• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

The afterlife...

Foreigner said:
So what everyone else experiences and feels is just a fantasy, but what you believe is real? Sounds like a lot of certitude going on there to me.

Billions of people... just coping and nothing else. There is literally no other layer to their experience, it's just a coping mechanism.

Do you know how ignorant you sound?



You can't know that for sure and if you tell yourself otherwise you're delusional. There's no functional difference between something having never happened and you simply forgetting it happened. A lot of faiths believe in the veil of forgetting, which serves many functions. Some people who have had NDEs have had momentary glimpses beyond this veil, whether "real" or not.

I don't live in a world of certainty like you do. I have some beliefs but they are changeable.

Your world must be very comfortable and secure.
Click to expand...


Ooh get you!

Touched a nerve have we..? ;)
 
Maybe afterlife is imagination. Somethin we have or had to create in order to escape reality pressures. Creativity. And can someone answer, why would one belive in such things such as reincarnation, Gods healin, ancient artefacts, tombs, etcera. One conspiracy that I tend to belive it's the Big bang, when we came to life there was someone before us, an ancient species. Not monkeys, not green man, giants. But things were bigger bcz of the oxygen, that's why we had dinosaurs, there was a huge stupid amount all over, now the bottom line tl dr

Don't fly too far, you might get lost for nothin.
 
I don't really get how someone can be so arrogant as to be sure about something like consciousness and state with certainty (and a degree of judgment as well) that anyone who believes otherwise is stupid, delusional, or psychotic. As others have said, there are plenty of anecdotal reports on consciousness detached from the body, and even some experiments done which raised questions. There are reports of people who have died in a hospital setting, and experienced their awareness and sight lifting up out of them, and were then revived and were able to describe conversations people were having in the room after they died.

Also, it is purely an assumption to say that consciousness relies on a brain. Surely, consciousness as we experience it as individuals relies on our brain hardware. But what if we designed a robot with artificial intelligence so sophisticated, it gave the appearance in every way of being conscious. Is it experiencing consciousness? Or is it just an incredibly sophisticated automaton giving the appearance of consciousness by reacting to stimuli in ways it was programmed to? If it's the latter, then why are WE conscious and not just sophisticated automatons reacting to stimuli in ways we were programmed to? Because we ARE actually reacting in ways we were programmed, and yet, we have the ability to self-reflect, there is an experience we are having.

It's foolish to believe that we are fully correct or have the correct understanding of almost anything. Real scientists do not claim that we do. Science is always changing, it accepts that we have been wrong so many times in the past, and revises its opinions based on new evidence. When it comes to scientific understanding of the nature of consciousness, we know almost nothing.
 
Xorkoth said:
It's foolish to believe that we are fully correct or have the correct understanding of almost anything. Real scientists do not claim that we do. Science is always changing, it accepts that we have been wrong so many times in the past, and revises its opinions based on new evidence. When it comes to scientific understanding of the nature of consciousness, we know almost nothing.
Click to expand...

This is what I'm saying. People are invoking the name of science as though they can simply bypass philosophy and epistemology, when the reality is that science can't qualify this topic. Real science excuses itself from this conversation. The people saying that science knows are pseudoskeptics.
 
F.U.B.A.R. said:
Ooh get you!

Touched a nerve have we..? ;)
Click to expand...

You didn't address anything in my last post to you. No, you didn't touch a nerve, but you are obviously wasting my time by being petty. You think that what you believe is "reality" and what everyone else believes is a fantasy coping mechanism, yet you have no proof, just supposition. What a lovely sollopsitic world you inhabit.

If you have a response for what I wrote to you, feel free to post it. Otherwise this will be my last response to you in this thread.
 
Foreigner said:
Anemones, jellyfish, hydras. Let me guess, now you're going to say they're not conscious, because somehow you magically know that for sure too?
Click to expand...

No, they're conscious. They also have rudimentary central nervous systems.
Even things like grass and broccoli have very archaic, basic rudimentary CNS. They don't have consciousness per se but the can feel pain. You know the smell of fresh cut grass? That's it's pain signal. You're basically smelling the grass screaming in agony. Their CNS's aren't advanced enough for them to acknowledge or care about the pain however.
 
