But again, in Wisdom 1 “It was the wicked who with hands and words invited death”
There follows in Wisdom 2 a litany of 24 reasons why those who propagate death as a finality are mistaken. Especially, wisdom 2-23
"For god formed man to be imperishable; the image of his own nature he made him.
I think one reason we believe in an afterlife is because our deceased loved ones, and others that have passed, enter our dreams. Where it’s easy to conceive they are spirit beings in the afterlife come to visit us while sleeping …
Thanks for the reference, Obe. My Protestant background is showing. I never read the book of Wisdom which is in the Catholic Bible before. “Wisdom” argues that immorality results from belief in the finality of death. Here’s chapter 2:
2 By reasoning in their twisted way, the ungodly said: Our lives are short and painful. There is no antidote for death; no one has come back from the grave. 2 All of us came into being by chance. When our lives are over, it will be just as if we had never been. The breath in our nostrils is mere smoke. Reason is just a spark in the beating of our hearts. 3 When that spark is extinguished, the body will be turned into ashes. The spirit will evaporate into thin air. 4 Over time, our names will be forgotten. No one will remember our deeds. Our lives will pass away like the last wisps of a cloud. Our lives will be dispersed like a morning mist chased away by the sun and weighed down by the day’s heat. 5 Our time here is like a shadow passing by. There’s no turning back from death. It has been sealed, and no one will alter it.
6 Come then! Let’s enjoy all the good things of life now. Let’s enjoy creation to the fullest as we did in our youth. 7 Let’s drink our fill of expensive wines and enjoy fine perfumes. Let’s pluck every fresh blossom of spring as we pass by. 8 Let’s crown ourselves with rosebuds before they wither. 9 Let’s make sure that no meadow is left untouched by our high-spirited fun. Let’s leave evidence everywhere that we made the most of this life, because this life is all we have.
10 Let’s take advantage of the day laborer who does what’s right. Let’s not be afraid to abuse the widow. Let’s show that we couldn’t care less for the gray hair of our elders. 11 May strength be our only law and determine what’s right, for it’s clear to us that what is weak is worthless.
12 Let’s lie in ambush for the one who does what is right. He’s a nuisance to us. He always opposes our actions. He blames us because we have failed to keep the Law. He condemns us for turning our backs on our upbringing. 13 He boasts of his knowledge of God. He even calls himself the Lord’s servant. 14 He exposes our secret plans. Just to look at him makes us sick. 15 His life isn’t like the lives of others. His ways are completely different. 16 He thinks we’re frauds. He avoids us and our actions as though we’re unclean. Instead, he blesses the final days of those who do what’s right. He even boasts that God is his Father.
17 Let’s see if his words are true. Let’s put him to the extreme test and see what happens. 18 If this man who does the right thing is indeed God’s son, then God will assist him. God will rescue him from the hand of those who oppress him. 19 Let’s test him by assaulting and torturing him. Then we will know just how good he really is. Let’s test his ability to endure pain. 20 Let’s condemn him to a disgraceful death: according to him, God should show up to protect him.
21 This was how the ungodly reasoned, but they were mistaken. Their malice completely blinded them. 22 They didn’t know of God’s secret plan. They didn’t hope for the reward that holiness brings. They didn’t consider the prize they would win if they kept their whole beings free from stain. 23 God created humans to live forever. He made them as a perfect representation of his own unique identity. 24 Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy. Those who belong to the devil’s party experience death.
Common English Bible (CEB)
Copyright © 2011 by Common English Bible
How much of this is wrong?
What do you think? There are similar arguments in the New Testament against those who say eat drink and be merry for tomorrow you may die. They may be directed at the Epicureans. Epicurus didn’t teach that though. Still, there is some truth in the arguments. More than one person has told me that they don’t care what happens to the environment because they won’t be around when the earth is destroyed. On the other hand, one can point to professed believers in an afterlife who practice the same things with different justifications, for example, those who believe that after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back. Like most things human, the relationship of morality to belief in an afterlife is complicated.
