PDA

View Full Version : Some Questions from Atheists


Ghaem
August 3rd, 2016, 07:16 AM
Well I had some questions to ask some individuals who in anyway see themselves as Atheists.

Please answer these questions one by one. I have no intention of any debate, just want to know your beliefs better:

1.Is there any consciousness after death? I mean when for example one is dead for 30 years, will them remember anything of their life?

2.Is there any feeling of regret or happiness when after death? By death I mean complete death.

3.Is there any difference between when one dies or how one dies?

4.Is there any difference between how one lives?

Thanks for your answers.

Flapjack
August 3rd, 2016, 07:30 AM
1.Is there any consciousness after death? I mean when for example one is dead for 30 years, will them remember anything of their life? Nope

2.Is there any feeling of regret or happiness when after death? By death I mean complete death. Nope

3.Is there any difference between when one dies or how one dies? You mean for the afterlife? Nope

4.Is there any difference between how one lives? Yeah I think you can be more free whilst living because you don't have to live to please a skygod!

Ghaem
August 3rd, 2016, 07:37 AM
Mimikyu, The third question is not about afterlife.

It is about an individual dies as a child or as an adult, dies of old age or disease or get killed, dies normally or commits suicide.

Flapjack
August 3rd, 2016, 07:39 AM
@Mimikyu (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=122060), The third question is not about afterlife.

It is about an individual dies as a child or as an adult, dies of old age or disease or get killed, dies normally or commits suicide.
Well they're dead so there's no difference?

Ghaem
August 3rd, 2016, 07:41 AM
Mimikyu, Got my answer.

Periphery
August 3rd, 2016, 07:55 AM
Oh god not this. Jack pretty much answered all of these pretty well. Any more questions?

Ghaem
August 3rd, 2016, 08:02 AM
The Special One, Come on it is just a reverse Q and A thread. What is all the fuss? :D

Yes I got my answers. Thanks

Periphery
August 3rd, 2016, 08:24 AM
The Special One, Come on it is just a reverse Q and A thread. What is all the fuss? :D



From my experience these tend to end up with bashing eachother buuut glad that isn't the case now.

Ghaem
August 3rd, 2016, 08:28 AM
From my experience these tend to end up with bashing eachother buuut glad that isn't the case now.

Don't worry. As long as I am the Dictator of this thread I will not let it turn into a bashing place. Hope I don't get overthrown though, this is usually what happens to Dictators.:wub:

Reise
August 3rd, 2016, 08:47 AM
1.Is there any consciousness after death? I mean when for example one is dead for 30 years, will them remember anything of their life?
Rotten (decomposed) brain, so no.

2.Is there any feeling of regret or happiness when after death? By death I mean complete death.
See answer above.

3.Is there any difference between when one dies or how one dies?
It looks obvious than yes, but not sure to understand what you mean. If it's afterlife and stuff, then no.

4.Is there any difference between how one lives?
Not sure what this is supposed to mean.

mattsmith48
August 3rd, 2016, 10:19 AM
1.Is there any consciousness after death? I mean when for example one is dead for 30 years, will them remember anything of their life?
No
2.Is there any feeling of regret or happiness when after death? By death I mean complete death.
No
3.Is there any difference between when one dies or how one dies?
No
4.Is there any difference between how one lives?
How you lived will affect the way people remember you after you die

Jane Eyre
August 3rd, 2016, 11:40 AM
if you refer to after life in your questions, then I don't think it's a question for atheists. Belief in after life is something associated with belief in God, because no one hasn't really experienced after life.

Flapjack
August 3rd, 2016, 11:42 AM
if you refer to after life in your questions, then I don't think it's a question for atheists. Belief in after life is something associated with belief in God, because no one hasn't really experienced after life.
Not always buddy!! Some atheists believe in ghosts and stuff:)

Ghaem
August 3rd, 2016, 12:50 PM
if you refer to after life in your questions, then I don't think it's a question for atheists. Belief in after life is something associated with belief in God, because no one hasn't really experienced after life.


Please read previous posts I have clarified what I am trying to know.

Living For Love
August 3rd, 2016, 02:13 PM
This is kind of weird because I'm not an atheist yet I'd answer those questions the same way people who consider themselves atheists did.

Flapjack
August 3rd, 2016, 03:01 PM
This is kind of weird because I'm not an atheist yet I'd answer those questions the same way people who consider themselves atheists did.
What religion do you follow buddy?:)

Living For Love
August 3rd, 2016, 04:22 PM
What religion do you follow buddy?:)
I'm a Christian.

Flapjack
August 3rd, 2016, 04:24 PM
I'm a Christian.
That doesn't believe in the afterlife? :)

Vlerchan
August 3rd, 2016, 04:27 PM
I am agnostic but still.

1.Is there any consciousness after death? I mean when for example one is dead for 30 years, will them remember anything of their life?

2.Is there any feeling of regret or happiness when after death? By death I mean complete death.

3.Is there any difference between when one dies or how one dies?

4.Is there any difference between how one lives?

[1] Can't answer.

[2] Can't answer.

[3] Not objectively. It's probably socially beneficial to pretend there is, though.

[4] You mean, good and bad people? Yes.

Reise
August 3rd, 2016, 04:30 PM
[1] Can't answer.

[2] Can't answer.

I know our beloved Ghaem doesn't want this to be turned into a debate but I'm kinda curious about your "can't answer".

Vlerchan
August 3rd, 2016, 04:31 PM
I know our beloved Ghaem doesn't want this to be turned into a debate but I'm kinda curious about your "can't answer".
I haven't found anyone to ask about their experiences after death, so I can only claim to be wholly ignorant of it.

Living For Love
August 3rd, 2016, 04:36 PM
That doesn't believe in the afterlife? :)
I believe in the afterlife, yes, but I don't see how's that particularly related with the questions the OP asked.

I might as well answer them:

1. Is there any consciousness after death? I mean when for example one is dead for 30 years, will them remember anything of their life?
No, I believe that when we die, we don't remember our previous life.

2. Is there any feeling of regret or happiness when after death? By death I mean complete death.
No, I don't think we can call "feelings" what someone would experience in the afterlife.

3. Is there any difference between when one dies or how one dies?
No, since this question apparently isn't about afterlife.

4. Is there any difference between how one lives?
Yes, because like someone else said, "how you lived will affect the way people remember you after you die".

I haven't found anyone to ask about their experiences after death, so I can only claim to be wholly ignorant of it.
It's more like about what you believe in, not what you actually know.

Reise
August 3rd, 2016, 04:43 PM
I haven't found anyone to ask about their experiences after death, so I can only claim to be wholly ignorant of it.
Wow, cul-de-sac.
The point is not to collect testimonies to figure out if whether or not one phenomena is true. I think you can pretty easily figure out why this is not a valid reasoning when studying something.

Instead, if you come to observe to establish solid facts. Like, for example, the brain is the seat of emotions and consciousness. One clear way to prove it is the observations of brain's stimulation in random conditions.
You establish the logic link that if there is no brain, there is no consciousness, no emotional response, basically you're dead as your whole body isn't able to work anymore (I like to think that the point of a body is to maintain the brain active, and you alive to a certain extent)

Let's move to the other fact, when you die (and I'm talking about clinical death) the body (brain included) stops functioning and the decomposition process starts.
The first observation made is the death of neurons (which starts to be significant 5-10 minutes after having shut down the machine), though the death of a certain amount of neurons doesn't mean you lost your "consciousness" or even the ability to having a functional brain (at least when it comes to operate the body, hence deal with neuron responses) but if all your neurons are dead, which basically happens when you die, the brain doesn't exist anymore properly talking.
So you can establish the link that the death of neurons leads to the destruction of the brain and that consciousness of emotional response is made through the use of neurons.
Basically, die and bye bye feelings and shit.

Vlerchan
August 3rd, 2016, 04:54 PM
Reise

Is there a reason to extend deduction that operates in lived-experience to post-lived-experience? It seems rather essential that we don't take our bodies with us, so it's obvious that functions that relied on that can't continue to rely on it. Nonetheless, this doesn't eliminate the possibility of an immortal soul, or the likes.

Whatever likelihood as it might ascribed to it, we don't actually have any experience of post-lived-experience to actually wring deductions from.

---

I also feel like we're arguing in Ghaem's tread, hope he doesn't mind too much.

Reise
August 3rd, 2016, 05:19 PM
Is there a reason to extend deduction that operates in lived-experience to post-lived-experience?
Is there any reason to consider the whole validity of a so called "post-lived-experience"? There is the simple fact that the organ operating emotions and consciousness is not working anymore.
- I know the analogy I'm going to make is not the best to describe this, and I'm not really supporting it 100% (not anymore) but it is an easy way to draw a picture - when you shut down your computer you don't wonder if Firefox still runs, when your neurons aren't functioning anymore you don't wonder if consciousness still operates.


It seems rather essential that we don't take our bodies with us, so it's obvious that functions that relied on that can't continue to rely on it. Nonetheless, this doesn't eliminate the possibility of an immortal soul, or the likes.

Hm. There are very little things that can "eliminate" all the possibilities in a certain field of research. Chances are that you will be always able to say that one can't demonstrate the total impossibility of one phenomena, because faith can't be properly refuted, you will always find some leak or obscure corner to make a "hypothesis" stand (this is not directed towards religious people, just in case).
You simply won't advance by speculating on this kind of things, this is basically why scientists, good scientists, start from a skeptical view and only admit something if proven.
What I previously said about neurons and glial cells is proven or at least can be rationally deducted (even if it is important to keep in mind that the exact process is still unknown) and leads to the conclusion that the destruction of the brain leads to the destruction of anything related. This constitutes my actual position on this subject, if there is anything that could validly question it, I'll start reconsidering it.


Whatever likelihood as it might ascribed to it, we don't actually have any experience of post-lived-experience to actually wring deductions from.

When you say experience two things come to my mind.
One is experience of someone "coming back from after-life" or any similar scenario, which is basically irrelevant has its highest because a witness does not constitute a valid fact, and, taking in consideration the probability of this to happen for real, well, you get the point.
The other is an empirical demonstration (through brain monitoring for example) that could lead to undermine the current conceptualized idea of consciousness (and related) annihilation after death.


I also feel like we're arguing in Ghaem's tread, hope he doesn't mind too much.
Haha, well, I think he knows the chances of a debate to arise from a thread in ROTW.

Vlerchan
August 3rd, 2016, 05:31 PM
Hm. There are very little things that can "eliminate" all the possibilities in a certain field of research. Chances are that you will be always able to say that one can't demonstrate the total impossibility of one phenomena, because faith can't be properly refuted, you will always find some leak or obscure corner to make a "hypothesis" stand (this is not directed towards religious people, just in case).
I agree with this, there is always reason for doubt. However, in most scientific demonstrations one can at least claim that there is a high likelihood that a will be the case, whilst b will not be the case. This is because the rules of the environment remain the same and it's mere noise we are accepting might bias our results.

The issue as I see it is that the deduction outlined above requires going from some environment x to some environment y and presuming the rules remain the same when we decide to deduce something.

You simply won't advance by speculating on this kind of things, this is basically why scientists, good scientists, start from a skeptical view and only admit something if proven.
I'm - for reference - not claiming that because we can't prove something to absolute certainty then we should not accept it as true. Not at all.

The other is an empirical demonstration (through brain monitoring for example) that could lead to undermine the current conceptualized idea of consciousness (and related) annihilation after death.
This is what I would refer to. Except I'm beholden to inherent scepticism of the brain being a good measure of life beyond life, for the reasons outlined beforehand.

Haha, well, I think he knows the chances of a debate to arise from a thread in ROTW.
This, by the way, is a rare example of empirical certainty.

Reise
August 3rd, 2016, 05:56 PM
I agree with this, there is always reason for doubt. However, in most scientific demonstrations one can at least claim that there is a high likelihood that a will be the case, whilst b will not be the case. This is because the rules of the environment remain the same and it's mere noise we are accepting might bias our results.

