Does the afterlife exist at all? Debate that here.

For all other chat which isn't directly related to lucid dreaming and the world of sleep and dreams.
User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 3650
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Does the afterlife exist at all? Debate that here.

Postby Summerlander » 11 Aug 2013 18:44

deschainXIX wrote:Summerlander, you are straying our intellectual debate towards an angry argument by calling me silly and clueless. And I don't have the energy or time to respond to all that text that you do have time for. So whatever. I said agree to disagree so please just do that and stop attacking me.


I didn't call you silly. I said you were making yourself look silly. If you are going to engage in a debate you need to take on board past refutations rather than lingering on the same statement in regards to the burden of proof. I had already explained to you why your statement was a fallacy. And, needless to say, you came across as clueless to me. You can't dish out your "comeback" and then cry in the face of refutation.

Perhaps you shouldn't engage in this debate if you're unprepared. There have been debates more heated than this. I don't understand why you feel "attacked". I've been compared to Scrooged and I'm not crying about it.

On the afterlife, there is nothing to disagree with me about. I have merely stated the obvious all along: there is no evidence for the afterlife.
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
erichsa
Posts: 253
Joined: 03 Jul 2012 16:06
Location: EU

Re: Does the afterlife exist at all? Debate that here.

Postby erichsa » 11 Aug 2013 18:55

Summerlander I had enough of you. spread your well informed knowledge at Hyde Park on Sundays from a soap box :)

AceOfSpades
Posts: 198
Joined: 21 Jul 2013 19:38

Re: Does the afterlife exist at all? Debate that here.

Postby AceOfSpades » 11 Aug 2013 19:25

A very fallacious reply there. If you look at my statement, when I say "supposed to do" I say it in an anthropic context. A human being will look at the functionality of a working computer and deem it to be 'what it's supposed to do'. If we are talking about things which are intelligently designed by human beings I don't see how this proves your point further.


My point on that one was that you talk about how things are "Supposed" To do something, but overlook what it can do. A computer is "Supposed" work out a problem with the most logical conclusions, yet look what it can do: Make Movies, Make Games, Play Movies, Play Games, Type Writing, communications all over the world. The possibility of Communications throughout the universe through programs like SETI. The Lunar Lander, it was designed to land on the moon, Apollo 13 were able to use it as a life boat. Once again more holes. I am not being biased despite my beliefs clashing with yours I am merely pointing out that you're arguments have just as much holes in them as ours do. So stop pretending it's cut and dry.

Let me ask you something: A stone is made of atoms. Is a stone conscious?

It could be. For all we know the stone could actually be Lava's decaying stage. It wouldn't be the first time that we made buildings and materials out of living things. And you just backed yourself into a corner. If atoms aren't conscious then the things the energy from said atoms are producing are not conscious either including us human beings to which these electrical impulses power. In other words you pretty much called the human race non living things. That's kinda self loathing there.

User avatar
Rebecca
Site Admin
Posts: 456
Joined: 24 Apr 2011 06:21
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Does the afterlife exist at all? Debate that here.

Postby Rebecca » 11 Aug 2013 20:01

Guys and girls, please keep the debate civil, there's no place for throwing personal insults here.

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 3650
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Does the afterlife exist at all? Debate that here.

Postby Summerlander » 11 Aug 2013 20:07

erichsa wrote:Summerlander I had enough of you. spread your well informed knowledge at Hyde Park on Sundays from a soap box :)


Perhaps it is you who doesn't belong in this thread. A debate requires informed knowledge. :)

AceOfSpades wrote:My point on that one was that you talk about how things are "Supposed" To do something, but overlook what it can do. A computer is "Supposed" work out a problem with the most logical conclusions, yet look what it can do: Make Movies, Make Games, Play Movies, Play Games, Type Writing, communications all over the world. The possibility of Communications throughout the universe through programs like SETI. The Lunar Lander, it was designed to land on the moon, Apollo 13 were able to use it as a life boat.


What does "supposed to do" have to do with "what it can do"? You have just stated what everybody knows and I don't see how that reinforces your argument or where the holes are in mine. You must be seeing a lot of holes where there are none. Of course I could use the Bible as toilet paper instead of reading it. Duh!

AceOfSpades wrote:Once again more holes. I am not being biased despite my beliefs clashing with yours I am merely pointing out that you're arguments have just as much holes in them as ours do. So stop pretending it's cut and dry.


Where are the holes? Where? Where? :D

AceOfSpades wrote:
Let me ask you something: A stone is made of atoms. Is a stone conscious?
It could be. For all we know the stone could actually be Lava's decaying stage. It wouldn't be the first time that we made buildings and materials out of living things. And you just backed yourself into a corner. If atoms aren't conscious then the things the energy from said atoms are producing are not conscious either including us human beings to which these electrical impulses power. In other words you pretty much called the human race non living things. That's kinda self loathing there.


A stone is conscious? Oh come on... :lol:

It is you who has backed yourself into a corner by assuming that atoms being conscious is some sort of explanation for consciousness. If atoms are conscious, let me ask you another: how are they conscious? Your statement is self-defeating and insubstantial. It is pure conjecture.

I'm not denying the great chasm between body and mind. I'm not denying that consciousness is a mystery. But I'll tell you the difference between you and me if you have not worked it out already. I'm not claiming to know without evidence as you do. I'd say that consciousness is an unresolved puzzle and a byproduct of unconscious matter as evidence points to. You do know what "byproduct" means, don't you?

Also, you have completely overlooked the 'gestalt' theory and Susan Blackmore's proposal that consciousness could well be an illusion (mentioned earlier) - otherwise you would not have presented me with your self-defeating statement. By the way, remember, an illusion is not something non-existent, it is something which isn't what it seems. ;)

Another analogy to help you understand the meaning of the word byproduct: Jupiter can be considered to be a 'failed star'. Had it been more massive and it would generate enough heat to produce star light. The Sun was once a dark cloud of gas and dust, it did not shine. Its shine came later. Please do not accuse me of stellar loathing now... :D

Do check the difference between living and non-living while you are at it. This is something that my son has already covered at school.

Rebecca wrote: Guys and girls, please keep the debate civil, there's no place for throwing personal insults here.


Will do, Rebecca. 8-)
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

AceOfSpades
Posts: 198
Joined: 21 Jul 2013 19:38

Re: Does the afterlife exist at all? Debate that here.

Postby AceOfSpades » 11 Aug 2013 20:42

You were the one that mentioned that a computer isn't supposed to work with out certain parts, I was merely telling you otherwise. When you talk about how it's supposed to do something it contradicts your Nihilism because According to Nihilism nothing is predestined, it just simply happens. When something is supposed to happen it means that it's predestined. That's hole number one. And by asking me it just merely proves my point that you think you are right about everything that you don't even see the holes yourself.

Hole number two is your Non Living and Living thing Argument. Everything is living. The plastic that makes our toys and technology comes from oil a fossil fuel made up from the pressurized remains of extinct living beings. Sea Sponges don't move but are classified as living things. Jelly Fish have no brain whatsoever yet they can still move and attack when provoked. If these things can be living things why not all the so called non living things, Magma, Gems, Stones and Dirt. That's practically a life cycle there.


I didn't say stellar Loathing I said Self Loathing, By saying Cells and Atoms are not conscious. The very building blocks that create all living things are not conscious, you pretty much said living things including us humans were never living to begin with. That we are all practically useless and dead and it's just a matter of time before movement had ceased. You pretty much succeeded where a fictional character named Darkseid failed. Congradulations Summerlander, you pretty much created the Anti Life Equation.

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 3650
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Does the afterlife exist at all? Debate that here.

Postby Summerlander » 11 Aug 2013 21:47

AceOfSpades wrote:You were the one that mentioned that a computer isn't supposed to work with out certain parts, I was merely telling you otherwise.


Take a computer apart and it will cease to function. You can, however, use the RAM storage device to scratch your back if you want to. The RAM, however, was not designed for that purpose. Cut-and-dry. ;)

AceOfSpades wrote:When you talk about how it's supposed to do something it contradicts your Nihilism because According to Nihilism nothing is predestined, it just simply happens. When something is supposed to happen it means that it's predestined. That's hole number one. And by asking me it just merely proves my point that you think you are right about everything that you don't even see the holes yourself.


I think you misunderstood me or you overlooked the word "anthropic" when I mentioned it. You do know what it means, don't you? When you take it on board you will realise that your "hole number one" does not exist. Also, supposing predestination is the case, it can still coexist with nihilism if you include annihilation in the predestination. Otherwise, I don't see where you are going with this. Anyway, I said the universe is deterministic. This does not necessarily mean that it was intelligently planned to follow a pattern. In the cosmological case, it follows cause and effect as we can see in classical physics. No divine agent required.

As for proving that I think I'm right about everything, the same could be said about you. It's very narrow-minded, if you think about it because you are not with me 24/7 to know and vice versa. I could say that the fact you haven't conceded anything in this debate is proof that you think you are always right. If I were to make this statement, however, I'd be wrong because it is an unrealistic one.

AceOfSpades wrote:Hole number two is your Non Living and Living thing Argument. Everything is living. The plastic that makes our toys and technology comes from oil a fossil fuel made up from the pressurized remains of extinct living beings.


Erm... you do know that extinct things are dead, don't you? Dead means dead as opposed to living. Now that's your hole right there. It's okay and honourable to own up.

AceOfSpades wrote:Sea Sponges don't move but are classified as living things.


