The Afterlife

Is there any scientifically and philosophically sound reason to believe in an afterlife? Because the more I look into it, the more convinced I am that consciousness is created by the physical brain and once the brain dies, our consciousness also dies. This makes things like the mind-body problem very easy to solve.
And yet people, even educated ones, keep acting like this is still up for debate. What am I missing? Are the educated believers in an afterlife just grifting? I'm not afraid of an eternal dreamless sleep (anymore), but if there is a valid reason to believe that there is something beyond this existence that I can take part in, I would love to know.

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    People fear the idea of nonexistence for some reason, and feel the need to cope with it.

    Also be prepared for the NDE spammer to copy+paste his nonesense IT

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, I don't find NDEs convincing because they have found that your brain inundates itself with hallucinogenic chemicals when you're in the process of dying. Out-of-body experiences, especially ones where people see things happening far away from their bodies that are later verified to have been real are certainly compelling stories, but I have recently deconstructed my religious beliefs because I realizes the whole thing was a grift, so I now tens to think that claims like this are either exaggerated or completely false.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        *realized
        *tend to think

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        The thing is that NDEs are real, because logically nearly-dying is going to result in a near death experience, but its not proof of an afterlife.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          That's what I'm saying. Dying and nearly dying are entirely different things.
          AND if someone did truly die and we figured out how to somehow revive them, how would they remember anything they saw on the other side since their brain wouldn't have been alive to store memories?

  2. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    A mechanism for how quantum immortality could work:

    A list of other possible afterlife mechanisms:
    https://alwaysasking.com/is-there-life-after-death/

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      You better hope infinite life doesn't exist, because your consciousness will absolutely NOT be able to handle eternity. People are not meant to live forever.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, I don't find NDEs convincing because they have found that your brain inundates itself with hallucinogenic chemicals when you're in the process of dying. Out-of-body experiences, especially ones where people see things happening far away from their bodies that are later verified to have been real are certainly compelling stories, but I have recently deconstructed my religious beliefs because I realizes the whole thing was a grift, so I now tens to think that claims like this are either exaggerated or completely false.

        *realized
        *tend to think

        The scriptures, and the quran say that no man knows what heaven is like. So go blow your little brothers or something.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          There doesn't need to be a heaven. A truly loving God wouldn't even send people to heaven, because heaven is a dull, soulless place you can't escape from and is only better than Hell by comparison

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            frick off. I can't get laid here. So, after I die I just disappear? Frick that. A truly benevolent god will give me a harem in heaven.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            The greatest sexual good is monogamous marriage with sex often.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            What if my wife is fat and doesn't like what I like? Banging her for the rest of my life is the real hell.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            What if she's not fat

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >go blow your little brothers
          Of course the first incest comment would be made by a Muslim.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >People are not meant to live forever.
        Yeah we live forever in either heaven or hell depending on weather or not we believe in Jesus and are baptized thereafter.

        The thing is that NDEs are real, because logically nearly-dying is going to result in a near death experience, but its not proof of an afterlife.

        NDEs cause brain damage, for example, seeing lights, hearing music that isnt there etc

        I think Alan Watts' stance on death makes the most sense. He argues there can't be a heaven, because life has meaning specifically because its finite, and the existence of an afterlife would render life meaningless because there would no longer be mortal consequences. And an eternal afterlife would also eventually become meaningless as well.

        >And an eternal afterlife would also eventually become meaningless as well.
        That's not how eternity works

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >That's not how eternity works
          Thats exactly how eternity works though, eternity means there are no more consequences for anything you do. After enough time everything will become trivial, there would be nothing to contemplate anymore, it would logically become as lifeless as death itself, because life requires change.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Yeah we live forever in either heaven or hell depending on weather or not we believe in Jesus and are baptized thereafter.
          Do you have any solid evidence for that other than an ancient book that somehow magically proves itself? And the one I assume you were born into believing in?

  3. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    How much effort does it take to believe in god, heaven, and to stop eating pigs?

  4. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I think Alan Watts' stance on death makes the most sense. He argues there can't be a heaven, because life has meaning specifically because its finite, and the existence of an afterlife would render life meaningless because there would no longer be mortal consequences. And an eternal afterlife would also eventually become meaningless as well.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      That doesn't sound very convincing to me. If there is a being capable of creating a heaven it would also be capable of making existence in heaven meaningful or pleasurable for all eternity.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Thats nothing more than a contrivance. It implies that the only way for a heaven to make sense is if you fundamentally change as a person to allow yourself to be compatible with infinite pleasure.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >if you fundamentally change as a person to allow yourself to be compatible with infinite pleasure
          I don't think this would necessarily be a fundamental change in that you could still retain your personality, you would just less reliant on novelty for things to be interesting and worth doing. It would be like how eating pasta everyday would get boring, but eating once every week or two would be fine. Eventually, given enough time, you could do all there is to be done, but you would be okay with just taking a break from the things you are bored of until they are appealing again. Maybe you could even choose to forget things so you can have the pleasure of rediscovering them.
          I'm not saying any of this is plausible, but an eternity of existing doesn't sound that bad to me. It actually sounds kind of comfy.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      I like him but his arguments are never very convincing to me

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Watts was an alcoholic charlatan making up exoticist bullshit that actual Eastern practitioners thought was bullshit but was good enough to fool dumb hippie kids. I would unironically put more stock in random shit Joe Rogan says about machine elves or whatever than I would whatever Watts's views on this kinda shit.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        ad hominems, not an argument, and his views are very much in line with Zen Buddhism, which was his field of study.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Not him but being a spiritual pioneer and ending up spiritually impoverished is a kinda valid jab at his credibility. He studied Zen but never committed.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            In his defense, he did say "I am not a Zen Buddhist and I have nothing to sell". He was fairly honest that he was just making it more digestible for westerners

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            I guess so

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's stupid as hell. Life doesn't need to end to be meaningful.

  5. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >consciousness is created by the physical brain and once the brain dies, our consciousness also dies
    But why is it that my consciousness is created by THIS physical brain in particular? Materialists have never been able to explain the mechanism for why I’m this person and not someone else. If materialism implies an afterlife can’t exist, you are assuming that my consciousness couldn’t re-emerge in a different brain.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertiginous_question

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Materialists have never been able to explain the mechanism for why I’m this person and not someone else.
      Well, scientifically minded people will admit they don't know and keep looking for answers. But dualists have never been able to explain the mechanisms by which a non-physical consciousness or soul can interact with a physical body, and dualistic philosophy has been around for millennia.
      >Why can't a consciousness re-emerge in a different brain?
      To me, that's like asking why ripples in a puddle can't re-emerge in a different puddle after the first has dried up. Sure, energy itself can't be created or destroyed from what we know, but how can one say that the ripples in the second puddle are the same ripples as in the first?

  6. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Boltzman brains

  7. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Is there any scientifically
    No.
    >and philosophically sound reason
    Plenty of philosophical cope about death.

  8. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Consciousness isn't something that exists in the brain, it's a function that is done by the brain. In this way your consciousness has "died" any time those functions aren't being performed, like when you go to sleep. So the afterlife would just be any consciousness that remembers being you after your body has died.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      I'm conscious when I sleep, dreams are proof of that. Even when I'm not dreaming I'm probably conscious, I just forget it immediately.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Then replace asleep with under anesthesia.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          I still would disagree, maybe your memory is gone and your body systems to interact with the world are gone but the consciousness is still there under anesthesia.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ok, do you think there is anything that can interrupt the conscious experience?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, it has to be continous. Could you point to a place in time where an anesthetized patient truly lost consciousness?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No, it has to be continous
            Why?
            >Could you point to a place in time where an anesthetized patient truly lost consciousness?
            Not in the sense that can't prove whether they are conscious or not.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >why
            Because consciousness is binary, and in the abstract I don't think you could point to a single time where the consciousness disappears.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Do you think a computer could ever be conscious?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Obviously not

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why not?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because it's qualitatively no different than an lightbulb, can that be conscious?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            a lightbulb has no processor,a lightbulb is raw energy
            a computer is a system with many parts to do math and operate in different forms

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why does more complexity make it conscious? A computer may appear to be conscious but it never will actually be

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            i dont know how to make practically something counscious, but a program could take awareness of itself
            we have to see what happens with ai

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            i think we need to answer first question about what is consciousness, at least what we believe it is, how is achivable etc

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why does more complexity make it conscious? A computer may appear to be conscious but it never will actually be

            What makes the brain special then?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            God made us in His image

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ok good to know 🙂

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            I thought God was a spirit. And Jesus was just God's logos prior to the immaculate conception, right? So how can we be in God's image if he is a spiritual being?

  9. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Is there any scientifically and philosophically sound reason to believe in an afterlife?

    [...]

    Testimonies

    [...]

    The fact human consciousness is non-composite suggests it doesn't dissolve. Aka it's eternal.

    >the more I look into it, the more convinced I am that consciousness is created by the physical brain
    You are convinced because every time you look you conflate consciousness with the content of consciousness, such as thoughts, perceptions, memories etc. Once you realize there is a difference, the mountain of evidence for physically generated consciousness drops to zero.
    >this makes things like the mind-body problem very easy to solve
    And it makes things like the hard problem of consciousness forever unsolvable

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >it makes things like the hard problem of consciousness forever unsolvable
      Fair point. The existence of a subjective experience at all is a conundrum, and being able to have one doesn't seem to have any satisfying evolutionary explanation. We would be fine, and perhaps even better off from a purely utilitarian perspective, if we were just unconscious but intelligent "philosophical zombies"

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >We would be fine, and perhaps even better off from a purely utilitarian perspective, if we were just unconscious but intelligent "philosophical zombies"
        The only conclusion to draw from this is that consciousness is zero overhead. That a conscious experience doesn't require any additional calories to sustain over the phimbie. And the only conclusion to draw from that is that subjective experience is the default state of functions, that phimbies are impossible, and that anything from computers to bacteria that performs functions is having a subjective experience.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          But then that reintroduces a serious problem: What binds my consciousness to my brain? Why can't it migrate into my computer when I turn it on? Why can't it leave my body while I am sleeping?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            See

            Consciousness isn't something that exists in the brain, it's a function that is done by the brain. In this way your consciousness has "died" any time those functions aren't being performed, like when you go to sleep. So the afterlife would just be any consciousness that remembers being you after your body has died.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >We would be fine, and perhaps even better off from a purely utilitarian perspective, if we were just unconscious but intelligent "philosophical zombies"
        We would not be there to begin with. You are not your intelligence.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Sorry, I meant our bodies. Our bodies would be better off with unconscious minds directing them (just highly complex meat computers).

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's the general modern dream, isn't it? The director-less companies that Marxists desire. The driver-less cars that tech fans anticipate. The p-zombies that solve spirituality for the modern man.

  10. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I think the universe is magical, and anything is possible. I dont think we should worry about it. The universe will do its thing no matter what. Make sure you exercise and stay healthy so you can live a long life.

  11. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Same thread, same mind exercise.

    We imagine death as going to sleep but never waking up. Now think about waking up from having never been asleep. That was your birth. That will also be like death.

    The silver lining is that the countless billions of years it took for the universe to form all the way to your birth felt like an instant to you. I imagine whatever happens at the end of time will also pass just as quickly after my death. Whether there is a rebirth of some kind or not is irrelevant and pointless to argue because we all have to die first to find out.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >countless billions of years it took for the universe to form all the way to your birth felt like an instant to you. I imagine whatever happens at the end of time will also pass just as quickly after my death
      This does introduce a sort of paradox though. If the passage of time is instantaneous when unconscious, what happens when you encounter an eternity of unconsciousness? It's like asking how long it takes an object that moves infinitely fast to reach a point that is infinitely far away.
      I'm sure someone has already given this paradox a name. Does anyone know what it is?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        I think you answered your own question. You aren't aware of any passage of time when unconscious or in this case non-existent so it wouldn't matter. The only way you'd be able to gauge the scale of time that passed after your death would be if you came back into existence again at some point.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      You're conscious during sleep though

  12. 3 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Well death is certainly an inconvenience NOW while I'm alive. If being dead is somehow an ideal state to be in, why don't we all just kill ourselves?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Because ultimately none of us know what will happen after we die. You have an incredible opportunity to experience life in the short time you have it so don't waste that.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >You have an incredible opportunity to experience life in the short time you have it so don't waste that.
          Yes sir!

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >your brain on skepticism

  13. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    One definitely exists. If consciousness is created by the brain, there must have been some animal such that its parent did not have consciousness and it did, which is pretty ridiculous on the face.

  14. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    energy doesnt destroy or disapear but transform
    your heart and brain are controled by energy
    you are just using an avatar
    you arent your body

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *