The Proof of What Happens To Us After Death and the Subsequent denial of it.

a reply to: ketsuko

Yes no denying it ... This walking coffin of stardust flesh is destined for the dirt

Les Mis wins ...
Step up and receive your digital laurel crown and other spoils

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: ketsuko

Yes no denying it ... This walking coffin of stardust flesh is destined for the dirt

Les Mis wins ...
Step up and receive your digital laurel crown and other spoils

such a cynical victory to pursue though. the trophy might as well be a tombstone.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
such a cynical victory to pursue though. the trophy might as well be a tombstone.

LOL!

And such a cynical remark! But funny, nonetheless.

I don't see that emoticon though.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Bitter sweet indeed

The spiritual poets and mystics shall lament this day

The sky has darkened and there is distant thunder rolling close, ever closer

God is out of a job and but a beggar humbling herself at Les's feet

Jesus has climbed down from the cross and sayeth " What's the point any more. I am going to get a beer or two and find me a dancing girl"

The sound of weeping and gnashing of teeth is to be heard across all the lands

Oh Les my son ... what have you done ... what have you done

originally posted by: bb23108

originally posted by: TzarChasm
such a cynical victory to pursue though. the trophy might as well be a tombstone.

LOL!

And such cynical remark! But funny, nonetheless.

I don't see that emoticon though.

theres nothing but cynical written all over this thread. well, one cynical argument and a lot of mixed responses. seems to be a theme with the op.

originally posted by: artistpoet

pfft. didnt V teach you anything? behind god...is an idea.

and ideas are bulletproof.

I have given this subject quite a lot of thought and have a suspicion that the belief in an afterlife is a contrived thing to keep people from implementing any real change to make the world better while they live.

Religion comes with it's own moral hazards such as assuming one can behave as one wishes without worrying about who or what one damages, abuses or takes advantage of because they assume they will be forgiven simply for asking.

Other than that I see the whole universe as a giant recycling scheme where nothing ever truly dies but just changes form and is redistributed to eventually (over time) become the thing it was merely by chance.

People arrogantly assume they were created by something greater than themselves, as they consider themselves so great.

The only way people are great is that they are great at making a mess of things.

I wander off topic once again....

a reply to: ketsuko

The meat machine we all operate and drive around here on earth is going to have its lights go out and drop over stone cold dead.

Observe everyone. Another person who sees herself as a meat-machine, assuredly with a tiny little driver in the cockpit pushing buttons and pulling levers.

I concede defeat to you.

a reply to: TzarChasm

such a cynical victory to pursue though. the trophy might as well be a tombstone.

If you find the truth cynical, I'm sure there are still a bounty of lies you can use to adorn your garden.

theres nothing but cynical written all over this thread. well, one cynical argument and a lot of mixed responses. seems to be a theme with the op.

Brilliant observation.

a reply to: bb23108

One example would be that your attention moves beyond mere association with the brain-based conscious mind of this physical world into the unconscious, and you recollect vivid memories of being associated with a different body-mind, say from the seventeenth century.

The experience is such that you are certain in your feeling that the one you are now, in terms of this higher mind and attention that you are experiencing these memories with, was also associated with a different physical body, vividly seen in the unconscious psyche.

You also began to notice various aspects of this past lifetime, such as particular books on the shelves, and some papers on a desk you find yourself currently writing on. After a bit, you recognize yourself as Rene Descartes!

Various pieces of the puzzle fall into place in how his ideas back then, and then other lives, and finally you, as LesMis, come together as a convincing whole during this profound visionary experience.

Suddenly your phone rings and you return to your normal waking consciousness, but with a vivid recollection of all of this.

So what is your likely conclusion about this?

I would doubt it immediately, based on the fact that I am not Descartes and I am not from the 17th century.

I've become interested in the notion of "data clouds" (which exist within corporate intranets), and in the fact that pretty much everything that the human being invents for its own relative advantage can be connected to a naturally evolving system that exists as fundamental to reality at large (this is actually true, but it does take some effort to locate those connections and understand how those naturally evolving systems relate, but I digress). The "data cloud" is a subset of contextually entangled information sets that exists within a larger collective of data sets, and a handful of software firms are selling products that help a company create and manage these clouds.

The human memory system actually employs such a data cloud system, with the brain's retrieval circuitry (DNA and material structure) entangled (specific synaptic assemblies to specific cloud data sets) in the same manner that a company's server structural breakout is configured to entangle specific data retrieval points (OS and hardware) to specific cloud data sets. This is what we call memory, and if the hardware (brain synaptic assembly) is stimulated by an electrode, we can get that memory to immediately trigger (selected for conscious experience). We all know that this triggering memory with electrodes has been done many times. The point is that the data sets persist, even long after the brain has already moved past its use of those data sets.