Living isn't just about moving. Besides, if you think about it, whether autonomously or not, everything moves and changes. Movement is not wholly reliable when distinguishing between living and non-living when even at the quantum level it is apparent that nothing rests. I am, however, saying that you are wrong as you essentially state that everything is alive and non-living does not exist. Your argument is unrealistic.

AceOfSpades wrote:Jelly Fish have no brain whatsoever yet they can still move and attack when provoked. If these things can be living things why not all the so called non living things, Magma, Gems, Stones and Dirt. That's practically a life cycle there.


Jelly fish don't have brains but they do have their own version, so to speak, which constitutes a nerve network full of synaptic connections. Also, moving away from danger doesn't necessarily require consciousness. Even humans instinctively can move their hands away from a hot pan without thinking or being aware of moving. Reportability in consciousness was not required. Anyway, we don't even know what it's like to be such animals. When we talk about human consciousness, to prevent a tangent and take it back to the afterlife hypothesis of this topic, a human brain is definitely required.

Stones are arranged differently and are permanently unconscious, or non-conscious. We living humans (evolved SPONCH arrangements) can be temporarily unconscious sometimes. Then we wake up. There is a noticeable change in cerebral activity. Look into Francis Crick's work on DNA, Giulio Tonomi and the integrated information theory, and Christof Koch's NCOCs for examples. Very rich and insightful scientific body of work.

AceOfSpades wrote:I didn't say stellar Loathing I said Self Loathing, By saying Cells and Atoms are not conscious.


I know you didn't. I was punning. :)

AceOfSpades wrote:The very building blocks that create all living things are not conscious, you pretty much said living things including us humans were never living to begin with.


That's right! Now you are getting what I said. They "were never living to begin with. That's right. But as we evolved, so did consciousness emerge and evolve with it. We just have to uncover what causes consciousness to emerge but for that to happen we need to define consciousness. Have you heard of the Turing test? Tell me what you think about it.

AceOfSpades wrote:That we are all practically useless and dead and it's just a matter of time before movement had ceased. You pretty much succeeded where a fictional character named Darkseid failed. Congradulations Summerlander, you pretty much created the Anti Life Equation.


Now this is a misrepresentation of what I said. I'll tell you why. Consciousness, as a byproduct, enables us to know that we are alive and gives us the privilege to experience the universe. That is wonderful and we are lucky in this sense (though it could be argued that those who were never born have been spared of suffering). We are, however, biological clockwork. This doesn't mean that we are useless, though. We, and this is what I mean by anthropic, can discover how we can be useful and contribute to our prosperity. Anti-life is not really applicable here and I don't have a problem with dead either - it's part of a natural and logical dichotomy. Would you not agree?
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

AceOfSpades
Posts: 198
Joined: 21 Jul 2013 19:38

Re: Does the afterlife exist at all? Debate that here.

Postby AceOfSpades » 11 Aug 2013 22:01

No I wouldn't because on the topic at hand. Without an after life, there is no such thing as a life. You see the paradox there? And if Cells aren't conscious, we aren't conscious, in fact by your logic, we aren't even alive right now. And since we aren't rotting in a box or collecting dust in our urns. This could very well be our after life. No different than the life we had before.

You really should take a cue from fictional stories, they aren't just things pulled out of the thoughts and asses of certain creators. They come from what they see and what philosophies they follow. The Matrix for example stated that the reason why their first virtual world was a failure was because the computer system couldn't comprehend what each human views as a paradise because each human has a different view on what their own Paradise is even a view that would scare or sicken another. So to compensate and create control they simply created a world no different than the real world at the peak of civilization.

This could very well be it. If we die we simply start over.

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 3650
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Does the afterlife exist at all? Debate that here.

Postby Summerlander » 12 Aug 2013 01:34

I find it more plausible that we are really 'empty' inside in the first place and that consciousness is an illusion. At death, no second chances. I maintain that consciousness is a byproduct and The Matrix was probably written by men tripping on psychedelics. The whole thing centres around 'what ifs' and the brain in a vat concept.

Anyway, I find your last post to be the most reasonable. My only criticism is that it holds a lot of "coulds".

[ Post made via Android ] Image
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

AceOfSpades
Posts: 198
Joined: 21 Jul 2013 19:38

Re: Does the afterlife exist at all? Debate that here.

Postby AceOfSpades » 12 Aug 2013 02:11

I never believe in the words "It is or it isn't" For "It might be." is more appropriate. George C. Scott once stated as a character in a lesser known movie role in his life when it came to Don Quixote:

"Of course, he carried it a bit too far. He thought that every windmill was a giant. That's insane. But, thinking that they might be... Well, all the best minds used to think the world was flat. But, what if it isn't? It might be round. And bread mould might be medicine. If we never looked at things and thought of what they might be, why, we'd all still be out there in the tall grass with the apes."


Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest