Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Thoughts on existence

  • 11-01-2013 8:03pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 428 ✭✭


    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 :)


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,563 ✭✭✭dd972


    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


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,497 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 428 ✭✭Acciaccatura


    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 :D 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


  • Registered Users Posts: 90 ✭✭RedFFWolf


    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 :D 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 :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 592 ✭✭✭Corcaigh84


    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 :D


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 39 Hunter.S


    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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭mickmackey1


    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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3 Neandertroll_


    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??


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,296 ✭✭✭EdenHazard


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭18AD


    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?).


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭mickmackey1


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭18AD


    You are missing your own point however.

    Which of my own points am I missing?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭mickmackey1


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭18AD


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 132 ✭✭WittyKitty1


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭mickmackey1


    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...?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭18AD


    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:


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭mickmackey1


    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' :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,154 ✭✭✭Joe1919


    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).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 329 ✭✭Corkgirl210


    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 ... :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 514 ✭✭✭alphabeat


    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.


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 10 cloudybins


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15 morison4642


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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 329 ✭✭Corkgirl210


    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!


  • Registered Users Posts: 3 PeterKieran


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭18AD


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 147 ✭✭countrynosebag


    :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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 294 ✭✭JD DABA


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭18AD


    JD DABA wrote: »
    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.

    Yes, my point wasn't to deny that the "I" exists, but simply to counter the argument that "your" atoms go on existing after you die. The atoms were atoms before they arranged themselves to be you. The atoms take primacy over "you" and will go back to being not you after you're gone. You are made of atoms, but those atoms aren't bits of you after you're gone. There's not like a residue of yourself in those atoms when they leave your body. Except perhaps in a very intrictate history of the individual atom.

    It's interesting that even this subjectivity is not something fixed, as you say. A subject is a fickle thing that seems to change from moment to moment. The convention of calling it "I" lends it some concrete existence that maybe it doesn't actually have. And would this have a completely different meaning to what we think of as a subject?

    Daniel Dennett wrote a thing about how he thinks the continuity of the subject is like a centre of narrative gravity. That is, it's a non-existing, but necessary thing.
    http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/selfctr.htm

    Others have said "the unnarrated life is not worth living." In that the self actually exists in the stories we construct of ourselves. What is your life but those stories? And perhaps there is some link here to what separates us from animals.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,674 ✭✭✭Mardy Bum


    18AD wrote: »

    Others have said "the unnarrated life is not worth living." In that the self actually exists in the stories we construct of ourselves. What is your life but those stories? And perhaps there is some link here to what separates us from animals.

    Bruce Hood's The Illusion of the Self may interest you. It is from a neuroscientific viewpoint and is excellent exploration of the topic.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭18AD


    Mardy Bum wrote: »
    Bruce Hood's The Illusion of the Self may interest you. It is from a neuroscientific viewpoint and is excellent exploration of the topic.

    I'll add that to my already inflated reading list. :)

    There's a video of the basic idea here if anyone else is curious.


  • Registered Users Posts: 36 Lexe


    Joe1919 wrote: »
    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).

    I like this idea too. I wouldn't overly concern myself with the what ifs and maybes of an afterlife or the end. All we can really do is work with what we have and appreciate it. We can live on, we can create, write, paint, sculpt, any number of things. We have conversations that change and shape other people. I think everyone leaves a mark on the world. And change is inevitable. We need to die as new life is born.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,025 ✭✭✭MaxWig


    JD DABA wrote: »

    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.

    Not necessarily.

    The turn away from pleasure is evident everywhere.

    Or maybe its more accurate to say that one man's slap is another man's cupcake


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 20 Cranky1966


    "Thoughts on existence"....now theres a subject missing from the school curriculum. Getting kids to contemplate their existence is a frightening thought for a lot of people. Arguing with my sister-in-law once regarding my unwillingness to fill my kids heads with religous dogma, she said what was I going to replace it with...what story will I tell them to make life make sense....it was a very good question. A question we will have to answer as religon (whatever code) just doesnt fill that spiritual void we are all born with....so when could it be done, how could it be done...


  • Registered Users Posts: 26 leahwechat


    I am advoocating in realism, so i think everything would disppeared after death.No objects ,no thoughts ,,,


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,072 ✭✭✭carraig2


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

    +1

    But not just that crap I have lived.
    I fear an afterlife where I would be reborn as a person who would have a life of pain, torture, starvation, cold.
    If i think about it at all I don't sleep


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,831 ✭✭✭Torakx


    I believe your pretty safe there.
    Our lives are just a blip and the universe carries on after(in my view).

    Maybe I sound cynical but...
    I don't see any need to make my mark or leave a legacy behind me.
    Whats the point?
    In another 5000 years all our great thinkers most likely will be a tiny shadow, and all the other "average" people will be an even smaller shadow...at best from the looks of things.
    So I often find it puzzling people want to have a statue of themselves put up after they die. They can't enjoy it when they are dead. And it's going to succumb to entropy eventually..

    I have a strong assumption that when Im "gone" it will be nothing, much like a deep sleep where I don't even recall it , except no waking up of course.
    I will feel pity before I go also for those who had attachments to me.I prefer people have no attachments I think.
    Can still love me etc, but no need to need me...if that makes sense.

    So with that viewpoint, moving forward I really appreciate the fact I even exist at all in this short time frame.
    What it means to me to exist, is nothing and everything at once.
    Sine making future plns will only be to enjoy or experience while I'm alive, might aswell enjoy the ride and respect other creatures experiences too.
    I do regret im not a vegetarian though.. might work on that one before the world ends for me.
    When I go, you lot are going too!
    Again why I don't believe in legacy's.


  • Registered Users Posts: 208 ✭✭Gary L


    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 :)

    Possibility C would be a finite afterlife, after all its not outside the realms of possibility(well..) that advanced aliens or future humans could create perfect replicas of our minds inside powerful computers. It could be a billion years hence but you'd blink and miss the interval.Maybe they get bored and turn you off again, maybe they allow suicide, maybe they cant stop the end of the universe.
    Cranky1966 wrote: »
    "Thoughts on existence"....now theres a subject missing from the school curriculum. Getting kids to contemplate their existence is a frightening thought for a lot of people. Arguing with my sister-in-law once regarding my unwillingness to fill my kids heads with religous dogma, she said what was I going to replace it with...what story will I tell them to make life make sense....it was a very good question. A question we will have to answer as religon (whatever code) just doesnt fill that spiritual void we are all born with....so when could it be done, how could it be done...

    Camus thought that the non-consciousness and therefore meaningless of the universe was not in itself a problem. The problem was that we tend to be emotionally invested in it not being so. He said that the only philosophical question worth considering was how we respond to this absurd situation, that is what reasons can we find for not killing ourselves.

    It doesn't have to mean anything. Not in any grand objective sense anyway. By a nice turn of evolution our brains are capable of juicing us up with some pretty tasty emotions. I think that's enough reason to live. Camus suggested that we should make what meaning we can in our lives but be careful not to drink our own kool-aid and forget that its our own creation.

    Such nihilistic ramblings are unlikely to help you sleep at night I admit but what can you do?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 147 ✭✭countrynosebag


    So, it is AS UsUAL merely a question of what we believe or think we want to believe, or what we are indoctrinated with!
    Life and death are sure, quality of life is not and there has been no contact from anyone passed on or none that we know of.
    It is all pointless nothing, life or death....I think that humans in general are a waste of space and resources, they are actually wrecking the planet, killing it as far as I can see and until more people are prepared to live with and not at the planet I cannot foresee a change of my opinion.
    I am not against technology but just wish it could be used positively, and quickly too,
    Please do not mutter Luddite nonsense at me. I use a lot of technology and find it useful and enjoyable.


  • Registered Users Posts: 208 ✭✭Gary L


    There isn't a species on earth that wouldn't drink the place dry if it could. Don't hate the player, hate the game.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,831 ✭✭✭Torakx


    Besides, what is the planet but some motlen iron and rock floating around gazillions of other rocks.
    If we destroy it, no matter in the big picture.
    As mentioned above its all about how you see it.
    An animal doesn't care if we wreck the planet because it is living ignorantly in bliss(in the now).
    We are upset by it because we don't live in the now and can fully comprehand the past and future.
    Such a strange species we are :)


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,867 ✭✭✭eternal


    People may be skeptical but I have seen ghosts in every day living. Energy moves at different variant rates in the zones and people who have been murdered or killed etc are caught there and visible and contactable with gifted mediums. The reason nobody believes this as there are so many fake rip off merchants out there who choke the real ones. There is something after this or else I would never have seen these energies. Energy cannot be created or destroyed only changed. We are energy and when we die we move through something. There is no such thing as complete obliteration as the essence still exists and survives by moving on or otherwise existing through the means of the living. Realms are there outside of us but we are too small to realise.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,831 ✭✭✭Torakx


    eternal wrote: »
    People may be skeptical but I have seen ghosts in every day living. Energy moves at different variant rates in the zones and people who have been murdered or killed etc are caught there and visible and contactable with gifted mediums. The reason nobody believes this as there are so many fake rip off merchants out there who choke the real ones. There is something after this or else I would never have seen these energies. Energy cannot be created or destroyed only changed. We are energy and when we die we move through something. There is no such thing as complete obliteration as the essence still exists and survives by moving on or otherwise existing through the means of the living. Realms are there outside of us but we are too small to realise.

    This reminds me of a quote I posted in another thread here.

    “And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.”
    -Nietzsche

    I can't hear the music you do, so I remind myself not to judge or take a "side".
    I don't believe in those things, but neither do I believe they don't exist.
    The music that I hear might be coming from me, because all experience's are interpreted through perception.


  • Registered Users Posts: 89 ✭✭Jeefff


    eternal wrote: »
    People may be skeptical but I have seen ghosts in every day living. Energy moves at different variant rates in the zones and people who have been murdered or killed etc are caught there and visible and contactable with gifted mediums. The reason nobody believes this as there are so many fake rip off merchants out there who choke the real ones. There is something after this or else I would never have seen these energies. Energy cannot be created or destroyed only changed. We are energy and when we die we move through something. There is no such thing as complete obliteration as the essence still exists and survives by moving on or otherwise existing through the means of the living. Realms are there outside of us but we are too small to realise.

    This belief always gets me ^^
    If I were to stop eating, my organs and muscles would be too drained to lift my body from this chair I'm sitting in.. All of what makes me me would waste itself away until I died..
    Yet, after death, your presumption would be that I could spiritually stand up or move around and freely contact the living in my human form without a nutrient added to stimulate my ghostly organs..
    Afterall, what are we below the brain? Remove the brain and essentially we are machines to keep the brain alive and healthy.. What use is the body in its entirety beyond life?
    While I'm talking to a medium beyond the grave, are my ghostly organs crying out for food? To keep my ghostly brain active?

    I can't put into words exactly how I feel about what you wrote, I don't want to insult you or your belief, and I also am intrigued by the notion of an engine running without fuel in another realm..
    I won't sleep tonight


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement