Would the existence of an afterlife make you feel better?

Author: IlDiavolo

Posts

Total: 63
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,243
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
I'm opening this thread because I've been seeing multiple threads where people complain of the life they live. I don't want to argue whether this life sucks or not because it sucks for most of us. What I want to know though is if the existence of an after life would change your attitude towards this world we are living in.

Keep in mind that I'm not assuming anything about what christianity try to sell us. So, let's say there is no God, no hell, no heaven, no devil, just another parallel world where we come from and where there is no pain, no suffering, just a feeling of absoulute peace, and that we are sent to this fucking world to accomplish a mission: make the human being evolve. So, it's a sort of matrix where you are supposed to live temporarily in order to forge love in you and the rest of the people because it's said that love is the only way humans can evolve. As simple as that.

Would you then change your mind and make your best to accomplish the mission no matter how hard it looks? I read you.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 271
Posts: 7,852
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
I will have peace when I die. I will no longer feel great suffering. Until then, I troll people on Earth. That is the best path for me. Life is a dirty evil fucking joke. Whoever put us here doesnt mean well.
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,243
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
Let's also assume that it was a deal that you accepted, like getting into a game for the sake of the experience. So, it was you
that put yourself in this game because you felt like being capable of doing it.

And as any game, there are different ways to solve a problem, to overcome a pain, to learn more stuff, it's just a matter of looking for it. Of course, you can quit whenever you want, but if you do that you will realize in the other side that you actually had ways to keep going with low pain or even with no pain at all, and finish the game. 
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 271
Posts: 7,852
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@IlDiavolo
Let's also assume that it was a deal that you accepted
I dont remember agreeing to exist before I existed.
You have to exist first to agree to exist.
You cannot agree to exist before you begin existing.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 271
Posts: 7,852
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@IlDiavolo
Of course, you can quit whenever you want
Suicide is not really easy. There is no nice way.

Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@IlDiavolo
I want to exist, most days.

Of your parallel world,
I think I'd feel partly annoyed,
As I don't 'remember accepting or agreeing to the mission.

Perhaps in such a world, I had a good reason,
But no, it's too vague,
It rings similar to God works in mysterious ways,
What matters is not why we are here,
For I am doubtful we can know.
Though,
Perhaps that's the angle of your question, and expectation of what people want out of continued existence, some meaning, purpose.

Not that I don't 'want purpose,
But 'mostly I want to 'exist.
. . .

I care more about myself than the rest of humanity I think, perhaps.
Whatever I would have thought in the theoretical world you offer, current me doesn't. Assumably.

@NoOneInParticular
Partly unsure if it would 'truly be me on the other side, can a dream be 'itself, or can it only be the dreamer?

Hm, lack of sleep.

IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,243
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
I said let's assume, you dumbass. I'm assuming there is a soul that survive death and not necessarily remember where it comes from. 

We don't know exactly what there is beyond death, this is something the allien civilization will confirm when they show up hopefully.

Suicide is not really easy. There is no nice way.
Suicide is not the subject of this thread so I don't want to talk about it because people in western civilization are not ready for that kind of conversation.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,329
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@IlDiavolo
So, let's say there is no God, no hell, no heaven, no devil, 

Then you would have posted in the wrong sub-forum. 
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 271
Posts: 7,852
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@IlDiavolo
I said let's assume, you dumbass
To that, my answer is: lets not assume.
I dont wanna live my life on that.

We don't know exactly what there is beyond death, this is something the allien civilization will confirm when they show up hopefully.
Oh great, one fantasy replaced by another fantasy. At this point, become a believer in God. You sure are compensating a lot for him. Atheist who cant exactly live without skydaddy's approval.
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,243
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Stephen
Then you would have posted in the wrong sub-forum. 
I think the afterlife should be debated in this forum and not in "phylosophy" for example. 
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,243
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
Oh great, one fantasy replaced by another fantasy. At this point, become a believer in God. You sure are compensating a lot for him. Atheist who cant exactly live without skydaddy's approval.
It's more of a fantasy to think we're the only species in this vast universe.

Read a book, please. 😁
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 271
Posts: 7,852
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@IlDiavolo
It's more of a fantasy to think we're the only species in this vast universe
Of course we are not the only. There are also monkeys, tigers and butterflies.
No one ever even made that claim. You made claim about aliens solving death. Thats a very stupid claim to make. Aliens are likely as stupid as us. Higher intelligence doesnt exist in this universe. What you are saying is pure nonsense.
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,243
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
Pray, dude, pray. You're totally carried away.😁
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 271
Posts: 7,852
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@IlDiavolo
Thats a very strange death threat. You win this time, alien lover.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,329
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@IlDiavolo
This caught my eye.
IlDiavolo wrote; we are sent to this fucking world to accomplish a mission: make the human being evolve.

