A Rational Argument for Continued Existence Afte Death

[Wowbagger]

I don't see how it is that different.

Actually, it almost isn't that much different. Your phrasing makes the difference very subtle:

You claim "It is rational to not think my existence will end and not think my existence will continue". Yet, you can't imagine a state where your existence will not end, and yet, not continue as well.
This would, at first, seem like it could be reduced to "This proposition is false"...

...But, in the first case, as you admitted, there is room for strong agnosticism. Perhaps a realm between existence and non-existence we can not fathom. (A side note: I do not think there is such a realm, but for argument sake, I will give you the benefit of doubt that there could be.)

In the second case, the statement gives no indication, in its context, of anything to be agnostic about. I suppose the best you could claim is that the "proposition" is partially true, and therefore neither completely true nor completely false. But, that would only work in certain contexts:

"I propose that grass is brown. This proposition is false." Technically, this could be partly true. Since some grass is actually kinda brown in color, though most grass we are familiar with is very green.

"I propose that grass is blue. This proposition is false." This set of statements, taken together, would likely be completely true. (Unless we count artifically colored grass.)

 

[rocketdodger]

Since when is "formal languages" not part of evolved human ones? What magical process created formal language, from whole cloth, and not through a long history of evolution?

Since they were created by humans, on purpose, with the intent of formalizing the stuff that is informal in our normal language, I don't consider them to be "evolved." But the meaning of "formal" has nothing to do with my argument so lets drop it.

My point is that I don't think "This proposition is false" is simply an abuse of language, such as "this apple completely green and not green at all," that results in nonsense. It means something, yet is still nonsense. Just like "existing non-existence" means something and is nonsense. There is something magical about it, like Godels theorem, that makes you realize *we just can't* fit everything into our systems without stuff falling through the cracks.

So all I am saying is that for me, the idea of non-existence falls through the cracks. Like "This proposition is false," I simply refrain from assigning a truth value to it not because I don't have enough evidence to do it but because I can't do it at all.

 

[rocketdodger]

In the second case, the statement gives no indication, in its context, of anything to be agnostic about. I suppose the best you could claim is that the "proposition" is partially true, and therefore neither completely true nor completely false. But, that would only work in certain contexts:

But the context I am talking about is when it is the only proposition being looked at. Such as, suppose, in a list of statements:

a) blah~
b) blah~
c) Statement c) is false.
d) blah~

It violates no rules of logic except for the fact that it doesn't make sense. All the other nonsense one can write would violate a rule of logic (or the language being used).

Actually I am having more fun talking about this than the existence crap

 

[Wowbagger]

God may change whatever he wants, but perfrect from the participant's point of view cannot change.

What if the participant's point of view is not Ultimately Perfect, either, but subject to changing whims and desires, much like living humans?

There is no such thing as experience for that individual after death, so how does the last moment of life differ from an eternal unchanging afterlife (particularly if that last instant is bliss)?

The difference is that one is unchanging and lasts forever. The other lasts only an instant, and is then gone.

The only non-existence that we cannot imagine is Existence itself. We can easily imagine the non-existence of many things, including ourselves.

Yes, the non-existence of existence is something we can not fathom. Which leads to questions like "Why is there something, rather than nothing, in the Universe, anyway?"

 

[Wowbagger]

such as "this apple completely green and not green at all," that results in nonsense. It means something, yet is still nonsense.

What does it mean?

Just like "existing non-existence" means something and is nonsense.

What does it mean?

The concept of "existing non-existence", alone, does not mean anything. But, when you add the concept of life and death, you add context in which it could. Just like my grass examples.

Understand?

But the context I am talking about is when it is the only proposition being looked at.

I understand that. My point statement C (in your last post to me) is nonsense, precisely because there is no other context to turn to, unlike your OP.

Actually I am having more fun talking about this than the existence crap

I just want you to recognize that you are still merely playing semantics games, with the "proposition" argument. It may be fun, but it does not help to defend your OP. Therefore, it is stupid to bring up, here.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

What if the participant's point of view is not Ultimately Perfect, either, but subject to changing whims and desires, much like living humans?

