Avengers Doomsday trailer makes reference to the After-life

[Logos_1]

This is just the beginning of where culture and science is heading...

 

[C C]

Surely the entertainment industry never stopped indulging in that retro thing, it just diverged from revolving specifically around the Christian version. And the professional vigilante genre particularly wallows in it. The CW's "Arrow" literally featured its protagonist going to a post-life realm or preternatural simulation at the end of the series. And the genre's very identity entails wallowing in pseudoscience -- a mishmash of mysticism, mythology, and bungled borrowing of concepts from academic disciplines. Not being a harbinger of the future (of methodological naturalism specifically), unless this compromised era of actual science goes even further off the rails than expected.

BTW, I knew your identity from the start, but don't want to immediately spoil the guessing game.
_

 

[exchemist]

This is just the beginning of where culture and science is heading...

What point do you wish to make about this video?

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

If there is no life after death then this life, world, universe and all like it are a useless experience and might as well be obliterated right now. There be no one to mourn its' passing.

 

[Sarkus]

If there is no life after death then this life, world, universe and all like it are a useless experience and might as well be obliterated right now. There be no one to mourn its' passing.

Why does impermanence of an experience mean its useless? Value, worth, usefulness, are found in the moment, in the experience. Things don't need to be mourned to have mattered while it existed. You seem to think that meaning, or usefulness, requires eternal continuation, or an ultimate observer, but such things are relational, not cosmic. They exist between people, and within our experiences.
You're simply appealing to what you see as an undesirable consequence (or is it existential dread on your part, an unbearable fear that this really is all there is?) to validate your belief in a deity. That undesirable consequence is not given, you have simply asserted it.
Furthermore, if your belief in an afterlife stems from such arguments, it rests on emotional utility rather than truth: you believe it because it helps you emotionally: fear management, existential comfort, pyschological dummy to suck on? And that is such a poor reason to believe something. If there is an afterlife, if there is a cosmic mourner, it exists because reality is structured that way, not because we dislike the alternative.

But, sure, maybe you would be unable to cope without believing that there is an afterlife. If it gives you the crutch you need, all well and good, but don't confuse that with it therefore being true. And if your life is so wretched that it so relies on such a belief or lest you'd wallow in the chasm of such nihilism, then that speaks more about you than you probably realise.

 

[exchemist]

That if there is any truth to the after-life, as depicted by Hollywood, and even some scientific ideas of modern times, then we truly do not experience the horrors of oblivion when we die.

This does not need to be mathematically proven. Only scientifically explained with logic (the mother of all philosophies).

OK, but surely that is self-evident, isn't it? If there is an afterlife of some kind, then by definition we do not face oblivion.

But I'm not sure why you describe oblivion as "horrors". If we are oblivious then, again by definition, we do not experience it. Or do you mean the horrors (for some, perhaps) of anticipating oblivion?

 

[exchemist]

The term "horrors" is the inevitable logical deduction of oblivion once one has garnered data from lived experience. It conjures images of termination upon death. NO ONE suffers the unspeakable horror of unreality because consciousness is the one thing that is eternal. Not matter.

I disagree. Most people do not in fact go to the grave screaming in terror of oblivion, whether they have belief in an afterlife or not. Both I and everyone I know who has been present at the death, or impending death, of loved ones finds they generally accept it with calmness. There is no "unspeakable horror" of oblivion. You have made that up.

 

[DaveC426913]

That if there is any truth to the after-life, as depicted by Hollywood, and even some scientific ideas of modern times, then we truly do not experience the horrors of oblivion when we die.

This does not need to be mathematically proven. Only scientifically explained with logic (the mother of all philosophies).

Since when does Hollywood have anything to do with truth?

There is as much evidence that we experience an afterlife as there is that we turn into a unicorn and spend eternity eating candy floss. That's why we don't give it logical weight.

One does not experience oblivion; one can only anticipate it. 100% of the "horrors" of it are experienced prior to death. That is what our evidence and experience shows.

 

[billvon]

That if there is any truth to the after-life, as depicted by Hollywood, and even some scientific ideas of modern times, then we truly do not experience the horrors of oblivion when we die.

This does not need to be mathematically proven. Only scientifically explained with logic (the mother of all philosophies).

I would not let Hollywood inform your views on life.

 

[TheVat]

"I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it."

Mark Twain

 

[Pinball1970]

" i do not fear death, I just don't want to be around when it happens."

 

[exchemist]

Surely the entertainment industry never stopped indulging in that retro thing, it just diverged from revolving specifically around the Christian version. And the professional vigilante genre particularly wallows in it. The CW's "Arrow" literally featured its protagonist going to a post-life realm or preternatural simulation at the end of the series. And the genre's very identity entails wallowing in pseudoscience -- a mishmash of mysticism, mythology, and bungled borrowing of concepts from academic disciplines. Not being a harbinger of the future (of methodological naturalism specifically), unless this compromised era of actual science goes even further off the rails than expected.

BTW, I knew your identity from the start, but don't want to immediately spoil the guessing game.
_

Is this Spellbound again?

Actually, yes, it must be.

 

[TheVat]

" i do not fear death, I just don't want to be around when it happens."

Woody Allen? Sounds like him. He has another quote along similar lines:

Someone asked Allen how he'd like people to think of him 100 years from now. He replied, "I'd like them to think, my but he looks good for his age!"

 

[exchemist]

I understand that consciousness is the only true reality. Bear with me for a moment as I explain.

Consciousness is the one thing we can be certain of. The prima materia. Since light takes time to reach our eye, everything else exists in the past.