I was trying to remember where I had read something very similar.


I think it was here;
The “Lost Book of Enki” is written by Zecharia Sitchin who accurately describes the Great Flood that occurred in the age of Leo, some 12,500 years ago when the planet Nibiru neared Earth.

An interesting read whatever one's beliefs.
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,243
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Stephen
Fascinating. I've never seen that book, I swear.

I'll read it as soon as I can. Thanks. 
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,165
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
From a post on another site by Raspint:

Given everything we understand about consciousness, it seems pretty clear that the brain is required for any kind of conscious experience, and that once a brain that is not functioning, or has rotted away all together, there will be no other consciousness to speak off.
We already know that certain parts of the brain are responsible for certain functions, such as the cerebrum. If we were to cut out the cerebrum, we would either destroy the patient's ability to think, or we would destroy their consciousness.
Alternatively, if we were to remove the parts of the brain that interprets our senses, then we would lose those senses (sight, smell, etc). So we all agree that without the brain those senses evaporate, why would our consciousness, our being, or our person-hood be any different? Because if you have no sensation, no thinking, no mental/physical activity, what is the difference between that and someone who is 'gone?'
We agree that those who have not yet been born do not exist because they have none of the above criteria (thoughts, sensations). What possible reason is there to think those who have died are in any different kind of state?
So to sum up: Due to our understandings of the brain, the belief in the afterlife can be dismissed as a childish fancy borne our of fear and grief. It is just as baseless, perhaps even more so, than believing any of the following: That skin colors make certain people superior/inferior, that vaccines cause autism, that the earth is flat, that your astrological sign determines your personality, that Lord of the Rings is historical fact, or that Elvis is alive.
Granted due to the existential nightmare we find ourselves in the belief in an afterlife, while being even more unfounded and irrational than any of the above, is much, much more forgivable and understandable, due to the above mentioned fear and anxiety.
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,068
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW
Given everythingwe understand about consciousness, it seems pretty clear that the brain isrequired for any kind of conscious experience
That is not a “given”by any stretch of the imagination.

A simpledictionary definition of “consciousness” is an "awareness of the worldaround you", that’s what you lose when you lose consciousness.  Ifyou approach the question in a logical, scientific manner, devoidof any philosophical, metaphysical implications, or "religious" presuppositions, then thepresence of “consciousness” can only be observed to be the ability to perceive sensory stimuli and respond bypurposeful movement or by a behavioral change.

If that is the case, then the evolution oflife clearly shows a continuum of consciousness that evolved over time, the ability to respond specificallyto the environment, and to act creatively is a property of life at all levels, obviously present in organisms long before the evolution of anything we can call a brain.  Single celled organisms with nothing even resembling arudimentary brain or nervous system show themselves to be sensate beings withcomplex behavior.

Studies have shown that prokaryotes such as bacteria can respond to a broad range of stimuli, demonstrateelementary forms of “memory”, and engage in purposeful activities. They have shownthemselves to be extraordinarily perceptive, demonstrating elaborate behavioralresponses and adaptations to a wide range of attractants and repellants andother environmental stimuli such as light. They have complex signalingcapabilities, show the ability to communicate, and change their behavior basedon population size, which implies some kind of quorum sensing ability andclearly demonstrates social behavior on at least a rudimentary level. They havebeen proven to have some form of memory and a rudimentary ability to learn, andthe discriminatory ability to “choose” among alternatives, regarding amongother things, gene expression. They clearly integrate these capabilities into aself-organized and sensate being that in at least an extremely attenuated wayis perceiving, discriminating, remembering, and even “thinking”, on some levelit is conscious.

Over time, nucleated cells emergedwith a greater range of senses and responses, colonies of single-celled creaturesevolved into multicellular organisms with greater degrees on sentienceand a broader ability to respond.Cells emerged that specialized in sensing different aspects ofthe environment, consolidating into sensory organs, nervous systems evolved toprocess and distribute among multiple sensory organs, processing this data anddistributing to other parts of the organism, eventually the flow of informationrequired a central processing point, and brains evolved.  Seen in its entirety, seen the way evolution demands that wesee it; there is a direction to life, it constantly progresses towards greatercomplexity and higher forms of sentience, from inanimate matter, to life, tothought, to self-reflective consciousness.  The data and observations clearly demonstrate thatconsciousness is not contingent on brain, the evolution of consciousness began long before the evolution of brains, and therefore cannot be dependent on brain.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,344
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@IlDiavolo
@Sidewalker
Semantics.

