Is there life after death?

[Musika]

Seeing the self as distinct is a long way from it actually being distinct.

Obviously.
We are only talking about the stages where it begins to be possible to pursue contrasted by those states where it begins to be impossible.

Do you have anything to show that it is more than just a possibility, more than just wishful thinking, more than just what the perceived solution requires?

I did offer a clue when I explained how even in the impossible state, it's not seamless.

Perhaps the solution is conceptual only, no more provable, no more true, perhaps, than any other unfalsifiable solution.

How do you propose to falsify a self evident claim (such as "I'm not hungry because I just ate")?

There is also is the possibility of seeing the self as distinct without the need to go through the argument of suffering in the manner you have.
One simply needs to be indoctrinated into any Christian religion, for example.
I'm not saying that the argument is as strong, or any weaker, but their argument for a life after death is not one from suffering.

I recall browsing one thread here from someone who claimed to be able to see tiny molecules with their naked eye.
The point is, any statement in and of its self (such as its possible to see molecules) may be correct, but it may not have the proper understanding behind it.

In otherwords its not sufficient to merely parrot true statements. Its a matter of understanding.
That is the difference between propaganda or fanaticism and philosophy.

Further, seeing oneself as distinct from the body does not equate to there being life after death.

Of course not.
But if all one sees is the body, that spells the limit of their observation.

While one might see the self as eternal and thus surviving the material body, it might be that the self, while distinct, is contingent upon the body, and thus dies when the body dies.
Just as the flame is distinct from the candle, both disappear when the candle runs out.

If something exists in a state of contigency with its cause, it is expected to bear some necessary effect. Given that the body is subject to complete and utter change from birth to death, how does one draw the conclusion that the constant self is but a mere contingent factor?
Given that the body, a radical system of change in itself, undergoes an even more radical, irreversible change at the point of death (ie, when the self is no longer present), there appears to be a stronger argument of contingency from the opposite perspective.

And, this also takes us back full circle, it seems, to the issue of memory.
If we are distinct from our body, and this means life after death in the manner of reincarnation, how does reaching the conclusion in one life have any bearing on the next?
Surely each time we are reset at the beginning, at least in terms of our thinking?
Or is there some form of memory being retained that leads you ever forward?

Its probably easier to describe it as degrees of forgetfulness rather than degrees of memory.

To go back to the movie theatre illusion, to successfully suspend belief and engage in the narrative, it is required that forget one's self so that one can enter into a universe from long, long, ago in a galaxy far, far, far away.
The forgetfulness of self is not so complete and utter that one cannot work out who the good guys and the bad guys in the film are (we bring some baggage with us), but in order to enjoy the exhilaration we are putting on hold some core aspects of our identity.

Or one accepts, perhaps, that suffering is an inherent part of what it is to exist, that it will always be around in some form or other, and that at best we can strive to mitigate it as best we can while we exist, through material means or otherwise, through conceptualising the self as distinct from the body or through other means.

Everyone defaults to the pursuit of happiness to the best they can. The question then becomes, what works and what doesn't. Obviously we don't want to try curing a disease by sustaining the symptoms.

Some, for example, consider that biotechnology is the only way forward to mitigate suffering, through adjusting the pleasure/pain axis via technology.
Why seek a suffering-free enlightened state through what may be just wishful thinking when a simple implant may provide just the same?
Okay, a tad facetious, but the point is there.

Yes, just a tad.
Cyrogenics is not as popular as it once used to be.
The point is if one thinks the solution lies in further immersing themselves in bodily demands, they haven't really understood the nature of suffering in this world.

One might require the conclusion that there is life after death, but the other does not.

What is your argument for your view being the reality of it?

Its not a question of choosing "requirements", but rather a matter of what are the best tools we have available in the toolbox.

We default to the pursuit of happiness through the agency of self. If the self is conceived of in terms of the body, one automatically opens one's self up to a ton of unnecessary suffering. Its forgivable to cry while watching a movie, but if one is still crying 40 years after the screening, with a still present seething hatred of the actor who portrayed the part, we are probably struggling with unnecessary attachments.

If one doesn't accept the argument, one will default to not only activities of trying to make one's body great, but trying to make the body's of everyone else appreciate our greatness, and get ultimately disheartened or offended by the results.

 

[Baldeee]

Obviously.
We are only talking about the stages where it begins to be possible to pursue contrasted by those states where it begins to be impossible.

So despite several attempts to get you to detail your full argument, you admit you still haven't.
Okay.
I got it.
Why should I waste my time further?

I did offer a clue when I explained how even in the impossible state, it's not seamless.

Clue?
I'm not asking for a clue, I'm asking you to be clear and precise in your answer.
Can you do that, please?
Can you answer the questions in that manner, please?

How do you propose to falsify a self evident claim (such as "I'm not hungry because I just ate")?

If it was self evident I wouldn't be asking.
Just because you might consider it self evident doesn't make it so.
As for your example, I'm fairly sure it is possible to do tests for hunger.
It is not a wholly subjective matter.

I recall browsing one thread here from someone who claimed to be able to see tiny molecules with their naked eye.
The point is, any statement in and of its self (such as its possible to see molecules) may be correct, but it may not have the proper understanding behind it.

In otherwords its not sufficient to merely parrot true statements. Its a matter of understanding.
That is the difference between propaganda or fanaticism and philosophy.

I'm sure you think that this is relevant to the points I made.
Any chance you can actually just explain your position, your argument, how you think the issue of suffering necessitates life after death?
Or is all you can do respond in what are, without further explanation, irrelevancies.

Of course not.
But if all one sees is the body, that spells the limit of their observation.

So again you admit that your answer was not actually an answer.
Fair enough.
Care to now actually explain how the issue of suffering, and the solution thereof, necessitates there being life after death?
Or is all you have an a priori assumption, perhaps, that there is life after death, and thus the solution to suffering presents itself?

If something exists in a state of contigency with its cause, it is expected to bear some necessary effect. Given that the body is subject to complete and utter change from birth to death, how does one draw the conclusion that the constant self is but a mere contingent factor?

That would seem to be where the evidence leads.
Cut off head, the self disappears.
Damage the body, the sense of self can be damaged.
It also rather depends on what one considers to be the self.
Your sense of constancy might well just be an illusion, brought about by neural feedback and memories.
Remove your memories and you have no sense of constancy, and this is proven to a degree by certain amnesiacs who, when they wake each morning, think it is the first time that they are conscious.

Given that the body, a radical system of change in itself, undergoes an even more radical, irreversible change at the point of death (ie, when the self is no longer present), there appears to be a stronger argument of contingency from the opposite perspective.

That argument being...?

Its probably easier to describe it as degrees of forgetfulness rather than degrees of memory.

So having argued against the idea of memory when Sarkus raised it, you are now backtracking???

To go back to the movie theatre illusion, to successfully suspend belief and engage in the narrative, it is required that forget one's self so that one can enter into a universe from long, long, ago in a galaxy far, far, far away.
The forgetfulness of self is not so complete and utter that one cannot work out who the good guys and the bad guys in the film are (we bring some baggage with us), but in order to enjoy the exhilaration we are putting on hold some core aspects of our identity.

Maybe you do.
I can enjoy films without putting any core aspects on hold, thanks.
Similarly I am quite capable of understanding an argument, if one is ever presented, without necessarily agreeing with it.

Everyone defaults to the pursuit of happiness to the best they can. The question then becomes, what works and what doesn't. Obviously we don't want to try curing a disease by sustaining the symptoms.

Sure, which merely adds weight to the notion that embracing a life-after-death philosophy is wishful thinking, accepted to assuage fears and to make us happy.
The issue at hand though is not simply what one believes (you could have stated as much from the outset) but in those claiming that it is the reality to put forth their argument.

Cryogenics is not as popular as it once used to be.

Who is talking about cryogenics?
I'm referring to such things as have been referred to as "utilitarianism biologised" and the like.

The point is if one thinks the solution lies in further immersing themselves in bodily demands, they haven't really understood the nature of suffering in this world.

No, they have simply got a different view of suffering.
Oh, that's right, there is only one possible view and it's yours, right?
I guess someone who believes so strongly in a particular philosophy would look to assert their view as the one and only correct view, but I tend to hold out hope that those that believe are mindful that it is still just a belief.

Its not a question of choosing "requirements", but rather a matter of what are the best tools we have available in the toolbox.

Apologies if the choice of word confused.
"Requirement" as in being a logically sound conclusion.
I.e. if you start with certain premises then that requires a certain outcome.

We default to the pursuit of happiness through the agency of self. If the self is conceived of in terms of the body, one automatically opens one's self up to a ton of unnecessary suffering. Its forgivable to cry while watching a movie, but if one is still crying 40 years after the screening, with a still present seething hatred of the actor who portrayed the part, we are probably struggling with unnecessary attachments.

If one doesn't accept the argument, one will default to not only activities of trying to make one's body great, but trying to make the body's of everyone else appreciate our greatness, and get ultimately disheartened or offended by the results.

So you believe, at least.
As for accepting the argument, are you now going to actually put forth your argument, notably with regard how the issue of suffering leads to the necessity of life after death?
You know, without wanting to remind you yet again, the point of the thread?

 

[Michael 345]

So you believe, at least

This person seems to be a foreign version of Jan

 

[Musika]

So despite several attempts to get you to detail your full argument, you admit you still haven't.
Okay.
I got it.
Why should I waste my time further?

At the moment I am talking about conditions that are necessary to understand a proposal.
If you want to challenge even necessary conditions, then, yes, it is a waste of time to expect further elaboration on what sufficient conditions might be.

Clue?
I'm not asking for a clue, I'm asking you to be clear and precise in your answer.
Can you do that, please?
Can you answer the questions in that manner, please?

I did. Me using the word "clue" was just a polite way of saying you missed it ... probably because in all the excitement you thought you had bigger fish to fry.

If it was self evident I wouldn't be asking.

That doesn't make sense.
Why would you expect a self evident claim from someone (eg. Someone says "I'm not hungry because I just ate") be evident to you?

.

Just because you might consider it self evident doesn't make it so.
As for your example, I'm fairly sure it is possible to do tests for hunger.
It is not a wholly subjective matter..

Ok, so for whatever reason you don't believe the person who says that they are not hungry.

So you say, "Listen here you woo-spouting bastard! I'm going to forcibly strap you down and carry out the necessary tests to determine once and for all whether you are hungry or not! Damned if I have encountered a rational claim that isn't falsifiable!"

So after carrying out repeated tests, all of which say the person says does feel hungry, they maintain that they don't feel hungry.

If there is a conflict in conclusions, how do you proceed?

.

I'm sure you think that this is relevant to the points I made.
Any chance you can actually just explain your position, your argument, how you think the issue of suffering necessitates life after death?.

I am beginning to suspect you don't even read your own posts.

You talked about how religious indoctrination can give the same conclusions (and thus bypass the necessary - there's that word again - requirements of suffering). I explained how the act of indoctrination skimps on philosophy, and gave the example of a type of scientific indoctrination that this site tends to churn out quite regularly (much to the apparent delight of woo-bashers).

Just because one can recite the conclusion of a particular claim of knowledge, doesn't mean one can move forth in the same manner as one who has arrived at the conclusion via rigorous investigation. Assuming you have problems with people who propose they can see molecules with their naked eye or say helium balloons disprove gravity, its hard to understand how you missed this (unless of course its because you can't keep track of your own dialogue).

.

Or is all you can do respond in what are, without further explanation, irrelevancies.
So again you admit that your answer was not actually an answer.
.

Seeing the self distinct from the body is a necessary (there's that word again) condition for perceiving life after death, but not a sufficient condition.

If you want to move onto sufficient conditions, it will probably require that whatever misgivings you have about necessary (there's that word again) conditions be resolved.

That would seem to be where the evidence leads.
Cut off head, the self disappears.
Damage the body, the sense of self can be damaged.

Right.
Just like it is shown that lightbulbs produce electricity (or the body produces the self). By fiddling with a lightbulb (or fiddling with the body) one can modify the quality of light (or the quality of the self) or even make the light go out (the self disappears from view).

It also rather depends on what one considers to be the self.
Your sense of constancy might well just be an illusion, brought about by neural feedback and memories.
Remove your memories and you have no sense of constancy, and this is proven to a degree by certain amnesiacs who, when they wake each morning, think it is the first time that they are conscious.

So amnesia and other diseased conditions reveal the essential truthful state of selfhood.
Interesting.

That argument being...?

In terms of contingency, there is a stronger argument for you being wrong rather than right.

So having argued against the idea of memory when Sarkus raised it, you are now backtracking???

Not really. There was a connection between suffering and the retention of memory I was trying to clear up with Sarkus first. He hasn't replied, but it seems he doesn't have a pronounced knowledge filter for necessary and sufficient conditions.

