Thoughts on existence

Acciaccatura · 11-01-2013 9:03pm #1

So, after we die, we're all either a) going to live eternally in some form of afterlife, and exist eternally or b) cease to exist consciously and never make a mark upon the universe again, eventually to be forgotten. Whichever one you believe in, I personally find both prospects terrifying. I just thought I'd open the book for discussion on it. And if anyone can come up with a possibility c), fair play to ya

dd972 · 11-01-2013 9:16pm

something I think about a lot, open minded scientists are seriously considering the possibilities of some sort of afterlife, as a species we are nowhere near having all the facts on consciousness and the nature of space and time, here's some interesting stuff from you tube

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d4ugppcRUE

Black Swan · 11-01-2013 10:59pm

Acciaccatura wrote: »

So, after we die, we're all either a) going to live eternally in some form of afterlife, and exist eternally or b) cease to exist consciously and never make a mark upon the universe again, eventually to be forgotten. Whichever one you believe in, I personally find both prospects terrifying. I just thought I'd open the book for discussion on it. And if anyone can come up with a possibility c), fair play to ya

MOD COMMENT:
You are encouraged to elaborate upon your OP in additional posts to this thread by suggesting philosophers that may support or otherwise add substance to your position, per the Charter:

Black Swan wrote: »

Forum Guidelines:

You are encouraged to elaborate upon or challenge a philosophical position, logic, significance, relevance, analytical method, context, interpretation, prediction, historical antecedents, empirical foundation, or comment by a poster...

Citing philosophers and their works in support of your position taken is greatly encouraged. Links are sometimes helpful too.

Acciaccatura · 19-01-2013 9:59pm

I'm really sorry I haven't posted, but my netbook started to go faulty and I couldn't get access to a computer that Shockwave Flash didn't keep crashing on for over a week.
Thanks for the links, dd972, they're a really great source of food for thought

What's the word for believing that we know we exist because we have consciousness, but we can't be sure if others or other things are real? Cannot think of it at the minute :P

RedFFWolf · 28-01-2013 6:02pm

Acciaccatura wrote: »

I'm really sorry I haven't posted, but my netbook started to go faulty and I couldn't get access to a computer that Shockwave Flash didn't keep crashing on for over a week.
Thanks for the links, dd972, they're a really great source of food for thought What's the word for believing that we know we exist because we have consciousness, but we can't be sure if others or other things are real? Cannot think of it at the minute :P

Likely you are thinking of solipsism

Corcaigh84 · 29-01-2013 5:19pm

I just finished reading The Antidote - Happiness for People Who Can't Stand Positive Thinking by yer man from the Guardian Oliver Burkeman (gotta love .epubs) and he has a chapter on this, quoting philosopher's thoughts.

He mentioned if thinking that the fear of death is illogical, it may help. ie: When you're alive, you're not dead, and when you're dead, you can't experience it either!

Very entertaining and thought provoking book in any case, I recommend

Hunter.S · 31-01-2013 10:14pm

I agree that an eternal life is scary but i think option b as pointed out above by thefloss is not scary because if you aren't in existence things will neater be good or bad. As far as i can tell i didn't exist for a long time and it never bothered me.

As for an option c i think what is most likely if we do have a sole is that it will be broken down and re-used in some way. I'm not referring to reincarnation I will not be me any more just like my body my soul will be broken down and re used for lots off different things not just poped into new body.

What you must first ask before you ask this question is do we have a soul? then you can try find out what will happen to it when our body runs out of time.

mickmackey1 · 14-03-2013 9:23pm

One thing that bothers me is technology. The technology of the future may be capable of bringing us back from the dead. And then torturing us. Mercilessly.

Neandertroll_ · 18-03-2013 1:36am

option b is kinda morbid and not really accurate . . . technically we will never cease to exist, our atoms are eventually recycled by the universe, i prefer to look at it that way . . .

As for the afterlife . . . i think we as a species hold ourselfs in very high regard, why would there be an afterlife??? even if there was why would only humas go to it??

EdenHazard · 23-03-2013 4:46am

Ah no we do cease to exist, all that talk about atoms being recycled is just nonsense tbh. We don't exist in the way we do now. The thought that I won't someday be able to think and exist scares the hell out of me. Its so morbid. The afterlife is equally daunting when you think about it though.

Its mad though isn't it. Despite life being so amazing and the fact we're here at all is incredible its still very 'mundane' i.e we just live and die, and everything that happens does so in a very hard cold manner that obeys the laws of our universe.

18AD · 23-03-2013 1:29pm

EdenHazard wrote: »

Ah no we do cease to exist, all that talk about atoms being recycled is just nonsense tbh. We don't exist in the way we do now. The thought that I won't someday be able to think and exist scares the hell out of me. Its so morbid. The afterlife is equally daunting when you think about it though.

Its mad though isn't it. Despite life being so amazing and the fact we're here at all is incredible its still very 'mundane' i.e we just live and die, and everything that happens does so in a very hard cold manner that obeys the laws of our universe.

I think you're right about the continuity of atoms and whatnot. It's a materialist's afterlife. It woks in the same manner as any other afterlife, as a buffer for your emotional well-being. "I'll be atoms after I'm dead." No "you" wont. That's the whole point. You may be composed of those atoms but you aren't those individual atoms set free.

I also dislike the notion that life is amazing, whether that be scientific or spiritual. Life being amazing is a subjective emotional engagement with the world. It's bandied about as the normative way to engage with the world, i.e. if you don't think life is amazing there's something wrong with you. That's rubbish.

But equally so, I think when you say that the universe is "cold" and "hard" that you are using these terms as emotive terms. That is, you're saying the universe is cold and hard not in an objective sense but rather in an emotive sense, as if you were trying to relate to it. The universe isn't even cold and hard. If you only say that in an objective sense you are literally talking about temperature and density (density is a measure of "hardness", right?).

mickmackey1 · 23-03-2013 2:49pm

18AD wrote: »

I think you're right about the continuity of atoms and whatnot. It's a materialist's afterlife. It woks in the same manner as any other afterlife, as a buffer for your emotional well-being. "I'll be atoms after I'm dead." No "you" wont. That's the whole point. You may be composed of those atoms but you aren't those individual atoms set free.

I also dislike the notion that life is amazing, whether that be scientific or spiritual. Life being amazing is a subjective emotional engagement with the world. It's bandied about as the normative way to engage with the world, i.e. if you don't think life is amazing there's something wrong with you. That's rubbish.

But equally so, I think when you say that the universe is "cold" and "hard" that you are using these terms as emotive terms. That is, you're saying the universe is cold and hard not in an objective sense but rather in an emotive sense, as if you were trying to relate to it. The universe isn't even cold and hard. If you only say that in an objective sense you are literally talking about temperature and density (density is a measure of "hardness", right?).

You are missing your own point however. When your brain told you to type out those words above, it was itself engaging in a subjectively emotional response, because it is by definition part of the universe which it seeks to describe. The only true objectivity could be gained by stepping outside the brain and analysing 'from above', but this is clearly going to be difficult to achieve...

It is also meaningless to talk about life after death in terms of 'atoms' because they are merely the result of something more fundamental.

18AD · 23-03-2013 4:50pm

mickmackey1 wrote: »

You are missing your own point however.

Which of my own points am I missing?

mickmackey1 · 24-03-2013 10:48pm

18AD wrote: »

Which of my own points am I missing?

Implying that there is a difference between 'emotive' terms and 'objective' terms. Both consist merely of words, and the difference in alleged meaning between one word and another is purely a matter of subjective interpretation. Its called nominalism.

Iwannahurl · 24-03-2013 11:06pm

Acciaccatura wrote: »

So, after we die, we're all either a) going to live eternally in some form of afterlife, and exist eternally or b) cease to exist consciously and never make a mark upon the universe again, eventually to be forgotten. Whichever one you believe in, I personally find both prospects terrifying. I just thought I'd open the book for discussion on it. And if anyone can come up with a possibility c), fair play to ya

Why terrifying?

There is no reliable evidence that there is an "afterlife", eternal or otherwise. Many different cultures have devised their own creation myths, so if you choose to believe in an afterlife you may as well opt for a version that you find comforting rather than terrifying.

On the other hand, believing in the more likely post mortem outcome that we merely cease to exist can only be terrifying in this life.

If our fate is oblivion then fear dies with us, along with every other subjective experience. What's the problem with that, after we're dead?

The challenge therefore is to live without such fear and make the most of the here and now. Daily living offers enough to be getting on with, without adding pointless self-generated terror to the mix.

18AD · 25-03-2013 1:03am

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Implying that there is a difference between 'emotive' terms and 'objective' terms. Both consist merely of words, and the difference in alleged meaning between one word and another is purely a matter of subjective interpretation. Its called nominalism.

So there's no difference between an objective statement and a subjective one?

