Would you prefer there to be nothing after death?

[Z]

The following is philosophy talk, not science, but:

Given the statistical unlikelihood that you would even be born, is it any less statistically unlikely that you could be "reborn": that your consciousness would ever re-establish itself, in another life form, far into the future?

Just something to ponder over, (though I wish anyone the best if luck, if they think they can pursue this matter through science )

IF we live in an infinite universe - time-wise and space-wise - THEN it is likely that at some point in the future, our consciousness WILL be re-established, complete with memories of the present. However, it is also likely our consciousness will be re-established under horrible conditions of suffering and pain and anguish - or only partially re-established, etc.

But we're talking umpteen googels of years into the future, of course.

And there's no evidence that time OR space are infinite in any way.

 

[qayak]

Humans have the capacity to suppose what the statistical likelihood of an event was before it happens even after it happens. This is called abstract thinking.

Here, let me give you an example. The statistical likelihood of winning next weeks California Lottery (Match 5 Plus)? 1:41,416,353

So, let's assume for a moment that you win the lottery next week. Would that fact change your prior likelihood of winning? No.

That's the point you are missing qayak. Humans can look back to calculate the prior likelihood of any event that has happened. In fact, forensic scientists and detectives (not to mention scientists in general) do it all of the time. It is a very valuable tool.

{poorly thought out example snipped} I appologize.

No, sorry. This is a mistake in logic that allows religious people to claim that the unlikeliness of your being born is proof of the existence of god. They make the mistake of calculating the odds after the event and relating the results to the actual outcome of the event.

In the lottery example that you mention: You are 100% the winner before the event as you are after the event. The only difference is that before the event, you could not know the outcome, after the event you do. Once the outcome of the event is known, you can then trace it back and you will always come to the conclusion that the outcome was 100% because it is not only the end result of all the things that MUST happen, it is the end result of all the things that DID happen.

 

[qayak]

Of course, the likelihood of you having been born is 100%, since we know you exist*.

What I meant was: The likelihood you would even have been born, in the first place, (as measured before you actually were).

No, still 100%. If you point to an individual who has not been born yet then you are correct but you are pointing to one who has been born and the likelihood will always be 100%.

Think about it this way. All the events that had to happen from the beginning of the human species, in order for a particular unborn individual to be born makes the probability very slim indeed. But. because we know the result of the events that have led up to me, what are the chances that my next offspring will born from one of my sperm?

The answer is 100%. Everytime you calculate backwards, the result is 100%. In order to get a true statistical measure one has to calculate forward, in which case Randfan is correct, we have the imagination powers necessary to do it. However, if we apply this to someone who has actually know any of the outcome for, the odds change until they become 100% for anyone already born.

 

[dglas]

My question is, to fellow Atheists (If you would classify me as such), would you prefer that there was nothing after death...[?]

Yes.

Death doesn't frighten me. I've been under general anesthetic. Awaking from it was rather a disappointment, really.

Now the pain of death is something I don't really look forward to, I must admit.

 

[dglas]

I suspect probability, like randomness, is not an absolute, objective measure, but is simply a measure of current knowledge. I am willing to entertain refutations of this though.

 

[RandFan]

This is a mistake in logic...

How is it a mistake in logic? Do you know what abstract reasoning is? Do you know what a hypothetical is? In his famous thought experiment Einstein imagined riding on a beam of light. This is abstract reasoning as it was impossible for Einstein to do. Is it possible for you to imagine what the odds of an event were before the event took place?

...that allows religious people to claim that the unlikeliness of your being born is proof of the existence of god.

No it doesn't. They might think that it does but it doesn't.

They make the mistake of calculating the odds after the event and relating the results to the actual outcome of the event.

And what the hell is wrong with this? My only complaint is the conclusion and not the logic.

In the lottery example that you mention: You are 100% the winner before the event as you are after the event. The only difference is that before the event, you could not know the outcome, after the event you do.

So you are saying that there is no such thing as odds? We can't calculate the likelihood of a child being either male or female? We must simply accept whatever happens and toss out statistics?