Maybe you do.
I can enjoy films without putting any core aspects on hold, thanks.

Then either you over estimate your fighting prowess when watching Bruce Lee films, or your film reviews must stink.

Similarly I am quite capable of understanding an argument, if one is ever presented, without necessarily agreeing with it.

Just as well you told us as much.

Sure, which merely adds weight to the notion that embracing a life-after-death philosophy is wishful thinking, accepted to assuage fears and to make us happy.

To declare that symptoms of happiness and deep satisfaction are signs of a false notion of selfhood does sound very counter intuitive

Who is talking about cryogenics?

It used to be the latest fad. It was a statement in-line with your facetious joke.

I'm referring to what has been referred to as "biologised utilitarianism".

Sounds fascinating.

No, they have simply got a different view of suffering.

Yes.
They view it as possible to solve by making a suitable material arrangement .... which was kind of the point.

I guess someone who believes so strongly in a particular philosophy would look to assert their view as the one and only correct view, but I tend to hold out hope that those that believe are mindful that it is still just a belief.

At this stage, any sort of philosophy would be fine.

Apologies if the choice of word confused.
"Requirement" as in being a logically sound conclusion.

You mean like sufficient?

Let us first look at what is necessary ...

 

[Baldeee]

At the moment I am talking about conditions that are necessary to understand a proposal.

Sounds very much like needing to believe in order to believe.

If you want to challenge even necessary conditions, then, yes, it is a waste of time to expect further elaboration on what sufficient conditions might be.

What you are in fact seeming to do is refusing to actually state what your argument is because someone perhaps disagrees with a premise.
For the last time: state your premises, your argument, your conclusion, and then let's look at where we may disagree.
You have stated (words to the effect) that there is life after death, and brought up the issue of suffering.
Connect the dots, please, with an actual argument?

I did. Me using the word "clue" was just a polite way of saying you missed it ... probably because in all the excitement you thought you had bigger fish to fry.

If I missed it then surely you should have the decency to clarify further?
Or are you simply going to keep pointing at it and go: "Look! There it is!"

That doesn't make sense.
Why would you expect a self evident claim from someone (eg. Someone says "I'm not hungry because I just ate") be evident to you?

I don't expect it.
Whether it is self-evident to you or not is irrelevant in as much as this is you trying to explain to me the rationale, evidence, justification, whatever, for your argument.
If you expect to just say "well, it's self-evident" and expect me to accept it, you are mistaken.
Since it is not self-evident to me, and it is of some importance that it is accepted... it's really up to you to play ball or not.

Ok, so for whatever reason you don't believe the person who says that they are not hungry.
...
So after carrying out repeated tests, all of which say the person says does feel hungry, they maintain that they don't feel hungry.

If there is a conflict in conclusions, how do you proceed?

If it is of importance to the argument being presented then the acceptance of the conclusion becomes conditional upon acceptance of the premise.
Either way, one does not need to agree with the premise, or that one is hungry or not, for the argument to be presented and assessed.

I am beginning to suspect you don't even read your own posts.

And I suspect you have no intention of actually presenting an argument.

You talked about how religious indoctrination can give the same conclusions (and thus bypass the necessary - there's that word again - requirements of suffering).

Necessary according to who?
Bypass according to who?
Further, that example was offered of those who see, for whatever reason, the self as distinct from the body.
Whether they are able to move forward from that or not is irrelevant to the purpose of the example.

I explained how the act of indoctrination skimps on philosophy, and gave the example of a type of scientific indoctrination that this site tends to churn out quite regularly (much to the apparent delight of woo-bashers).

Just because one can recite the conclusion of a particular claim of knowledge, doesn't mean one can move forth in the same manner as one who has arrived at the conclusion via rigorous investigation. Assuming you have problems with people who propose they can see molecules with their naked eye or say helium balloons disprove gravity, its hard to understand how you missed this (unless of course its because you can't keep track of your own dialogue).

I tend not to read my own posts out of context, and don't take examples beyond what they were intended as examples of.
So I missed nothing... although I do still seem to miss any actual argument from your side that takes us from premises to conclusion.
Care to offer one yet?

Seeing the self distinct from the body is a necessary (there's that word again) condition for perceiving life after death, but not a sufficient condition.

If you want to move onto sufficient conditions, it will probably require that whatever misgivings you have about necessary (there's that word again) conditions be resolved.

