opinion.

Treating thought and consciousness as a conceivable value allows me to consider mental formations as real and so provides a means of leading into the survival of the self after death. Like I said, if we consider ideas and consciousness to inhabit another unseen abstract dimension of thought we can consider ourselves fifth dimensional beings.

Our body provides the first three dimensions, time provides the fourth, and the conjecture of thought formations provides the fifth. Just because I can't measure consciousness with a thermometer or similar metric doesn't mean we can't consider it on a philosophical basis. This is philosophy and I don't have to base a conjecture on anything if it allows me to construct a reality where I can consider an afterlife if that is my goal, which in this case, it was.

I'm sorry if my logical approach to a metaphysical question offends you somehow, I can't think of why, but it is how I justify a belief in an afterlife for myself. If you don't like my opinion you are free to formulate your own - something my detractors here don't seem to be able to do.

[Silent3]

68. You're basically saying if you presume what you want to presume...

...it leads to a conclusion that makes you happy. Good for you, but that's hardly good philosophy or science. Assuming "mental formations" are, oh, let's get really wild, a phenomenon of our physical brains, also allows us to consider those things as real, and that particular assumption leads to good explanations why very specific affects on emotion, memory, thought, and motor control result from stimulation or injury of various parts of the brain.

Where's the fruitful depth that springs from your presumptions? Something more than that you get to believe you're immortal, which is just begging the question?

This is philosophy and I don't have to base a conjecture on anything if it allows me to construct a reality where I can consider an afterlife if that is my goal, which in this case, it was.

So for you, who dares to lord in over other posters about what they don't know about philosophy, philosophy is a goal-driven thing where you make up your mind where you want to go, pick the assumptions that get you there, and where you don't worry about achieving any more depth of substance than "well, it could turn out just like I want" and "you can't prove me wrong, can you?"?

You keep saying that your "conjecture was sound". Only by a very, very lenient, undemanding standard of soundness.

I'm sorry if my logical approach to a metaphysical question offends you somehow...

That you call what you're doing a "logical approach" is what's offensive. Your approach to philosophy is like a Mad Libs approach to sentences -- sure, the end result might have valid grammar, but there's a lack of substance and meaning.

[peruban]

74. Not quite.

I'm saying that if I want to posit an afterlife and do so with a rational basis, I have to logically start with some basic presumptions. In this case, that thoughts exist as valid entities. This is basically what Plato taught, that ideas are the true substance of reality and everything around us is simply a reflection of the ideal. No new ideas there, I'm simply borrowing from Plato.

Following that, ideas are eternal and unchanging so they exist in some way, I choose to consider it in an abstract dimensional approach. This approach ties together with what we see as an impermanent reality and so I can consider life as having a permanent quality to it, namely a soul. If ideas are eternal then the spring of those ideas, the mind, could be considered eternal as well on an intellectual basis. This positions us in a place where we can consider an afterlife.

Fine, it's not mathematically solid, but you have to at least admit that there is something there that can be considered a conclusion and hence, sufficient basis for belief in an afterlife.

And insulting my logic doesn't offend in the least bit. I didn't graduate with high honors in mathematics by being stupid. You can bitch and moan all you want but unless you can put you might as well just shut up.

[Silent3]

80. If we're going to play the credentials game...

...I was graduated from college Summa Cum Laude, with a 3.96 GPA, which included straight A-s in calculus, discrete math, physics, computer science, and two philosophy electives (basic intro and John Dewey's Pragmatism). I spent many hours after classes chatting and arguing with my philosophy professors as well.

I didn't graduate with high honors in mathematics by being stupid.

If I solve a complex calculus problem, but do it while I'd driving my car at high speed down a busy highway with my calculus textbook propped up on the steering wheel, is that smart or stupid? It's both, because smart and stupid aren't mutually exclusive.

Fine, it's not mathematically solid, but you have to at least admit that there is something there that can be considered a conclusion and hence, sufficient basis for belief in an afterlife.

You feed in basic presumptions designed to lead you to a desired outcome that makes you feel good, apply very little to no rigor, and presto, the result you want appears. What am I supposed to have to admit about that? I can start with the presumption that there is a Santa Claus, and come to the conclusion that I'll get what I want for Christmas. So what?

[peruban]

81. You make very good points.

I didn't mean to play "who's got the biggest dick" with credentials, just that I know how to play the logic game, too. And your analogy of smart and stupid being not being mutually exclusive is a little off, IMO. Solving the calculus problem may smart, but the driving while doing it is more like unwise than stupid, but that's semantics and petty.