Plucking every fresh blossom of spring seems excessive but the rest of the paragraph does not appear unreasonable. It’s only when the ungodly attack the righteous laborer that they start to go wrong.
Felix, Wilderness,
Just as a not minor tangential note…
If you go by the physicalist paradigm, the issue is not: will I have awareness post-mortem?
In fact YOU will not have awareness long before death. Given that all the matter in your body is replaced every few years, in a few years time, what will be present will be a copy of you. It will have awareness, but you will no longer be present…the copy will be. They physicalist paradigm not denies post-mortem awareness, but also that the child is the same experiencer as the older child, that the teenager is the same experiencer as the young adult, and so on. It’s an illusion. A copy, and a rather inexact copy, will have those experiences. Planning one’s retirement, for example, is planning, basically, for someone’s else’s experiences. That person, an exact copy, will remember some of the things you did - but only a tiny portion - and will, of course, have the same name and many of the same habits, but it will not be you. So death is not any particularly important boundary for a physicalist, as far as will I be aware after or not? It will, very likely not be I just before that moment either.
Moreno–You seem to ignore my arguments above that belief that death is final does not necessarily entail physicalism. Wilderness already posited the idea that consciousness is general rather than localized in a permanent self. Buddhism has maintained that perennially. That doesn’t rule out consciousness of the here and now does it? Are you arguing for a permanent self as an absolute?
Yes.
I am not who I was or will be; that is rather well documented; Subjective Capgras, Alzheimer’s, MS.
Our sense of collective self is heavily reliant on accurate episodic memory and recall of that information, and episodic memory has been shown to be rather fallible resting mostly on an inherent conviction of emotional trust in our own self for the propagation of the image of self that is maintained as singular despite the temporal and physical evidence to the contrary; I do not think, neurologically, the same as I did when I was 14.
As such, there is physically no possible means for me today to exactly be who I was then.
We have the memory of having those previous experiences, but the meanings of those experiences continues to alter over time as each iteration of our cognition reflects upon those experiences under newer and newer contexts.
It is, metaphorically, akin to asserting that the volcano is the same “identity” as the ocean floor from which it was forced up from.
This was the entire obsession of Descartes in regards to the wax; the slippery issue regarding identity, time, and alteration of physical structure.
Our sense of solidarity over time with our identity is not an actuality, but an impression collected together under different states; somewhat similar to governments or societies, whereby the memory and residue of the previous iteration is still well present in representative memory, but the new resident agency is not literally identical to the previous that made those choices in the previous agency.
Because we need to live and survive, we consider all of this to be “one” individual, regardless of being capable of understanding the physical reality is that they are not exactly the same in all points of time (clearly they are not the same neurology and agency at 80 as they were at 8 months of age).
Identity is a very, very fine (meaning: thin, fair) impression which we use to assess experience and resolution, but our sense of “I” is inherently flawed by the very tool which provides us this impression; it is incredibly easy to be wrong about who “you” are to yourself, and even easier to be wrong about who “you” were.
Indeed, our sense of “I”, even temporally, is itself flawed as there is not a singular agency within our brain, but multiple competing agencies within our brain to which we produce a single output from cognizantly (under normal neurology); our sense of “I” is literally comprised of collective, and varied, “consciousnesses” within our brain.
There may be no “I” in team, but there is a team in “I”.
However, this does not really need to be mixed with a conversation about consciousness after death, as the concept of consciousness is acuity and cognizance, and not one about a sense of identity.
If life continued after death, the same collective identity processes would continue on the mean as it does before death; that is, the same impression of such would continue.
Yet, what is the physicalist standing is that there simply lacks any facility to provide the power to support such conceptions due to a lack of any indication of acuity or cognizance following the death of an individual, and that there is no indicating evidence of some medium by which has been shown to receive the impression of identity after the brain fails to continue its support for the individual.
Jason: it probably does great injustice to the ideas You presented, but my guru, well shared guru, Khrishnamurti, conveys the notion that the concerns over identity have to be disposed before death, the reaons why they most probably will not, is that most people fear loosing themselves. To be borne again is almost a cliche, yet it impinges on sanity. How can that be? I think it would be safe to say, that it is both: a figurative and literal allusion, and I think the implications of it point more to an intent of letting go then an actual one.
Having said that, I completely agree with the notion that there is no actual point of death, and we carry over the same identifiable characteristics to what they call the other side.(If there is an other side, which is doubtful) the avatar let's go, and is not afraid of sustaining himself as an identity, so he is some kind of ephemeral nounce, a ghost, a shadow to eternally haunt those, who are afflicted by such notions. He is you and I, and their fear is based on periodic lapses of empathy, I am more inclined to believe this, then notions of some electro chemical sub stratum of reality, not to disallow those, but to try to put my self, above t, so as to gain more insight,more self realization.
Yes that’s a physicalist analysis of the question. But, I don’t think that the finality of death requires a physicalist theory. The finality of death is preponderantly evident on the basis that after the dissolution of the body, no one has unequivocally returned to life. Even the most famous return of all, the resurrection of Jesus was observed only by his followers. It wasn’t a public event. Therefore, a degree of faith is required to believe it. It isn’t conclusively or even preponderantly evident. Seeing that doesn’t require that we take on an ultimately physicalist view which is what Moreno is arguing for. Or so it seems to me.
This is a variation of “veil theology”; any form of metaphysical account which asserts that pre-corporal or post-corporal agency is incapable of retained identity with corporal identity due to some concept of losing identity in transition.
Yet, the veil theory doesn’t really change what I was getting at.
What I was more pointing out was that the issue isn’t an issue for the physicalist of identity perpetuation or not; it is instead a matter of whether there is any indication of a supporting medium system for acuity and cognizance, as those are rather principle requirements for “consciousness”, much more so than perpetual identity.
I was more conveying to Moreno that the physicalist does not address the life-after-death issue from the consideration of identity, but instead from a consideration of supporting systemic infrastructure for the processing of sentience “mechanically” itself; regardless of concerns regarding identity.
Very true, however, the one problem with the anecdotal counter-argument position that I’ve noticed is that it leaves itself open to retort from anecdotal evidence.
In essence, it seems to somehow implicitly request anecdotal evidence of people living on after death from debaters, by submitting an anecdotal position that no such case of continuation has been accounted for.
I usually see this spiral down to some sort of “controlled environment” clause and then things tend to just deteriorate from there as picking apart what such an environment is, or whether such environment invalidates the measuring.
Then there is the other issue where I’ve seen this position you are referring to countered by a position stating that the incapacity to witness such is a state of mental denial to the other plane and that people do report interacting with those who have passed on, but that they do so through some special state of mind or framework; that those who do not are simply unaware (somewhat like the show “John Dies At The End”).
This is why I tend to be a physicalist; because it is simple and tangible, rather than abstract and conceptual.
I’m simply saying that I know of no publicly observed event when after the dissolution of a dead body, someone returned from the dead. That fact doesn’t entail the whole freight of physicalism. The finality of death was evident before modern materialism or physicalism came to dominate scientific discourse. There is no need to refute those other private experiences that you refer to. I’ve had several of those myself.There are plausible natural explanations for such experiences, but suffice it to say that they seldom convince disinterested third parties. Beyond that, I’m not really interested in convincing or debunking anyone on this issue. If the finality of death were not so overwhelmingly evident, there would be no need for faith to overcome it. Intimations of immortality are there for those that seek them. The finality of death stares us in the face whether we seek it or not. If that’s not someone’s experience, good for them. If it is, then the consolation is that no one will ever experience it directly. Experience requires consciousness and the finality of death precludes consciousness. So, we have to live with the knowledge that we will die. But, death itself is not something we will experience. This is evidently is it.
Wishful thinking and promises of an afterlife in scriptures take the brunt out of the finality of death, even if none of it is true, like Santa Claus for children.
But they provide a relief from the burden of the inevitability of death. We can’t live this life always worrying about death. So over the millennia we’ve designed outs to solve the problem of death, so we can get on with living our lives.
Still : “One world at a time.” - HDT
Yes, I understood.
My commentary was more of a semantical observation, however, we share the same net conclusion.
This sounds like the only evidence of an afterlife would come from a resurrection of the body.
Evident to whom? It was not evident to most people. This does not mean they were right, but this kind of passive language observation is manipulative.
False dilemma. One does not need to have faith to Believe in Life after Death. I have explained this elsewhere. Faith is often seen as the only alternative to confirmation via scientific methodology. Often, that is, by Christians, ex-Christians and anti-christians. What is implicit is that those who claim not to use faith, have no beliefs which are not supported (sufficiently) via scientific methodology, which is simply not the case in anyone I have ever encountered. However what the false dilemma allows the person in question to do is NOTHING. One does not have faith, one can quickly check online to see if something is accepted by scientific consensus. No process or investigation need be engaged in over time. No empirical process, that is. You can say something as absurd as ‘I have had several of those (experiences) myself.’ when in fact since you have not engaged in a long term empirical process, say regarding reincarnation, you are simply guessing wildly that you have had the same experiences as people who did in fact engage in doing the actual work of exploration, so you can dismiss something you know nothing about as if you do know something about it and are simply more rational than people who actually do know what they are talking about. The faith/science false dichotemy is a nice excuse for stasis. Anyone using only scientific methodology to determine their beliefs is precluded by the problem of other minds of dismissing other people’s experiences on the grounds that he or she has had them. No way to know that, unless this is a faith based claim OR you have had a lot of psychic experiences.
This is either a tautology or meaningless. You are supporting the belief you have with the belief you have.
What I find peculiar about Christian concepts of the afterlife is that in heaven one has shed all personal attachments (See Jesus on marriage in heaven) whereas in hell one is tormented personally. This may not be the views of all Christians, just the ones who have ministered to me. If heaven is impersonal in the sense that all earthly attachments are done away with, I see no difference between an afterlife of heaven and an afterlife of oblivion.
Just because there seems to be no awareness of post death, doesen,t necessarily mean that awareness doesn’t survive death.
Awareness is a built up construct, but built upon what? It was previously called faith, but now the best that has been thought up was “sense data”
The mere fact that the concept of sense data leads to a reduction, is no longer a problem, since matter as we know it has also been reduced to almost imperceivable entities.
Science in this sense has almost unified both aspects of understanding. - if that turns out to be true, the distinctions can no longer be made between faith in science and god,and between consciousness of life and death.
If that point is reached, death will be defeated.
That would be the most convincing evidence I can think of with my poor Christianity addled mind. You apparently have some other kind of evidence that persuades you. Please share it so we all can benefit.
Evident to anyone who wept inconsolably with bitter tears at the loss of a loved one or who panicked at the prospect of there own oblivion and then turned to faith in whatever image of an afterlife their religious culture conjured up for them.
It’s not a false dilemma for me based on the lifetime of information I have. I’m not claiming there isn’t something else out there. I am simply admitting my ignorance of it. In cases in which the two options are, in fact, the only two options, this line of reasoning is not fallacious. For example this is not a false dilemma to state the following: 1. Moreno is dead or he is alive. 2. Moreno is not dead. 3. Therefore Moreno is alive. If there is another option beside faith why not just share it so that we all will KNOW? Why keep it to yourself?
I am supporting my belief based on a lifetime of experience so it is neither a tautology nor meaningless nor an absolutism. I am open to the possibility that I could wake up in some other kind of reality when I die. I look at the evidence available on the subject and conclude that isn’t likely. It will be a happy discovery if it occurs. It seems to me that you wish to portray my position as hardened against the idea of an afterlife. I am willing to look at whatever evidence you have on the matter. While prior expereince advises me not to get my hopes up that you have anything that will settle the afterlife matter in the affirmative, I certainly would welcome that possibility. In sum, this is an argument I would love to lose.