Your delaying tactics are noted.
I will repeat again: me agreeing with your premises or not is irrelevant to your argument.
If you're not going to provide your argument then just tell me and I won't waste any more of my time.

Right.
Just like it is shown that lightbulbs produce electricity (or the body produces the self). By fiddling with a lightbulb (or fiddling with the body) one can modify the quality of light (or the quality of the self) or even make the light go out (the self disappears from view).

So is your argument really just one that starts with personal incredulity that the body can produce the self?

So amnesia and other diseased conditions reveal the essential truthful state of selfhood.
Interesting.

They offer alternative conditions with which we can examine what selfhood is, and draw conclusions.

In terms of contingency, there is a stronger argument for you being wrong rather than right.

Again: that argument being... ?
What is it with you and your aversion to actually detailing your argument?

Not really. There was a connection between suffering and the retention of memory I was trying to clear up with Sarkus first. He hasn't replied, but it seems he doesn't have a pronounced knowledge filter for necessary and sufficient conditions.

??
He hasn't replied thus it seems he lacks a pronounced knowledge filter?
I have read your exchange with Sarkus, and it does seem like you are backtracking, which is why I mentioned it.
And now, in your typical style, rather than actually address the point you try to wave it away.

Then either you over estimate your fighting prowess when watching Bruce Lee films, or your film reviews must stink.

Its simply a matter of empathy and imagination.
The only time I would say I ever put core aspects on hold is when dreaming.
Certainly not when watching films.
I actually find it remarkable that you think you do.

Just as well you told us as much.

Little good it seems to be doing as we wait for you to present an actual argument.

To declare that symptoms of happiness and deep satisfaction are signs of a false notion of selfhood does sound very counter intuitive

Just because you might reach the desired end result does not make the tenets of your belief that helped you get there any more or less true than reality allows.
If one person gains happiness from believing X and another from believing Y, with X and Y mutually exclusive, is it counter intuitive to say that happiness is not itself an arbiter of which belief, if either, is correct?
So I am not saying that such symptoms are signs of a false notion, only that those symptoms are not evidence of the correct notion.

It used to be the latest fad. It was a statement in-line with your facetious joke.

Not really in line at all.
My facetiousness was still on point, and it was the tone that was facetious; your statement is simply a mistake.

Sounds fascinating.

Your sarcasm is pointless.

Yes.
They view it as possible to solve by making a suitable material arrangement .... which was kind of the point.

The point that the solution to suffering leads to the conclusion of there being life after death?
How does their solution lead to such?

At this stage, any sort of philosophy would be fine.

??? I'm assuming you have one, don't you?
From which the mainstay of your argument (should one ever be forthcoming) is derived?

You mean like sufficient?

No, I mean a logically sound conclusion.
You know, premises should lead to a logically sound conclusion.
Whether those premises are individually necessary or sufficient was not mentioned.

Let us first look at what is necessary ...

I'm still waiting for you to put forth your argument.
As said, if you're not going to, if you're just looking to waste time, then let me know.
If you want to posit a premise as being necessary, or as sufficient, just state as much.
Let's see the argument that leads from suffering to their being life after death.
Can you do that much, please?

 

[gmilam]

At the moment I am talking about conditions that are necessary to understand a proposal.
If you want to challenge even necessary conditions, then, yes, it is a waste of time to expect further elaboration on what sufficient conditions might be.



I did. Me using the word "clue" was just a polite way of saying you missed it ... probably because in all the excitement you thought you had bigger fish to fry.



That doesn't make sense.
Why would you expect a self evident claim from someone (eg. Someone says "I'm not hungry because I just ate") be evident to you?

.
Ok, so for whatever reason you don't believe the person who says that they are not hungry.

So you say, "Listen here you woo-spouting bastard! I'm going to forcibly strap you down and carry out the necessary tests to determine once and for all whether you are hungry or not! Damned if I have encountered a rational claim that isn't falsifiable!"

So after carrying out repeated tests, all of which say the person says does feel hungry, they maintain that they don't feel hungry.

If there is a conflict in conclusions, how do you proceed?

.

I am beginning to suspect you don't even read your own posts.

You talked about how religious indoctrination can give the same conclusions (and thus bypass the necessary - there's that word again - requirements of suffering). I explained how the act of indoctrination skimps on philosophy, and gave the example of a type of scientific indoctrination that this site tends to churn out quite regularly (much to the apparent delight of woo-bashers).

Just because one can recite the conclusion of a particular claim of knowledge, doesn't mean one can move forth in the same manner as one who has arrived at the conclusion via rigorous investigation. Assuming you have problems with people who propose they can see molecules with their naked eye or say helium balloons disprove gravity, its hard to understand how you missed this (unless of course its because you can't keep track of your own dialogue).

.

Seeing the self distinct from the body is a necessary (there's that word again) condition for perceiving life after death, but not a sufficient condition.

If you want to move onto sufficient conditions, it will probably require that whatever misgivings you have about necessary (there's that word again) conditions be resolved.



Right.
Just like it is shown that lightbulbs produce electricity (or the body produces the self). By fiddling with a lightbulb (or fiddling with the body) one can modify the quality of light (or the quality of the self) or even make the light go out (the self disappears from view).




So amnesia and other diseased conditions reveal the essential truthful state of selfhood.
Interesting.



In terms of contingency, there is a stronger argument for you being wrong rather than right.


Not really. There was a connection between suffering and the retention of memory I was trying to clear up with Sarkus first. He hasn't replied, but it seems he doesn't have a pronounced knowledge filter for necessary and sufficient conditions.


Then either you over estimate your fighting prowess when watching Bruce Lee films, or your film reviews must stink.


Just as well you told us as much.



To declare that symptoms of happiness and deep satisfaction are signs of a false notion of selfhood does sound very counter intuitive



It used to be the latest fad. It was a statement in-line with your facetious joke.




Sounds fascinating.


Yes.
They view it as possible to solve by making a suitable material arrangement .... which was kind of the point.



At this stage, any sort of philosophy would be fine.



You mean like sufficient?

Let us first look at what is necessary ...

Moron. On ignore you go.

 

[birch]

Sure, which merely adds weight to the notion that embracing a life-after-death philosophy is wishful thinking, accepted to assuage fears and to make us happy.

false assumption as to motive. it's actually quite native too. people suspect or believe in life after death for many different reasons, and the naive part is the idea that life after death assuages fears or makes everyone happy.

furthermore, your statement is typical (stereotypical) and naive in it's entirety and is just as much an assumption that there is no life after death. it's pretty obvious that even if there wasn't a particular you that survives after physical death ( may or may not be the case), there are repeated patterns in how life is 'recycled'. how is that happy to everyone, if they don't have a choice?

see, people like you think you've considered every angle and perspective but you only consider yours. you are as blind as someone who doesn't even consider the obvious that there are those who so wish to not exist that they commit suicide and yet you assume EVERYONE wants life after death or existence at all.

why it's amazingly naive is the idea that life after death automatically leads to 'assuage fear and to make us happy' part. if life here does not assuage all fears or make us all happy, then why do you assume the idea of life after death does? why would the idea of non-existence be worse or more fearful than existence? were you upset before you existed that you didn't exist? that's pretty moot, isn't it? but if someone said you have a choice of burning in hell for eternity in the afterlife versus not existing at all (no afterlife), i think the better choice is obvious.

or more like, how can one even assume that considering? are you that disconnected from reality to not realize that even current reality/existence can be or is hellish, painful, difficult, unfair, damaging etc?

literally ,what fuking reality do people like you live in? mary poppins?

especially as an adult to have the view that existence in this life or after life or any existence is always somehow better than non-existence is very unrealistic as to the price of existing actually entails.

 

[Baldeee]

false assumption as to motive. it's actually quite native too. people suspect or believe in life after death for many different reasons, and the naive part is the idea that life after death assuages fears or makes everyone happy.

Well, if you do pick up a discussion midway through you will tend to lose context, as you have done.
My comment was in direct response to Musika stating that "everyone defaults to the pursuit of happiness as best they can".
Since his line of (and I am hesitant to use the word as I'm not sure there has been a coherent one yet) argument starts with the issue of suffering and concludes with there being life after death, to suggest that part of the argument is that everyone defaults to the pursuit of happiness then my comment is neither naive nor incorrect in that it (his comment) does lend weight to the notion of life after death being wishful thinking that aids the pursuit of happiness.

furthermore, your statement is typical (stereotypical) and naive in it's entirety and is just as much an assumption that there is no life after death.