A response to a stimulus, awareness, consciousness..

One can just pick where one wishes to insert rudimentary brain or brain into the evolutionary sequence.

Nonetheless, consciousness is simply a word that defines a highly developed mental capability, relative to a highly developed organic computer.

Switch off the computer though

And

Well, despite the efforts of a few theatrical mediums, no one as yet has managed to make contact.
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,068
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Semantics.
Good point, yes, we communicate withwords.

A response to a stimulus, awareness, consciousness..

One can just pick where one wishes to insert rudimentary brain or brain into the evolutionary sequence.
I suppose that’s one way to do it, another way wouldbe to use logic and science to observe, evaluate the facts, and gain knowledge.

Nonetheless, consciousness is simply a word that defines a highly developed mental capability, relative to a highly developed organic computer.
Yeah, except “computer” is a hopelesslyinadequate analogy for mind, computers simply calculate, they have no self-awareness,no sapient qualities, none of the emergent properties that distinguish thehuman brain. Do you really think computers are conscious?

Switch off the computer though
And it's no longer conscious?

And

Well, despite the efforts of a few theatrical mediums, no one as yet has managed to make contact.
That is a statement of your faith that ignores millions of reported observations to the contrary, which is fine, I would consider one who denies facts, observations, and science in favor of their faith to be a devout religious person, please understand, it is certainly not my intent to offend or disparage your religious beliefs, I’m just addressing the above issue in a scientific manner.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,165
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@zedvictor4
@Sidewalker
We can narrow down the seat of consciousness even further. Take, for example, experiments in which different stimuli are presented to the right and the left eyes. Suppose a picture of Donald Trump is visible only to your left eye and one of Greyparrot only to your right eye. We might imagine that you would see some weird superposition of Trump and Greyparrot. In reality, you will see Trump for a few seconds, after which he will disappear and Greyparrot will appear, after which he will go away and Trump will reappear. The two images will alternate in a never-ending dance because of what neuroscientists call binocular rivalry. Because your brain is getting an ambiguous input, it cannot decide: Is it Trump, or is it Greyparrot?
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,068
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW
We can narrow down the seat of consciousness even further. Take, for example, experiments in which different stimuli are presented to the right and the left eyes. Suppose a picture of Donald Trump is visible only to your left eye and one of Greyparrot only to your right eye. We might imagine that you would see some weird superposition of Trump and Greyparrot. In reality, you will see Trump for a few seconds, after which he will disappear and Greyparrot will appear, after which he will go away and Trump will reappear. The two images will alternate in a never-ending dance because of what neuroscientists call binocular rivalry. Because your brain is getting an ambiguous input, it cannot decide: Is it Trump, or is it Greyparrot?
How does that phenomenon "narrow down the seat of consciousness"?
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,165
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Sidewalker
People have never been exposed to as many sensory stimuli as they are today. We do not, however, consciously perceive the majority of the sensory impressions that bombard us. Our brain processes these impressions without us noticing. But where does the brain decide which sensory information should reach our consciousness and which should not? Tests on the brains of macaques have shown that neurons in at least two regions of the brain, the temporal and frontal lobes, are responsible for this.
Scientists from the Max Planck Institute in Tübingen measured the activity of neurons in the brains of macaques while the animals observed images on a screen. The results show that neurons in one part of the frontal lobe of the cerebral cortex are active when the monkeys are aware of what they have seen. Therefore, this region of the brain appears to play a role in deciding which impressions reach our consciousness.
Thus the content of consciousness is based in two different brain regions. The decision as to which sensory impressions will reach our consciousness is not made by a single region. Instead, neurons from different regions must cooperate for this purpose. With the help of the tests on the monkeys, it is possible to establish how consciousness arises. This knowledge could benefit people with impaired consciousness in the future.
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,924
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
Yes it would make me feel better. A lot better. There are many many people who have died and suffered for no achievement or with no vengeance upon upon their abuser. That is a hard pill to swallow.
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,243
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I don't remember having talked about any judgment for our deeds. In fact, I'm assuming there is no hell, no heaven, and as a consequence no judgment. It's a game at the end, you play it for the sake of the experience.
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,109
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@FLRW
People have never been exposed to as many sensory stimuli as they are today. We do not, however, consciously perceive the majority of the sensory impressions that bombard us. Our brain processes these impressions without us noticing. But where does the brain decide which sensory information should reach our consciousness and which should not? Tests on the brains of macaques have shown that neurons in at least two regions of the brain, the temporal and frontal lobes, are responsible for this.
Scientists from the Max Planck Institute in Tübingen measured the activity of neurons in the brains of macaques while the animals observed images on a screen. The results show that neurons in one part of the frontal lobe of the cerebral cortex are active when the monkeys are aware of what they have seen. Therefore, this region of the brain appears to play a role in deciding which impressions reach our consciousness.
Thus the content of consciousness is based in two different brain regions. The decision as to which sensory impressions will reach our consciousness is not made by a single region. Instead, neurons from different regions must cooperate for this purpose. With the help of the tests on the monkeys, it is possible to establish how consciousness arises. This knowledge could benefit people with impaired consciousness in the future.
Interesting stuff, but you should properly attribute text which has previously been published elsewhere:


ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,924
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@IlDiavolo
I don't remember having talked about any judgment for our deeds. In fact, I'm assuming there is no hell, no heaven, and as a consequence no judgment.
True peace for the victims is an even greater victory than suffering for the guilty.

All is well that ends well. You'll find not every spiritual ethos focuses on an afterlife; but they all need the story to end well.
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,068
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW
People have never been exposed to as many sensory stimuli as they are today. We do not, however, consciously perceive the majority of the sensory impressions that bombard us. Our brain processes these impressions without us noticing. But where does the brain decide which sensory information should reach our consciousness and which should not? Tests on the brains of macaques have shown that neurons in at least two regions of the brain, the temporal and frontal lobes, are responsible for this.
Scientists from the Max Planck Institute in Tübingen measured the activity of neurons in the brains of macaques while the animals observed images on a screen. The results show that neurons in one part of the frontal lobe of the cerebral cortex are active when the monkeys are aware of what they have seen. Therefore, this region of the brain appears to play a role in deciding which impressions reach our consciousness.
Thus the content of consciousness is based in two different brain regions. The decision as to which sensory impressions will reach our consciousness is not made by a single region. Instead, neurons from different regions must cooperate for this purpose. With the help of the tests on the monkeys, it is possible to establish how consciousness arises. This knowledge could benefit people with impaired consciousness in the future.
I understand thatthere are physical aspects and neural correlates of consciousness in the brainof a human being, that just doesn’t speak to your contention that"the brain is required for any kind of conscious experience".Referencing a single species example does nothing to refute the observationsthat there is a continuum of increasing degrees of consciousness across theentire spectrum of life, not just in organisms possessing brains. It hasclearly achieved its highest degrees in organisms with brains, but it is notexclusive to those organisms by any stretch of the imagination.  

Seen in its entirety, seen the way evolution demands that wesee it; there is a temporal direction to life, it constantly progresses towardsgreater complexity and higher forms of sentience, from inanimate matter, tolife, to thought, to self-reflective consciousness. A majority of the historyof the growth and development of consciousness occurred in organisms withoutbrains, in evolutionary terms, it culminated in brains fairly recently.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,344
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Sidewalker
Computers process data.....Both internally and externally generated data.

The human computer is a multi-functional management system, developed over some 300,000 years or so.

Whereas advanced electronic computers have been around for less that 100 years.........Let's give them a chance to catch up.

Maybe were looking at some sort of hybrid.

Because I think that downloading consciousness is not too far away......Which is a sort of scary concept.
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,243
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
True peace for the victims is an even greater victory than suffering for the guilty.

All is well that ends well. You'll find not every spiritual ethos focuses on an afterlife; but they all need the story to end well.
This is one of the main problems in christianity, that the belief in a reward and punishment after death discourages people to live at their maximum potential. I mean, it's a fucking game. If you tell to a rich that he's not going to heaven because he is rich (Matthew 19:24), this person would feel guilty and start to live a life that he doesn't like. Likewise, the poor would stop striving for progress because he knows he'll go to heaven anyway (Matthew 19:24).

If you think that reward and punishment deter people from doing bad deeds, that's bullshit. All the idea of a being that rewards you for your good deeds and punish your enemies is just a comfort to fools. I've already said it, a belief system determines the way a society makes progress so I see christianity is not helping solve the main social problems in this fucking world because people are pretty sure that a God would reward and punish in the afterlife, when the real solution is to strive to make justice and work together for a better world.