The issue as I see it is that the deduction outlined above requires going from some environment x to some environment y and presuming the rules remain the same when we decide to deduce something.

We are talking here about clear physical phenomena, I better say chemical phenomena. I don't see - in this case - why you are talking about environment or anything.
Actually the whole issue that one could have is if they consider that consciousness isn't of a physical nature (that kind of definition looks always obscure to me), which still remains faith.
Frankly when you talk about issues of environment the first thing that comes to my mind is the difference between Classical and Quantum interpretations of physics.


I'm - for reference - not claiming that because we can't prove something to absolute certainty then we should not accept it as true. Not at all.

Yeah, I know.


This is what I would refer to. Except I'm beholden to inherent scepticism of the brain being a good measure of life beyond life, for the reasons outlined beforehand.

Brain monitoring is one technique. But honestly from what I've seen of the "attempts" to empirically demonstrate the existence of a "soul" able to "remain without brain activity", yeah I'm talking about the "0.2g mysteriously disappearing after death", well, that's really pitiful (the way they are conducted as well as their overall conclusions).

I'd like also to precise concerning my "that could lead to undermine the current conceptualized idea of consciousness (and related) annihilation after death" I don't mean to say that any observation questioning this idea would destroy it, as I took care of talking about "current conceptualized idea" hence the idea we (I, here) have about the functioning of the brain. Because one seems to too often think that a random scientific conclusion can destroy a whole theory or idea. This is kinda off-topic but I think this is a well too much spread belief that if one conclusion gives inverse results to an established theory it means that this theory is shit.


This, by the way, is a rare example of empirical certainty.
Fucking beautiful.

Paraxiom
August 3rd, 2016, 08:01 PM
Well I had some questions to ask some individuals who in anyway see themselves as Atheists.

Reading the questions in advance, I'm of a view that being an anti-/a-theist does not necessitate having any certain set of outlooks on if/how humans are/aren't mortal (especially the mortal + 'death is necessarily the absolute end' part).

You're asking the questions though anyway, so I hope you're seeing this similarly as I am, but I'm not confident. I may be wrong though. :D

I'll take the a-theist position for this.



1.Is there any consciousness after death? I mean when for example one is dead for 30 years, will them remember anything of their life?

As human consciousness, I always see it as only being around (literally) coincidentally with biologically living human brains, so the death of a human brain means that, at least, the human consciousness cannot communicate with the world we know 'after' the brain death, because there is no human head+body to communicate through (I'll leave ghosts/etc out of this for sake of ease, for now at least).

I additionally see that a human consciousness necessarily is coincidental with a human brain to be what it is, so the absence of the brain means that there is no human consciousness, at least not one that we can know of or understand.

I use 'after' when dealing with what is / could be 'beyond' life, because I suspect the linear passage of time to be an aspect of consciousness that is coincidental with the arguably more sentient Earth life we know of.

Taking about what is after death is only an analogy, it cannot be talked of literally. It would be like thinking of a point 100 km above the North Pole through the same concepts of distance as what the different latitude lines are and how much certain ones are separated. It doesn't make sense to ask what is north of the North Pole.

It doesn't mean though that there is nothing beyond death, it just means that whatever is / could be, if it is accessible with consciousness, it is not through the perception of time that we know of in 'this' world.

Fundamentally I don't know if there is consciousness 'after' death, and I may very well never know (I don't see a way currently).

With the more personally familiar angles of reasoning I have so far taken, I don't see human consciousness as persisting 'after' death, because time perception, and memory storage + recall, appear to go out the metaphorical window when the human brain is no more.

Could something / some part of the human consciousness survive death to 'beyond' it? It sure is possible, but I see such a thing as not a consciousness that we know of.

TL;DR : Not a consciousness that we know of, so no recall of death from '30 years' after it (which sounds nonsensical to capture time that way already). A consciousness but not as we know it? Sure / perhaps. Does the mental self/ego 'live on'? I have no idea, but apart from suspicions of it probably not 'living on'.



2.Is there any feeling of regret or happiness when after death? By death I mean complete death.

I'll take you to mean 'complete death' as the death of oneself physically; it doesn't make sense otherwise to me.

