A Rational Argument for Continued Existence Afte Death

[rocketdodger]

What did you hope to achieve by creating this thread?

I find the idea that my mind might actually believe two things, which seem to preclude each other, at the same time, to be fascinating.

Note that I didn't ever say I actually believe this, just that I think it would be rational for me to, which means I am considering believing it, and in that light I wanted to discuss the issue.

No, Complexity, I am not trying to set up a thread where I will win all the arguments, if that is what you were thinking. This is a genuine interest of mine.

 

[bruto]

As would I. However, if I cannot in any way fathom such a thing, then I will deny its existence. In this case, that means denying the existence of non-existence.

The existence of non-existence is a bit of an oxymoron, but does your inability to fathom it mean that everything that might exist must?

 

[schlitt]

Non existence is unfathomable, yet becomes equated to something humanly understandable. Since not existing means there is no existence to not exist within, there is no way to experience non existence. Hence why it is unfathomable.
We know that before we were born we did not exist, but contemplating this again equates to a relation to existence within our current existence.
Almost similar to "what is nothing?" - where any explanation becomes something and therefore wrong.
Using logic and attempting to understand the implications of non existence, we should be able to rationally state that despite our existence being subjectively eternal, it is not.

 

[rocketdodger]

Using "Seems to have greater weight" to come to a logical conclusion is a fallacy, and an emotional one.

I disagree about it being a fallacy, but I agree that it would be emotional.

Unless you can logically describe how it seems to have greater weight, your perception is decidedly an emotionally-driven one. In logic, there is no "A seems like B, therefore A=B".

But that is not at all what we are talking about here. It is more like "a seems like A, if A then B, so it is rational for me to think B."

 

[rocketdodger]

Isn't it about as rational as saying "I was brought up in a Spiritualist family, and all my life I've experienced spirits being contacted and never encountered scepticism. Therefore it's rational to believe that spirits exist". ?

Yes, exactly. It is rational, I think most philosophers agree, for a person in that situation to believe spirits exist.

 

[Wowbagger]

Reality in general, whatever that means, no.

Good...

However, I am claiming that there is a very good reason to assume that reality as we perceive it only works in ways we can imagine -- otherwise I don't think we could perceive it in any way.

But, that does not "logically" imply there would be continued existence after death. That idea merely suggests a little athropic hubris, on your part.


The "best" argument (and by "best", I mean it is only slightly less weak than all the other very weak arguments I have heard, so far) for continued existence after death, was that of statistics: In a Universe where the dimension of time could be infinite, the statistical likelihood of your conciousness re-existing an infinite number of times down the line, by chance alone, could be less than zero...
...But, I am not here to defend that idea. I am only using it to demonstrate the ludicrous straw-grasping that "life after death" arguments tend to take.

Of course, I am one to talk. I am immortal.

 

[Irony]

2) It is impossible for me to even imagine non-existence.

Can a stick imagine being placed in a wood chipper? Will this lack of imagination cause some sort of magical shield to spring into place to save the stick just before it falls into the wood chipper? How is it in any way logical to conclude that the inability to imagine something means that that something will never happen?

 

[rocketdodger]

But, that does not "logically" imply there would be continued existence after death.

I never implied this. I implied that it is rational to not believe that my existence will end upon my death.

Not believing my existence will end does not imply believing it will continue.

As you should know, there are a few propositions that are neither true nor false and furthermore can't be true or false within our logical system. If A is such a proposition, then the statement "I do not believe A" doesn't imply "I believe ~A." I think this is one of those cases.

 

[rocketdodger]

How is it in any way logical to conclude that the inability to imagine something means that that something will never happen?

It isn't. But that isn't what I am doing here. I am saying that since I cannot imagine a literal (my not-existence), I am rational in thinking that I should not make any inferences that rely on that literal being true. I.E. I am rational in not thinking that my existence will not continue.

This implies that I should also not make any inferences that rely on the literal being false -- and that is why I am making no claims that my existence will continue, either.

 

[Big Les]

Yes, exactly. It is rational, I think most philosophers agree, for a person in that situation to believe spirits exist.

But what of alternative explanations? As soon as you throw one of those babies into the scenario (whether conceived of organically or introduced from outside), the associated argument becomes irrational, doesn't it? And how many afterlife believers have never had cause to question that belief?

IOW, in a logical/philosophical bubble, the belief is rational. But if they choose to ignore an alt explanation, they're being irrational and the argument becomes irrelevant for any practical purpose.

My questions to you therefore are:

1) So what?
2) If a woman weighs the same as a duck, is she a witch?

 

[rocketdodger]

1) So what?

Nuttin. If you thought there would be some kind of point to this thread that has actual implications, I am sorry to have mislead you. Just a discussion of pointless thoughts.

My contention is that I am in a bubble, one that makes this belief rational.

2) If a woman weighs the same as a duck, is she a witch?

Absolutely. In my logical bubble, anything Sir Bedevere says is an axiom.

 

[Soapy Sam]

1) All I have known, my entire existence, is existence.

You have led a dull life? Maybe this will improve. Women help.

2) It is impossible for me to even imagine non-existence.

Hogwash. You just named a concept you cannot imagine? You're playing dumb and you ain't. I can tell dumb from not-dumb, as I have yonks of experience.

3) I understand that in the world I perceive, people cease to exist to me after they die.
Define "exist to me" . People do not "cease to exist". People die. Their life process stops. The evil that they do lives after them.

4) As a materialist I know my mind will cease to be supported by my physical brain after I die, and hence, my mind will cease to exist as well.

No you don't. You infer it from loads of apparently similar cases. You are probably right to do so. (If not, we both got it wrong).

5) My understanding of 3) and 4) are predicated, however, on my own existence.
As is your understanding generally. (Cogito ergot , bread pudding).
6) Thus 1) and 2) seem to be of much greater weight than 3) and 4).

Well, I can't argue about what seems what to you. Fish and chips seem preferable to caviare and cabbage to me. I think your argument has more holes per square potrzebie than Swiss cheese.
7) Thus, it is rational for me to not believe my existence will end upon my death.

"upon"?? Nobody says "upon" any more. What are you smokin', bro?

Look. What you need is a stiff drink. Here are the facts:-
1. People are organic lifeforms- tubes of wobbly bits and goo.
2. Thermodynamics takes a dim view of people.
3. Thermodynamics wins. Always.
4. Therefore. Have fun . NOW.

All else is hogwash, vacuum fluctuations and income tax.

 

[Wowbagger]

I never implied this. I implied that it is rational to not believe that my existence will end upon my death.

Not believing my existence will end does not imply believing it will continue.

Okay, I understand the difference. But, that is still not implied by what you are saying.

Can you define a "realm of existence" that does not end, and yet does not continue, either?

As you should know, there are a few propositions that are neither true nor false and furthermore can't be true or false within our logical system. If A is such a proposition, then the statement "I do not believe A" doesn't imply "I believe ~A." I think this is one of those cases.

So, you are essentially claiming agnosticism towards existence after death. Is that it?

 

[rocketdodger]

Can you define a "realm of existence" that does not end, and yet does not continue, either?

Nope.

So, you are essentially claiming agnosticism towards existence after death. Is that it?

Yep. In the strongest sense possible.

 

[AudioFreak]

To paraphrase Sam Harris talking on Bertrand Russell's celestial tea kettle: Does it even make sense to say you're agnostic about such a tea kettle? Technically yes, but in any practical sense no. Not at all.

 

[rocketdodger]

To paraphrase Sam Harris talking on Bertrand Russell's celestial tea kettle: Does it even make sense to say you're agnostic about such a tea kettle? Technically yes, but in any practical sense no. Not at all.

I wholeheartedly agree. Luckally practicality isn't a prerequisite for threads here!!

 

[Mercutio]

Yes, exactly. It is rational, I think most philosophers agree, for a person in that situation to believe spirits exist.

I think the word you want is "understandable", not "rational". There would be no "rational" reason to conclude one way or the other. In the absence of appropriate evidence (or reason for particular premises), there is no rational conclusion to draw.

As would I. However, if I cannot in any way fathom such a thing, then I will deny its existence. In this case, that means denying the existence of non-existence.

I can imagine three apples, or two, or one, or none. Three cats, or two, or one, or none. Three planets, two, one, or none. Lots of stuff, some stuff, less stuff, no stuff. Lots of experiences, some experiences, fewer experiences, no experiences. How long did humans have numbers, before we came up with zero? How long does it take students to really get the difference between zero and the null set? Absences are difficult to fathom, but they are meaningful. (And it is ok if you deny its existence--there is no such meaningful thing as an existence of non-existence. That's kinda the point. Makes it no less useful, though.)

 

[bruto]

I still don't see why you consider what is essentially a failure of imagination a basis for rational decision, when other, more useful information abounds.

I think I understand the basic idea of the original question. It's really not possible at some level to accept nonexistence. I think there's always a part of the mind that sees itself looking down on our own absence. But it's a flaw. A glitch in the program. Why should we base rational decisions, or even rational speculation, on what is so clearly a limitation? Or at least I think it's a limitation, and something we're supposed to outgrow, or at least to think our way out of eventually.

I cannot, myself, really conceive of an infinite universe. I know what it means, and all that, and I've read enough to understand the idea on one level, but my imagination cannot hold it; I cannot picture it in my mind. When I was about 5 years old, someone tried to explain this to me, and all I could conceive was that there must be something really big and dull outside it - I pictured in my mind a kind of detail-less muddy embankment, not so much an ocean to the shore of the universe as a shore to its ocean. Now I know better, but I still cannot really put a mental image to boundlessness. Should I therefore continue to assume the muddy bank? Shouldn't I rather acknowledge that the fault is mine?

 

[Big Les]

You can construct any artificial imaginary world you like in which your argument happens to make sense. You could do exactly this for every single thing or concept imaginable, adn similar suspension of real-world rationality would apply. What's the point? Oh, you did say.

 

[Wowbagger]

Nope.

Yep. In the strongest sense possible.

Well, heck. I'm out of arguments, then. Anyone else?