According to my understanding, the universe is finite. That means that matter is the illusion, rather than mind. If the universe were infinite, then matter would be the only reality, not mind. Atheists fail to make this distinction.

I assume that you can follow the logic.

A finite universe would imply that a metaphysical nothingness exists outside of space and time. Because of this, it follows that we live in what can be called a "matrix", something from nothing or ex nihilo.

Non sequitur here. Why does the universe being finite mean that matter is an illusion?

More broadly, I think you are making the usual category error of thinking “mind” is an entity. It isn’t. What we call consciousness or mind is an activity: the activity of the brain. No brain, no mind.

But you will be banned soon, so it doesn’t matter. I’m glad you have given up claiming to be a super genius, at any rate.

 

[C C]

[...] If you were alive for a single moment, where the past and future are happening in but one moment for all eternity (eternalism), then death is an illusion.

But that's just the same life (the developmental segments of its 4D "worm" co-existing). Not extension to an afterlife, or a transmigration, or even the misguided classification of "happening".

And items like the sixth bardo and Number Eight C don't conform to anything (non-illusionary) that's ever going to fall out of physics.

They could be philosophically grounded in the simulation argument (as could also the blatant Western-type afterlife). But future technology has to first demonstrate that internally convincing artificial worlds with phenomenally conscious inhabitants can be fact, before that could elevate to a more robust possibility.

One wouldn't really want a prior-in-rank stratum to just be a repeat of the nature of this one (i.e., another _X_ being what makes _X_ possible offers no resolution). But since there's no access to the exotic characteristics of such, a speculative "simulation" scenario has to rest in what the resources and limitations of this known level can be shown to produce (to acquire a mild degree of respectable credibility beyond mere fringe or eccentric belief context).
_

 

[Sarkus]

1.] Consciousness is one because it is a unity or even "unified field" (if you wish to use physics). It stands to reason that,

1. This is a premise and it is not granted.

2.] Every conscious being is one conscious being existing in parallel, experiencing themself as a separate and distinct lifeform.

2. This is similarly a premise and is not granted.

3.] We have been certain that quanta or bits give rise to matter and energy.

3a. Sure, quanta are the fundamental building blocks of matter and energy, Nd bits give it the structure. Or at least this is current physics thinking.

Outside of myself or my being nothing is known,

3b. This does not follow from 3a, so it is just another premise. It seems to be following from Descartes' Cogito ergo sum, but is also a very strict reading of it, and not one that even Descartes himself subscribed to.
What it does imply is that we can be certain that our own consciousness exits. It doesn't necessarily imply that we can't also know other things.
If you want assert the more strict reading then it, too, is not granted.

it can thus be assumed that nothing exists.

3c. As a conclusion from 3b, it is wrong. You are confusing epistemology (matters of knowledge) with metaphysics (matters of existence). Just because we don't know something doesn't itself mean that it doesn't exist. You can assert it as a premise but if so then it is not granted.

4.] Therefore, consciousness is primary and the material world emergent.

The premises aren't granted, so the conclusion is moot.

 

[DaveC426913]

According to my understanding, the universe is finite. That means that matter is the illusion, rather than mind. If the universe were infinite, then matter would be the only reality, not mind.

How do any of these things connect?
How does the universe's finiteness result it in being an illusion?
How would the universe being infinite change that so that matter is reality (whatever that means).
And why the only reality?
Why is mind not part of reality? The mind is as much an emergent property of matter as wetness is an emergent property of water.

Atheists fail to make this distinction.

What does any of that have to do with atheism?
A moment ago you were talking about objective reality; now you're talking about subjective beliefs, with nary a transition between them.

I assume that you can follow the logic.

You are not making a lot of sense.

A finite universe would imply that a metaphysical nothingness exists outside of space and time.

Why would it do that?

Because of this, it follows that we live in what can be called a "matrix", something from nothing or ex nihilo.

How on Earth does that follow?

There is a growing body of evidence for NDEs. One need only search for it.

Tere's a growing body of experiments and tests for NDEs. None of them, as far as the community is aware, have been confirmed. Where is your skepticism and critical thinking?

However, I do not need to put my faith in NDEs in order to acknowledge the after-life as a fact.

Well it's not fact. 'I believe really strongly' does not equal 'fact'.

My experiences with mind-altering substances have proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that consciousness is primary.

How do you know your experiences have anything to do with the after-life? That's an interpretation of yours, would you not agree?

 

[DaveC426913]

Existence must distinguish itself from its absence or non-existence in order to exist. That is why I say existence is an illusion.

The thing is that the mind is more than the sum of the parts. It is a field rather than limited to the confines of the brain. And it can influence reality.

The atheistic experience is a materialistic experience. I can assure you that spiritual experiences are the more valid than the atheistic/ materialistic experience. The spiritual experience is ineffable.

There is no denying that everyone has a metaphysical essence within them. This metaphysical essence is supreme, sacred and absolute.

The reason why the atheistic experience is inferior to the spiritual experience is because the spiritual experience connects one to a greater reality existing beyond the limited confines of the material.

The entirety of this is opinion. Got anything to back it up other than your say-so?

 

[DaveC426913]

... the spiritual experience connects one to a greater reality existing beyond the limited confines of the material.

Ins't that funny. cuz just a moment ago, you said there was nothing outside:

A finite universe would imply that a metaphysical nothingness exists outside of space and time. Because of this, it follows that we live in what can be called a "matrix", something from nothing or ex nihilo.

 

[DaveC426913]

If the universe were infinite then matter would be the only infinite and eternal reality.

But because the universe is finite it would follow that it is emergent.

The latter is the inevitable conclusion from quantum theory.

I think you need to read some books on quantum theory.