Last edited:
Foreigner said:
You didn't address anything in my last post to you. No, you didn't touch a nerve, but you are obviously wasting my time by being petty. You think that what you believe is "reality" and what everyone else believes is a fantasy coping mechanism, yet you have no proof, just supposition. What a lovely sollopsitic world you inhabit.

If you have a response for what I wrote to you, feel free to post it. Otherwise this will be my last response to you in this thread.
Click to expand...

Your last post to me was:

"So what everyone else experiences and feels is just a fantasy, but what you believe is real? Sounds like a lot of certitude going on there to me.

Billions of people... just coping and nothing else. There is literally no other layer to their experience, it's just a coping mechanism.

Do you know how ignorant you sound?"


I'm sorry, but I didn't feel that was worthy of a response.


What i would like to know is how you define 'consciousness', and how you determine which particular animal displays it..?
 
Last edited:
F.U.B.A.R. said:
Your last post to me was:

"So what everyone else experiences and feels is just a fantasy, but what you believe is real? Sounds like a lot of certitude going on there to me.

Billions of people... just coping and nothing else. There is literally no other layer to their experience, it's just a coping mechanism.

Do you know how ignorant you sound?"


I'm sorry, but I didn't feel that was worthy of a response.


What i would like to know is how you define 'consciousness', and how you determine which particular animal displays it..?
Click to expand...

Not worthy of a response? If you don't want your cognitive dissonance pointed out, then maybe you shouldn't be in a P&S thread. I have no problem with your beliefs, if they are qualified as such... like saying that spiritual beliefs in an afterlife are merely a coping mechanism. Fine. But the way you state it with such certitude, and then refuse to be called on your own logical discrepancy, is nothing short of denial. You may call it unworthy but that just looks like an avoidance strategy in my eyes.

Anything that is alive is conscious.
 
ChemicallyEnhanced said:
No, they're conscious. They also have rudimentary central nervous systems.
Even things like grass and broccoli have very archaic, basic rudimentary CNS. They don't have consciousness per se but the can feel pain. You know the smell of fresh cut grass? That's it's pain signal. You're basically smelling the grass screaming in agony. Their CNS's aren't advanced enough for them to acknowledge or care about the pain however.
Click to expand...

You're talking about sentience now, not consciousness. Don't change the goal posts.

You just admitted that consciousness is possible without a CNS, so you conceded to my point.

Therefore your original argument that the totality of our conscience existence can only be rooted in an organic brain has been debunked.

I find your framing of this discussion incredibly arbitrary and selfish. You change the parameters as it suits you in a very egocentric fashion, in order to maintain your world of certitude. Like I said to the above poster, I wish you'd just own your belief rather than trotting out such a rank superiority complex to the detriment of other posters. It's easy to poke holes in every thing you say, which only proves that your assertions are ontological like everybody else's, and not "above it" or objective.

This really is an ontological discussion. It has nothing to do with science.
 
F.U.B.A.R. said:
Your last post to me was:

"So what everyone else experiences and feels is just a fantasy, but what you believe is real? Sounds like a lot of certitude going on there to me.

Billions of people... just coping and nothing else. There is literally no other layer to their experience, it's just a coping mechanism.

Do you know how ignorant you sound?"


I'm sorry, but I didn't feel that was worthy of a response.


What i would like to know is how you define 'consciousness', and how you determine which particular animal displays it..?
Click to expand...

Wait, the guy who thinks that things which in no way yet exist are conscious beings and that after we are dead we go to a magic place in the sky as sentient beings despite not having a brain, CNS or even any aspect of existence....is calling FUBAR...the person who actually makes fucking sense...ignorant?

I detect some BOOL-SHEET up in here.
But that could just be the physical and living consciousness of an actual bulls feces communicating with me.
 
Foreigner said:
You're talking about sentience now, not consciousness. Don't change the goal posts.

You just admitted that consciousness is possible without a CNS, so you conceded to my point.