I never intended to write a thesis paper here justifying my belief in an afterlife so my approach did lack a sense of logical rigor and my founding conjectures were leading, but I figure that's enough to explain why I believe. The thread is a question of belief, after all. I just approached it from a different angle than dogma. I could say that I believe in an afterlife because I'm Catholic, or that I believe in an afterlife because of the basic tenets of Buddhism, but I wanted to post something more substantial and based in the scientific method, even if just weakly so. I did want to expand on my ideas and I have come to more specific conclusions as I went along but I guess I expected more of a sharing of ideas rather than an all out assault on them. It seems that no matter what I say, it's wrong, even though it's just an opinion, which isn't supposed to have a truth value to begin with.

And the lack of positive feedback is astounding, at least I have enough humility to think that I may be wrong in my thinking. Regardless, I still believe in an afterlife, despite however flimsy you may consider my reasoning. I just can't believe that this is all there is, that this is all we are, and that the observable is the only reality that exists. We only discovered the concept of electromagnetism in the mid-late 1800's. And our picture of the universe is constantly changing so it is not a leap of faith to think that there are yet discoveries to be made that may explain the concept of the individual self and consciousness beyond biochemical synaptic processes.

[Silent3]

82. I'm not expecting a thesis paper

I would like to see more than feel-good fluff dressed in inappropriately-applied scientific-sounding lingo, however.

And your analogy of smart and stupid being not being mutually exclusive is a little off, IMO.

The point is that you don't automatically get credit, or even a large benefit of the doubt, for being smart about everything just because you've perhaps shown signs of being smart about something else. Whatever discipline and rigor you applied to get good grades in math is not on display in this thread. You seem to be saying that you want credit for being able to activate that discipline and rigor as needed, and having granted such credit I'm supposed to then accept that discipline and rigor aren't needed wherever you don't feel the need to bother with them.

...and my founding conjectures were leading, but I figure that's enough to explain why I believe.

As explanatory power goes, the problem is that you're not saying much more than "I believe in X because I believe in X". You're "founding conjectures" aren't things that lead to what you believe, they are after-the-fact window dressing on what you believe. If I sound offended, it's because I object to people attempting to co-opt the imprimatur of science by using wording that is merely scientific-sounding to describe things that aren't at all scientific.

The thread is a question of belief, after all.

Indeed, and I'm not giving anyone a free pass on their claims simply because they attach the word "belief" to those claims.

I just approached it from a different angle than dogma.

I'm not sure that what you're doing is much different from dogma. I might call it "personal dogma" -- a system of beliefs which is personalized rather than received from an organized community of belief, beliefs which you are perhaps prepared to revise more readily and frequently than happens in a tradition-bound community, but still beliefs where the supposed truth value comes thinking that you can feel "deep down" that what you say is true.

...but I wanted to post something more substantial and based in the scientific method, even if just weakly so.

You have not succeeded, even "weakly so", in my opinion. You can't just borrow a little scientific-sounding lingo and hope that since somehow, someway, someday someone might be able to use your scientific window dressing as a launching pad for deeper, more substantial analysis than you've bothered with yourself, that you have somehow taken a small step in a scientific direction.

And the lack of positive feedback is astounding, at least I have enough humility to think that I may be wrong in my thinking.

Being able to admit you might be wrong while still glorifying your guesswork with pseudo-scientific glitz is not my idea of humility.

I just can't believe that this is all there is, that this is all we are, and that the observable is the only reality that exists.

I'm sure there's plenty we don't know about, and much more to the universe that what we've managed to observe so far. But the unknown is the unknown, not a playground for wish fulfillment, a place where all of the things you hope are true, that would help give you a sense of purpose or feel less threatened by mortality, are necessarily hiding.

We only discovered the concept of electromagnetism in the mid-late 1800's.

When your speculations about "dimensions" yield as much fruit as quickly followed from the discovery of electromagnetism -- solid, real, repeatable applications like the telegraph, the telephone, and radio -- please get back to us.

And our picture of the universe is constantly changing so it is not a leap of faith to think that there are yet discoveries to be made that may explain the concept of the individual self and consciousness beyond biochemical synaptic processes.

No such speculation, leap of faith or not, is particular necessary, however. The "individual self and consciousness" are quite adequately explained by biochemical processes, as long as you aren't playing that game that a thing has to be utterly and completely understood, and if it isn't, that lack of total understanding somehow discredits the approach you don't like.

[peruban]

83. So, then

If I called it "theological speculation" rather than an attempt to use the scientific method to base a philosophical belief on you would have no problem with that? I fail to see the need to justify my beliefs so aggressively, if weak philosophical argument helps me support my concept of an afterlife why isn't that good enough? If I believe that when I make confession the priest actually serves as the ear of God what's the harm in that? Why not focus on the positive aspects of that belief rather than denigrate it analytically. The positives outweigh the costs here, in my opinion. No one asked for a solid argument on belief of an afterlife, and it would be silly to try to do so. But if my reasoning helps support beliefs that comfort me, where's the harm in that? It's obvious that I want to believe in an afterlife, so rationalizing it to myself, however pathetically you think it may be, serves a cause. It reinforces my faith and gives me motivation to be kinder and more compassionate to others. It helps me feel sympathy for those in need, and encourages me to act selflessly in charitable works. I just keep a more open mind about things than some, it's no crime. All I've done here is use a different approach to justify a set of beliefs, this does not harm the scientific/analytical part of me - it just makes me a better me. And if I have to justify my faith to myself in an unconventional way in order to fit within my understanding of things, that supports my belief that doing harm is wrong and being kind and charitable is right. Right and wrong, an a moral basis, have no need for scrutiny as long as it supports positive mindfulness and behavior.

You should lighten up a little and not take these matters so seriously or scrutinize people so harshly, this I concluded this morning to myself after reviewing my posts from last night. I have a belief in an afterlife and no scrutiny towards my reasoning to do so will change that. You may not like the way I reason to myself but that is not your problem. I can enjoy life with just as much fervor as anybody else with my set of beliefs and I've decided that it's happiness and moral behavior that counts, not strict analytical justification.

I think maybe you're not used to seeing people wanting to support their religious beliefs rationally.

[Silent3]

85. Oh, I'm used to it.

I think maybe you're not used to seeing people wanting to support their religious beliefs rationally.

I see people try to do this all of the time.

But I don't even classify what you've done in this thread as an attempt at rationality, or if I did, I'd have to classify it as an utterly failed attempt at rationality. Misusing scientific terminology, or applying it in a slipshod manner in hopes that maybe you might thus end up pointing in a roughly scientifically direction, but only as an exercise you've never bothered to pursue because you stopped your pursuit as soon as you had the happy feeling you were looking for, is not an exercise in rationality. That's rationalization, perhaps, but not rationality.

If I ask you what temperature it is outside, and you don't really know, but you take a guess anyway, you might say something like "Oh, I don't know, mid fifties perhaps?". It would be pretty ridiculous to answer, "I'm just guessing, but I'd say 53.787588 degrees". When you don't know for sure you don't offer precision way beyond what you could possibly have.

In your answer about life after death, no matter how many disclaimers you utter like "it's just my belief" and "I can admit that I might be wrong", you're still plowing onward with a "53.787588 degrees" kind of answer, offering way more detail and precision than circumstances justify.

I fail to see the need to justify my beliefs so aggressively, if weak philosophical argument helps me support my concept of an afterlife why isn't that good enough?

You don't have to justify anything. You can ignore my posts if you prefer. By the same token, however, I'm free to raise whatever challenges I feel like raising in this public forum.

If I believe that when I make confession the priest actually serves as the ear of God what's the harm in that?

Harm? What does harm have to do with anything here? Are you suggesting that I adopt some specific definition of "harm", and then refrain from challenging anything, no matter how bogus it sounds to me, so long as it seems "harmless enough"?

You may not find my challenges pleasant, but as far as I'm concerned an honest open challenge is better than the quiet condescension of remaining silent on the sidelines while thinking, "Gee, as long as it makes him happy!", as if you're a sensitive child I don't want to upset by revealing that there is no Santa Claus.

Why not focus on the positive aspects of that belief rather than denigrate it analytically.

And those "positive aspects" are what, exactly?

The positives outweigh the costs here, in my opinion... It's obvious that I want to believe in an afterlife, so rationalizing it to myself, however pathetically you think it may be, serves a cause. It reinforces my faith and gives me motivation to be kinder and more compassionate to others. It helps me feel sympathy for those in need, and encourages me to act selflessly in charitable works.