With the answer to Q1, I have no idea, but apart from suspicions of no such thing happening.



3.Is there any difference between when one dies or how one dies?

I don't understand you here.



4.Is there any difference between how one lives?

Without reference to death? Yes, there is quite a difference between how one lives to that one person, and to others who have interacted with this person, because different life experiences form different memories, and different present situations overall. (I wonder if I have answered this alright.)


Belief in after life is something associated with belief in God, because no one hasn't really experienced after life.

It's commonly seen as this, but I don't see any necessity to see immortality/related as associated with a god.



How you lived will affect the way people remember you after you die

This goes with my answer.


Vlerchan is on a similar viewpoint with me I feel, I just took a long way of explaining it in a disclaimer-like way.


This is kind of weird because I'm not an atheist yet I'd answer those questions the same way people who consider themselves atheists did.

I like your alternate position.



1. Is there any consciousness after death? I mean when for example one is dead for 30 years, will them remember anything of their life?
No, I believe that when we die, we don't remember our previous life.

I'm leaning toward death of memory myself.

I am wondering if, with your view, you see yourself, literally your self, die. What survives for you?



2. Is there any feeling of regret or happiness when after death? By death I mean complete death.
No, I don't think we can call "feelings" what someone would experience in the afterlife.

I agree in that I see that beyond the realm of life as something transcendental, by our standards of what is 'in' life.



It's more like about what you believe in, not what you actually know.

Ghaem

What I know is what Vlerchan said basically, what I believe is the larger part of my answers overall, but the answers are big too because I tend to not rule out stuff and it makes me explain my current stance with that in mind.

Still though, what is knowledge is without belief, vice versa, would deserve an thread in itself before we'd be fully concrete in what we're dealing with here.

Reise

I think we're relating in this thread similarly to how we related with belief in God.

Here though I hold to seeing death as transcendental, and even with your view of eternal oblivion, the transcendence is there.



Fucking beautiful.

The hidden beauty of ROTW :D .

WhoWhatWhen
August 3rd, 2016, 08:17 PM
1.Is there any consciousness after death? I mean when for example one is dead for 30 years, will them remember anything of their life?

I don't believe so.

2.Is there any feeling of regret or happiness when after death? By death I mean complete death.

No.

3.Is there any difference between when one dies or how one dies?

Not really. You belief/disbelief doesn't affect your death imo.

4.Is there any difference between how one lives?

One has to worship and live by someones rules and one doesn't. That's about it.

Ghaem
August 3rd, 2016, 11:39 PM
Reise, Seriously you turned into a debate!

Paraxiom
August 4th, 2016, 07:27 AM
Ghaem

I am intrigued by what you're going to do next; is it mostly for future reference in other threads?

Ghaem
August 4th, 2016, 07:55 AM
Ghaem

I am intrigued by what you're going to do next; is it mostly for future reference in other threads?

I am just trying to know as much as I can. But you seem a little paranoid about me right?

Paraxiom
August 4th, 2016, 08:01 AM
I am just trying to know as much as I can. But you seem a little paranoid about me right?

Alright.

I'm not paranoid at all, only intrigued.
(A sign of the ROTW battles to come? :D )

Ghaem
August 4th, 2016, 08:03 AM
Alright.

I'm not paranoid at all, only intrigued.
(A sign of the ROTW battles to come? :D )

You know among many people here I like you one in a special way. Might I sometimes take your time via PM?

Paraxiom
August 4th, 2016, 08:05 AM
You know among many people here I like you one in a special way. Might I sometimes take your time via PM?

I'm always open to PM, of course.

Bleid
August 13th, 2016, 11:07 AM
Well I had some questions to ask some individuals who in anyway see themselves as Atheists.

Please answer these questions one by one. I have no intention of any debate, just want to know your beliefs better:

1.Is there any consciousness after death? I mean when for example one is dead for 30 years, will them remember anything of their life?

2.Is there any feeling of regret or happiness when after death? By death I mean complete death.

3.Is there any difference between when one dies or how one dies?

4.Is there any difference between how one lives?

Thanks for your answers.