Then it isn't capable of experiencing perfect, eternal bliss, which is one of the very big problems with this whole idea of the afterlife consisting of perfect eternal bliss. Since we are not capable of it, unless we are removed from time, then it wouldn't really be 'us' experiencing it in the afterlife. It would be some totally other type of being.

The difference is that one is unchanging and lasts forever. The other lasts only an instant, and is then gone.

But that's looking at it from an external perspective. I am asking about it from the internal experiental perspective. Experientially they would appear to be the same thing. Experientially there is no 'gone'. There is only that 'instant'.

Personally I think it calls into question the whole sense of an eternal unchanging blissful afterlife.

Yes, the non-existence of existence is something we can not fathom. Which leads to questions like "Why is there something, rather than nothing, in the Universe, anyway?"

Not going there. The OP equivocates on the non-existence of Existence with the non-existence of his individual existence and puts the issue in a solipsistic framework. It also equivocates over issues of epistemology and ontology. Our inability to conceive of our non-existence in a radical way is an epistemic type statement. No ontological consequence need follow from it.

 

[rocketdodger]

What does it mean?

It is a proposition that claims itself to be false. This is plenty of meaning, and minus the absurd inference chain it leads to in our heads, is pretty normal as far as self-referencing propositions go.

I just want you to recognize that you are still merely playing semantics games, with the "proposition" argument.

I don't think I am, though. Semantic games would be restricted to the language of the statement and how the terms are defined in that language. Here we have a proposition that can exist in any language yet the results are always the same.

The problem isn't in semantics. The problem is with the combination of self-reference and negation. I see the same problem in "existing non-existence" and that is why I even brought it up to begin with.

 

[Wowbagger]

But that's looking at it from an external perspective. I am asking about it from the internal experiental perspective. Experientially they would appear to be the same thing. Experientially there is no 'gone'. There is only that 'instant'.

I would argue that exprience would just end. There would be no "experientially".

I don't think I am, though. Semantic games would be restricted to the language of the statement and how the terms are defined in that language. Here we have a proposition that can exist in any language yet the results are always the same.

The problem isn't in semantics. The problem is with the combination of self-reference and negation. I see the same problem in "existing non-existence" and that is why I even brought it up to begin with.

Perhaps this will help:

"This proposition is false." is about as meaningful as "This existence is non-existent."
(And, they are both, essentially, meaningless abuses of language rules. Any attempt to stretch meaning out of them will result in semantical gymnastics.)

"The proposition of 'grass being blue' is either true, false, or something else we can not fathom." is about as meaningful as "My existence after death is either non-existent, existent, or something else we can not fathom."
(And, yes, both do have meaning. There is room for logical discourse here.)

Does that help?

 

[rocketdodger]

"This proposition is false." is about as meaningful as "This existence is non-existent."
(And, they are both, essentially, meaningless abuses of language rules. Any attempt to stretch meaning out of them will result in semantical gymnastics.)

I dunno. It the first is a proposition that references itself, whereas the second is a proposition about a something else that references the something else instead of itself.

 

[Wowbagger]

I dunno. It the first is a proposition that references itself, whereas the second is a proposition about a something else that references the something else instead of itself.

Precisely.

Remember, the something else does not just reference, but describes the nature of itself. That would be more like the OP, and less like the proposition that merely references itself.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I would argue that exprience would just end. There would be no "experientially".

You are still looking at it from the outside, not the inside. There is no such thing as the experience ending. There will be no more experience, so we can't speak of the ending. Ending makes sense only from the outside, not from the inside experience. From the point of view of experiencing there is the experience -- we can't even think of "no more after". There is no such thing as the experience of no more. From the point of view of the experiencer I don't see the difference between an eternal unchanging present and the last minute of life. How really can there be from the viewpoint of the experiencer? They are both the experience of an instant. There is no change. The absence of experience with death cannot be experienced so the last moment is equivalent to the eternal unchanging moment.

 

[GeeMack]

Perhaps we have a limitation of human intellect here? The inability to conceive of our own end?

We? Perhaps you have such a limitation of human intellect, rocketdodger.

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.

You admit it is pointless, yet you continue as if you're trying to make a point. Now that's not especially rational.

I don't want to high-tail it out of here because if I am "stupid" then I want to learn and change. So please tell me why I am being "stupid," without assuming the words I write mean something other than *exactly* what I have written.