Isn't this sort of a means-justifying-the-ends view of belief?

Back to Santa Claus again: Suppose a child believes in Santa Claus. A parent uses this belief to encourage the child to do his homework, saying that Santa will only bring presents if the child gets his homework done. The child's belief is efficacious, it has a positive outcome, but the efficacy of the belief at achieving incidental goals (doing homework, getting presents) has absolutely no bearing on the actual truth value of the belief, the truth of the existence of Santa Claus.

Unless you want to treat yourself as a child, can you really be disinterested in the truth value of your beliefs, so long as incidental benefits (which could well be achieved by other means), such as feeling happier and treating your fellow human beings better, ensue?

[Fovea]

21. On the afterlife, and the soul.

I would have a difficult time believing in the laws of thermodynamics
--their existence in a non-numinous universe.

Matter is neither created or destroyed. Energy is neither created or destroyed.
Quantum Physics demonstrates that information is shared between photons at a spooky distance.
In highly complex software systems, complexity and increasing loss of atomicity sometimes generate unanticipated
results. Object Orientation and scoping reduce this to a great degree, but fortunately for all those who live maintaining code
do not completely eliminate them. In the non platonic world of bump and grind, atomicity is meaningless. You have inhaled the dust of Adolph Hitler
and the victims of Hiroshima. Some of your molecules were created in a supernova.

In such a universe, how *could* the information that comprises a soul completely disappear?
The question always is, will I know myself among the universe?

The answer seems to be that I will know that I am a part of the universe.
And hopefully, I will know the part of the universe I am.
Without that, who'd want to live *forever*?

[Azooz]

84. Afterlife and Nirvana were explained to me in 5 words

My translation of some Arabic words, language only, short and no theology - there are much more detailed translations online:

1) Liman (For those)
2) Khaaf (Fear)
3) Maqaam (His Presence, Stature, Power)
4) Rabihi (His God, Lord, Master)
5) Janataan (Two Heavens) i.e. Heaven on Earth and Heaven in the afterlife.

"For those that fear God, two heavens." my translation, other English translations will be much better and more acurate.

That is the 46th verse of the 55th Sowra (Chapter) of the Koran - here is a recitation of that Sowra that will take me to the second part of my answer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riW4W66ptqI

Why do I believe in it?

That verse is clearly written and easy to understand, but I listened to the whole Sowra 100s of times before it's meaning and what it was saying was pointed out to me, and I have listened to it 100s of times since, the only effect was to make the whole Sowra more enjoyable to read and to listen to. I have enough Arabic to understand the words by myself but the shear beauty of the writing is highly distracting and I missed it till I heard it explained. This is not strange, some verses have been hidden in clear view like that for centuries.

For Muslims interested in Islamic theology rather than reading a book written by a true master of the art of writing, one word is enough "Taqwa" - that word includes those 5 and more. The point I always fail to explain in English is that anyone who learns enough Arabic to actually understand the words will be hit by them, the more Arabic they learn the more their impact. I learned Arabic at 12, it is basic but (Faseeh - classical) but I never got to the grammar so it does not have full effect on me like those that know much better Arabic than me.

That is just one small part of one chapter among 114 chapters, they are all like that, the highest form of Arabic writing ever, it has never been equaled by any writer and it promises that no one ever will write anything like it. People express their ideas about the afterlife, each in his or her own way, some think it does not exist and some think it exists, but no one have ever expressed their thoughts about the issue that well, and I believe that no one ever will.

[SidneyCarton]

86. It gives me hope that there might actually be justice some time...

I'll give an example:

Pol Pot - (extreme I know, bear with me) The man orchestrated one of the most vicious brutal and cruel regimes in human history, slaughtering and ruining with an abandon unmatched since. The man died peacefully in his sleep, without ever having to answer for his crimes. I would like to believe that there is some form of justice in the hereafter, because otherwise he got away with it.

On the other hand, there are numerous good and descent people who live awful lives and suffer incomparable torment, which is never allieviated in this life. I would like to hope that they find peace and happiness in the hereafter, otherwise, they were born to be screwed.

I know, the idea of justice in the hereafter is seen as an impediment to seeking justice in this life, but I find justice in this life ultimately futile, we will never find every killer, stop every rapist, restore every loss or repay every theft. Thus I hope that there is some form of restitution in the hereafter.

If not? Well if all that awaits is oblivion, then at the very least I won't be disappointed.