Questions like this and the commonality of the answers that follow always entertain me, because they demonstrate that philosophies are never held in a vacuum.

What I mean specifically is that the answers to these questions, logically speaking, are not able to be provided by whether or not someone believes that God exists, God does not exist, or they are agnostic on the matter.

Take #1. Whether you believe there's a God or believe there is not one does not determine any answer to this question. However, you clearly know that if someone is an atheist, they're typically going to have certain beliefs and answers regarding this type of question that usually differ from theist beliefs and answers for this type of question, even though there is no logical justification that they would differ at all.

Similarly for #2, #3, and #4.

In actuality, there is no reason to associate an atheist with any belief other than that of their atheism, but people tend not to be completely logical, and so questions like the ones you provided are known to have unique, atheist-like answers. It becomes pretty clear why Socrates found this sort of bias to be such a powerful tool in his discussions.

Great questions.

Paraxiom
August 20th, 2016, 08:58 PM
Questions like this and the commonality of the answers that follow always entertain me, because they demonstrate that philosophies are never held in a vacuum.

Do you mean that philosophies are always held with a background personal POV?



What I mean specifically is that the answers to these questions, logically speaking, are not able to be provided by whether or not someone believes that God exists, God does not exist, or they are agnostic on the matter.

Yes. Questions on (im)mortality have no necessity to be relevant to questions on the existence of a god.



Take #1. Whether you believe there's a God or believe there is not one does not determine any answer to this question. However, you clearly know that if someone is an atheist, they're typically going to have certain beliefs and answers regarding this type of question that usually differ from theist beliefs and answers for this type of question, even though there is no logical justification that they would differ at all.

Similarly for #2, #3, and #4.

In actuality, there is no reason to associate an atheist with any belief other than that of their atheism, but people tend not to be completely logical, and so questions like the ones you provided are known to have unique, atheist-like answers. It becomes pretty clear why Socrates found this sort of bias to be such a powerful tool in his discussions.

I relate with this observation.



Great questions.

What are your personal answers to these questions, while we are at it? :D

Bleid
August 21st, 2016, 12:15 AM
Do you mean that philosophies are always held with a background personal POV?

Effectively.

As well, it reminds me of Aristotle describing, "The refutation which depends upon treating as cause what is not a cause, occurs whenever what is not a cause is inserted in the argument, as though the refutation depended upon it."

People often argue without efficiency, and so those who oppose those arguments will end up with extra baggage after they refute the original arguer, which will influence their opinions of ideas that are only ostensibly relevant to what they actually refuted.

Yes. Questions on (im)mortality have no necessity to be relevant to questions on the existence of a god.

Certainly.

I relate with this observation.

There's also usually a sort of peer pressure associated with beliefs, making a belief-set come about from a single one. This tends to entice those who are more interested in the social aspect of believing a particular thing than the actual truth of it.

What are your personal answers to these questions, while we are at it? :D

1.Is there any consciousness after death? I mean when for example one is dead for 30 years, will them remember anything of their life?

I'm not yet sold on there being consciousness during life.

However, ignoring that, I'd say it isn't beyond possibility for there to be consciousness after death. If I was to claim that the brain decaying implies that our memories and consciousness also decay, I would be making a materialistic claim that would be a bit too presumptuous for my comfort.

2.Is there any feeling of regret or happiness when after death? By death I mean complete death.

Similar answer here to #1.

3.Is there any difference between when one dies or how one dies?

I think the theme changed to "for an atheist vs. a theist" on this question and #4, since the answer would seem too obvious if it was asking if there is a difference between the time of death and the cause of death.

So, I'd say yes for this one if my interpretation is correct. Beliefs can influence how a person feels about death. Especially those about the ultimate nature of reality.

4.Is there any difference between how one lives?

Under the same interpretation as I had for #3, I'd say so. There would be a lot less church for the atheist, for sure.

lliam
August 21st, 2016, 01:25 AM
1.Is there any consciousness after death? I mean when for example one is dead for 30 years, will them remember anything of their life? Who's dead no longer exists. According to this context, no consciousness can exist anymore.