If so, I can't get on board with that. Even if all things are ultimately derived from intersubjective interpretation this very process has designated that there is a difference between what we mean when we say something objectively or subjectively. Just because statements may never be truely objective, in the "view from nowhere" kind of way, that doesn't mean we can't make somewhat objective statements. Surely you grant that there is a difference between two statements like "the stick is two metres long" and "the stick is insulting"?

If I could expand more on what I mean when I was commenting on the idea that the universe is "cold" I would say that the concept "cold" is an attribute of beings that can engage in social interaction. To say that the universe is cold, in that it doesn't "care" about us, is to anthropomorphise it and by extension to commit a category mistake.

WittyKitty1 · 25-03-2013 1:18am

when my aunt got sick, i was in the hospital the day she died sitting beside her. The doctors told our family she is alive and functioning only as a result of the machines and wouldn't survive without them as nothing they could do would work. I spoke to her 20 minutes before she died, she was looking at me, interacting with me.. She was alive! Literally watching a human being dying is an astounding shock to the system, she just looked as if she was falling asleep.

Since then I have struggled with the concept of an after life. And when I think about death and what happens to people, my mind literally feels confused because I can't put two and two together.

I just hope that there is something more.. But I suppose we will never know in this life.

Iwannahurl · 25-03-2013 10:50am

WittyKitty1 wrote: »

I just hope that there is something more.. But I suppose we will never know in this life.

Precisely.

Don't sweat the small stuff, as they say in the States. And don't sweat the "big" stuff either. What's the point? There are more constructive, and urgent, things to do with philosophical enquiry.

I was also present during the final moments of a close family member. It was a very profound and upsetting experience. But it is pointless to agonise over whether a dead person has gone somewhere.

mickmackey1 · 25-03-2013 12:47pm

18AD wrote: »

So there's no difference between an objective statement and a subjective one?

If so, I can't get on board with that. Even if all things are ultimately derived from intersubjective interpretation this very process has designated that there is a difference between what we mean when we say something objectively or subjectively. Just because statements may never be truely objective, in the "view from nowhere" kind of way, that doesn't mean we can't make somewhat objective statements. Surely you grant that there is a difference between two statements like "the stick is two metres long" and "the stick is insulting"?

If I could expand more on what I mean when I was commenting on the idea that the universe is "cold" I would say that the concept "cold" is an attribute of beings that can engage in social interaction. To say that the universe is cold, in that it doesn't "care" about us, is to anthropomorphise it and by extension to commit a category mistake.

I am generally in agreement with you, I suppose it depends on just how deep we want these discussions to be.

I could be pedantic and say the measurement of a stick is entirely a function of its motion through spacetime; a 2 metre stick at rest will be shorter if it travels at half the speed of light, according to the Special Theory. Somewhat off-beam perhaps, but it maybe illustrates just how imprecise language is, both in physics and philosophy...

As for whether the universe is 'cold', that does seem pretty anthropomorphic; then again there are those who believe that if humans disappeared then ditto the universe - would the stars and galaxies exist if there were no humans to be 'conscious' of their existence...?

18AD · 25-03-2013 1:10pm

mickmackey1 wrote: »

I am generally in agreement with you, I suppose it depends on just how deep we want these discussions to be.

I could be pedantic and say the measurement of a stick is entirely a function of its motion through spacetime; a 2 metre stick at rest will be shorter if it travels at half the speed of light, according to the Special Theory. Somewhat off-beam perhaps, but it maybe illustrates just how imprecise language is, both in physics and philosophy...

Well, it's true that certain conditions must hold for the measurement to be accurate. But I wouldn't say that that shows the inaccuracy of language, rather we'd simply have to postulate that we are talking within certain conditions. The same as when we say water boils at one hundred degrees, this is true, if pressure and if... if... etc... But I think that with these extra qualifications the statements are accurate.

As for whether the universe is 'cold', that does seem pretty anthropomorphic; then again there are those who believe that if humans disappeared then ditto the universe - would the stars and galaxies exist if there were no humans to be 'conscious' of their existence...?

Well that's a really interesting question. I'm kind of on the fence about it now, whereas I would have argued that these things don't exist once we aren't around to perceive them, now I'm not so sure.

It might be more accurate to say that these things won't continue to exist in the form we perceived them as existing in. All those objects already possess countless properties which we can't experience and the ones we can experience will join those properties once we're gone. That's not quite hitting the mark though. :rolleyes:

mickmackey1 · 25-03-2013 2:59pm

Yep, these conversations always end up going round in circles (whatever they are;)) and an absolute concept of 'truth' remains as elusive as ever... check out today's APOD to see just how much we are still in 'the dark'

Joe1919 · 29-03-2013 12:31pm

Acciaccatura wrote: »

So, after we die, we're all either a) going to live eternally in some form of afterlife, and exist eternally or b) cease to exist consciously and never make a mark upon the universe again, eventually to be forgotten. Whichever one you believe in, I personally find both prospects terrifying. I just thought I'd open the book for discussion on it. And if anyone can come up with a possibility c), fair play to ya

I think there is a genuine third position. This is a selfless position, a sort of letting go of the boundary of the self (and developing a greater and wider love for the world or cosmos or nature or fate or god) and hopefully with age and wisdom accepting the finite aspect of ourselves but yet coming to realize that there is part of ourselves that can make a mark upon the universe. (e.g. our work, our relationships etc.) and can live on (so to speak).

Corkgirl210 · 30-03-2013 1:22am

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Why terrifying?

There is no reliable evidence that there is an "afterlife", eternal or otherwise. Many different cultures have devised their own

You are obviously not aware of the irrefutable proof given by spiritualists.. who have manifested deceased spirit here on earth - so much so that you can walk talk and even dance with loved ones who have passed over? seeing is believing and thats what spiritualists do.. they provide proof.. keep an open mind and if you cant open your mind ...

alphabeat · 30-03-2013 2:20am

Expand your mind ,

nothing exists except conscious thought / consciousness - no universe , no atoms , nothing .

all life is an illusion , created in fragments of a super consciousness

we are these conciousness fragments , and we create this illusion of life and the universe to exist in .

our reality is a dream , a construct , for concsiousness

- consciousness is the only thing that can truly exist.

cloudybins · 30-03-2013 2:26am

life is like a cosmic dance which we are all active participants. The thing is to loose yourself in the music and go with the flow.

morison4642 · 14-04-2013 8:11pm

id be more afraid of going on to another life , because u have to go through all the crap again , im just cynical

Corkgirl210 · 18-04-2013 12:09pm

you learn by contrasts... so thats why you are here on earth.. it is ur souls choice whether you wish to re-incarnate...

we suffer so we can experience the bitter so we understand what the sweet is........

pain is the touchstone to happiness!

PeterKieran · 13-05-2013 3:24pm

I am tired as I had a bit to drink last night, but we will always be alive. If there is a permanent SOUL or IDENTITY I cannot say, but we are always alive because death cannot be experienced on a conscious level. We cannot KNOW we are dead, therefore we are always alive.

18AD · 13-05-2013 3:34pm

PeterKieran wrote: »

I am tired as I had a bit to drink last night, but we will always be alive. If there is a permanent SOUL or IDENTITY I cannot say, but we are always alive because death cannot be experienced on a conscious level. We cannot KNOW we are dead, therefore we are always alive.

This makes sense as long as you're alive. You can never experience being dead, but you can stop expereincing, ie. be dead.

The language is confusing because when you say "I will be dead" it's a contradiction in terms because there is no longer any you that can be dead.

countrynosebag · 14-05-2013 10:17am

:mad:I have been present at the last moments (here?) Of many patients of mine, and some family that were close, and some not close and two close friends. I have found them all deeply moving and painful in different ways.
It does take time, more for some than others, to settle down afterwards and I hope you have become reconciled with you're loss.
I am unclear what grief is.
I read about the selfishness of being sad ourselves but it is real and grief exists and that does not mean it is wrong. Some sound accusatory as though you would be doing something wrong. I think grieving at least shows that you loved, cared and/or will miss that person.
I know in some form too, the awareness of our own mortality, conscious or not, is in that grieving but it is still valid. Grief should be cared for and respected respected as it is a painful and real process all of us will experience and somehow diminish us for a while. Grieving people need care and love to heal.

JD DABA · 19-05-2013 10:18pm

18AD wrote: »

"I'll be atoms after I'm dead." No "you" wont. That's the whole point. You may be composed of those atoms but you aren't those individual atoms set free.

Interesting, but isn't this what is happening every day of our lives. Our individual atoms are set free every second.
Maybe 'you' is just a unique gathering of conditions at a given time.

It might work for personality too, your opinions change based on others' actions.
"I" fcking hate my boss... one raise later.... the "I" fcking loves my boss.

So no fixed opinions, no fixed atoms.

Yet theres still something that experiences sensations regardless of who you are at any given time.

The 'I' will still prefer a cupcake over a slap in the jaw. And theres something ,seemingly unchanging, there that will turn away from pain and turn towards pleasure.

Thoughts on existence

Comments