Therefore your original argument that the totality of our conscience existence can only be rooted in an organic brain has been debunked.

I find your framing of this discussion incredibly arbitrary and selfish. You change the parameters as it suits you in a very egocentric fashion, in order to maintain your world of certitude. Like I said to the above poster, I wish you'd just own your belief rather than trotting out such a rank superiority complex to the detriment of other posters. It's easy to poke holes in every thing you say, which only proves that your assertions are ontological like everybody else's, and not "above it" or objective.

This really is an ontological discussion. It has nothing to do with science.
Click to expand...

No. No I did not admit that at all. You missed my point entirely.

Words you need to look up in the dictionary because you are so far off their actual meaning it's scary:
1) Sentience
2) Ignorant
3) Consciousness
4) Ignorant
5) Selfish
6) Belief
7) Fact
8) Ignorant

You're saying things that defy the laws of physics, basic scientific knowledge and any form of fact and logic as though they aren't ridiculous nonsense.
 
ChemicallyEnhanced said:
Wait, the guy who thinks that things which in no way yet exist are conscious beings and that after we are dead we go to a magic place in the sky as sentient beings despite not having a brain, CNS or even any aspect of existence....is calling FUBAR...the person who actually makes fucking sense...ignorant?

I detect some BOOL-SHEET up in here.
But that could just be the physical and living consciousness of an actual bulls feces communicating with me.
Click to expand...

Your personal attacks and feigned outrage are 100% irrelevant and just another avoidance strategy. I have proven you to be logically inconsistent and now you're lashing out with your usual hubristic insults. Have a tantrum all you want... your views on this subject are ontological and you will never be better or worse than anyone else. Sorry to burst your bubble.

All I just did was disprove the nexus of your entire argument which is that consciousness is rooted in a CNS. Well, clearly other life forms who lack a CNS display consciousness. So what are you going to cling to now in your attempt to try and convince everyone that material reductionism has this totally figured out?

In fact, can you quote one god damn peer reviewed study that that proves unequivocally that consciousness is located in the brain? I'll wait.
 
ChemicallyEnhanced said:
No. No I did not admit that at all. You missed my point entirely.

Words you need to look up in the dictionary because you are so far off their actual meaning it's scary:
1) Sentience
2) Ignorant
3) Consciousness
4) Ignorant
5) Selfish
6) Belief
7) Fact
8) Ignorant

You're saying things that defy the laws of physics, basic scientific knowledge and any form of fact and logic as though they aren't ridiculous nonsense.
Click to expand...

Sorry if that came across harsh. I just read over and I didn't mean that last line to sound as insulting as it did. I apologize if you found it offensive. I am honestly not attacking you as a person just the theories themselves. Everyone has the right to believe what they do and I am not making fun of you.
It's just difficult not to be blunt when what someone keeps saying really silly things but in a serious way.
 
ChemicallyEnhanced said:
Sorry if that came across harsh. I just read over and I didn't mean that last line to sound as insulting as it did. I apologize if you found it offensive. I am honestly not attacking you as a person just the theories themselves. Everyone has the right to believe what they do and I am not making fun of you.
It's just difficult not to be blunt when what someone keeps saying really silly things but in a serious way.
Click to expand...

Science can't classify consciousness. It is anomalous. Accusing me and others of trying to defy the laws of physics isn't relevant since consciousness likely has unique properties. We know this from the NDE an OBE research -- and by "know" I don't mean for sure, for sure know. I mean there is enough circumstantial evidence to raise important ontological questions.... questions which you are wholesale dismissing because of a non-confirmed belief. For example, if consciousness can exist separately from the body, even for a time, then that implies quantum entanglement properties, i.e. not governered by standard platonic physics as we know it. It may even imply that a body is not needed at all for conscious awareness. So then, what does that imply for pre-birth and post-death consciousness? Is there even such a thing? Are there souls, or spirits? Will we ever know these answers?

Even the neurobiological studies into brain damage vs. cognitive function don't go so far as to say that consciousness is in vivo. They say that if you damage X part of the brain, then function Y is affected. They don't make spiritual claims because they can't.