Given that you are responding to a comment out of context, or at least without due regard for the context, your comment is moot.

it's pretty obvious that even if there wasn't a particular you that survives after physical death ( may or may not be the case), there are repeated patterns in how life is 'recycled'. how is that happy to everyone, if they don't have a choice?

Pretty obvious to who?
What do you believe is this repeating pattern, and what do you believe the signs of it to be?

see, people like you think you've considered every angle and perspective but you only consider yours.

Perhaps you should reread my involvement in this thread, where while I have offered alternative viewpoints I don't think I have actually claimed anything as truth (but do correct me if I'm wrong, please).
Instead I am seeking to consider an angle different to my own.
The angle Musika is coming from, in fact, if only he'd actually detail it.

you are as blind as someone who doesn't even consider the obvious that there are those who so wish to not exist that they commit suicide and yet you assume EVERYONE wants life after death or existence at all.

You don't know me from Adam, birch, so before you say something further that you might regret, I suggest you sit back down and stfu.

why it's amazingly naive is the idea that life after death automatically leads to 'assuage fear and to make us happy' part.

Where have I expressed that one "automatically" leads to the other?
If you're going to criticise or rebut what I say, try and have the decency to rebut what I've actually said, taking into account the context of the discussion from which you've taken the quote.

if life here does not assuage all fears or make us all happy, then why do you assume the idea of life after death does?

You do realise, I presume, that when one talks in general terms there will nearly always be exceptions?
If you wish to counter a point regarding the general with those exceptions, you're not really countering the general point at all, just confirming that there are exceptions.
Well, if that's your point, it is noted.
There are exceptions.
Thank you.
Or are you claiming that the general notion of there being life after death does not assuage people's fear at all?
If so it goes against nearly every discussion I've had with someone who believes in such.
I'm not saying it is the reason for that belief at all: my comment in that regard was, as explained, in the context of the discussion with Musika.

why would the idea of non-existence be worse or more fearful than existence?

For many people they rather enjoy existence and would like it to continue in some form.
For others they believe in the opportunity to be reunited with loved ones etc.
Personally I have no fear of non-existence: it is not something I will ever experience.
But I do enjoy existing (yes, I am aware some do not) and a belief in life after death would be pleasant to me.

were you upset before you existed that you didn't exist? that's pretty moot, isn't it? but if someone said you have a choice of burning in hell for eternity in the afterlife versus not existing at all (no afterlife), i think the better choice is obvious.

Indeed.
No disagreement from me at all on this.
What if someone said you could live in paradise for all eternity instead?
Or have another crack at existence in a different body, different mindset, different environment etc?

or more like, how can one even assume that considering? are you that disconnected from reality to not realize that even current reality/existence can be or is hellish, painful, difficult, unfair, damaging etc?

No, I am very much aware, thanks.
It's just not too relevant to the discussion to simply state that there are some people who would prefer not to be alive, and who are not brought some modicum of happiness through belief in life after death.
The context was that Musika claimed the issue of suffering as the start of an argument that leads to the conclusion of there being life after death.
Maybe you can take up your issue with him/her - at least once we've seen the argument?

literally ,what fuking reality do people like you live in? mary poppins?

Same one as you, birch.
Just a different worldview, I guess.
I don't know your stories, and you certainly don't know mine.
So please stop being a jackass.

especially as an adult to have the view that existence in this life or after life or any existence is always somehow better than non-existence is very unrealistic as to the price of existing actually entails.

I would concur that there are some who do find existence to be as you describe, and would prefer non-existence, and would find the very thought of life after death as hell.

But I'm not sure how that in any way is relevant to what I said in the context that it was said.

 

[Musika]

This person seems to be a foreign version of Jan

Wow.

Does Baldee also belong to your master ethnicity?

 

[Magical Realist]

This thread is a perfect example of how explaining your POV is used as an excuse to misunderstand your POV. The more you explain the more you have to explain, leading to endless lengthening posts focused more on the rhetoric of the explanation than on the spirit of it. What is so hard about just stating your POV and being done with it? This is not a "gotcha" session intent on tripping each other up is it?

 

[Baldeee]

If all we did was state "yes" or "no" to the question posed in the OP then such threads would be short and, ultimately, pointless.
If one is not willing to explain their position when asked, or one simply prevaricates, then one is at best an accomplice to the thread becoming pointless, at worst the prime cause.
One surely participates in threads to explore the positions put forth?
If not, pointlessness follows.

 

[birch]

the only comfort i've noticed people derive from the idea of an afterlife has more to do with the living such as missing their loved ones or the fear of leaving loved ones without them or leaving some important work undone/unfinished so the idea of an afterlife often coincides with the idea/belief in reincarnation etc.

 

[Magical Realist]

If all we did was state "yes" or "no" to the question posed in the OP then such threads would be short and, ultimately, pointless.
If one is not willing to explain their position when asked, or one simply prevaricates, then one is at best an accomplice to the thread becoming pointless, at worst the prime cause.
One surely participates in threads to explore the positions put forth?
If not, pointlessness follows.

Good point Baldeee. Tks for your response. Carry on then..

 

[Dinosaur]

From my Post 76

My brain contains memories & does the processing that results in my thoughts, ambitions, & it generally controls my activities.

When that brain ceases to function at death, there is nothing that I consider to be me that exists.

From Musika Post 78

Given that you didn't have the same brain when you were 5 years old, yet you never refer to yourself in third person, there are obvious problems with this outlook.

Your reply does not seem to make sense.

I am aware of a continuous existence from childhood. Why would I refer to myself at 5 in the third person?

Should I refer to myself as of last month in the third person?

Your view seems to be a a complaint about some needed words/concepts in the English language.

My 5-year old self is obviously quite different from my adult self. In some contexts I might refer to the difference, but would not consider viewing my 5-year old self as a different person.

 

[Baldeee]

From my Post 76From Musika Post 78Your reply does not seem to make sense.

I am aware of a continuous existence from childhood. Why would I refer to myself at 5 in the third person?

Quite incredibly we refer to a particular storm as being the same storm from its formation to its dissipation, even though the molecules that make up the storm vary from moment to moment.
Go figure!
According to Musika we should be referring to it as a different storm each time we mention it?

If life is merely a pattern of activity, supported and informed by memories and biology, then referring to the ever-changing physicality as the same "I" seems consistent.
It certainly isn't a convincing argument for the self being distinct from the body any more than any action is distinct from the machinery that gives rise to it.

 

[birch]

Quite incredibly we refer to a particular storm as being the same storm from its formation to its dissipation, even though the molecules that make up the storm vary from moment to moment.
Go figure!
According to Musika we should be referring to it as a different storm each time we mention it?

If life is merely a pattern of activity, supported and informed by memories and biology, then referring to the ever-changing physicality as the same "I" seems consistent.
It certainly isn't a convincing argument for the self being distinct from the body any more than any action is distinct from the machinery that gives rise to it.

you can't remember having all those different parts of your psyche (even adult) hanging around or in the background somewhere or dormant until you grew into them?

there is also a difference between soul/spirit than a physical vessel.

 

[Musika]

From my Post 76From Musika Post 78Your reply does not seem to make sense.

I am aware of a continuous existence from childhood. Why would I refer to myself at 5 in the third person?

Should I refer to myself as of last month in the third person?

Your view seems to be a a complaint about some needed words/concepts in the English language.

My 5-year old self is obviously quite different from my adult self. In some contexts I might refer to the difference, but would not consider viewing my 5-year old self as a different person.

As you say in your own words (italicized), that's because selfhood (your sense of self) is constant despite your physical body (brain included) is not. Your body is changing at literally every moment, yet you wouldn't hesitate to look at a picture of yourself from childhood and say, "That is me." It's not merely etymological, since to talk or act upon it a way otherwise is grossly counter intuitive (for instance, a murderer convicted 40 years after the act can still be liable to justice despite the body that performed the act being, in the purely physical sense, long gone)

You possess your body. If you want to say your body possesses you, you are left with the problem of explaining how that is possible for a radically changing phenomena.

 

[Michael 345]

there is also a difference between soul/spirit than a physical vessel.

The difference being a physical vessel exist, soul/spirit not so

 

[Baldeee]

you can't remember having all those different parts of your psyche (even adult) hanging around or in the background somewhere or dormant until you grew into them?

Your psyche isn't your sense of self.
Your psyche is more like the clothes that the sense of self wears.

there is also a difference between soul/spirit than a physical vessel.

Much like there is a difference between running and the legs, or between sweeping and the broom.

 

[river]

New
↑
there is also a difference between soul/spirit than a physical vessel.

The difference being a physical vessel exist, soul/spirit not so

So what is the point of the physical vessel ?