Neuroscientists are comfortable with the notion of human thoughts asemergent systems, since the confluence that brings thoughts into physical existence are not at all similar to thoughts or reducible to components that can then be examined to "locate" the thoughts within the collective itself. This might be a niche that most other folks haven't kept up with, but this is critical to my own ongoing research, so I am up on the latest research and responsible thought concerning this small slice of science. My point is that the experts in neuroscience embrace thoughts as emergent physical holons.

Interesting ideas. I too have been keeping up on the literature, and naturally I prefer the embodied and embedded approach to cognition as opposed to the more popular computational theory of mind. I find it has greater explanatory power and scope, not to mention empirical validation. And if it turns out to be the better theory than the computational approach (which I think it is), it will fundamentally alter all we've ever thought about mind. Keep an eye on it, as it's gaining momentum in psychology, neuroscience, linguistics and AI research, and you may have to defend your own theories against it. Nonetheless, I foresee an exciting few decades in the cognitive sciences.

As for an emergentist theory of mind, in literal terms, I see nothing of the sort emerging. Unlike neuroscientists, who should stick to describing the brain, I am uncomfortable with this theory when it is applied to mind. What we call mind or thoughts in common vernacular have not nor cannot be shown to emerge from the complex physical structure of the body. At no point does our direct examinations of a human being deviate to some independent property or other, a "locus of thought" and I personally cannot get around that hurdle. If anything, such ideas lead to a faculty psychology not unlike phrenology.

In my own admittedly nominalist understanding, any sort of "emergent" attribute or property should not be abstracted apart from the object it is a property of. When I examine a property of "mind" in a human being, I take a look at my own actions and find I am not examining any mind qua mind, but am still examining the human being. In order to avoid this tiny paradox, much to my dismay, I have had to go against the entire premise of the cognitive revolution, while at the same time repudiating behaviourism.

Your use of semantics has failed you, I'm afraid. Yes, thought is a verb, but it is also an noun. That was a lot of quality thought to have been wasted on what has been so easy to cast aside.

My point is nominalization takes a reader (and apparently the speaker) away from the very concrete reality he is trying to describe, to the point where he is considering the word and not what the word represents. It obfuscates meaning, and removes any visceral or sensual inspection in favour of purely cerebral analysis. Thoughts are not persons, places or things, despite the fact, as you point out, that common vernacular speaks of them as if they were. So I still have to wonder what it is you are actually speaking about when using the term "thought", and what person, place or thing you are referring to. I think the fact that you can only speak of them is quite telling.

No. The soul is pre-existent, where as the brain-authored information set is an emergent response to a survival requirement that the cell DNA dictates cannot actively address. This does not predate the brain, but is configured and "launched" as a response by the brain. That said, if this data set knows that it exists (as the human data sets do) then it simply does, since this capacity for conceptual abstraction can certainly be appreciated as a material realm survival advantage.

I have difficulty with your notion of humans as "data sets". Data sets can be put into other data sets, and we can add as much data as we want to them. We cannot do the same with humans. But that's the old empiricist in me talking.

The human brain translates the Homo Sapiens DNA dictates in the same way that all material brains translate the DNA survival dictates of the bodies that they serve. The only difference is the capacity to abstract, but it's a transcendent capacity. An the capacity to abstract cannot be merely dismissed because it cannot be sliced into sheets and placed between glass slides under a microscope. You are engaging in conceptual abstraction as you argue that it doesn't exist. I don't know how to argue against that kind of intellectual devotion.

No. I do not doubt that we abstract. And here I thought the distinction between abstract and concrete was obvious. But with the simulation theory of cognition (with evidence to support it), where we activate the same neural structures in thought where we would in action, yet suppress its implementation before it comes to fruition, explains much more than appealing to disembodied and abstract representations as opposed to the reality we derive them from. I suppose it's a personal preference.

a reply to: artistpoet

One cannot kill what was never alive.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

One cannot kill what was never alive

What ever you say Les ...
So long as you leave Pink Unicorns alone to prance upon the rainbow clouds is all I ask
Don't mess with the Unicorns OK or I will get really really mad and tell my Mummy on you ... You, you you monster you lol

a reply to: artistpoet

Your pink unicorn fetish is safe with me.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I knew you had a heart

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If you find the truth cynical, I'm sure there are still a bounty of lies you can use to adorn your garden.

i dont find the truth cynical. i find your reaction to be cynical. "give up, its hopeless, theres no point, you are dust in the wind". i have heard more cheerful philosophy from a vogon.

Wow ... Did you really do that Les :-

"....you decided to paint your windows black and break the bulbs...."

I can always post you some candles ...

Too late with your edit Tzar .... lol ... sorry ... well a bit sorry

a reply to: TzarChasm

i dont find the truth cynical. i find your reaction to be cynical. "give up, its hopeless, theres no point, you are dust in the wind". i have heard more cheerful philosophy from a vogon.

My reaction? My reaction to what? No where have I said "give up, it's hopeless, there's no point, you are dust in the wind". You're speaking of your own cynicism, which apparently are the only conclusions you are able to formulate on your own in the face of reality. If I were you, I'd go back to reading more fluffy material.