Once the outcome of the event is known, you can then trace it back and you will always come to the conclusion that the outcome was 100% because it is not only the end result of all the things that MUST happen, it is the end result of all the things that DID happen.

So, again, we should toss statistical analysis? We can derive no value from statistical analysis? We cannot calculate the likelihood of an event before it happens?

BTW, this is Dawkins argument given all of the possible outcomes "we are the lucky ones".

Perhaps you should get a letter off to him to let him know of his disservice.

 

[RandFan]

The answer is 100%. Everytime you calculate backwards, the result is 100%. In order to get a true statistical measure one has to calculate forward, in which case Randfan is correct, we have the imagination powers necessary to do it. However, if we apply this to someone who has actually know any of the outcome for, the odds change until they become 100% for anyone already born.

Again, you are missing the point. We can extrapolate conclusions based on the statistics of anyone being born. The odds that anyone person being born is infitesmialy small. You won the lottery. You lived and someone else didn't each day, each moment that you live you continue to win that cosmic lottery.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Having suffered with depression I can relate, somewhat, with your experiences.

You have the, 'Life is suddenly great! I dont want to die!' moments?

 

[RandFan]

You have the, 'Life is suddenly great! I dont want to die!' moments?

I have the "life is suddenly great! I don't want to die right now" moments.

 

[athon]

If I'm being honest, I really wouldn't want there to be an afterlife. I'd like this life to go on for a while, and would want to live life to the fullest. But to exist forever - that is a terrifying concept.

We find it difficult to imagine not existing, but try picturing eternity. Not a few hundred years, or a few thousand, or even a million or so. But eternity. Non stop. No end.

The only way to cope would be to reinvent yourself. And then sections of your life either become inaccessable (you just wouldn't think of them), or you'd be full of memories which are related only distantly. Is that really 'me'?

I like the idea of re-incarnation, in some ways, but again to not have a recollection of who I am now is no different to being somebody completely different.

No, I like the idea of not existing when I die. Of just not being. It gives far more comfort than that of eternity.

Athon

 

[chigh]

I think this life is all I have. I've come to grips with this conclusion, despite having feared it until a few years ago. I think this was due to the "fear of the unknown".

Now, if an afterlife were to exist, I'd prefer it be one where I could travel the great distances of the universe in which we exist and see all the sights. That'd be awesome.

 

[RandFan]

I think this life is all I have. I've come to grips with this conclusion, despite having feared it until a few years ago. I think this was due to the "fear of the unknown".

Now, if an afterlife were to exist, I'd prefer it be one where I could travel the great distances of the universe in which we exist and see all the sights. That'd be awesome.

Yeah, perhaps a hundred or even a few hundred years to explore. There's got to be some pretty neat stuff out there. Just look at Star Trek.

 

[Wowbagger]

IF we live in an infinite universe - time-wise and space-wise - THEN it is likely that at some point in the future, our consciousness WILL be re-established, complete with memories of the present. However, it is also likely our consciousness will be re-established under horrible conditions of suffering and pain and anguish - or only partially re-established, etc.

But we're talking umpteen googels of years into the future, of course.

Yes, I would agree that fits with the idea I proposed!

(ETA: Although, I don't think our memories of our past lives would be preserved. The matter that stored them would have been destroyed beyond reconstruction, and those molecules could possibly be billions of lightyears away from our new consciousness, anyway.)

And there's no evidence that time OR space are infinite in any way.

I did not intend to imply there was. This was a philosophically speculative argument, not a scientific one.

No, still 100%. If you point to an individual who has not been born yet then you are correct but you are pointing to one who has been born and the likelihood will always be 100%.

(snip)

The answer is 100%. Everytime you calculate backwards, the result is 100%. In order to get a true statistical measure one has to calculate forward, in which case Randfan is correct, we have the imagination powers necessary to do it. However, if we apply this to someone who has actually know any of the outcome for, the odds change until they become 100% for anyone already born.

I believe the term related to this kind of argument is "Texas Sharpshooter's Fallacy". Just because the bullet happened to hit one location on the wall, does not mean you can paint the bull's-eye there afterwards, and then claim there was a 100% chance it would hit the center.

If the conditions were any different, the bullet would have hit a different spot. And, I don't think we quite know just how variable conditions could be in the Universe.

 

[negativ]

I would prefer that my lifespan be sufficiently long that by the time I die I will have learned all I care to learn, done all I care to do, loved all I care to love, shared all I care to share, and have literally "been there, done that" to the point where there's just nothing more to look forward to. At that point, pressing the eternal cosmic "off" button wouldn't be so bad.

But as it is, the best I can hope for is to spend the majority of my life waking up at a time I don't like, putting on clothes I don't like to wear, going to a place I don't want to be, being around people I don't enjoy being around, and doing something I don't give half a crap about doing. The purpose of this activity is to obtain resources I can use to perpetuate the activity itself until I become physically unable to do it, at which point I fully expect to be trapped in a malfunctioning body, friendless and alone, begging for death but too cowardly to jump in head-first.

{huge rant omitted}

bobdammit, I hate these threads. Now I've got to go stick the barrel in my mouth and count to two-and-a-half for the 10 thousandth time.

 

[qayak]

How is it a mistake in logic? Do you know what abstract reasoning is? Do you know what a hypothetical is?

Yes to both but apparently you do not.

So you are saying that there is no such thing as odds?

I never said that. In fact I gave you the correct odds of the scenario set out.

We can't calculate the likelihood of a child being either male or female?

I never said that. The problem I have is that you did the calculation and got the wrong answer. I figure if you are going to do it, you might as well do it right.

We must simply accept whatever happens and toss out statistics?

I never said this either! Although YOU might as well toss out statistics because the answers they give you are wrong.

So, again, we should toss statistical analysis? We can derive no value from statistical analysis? We cannot calculate the likelihood of an event before it happens?

We can, but the answer is wrong for an event that has already happened. If you don't agree with me, I will take your odds against me being born and bet you $1.00 that I will be born. I will be rich.

BTW, this is Dawkins argument given all of the possible outcomes "we are the lucky ones".

Perhaps you should get a letter off to him to let him know of his disservice.

Actually, Feynman made the argument long before and he used it to refute the false claim you are making right now.

We are the lucky ones because there are far more who will never be born. We are the result of a particular series of events that actually happened, they never had a chance.

Dawkins did the calculation right, you do not.

 

[qayak]

Again, you are missing the point. We can extrapolate conclusions based on the statistics of anyone being born. The odds that anyone person being born is infitesmialy small. You won the lottery. You lived and someone else didn't each day, each moment that you live you continue to win that cosmic lottery.

Actually you are the one missing the point. I simply stated that the original statement regarding the chances of me being born, were wrong. I did, however, understand, and agree with, what Wowbanger was saying, so I only pointed out the statistical error.

 

[RandFan]

Actually, Feynman made the argument long before and he used it to refute the false claim you are making right now.

We are the lucky ones because there are far more who will never be born. We are the result of a particular series of events that actually happened, they never had a chance.

Dawkins did the calculation right, you do not.

You are not making sense. If the odds of you being born were always 1 then you would not be lucky at all.

Please to post Feynman.

 

[RandFan]

Actually you are the one missing the point. I simply stated that the original statement regarding the chances of me being born, were wrong. I did, however, understand, and agree with, what Wowbanger was saying, so I only pointed out the statistical error.

Odd...

I believe the term related to this kind of argument is "Texas Sharpshooter's Fallacy". Just because the bullet happened to hit one location on the wall, does not mean you can paint the bull's-eye there afterwards, and then claim there was a 100% chance it would hit the center.

If the conditions were any different, the bullet would have hit a different spot. And, I don't think we quite know just how variable conditions could be in the Universe.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Now, if an afterlife were to exist, I'd prefer it be one where I could travel the great distances of the universe in which we exist and see all the sights. That'd be awesome.

The reason I hate the idea of pegging it in the next 60-90 years or so is because of the wonders Humanity may achieve in space. Sad really.

But I may be content with a Mars landing.

 

[Lonewulf]

Why should I fear death? I'm going to live forever.