2.Is there any feeling of regret or happiness when after death? By death I mean complete death. Dead is dead. That communicates a superlative, which permits no increase. Anyway, there's nothing after death.

3.Is there any difference between when one dies or how one dies? yes.

4.Is there any difference between how one lives? yes.

Paraxiom
August 24th, 2016, 05:36 PM
Effectively.

As well, it reminds me of Aristotle describing, "The refutation which depends upon treating as cause what is not a cause, occurs whenever what is not a cause is inserted in the argument, as though the refutation depended upon it."

People often argue without efficiency, and so those who oppose those arguments will end up with extra baggage after they refute the original arguer, which will influence their opinions of ideas that are only ostensibly relevant to what they actually refuted.

We all have a personal position for which most of us don't consider its powerful influences on our opinions, and for which some people communicate the opinions in a messy and unnecessary way, yes.

Does say a lot about us humans, not that it's necessarily pessimistic though.



Certainly.

It's nice to be more open to perhaps unexpected combinations, such as theists who believe in eternal oblivion immediately with death (I make a guess that there are a few around).



There's also usually a sort of peer pressure associated with beliefs, making a belief-set come about from a single one. This tends to entice those who are more interested in the social aspect of believing a particular thing than the actual truth of it.

Oh yes, it's a sort of mesh of desires and pressures on both personal and societal levels.

I imagine it to be very satisfying to be a pentecostal (for example) in church, feeling your emotions and ideas connect so nicely with everyone else's literally.



I'm not yet sold on there being consciousness during life.

Interesting viewpoint. What does it mean to be conscious, for you? Is this 'lack' of consciousness a partial or total thing in life?



However, ignoring that, I'd say it isn't beyond possibility for there to be consciousness after death. If I was to claim that the brain decaying implies that our memories and consciousness also decay, I would be making a materialistic claim that would be a bit too presumptuous for my comfort.

It's a particularly attractive angle, seeing the human brain-mind constant coincidence as necessary reality, for which I go with but only partially. I'm quite open to (and still exploring) views which see consciousness with meaningful continuity (e.g. memory) as a transition into consciousness but not as we know it, 'after' death.



Similar answer here to #1.

Alright.



I think the theme changed to "for an atheist vs. a theist" on this question and #4, since the answer would seem too obvious if it was asking if there is a difference between the time of death and the cause of death.

So, I'd say yes for this one if my interpretation is correct. Beliefs can influence how a person feels about death. Especially those about the ultimate nature of reality.

I agree, death is usually involved in one's worldview of what is meaningful / what is real / etc.

I did see a moral motivation behind #4 too.



Under the same interpretation as I had for #3, I'd say so. There would be a lot less church for the atheist, for sure.

Yes.

Bleid
August 25th, 2016, 04:45 PM
Interesting viewpoint. What does it mean to be conscious, for you? Is this 'lack' of consciousness a partial or total thing in life?

Consciousness to me is a form of awareness that would necessarily require free will, which is a difficult thing for me to affirm based on my experience.

The lack of consciousness would be a total thing in life.

Paraxiom
August 26th, 2016, 06:47 PM
Consciousness to me is a form of awareness that would necessarily require free will, which is a difficult thing for me to affirm based on my experience.

The lack of consciousness would be a total thing in life.

Right, this is a very unusual one for me.

Why do you see the need to separate consciousness and awareness? I see the terms as being very tightly connected.

Would you see God (as the one from the 'is God maximally great' thread) as conscious, then?

Bleid
August 26th, 2016, 07:02 PM
Right, this is a very unusual one for me.

Why do you see the need to separate consciousness and awareness? I see the terms as being very tightly connected.

Awareness would be the ability to take stimulus from the world and react to it. To me, this amounts to chemical reaction and nothing beyond this, albeit a very complicated chemical reaction.

Consciousness would need to be something more than this - involving a freedom to decide, rather than simply react to stimulus as any creature and thing (even single-celled organisms and an inanimate lab experiment) can.

Am I conscious of my surroundings, or reacting to them in the only way I can, by necessity of my anatomy, with the illusion that there is something outside of this?