You seem to be insisting that your your inability to imagine some particular thing lends support to the rationality of you believing (or not believing) some other thing. Stupid or not, it's hard to tell. But your continuing to ramble on about it makes it seem like you lack the ability to intellectually process things in a clear, rational way. Learn and change.

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.

This bears repeating, because it's about the only sound comment you've made in this thread so far.

 

[Mobyseven]

No need to repeat what Wowbagger has said, so instead this post is a minor derail:

I once (on a philosophy forum) got involved in a discussion with someone who insisted that the poem Jabberwocky from Through the Looking Glass, was chock full of symbolism and hidden meaning. Among other things, she tried to tell me that:

1. Jabberwocky is from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.
2. Lewis Carroll was a woman.
3. Lewis Carroll was on hallucinogenic drugs.
4. Lewis Carroll was an active paedophile.

This told me rather a few things, most importantly that the person I was arguing with had not done even the most basic research on the subject of the Alice books, Charles Dodgson or nonsense poetry.

This thread reminds me of that discussion. As you were.

 

[Wowbagger]

You are still looking at it from the outside, not the inside.

What "inside"?

The experiences from the past could still exist, (at least in a platonic sense), in the past, but they would no longer be "experienced" after non-existence. There is no longer any "inside" to experience anything from.

This thread reminds me of that discussion. As you were.

Sometimes, I feel like I'm wrestling pigs. I'm getting all dirty, and they actually enjoy it.

 

[rocketdodger]

No need to repeat what Wowbagger has said, so instead this post is a minor derail:

Some might interpret this as "yet again, I would rather insult rocketdodger than actually contribute to this discussion."

 

[rocketdodger]

Remember, the something else does not just reference, but describes the nature of itself. That would be more like the OP, and less like the proposition that merely references itself.

Doesn't the proposition describe itself, though? Namely, that it is false?

 

[Wowbagger]

Doesn't the proposition describe itself, though? Namely, that it is false?

Now, we're just futzing with the meaning of "describe", and still not really getting any significant logical discussion done. That is the problem with arguing about semantical anamolies that only look more profound than they really are.

Hopefully you can come up with better arguments for your "rational belief in existence after death".

 

[rocketdodger]

Now, we're just futzing with the meaning of "describe", and still not really getting any significant logical discussion done. That is the problem with arguing about semantical anamolies that only look more profound than they really are.

Hopefully you can come up with better arguments for your "rational belief in existence after death".

I told everyone that the thread title is misleading!

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

What "inside"?

From the point of view of the experiencer.

The experiences from the past could still exist, (at least in a platonic sense), in the past, but they would no longer be "experienced" after non-existence. There is no longer any "inside" to experience anything from.

Correct, so the "end" of the experience cannot be experienced. From the point of view of the experiencer there is no end of the experience. There is the last experience of life. Beyond that there is nothing from our external view. We see the person die and the experience end. The experiencer, on the other hand, has the experience and cannot possible experience its end since there is no possibility of having that experience (there is no longer an experiencer).

This, to me, seems identical, from an experiential standpoint, to an eternal unchanging afterlife.

Seems to me that it makes the whole idea of an afterlife pointless.

 

[Wowbagger]

Correct, so the "end" of the experience cannot be experienced. From the point of view of the experiencer there is no end of the experience. There is the last experience of life. Beyond that there is nothing from our external view. We see the person die and the experience end. The experiencer, on the other hand, has the experience and cannot possible experience its end since there is no possibility of having that experience (there is no longer an experiencer).

Whatever. This looks like yet another semantics battle.

This, to me, seems identical, from an experiential standpoint, to an eternal unchanging afterlife.

Seems to me that it makes the whole idea of an afterlife pointless.

What if the afterlife is not unchanging? What if the afterlife is a realm created for our eternal hapiness, perhaps much like Earth, with people around, toys to play with, places to visit, and delicious foods to munch; only there is no pain and suffering, at all.

Not I think there is such a thing. I'm just pointing out that your view of what the afterlife is like, is kinda limited. If someone does have such a concept for the afterlife, they would think it is not pointless to try to get there.

But, yes, an unchanging eternal afterlife: Yes, that would be pointless.