My point in mentioning ontology is that you, like anyone else (including me), are just a bunch of apes looking out at a universe we don't really understand, from a consciousness that we internally don't have a full grasp of. None of us knows for sure. Not one.
 
Foreigner said:
Your personal attacks and feigned outrage are 100% irrelevant and just another avoidance strategy. I have proven you to be logically inconsistent and now you're lashing out with your usual hubristic insults. Have a tantrum all you want... your views on this subject are ontological and you will never be better or worse than anyone else. Sorry to burst your bubble.

All I just did was disprove the nexus of your entire argument which is that consciousness is rooted in a CNS. Well, clearly other life forms who lack a CNS display consciousness. So what are you going to cling to now in your attempt to try and convince everyone that material reductionism has this totally figured out?

In fact, can you quote one god damn peer reviewed study that that proves unequivocally that consciousness is located in the brain? I'll wait.
Click to expand...

Add "tantrum" to the above list. I'm not even mildly annoyed.
No, I don't know better than anyone else, but it seems I do know better than you on the subject. I have not lashed out or insulted you. You would know about it if I had. All of my comments have been on the argument you propose, NOT you as an individual.
Consciousness IS rooted in CNS. This we know as fact. Things can be ALIVE without a CONSCIOUSNESS. Plants and amoeba's for example.
I'm trying to convince no one of anything.
As for the quote thing - google is your friend. It would take you seconds to find infinite sources of what I am saying.

I'm leaving the discussion now as it has become irrelevant as you are never going to change what you think and @F.U.B.A.R. and I are never going to change what we know ("think" if you insist). It's Christmas Eve and I do not intend to spend it arguing. Which is what this is since you changed it from a debate by throwing your toys out the pram and insulting everybody.

I'm getting off at this station. Enjoy your train wreck.
 
Foreigner said:
Science can't classify consciousness. It is anomalous. Accusing me and others of trying to defy the laws of physics isn't relevant since consciousness likely has unique properties. We know this from the NDE an OBE research -- and by "know" I don't mean for sure, for sure know. I mean there is enough circumstantial evidence to raise important ontological questions.... questions which you are wholesale dismissing because of a non-confirmed belief. For example, if consciousness can exist separately from the body, even for a time, then that implies quantum entanglement properties, i.e. not governered by standard platonic physics as we know it. It may even imply that a body is not needed at all for conscious awareness. So then, what does that imply for pre-birth and post-death consciousness? Is there even such a thing? Are there souls, or spirits? Will we ever know these answers?

Even the neurobiological studies into brain damage vs. cognitive function don't go so far as to say that consciousness is in vivo. They say that if you damage X part of the brain, then function Y is affected. They don't make spiritual claims because they can't.

My point in mentioning ontology is that you, like anyone else (including me), are just a bunch of apes looking out at a universe we don't really understand, from a consciousness that we internally don't have a full grasp of. None of us knows for sure. Not one.
Click to expand...

OMG...I...AGREE this.
I do think there is proof that consciousness cannot exist without the body. I'll look it up at some point (after Christmas).
Merry Christmas btw. I bear you no ill will.
 
ChemicallyEnhanced said:
Add "tantrum" to the above list. I'm not even mildly annoyed.
No, I don't know better than anyone else, but it seems I do know better than you on the subject. I have not lashed out or insulted you. You would know about it if I had. All of my comments have been on the argument you propose, NOT you as an individual.
Consciousness IS rooted in CNS. This we know as fact. Things can be ALIVE without a CONSCIOUSNESS. Plants and amoeba's for example.
I'm trying to convince no one of anything.
As for the quote thing - google is your friend. It would take you seconds to find infinite sources of what I am saying.

I'm leaving the discussion now as it has become irrelevant as you are never going to change what you think and @F.U.B.A.R. and I are never going to change what we know ("think" if you insist). It's Christmas Eve and I do not intend to spend it arguing. Which is what this is since you changed it from a debate by throwing your toys out the pram and insulting everybody.

I'm getting off at this station. Enjoy your train wreck.
Click to expand...

So fucking rude. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top