Would you see God (as the one from the 'is God maximally great' thread) as conscious, then?

If a God were to exist, I would say it is conscious.

Paraxiom
August 26th, 2016, 07:20 PM
Awareness would be the ability to take stimulus from the world and react to it. To me, this amounts to chemical reaction and nothing beyond this, albeit a very complicated chemical reaction.

Consciousness would need to be something more than this - involving a freedom to decide, rather than simply react to stimulus as any creature and thing (even single-celled organisms and an inanimate lab experiment) can.

Am I conscious of my surroundings, or reacting to them in the only way I can, by necessity of my anatomy, with the illusion that there is something outside of this?

If a God were to exist, I would say it is conscious.

This gets into the whole topic of what it means to be a bacterium/snail/tree/cat/etc.

What do you see freedom as? Total lack of any link with causal processes, or lack of one's own identity being dependent on certain external entities, or something else?

What would self-awareness be to you, just a special kind of awareness and not consciousness?

Bleid
August 26th, 2016, 07:25 PM
This gets into the whole topic of what it means to be a bacterium/snail/tree/cat/etc.

What do you see freedom as? Total lack of any link with causal processes, or lack of one's own identity being dependent on certain external entities, or something else?

Freedom to rationally weigh and act on decisions.

What would self-awareness be to you, just a special kind of awareness and not consciousness?

Awareness of an entity that there is a distinction between other physical phenomena and the physical phenomena of that entity itself.

Paraxiom
August 26th, 2016, 08:15 PM
Freedom to rationally weigh and act on decisions.

What is this conscious being free from so that this ability is possessed?



Awareness of an entity that there is a distinction between other physical phenomena and the physical phenomena of that entity itself.

Alright.

I'm still curious as to why you don't say 'consciousness with free will' rather than separate consciousness from awareness, taking that consciousness "is the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself" [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness ].

Why not use another term than modify an existing one which has a now-different meaning to you than to mostly everyone else?

Bleid
August 26th, 2016, 08:23 PM
What is this conscious being free from so that this ability is possessed?

Alright.

I'm still curious as to why you don't say 'consciousness with free will' rather than separate consciousness from awareness, taking that consciousness "is the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself" [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness ].

Why not use another term than modify an existing one which has a now-different meaning to you than to mostly everyone else?

I think we have a similar definition - I just do not see matter in motion as all too much different than a human, and I do not consider a rock rolling down a hill as conscious, and consequently do not see a human being as conscious.

Paraxiom
August 26th, 2016, 08:28 PM
I think we have a similar definition - I just do not see matter in motion as all too much different than a human, and I do not consider a rock rolling down a hill as conscious, and consequently do not see a human being as conscious.

I'm kinda confused now though. :/

Do you mean a similar definition with consciousness or freedom? I don't know what your definition of freedom is, with respect to what a free entity is free from.

Bleid
August 26th, 2016, 08:43 PM
I'm kinda confused now though. :/

Do you mean a similar definition with consciousness or freedom? I don't know what your definition of freedom is, with respect to what a free entity is free from.

What is the confusing part?

And I mean freedom.

Paraxiom
August 26th, 2016, 09:14 PM
What is the confusing part?

That you are agreeing with my definition of freedom though I haven't said what mine is yet, along with if you agree with he definition of consciousness I gave or not.



And I mean freedom.

Okay, what is consciousness free from that sets it apart from awareness?

Bleid
August 26th, 2016, 09:35 PM
That you are agreeing with my definition of freedom though I haven't said what mine is yet, along with if you agree with he definition of consciousness I gave or not. I refer to the generally agreed upon definition of free will, similarly to how the generally agreed upon definition of consciousness was provided.

Okay, what is consciousness free from that sets it apart from awareness?

As described above,

Awareness would be the ability to take stimulus from the world and react to it. To me, this amounts to chemical reaction and nothing beyond this, albeit a very complicated chemical reaction.

Consciousness as well, is as defined above.

Consciousness to me is a form of awareness that would necessarily require free will

This, along with my explanation that I consider free will in the generally accepted sense, should be sufficient.