3 ms·

> the existence of an afterlife are the same kinds of natural laws that invalidate the principle of physicalism or materialism I don't see why that follows. T

> the existence of an afterlife are the same kinds of natural laws that invalidate the principle of physicalism or materialism I don't see why that follows. There are lots of phenomena in the world, like money, which are manifest in a non-physical substrate. Many many other things are immaterial. The characters I am typing right now are immaterial. There are bits in memory that represent the characters, but it's only in interplay with an entire system of physical structures that you can say the characters themselves are manifest. You can't point somewhere and say "that's where the character is". It's diffuse across a bunch systems in such a way that it's not manifest in any one location. Almost all of our social and political realities are like this. Where is Conservatism? Where is calculus? These are not things with locations, which is what makes them extremely difficult to study, which is why so many people reject things like Social Psychology or Science Studies as bunk science. Money, algebra, and the capital M that starts this sentence are all things that exist, in a way that's totally compatible with materialism. It's not necessary to claim that these things exist outside of a material substrate. They merely exist above it. Distinct from it, yet contained within it. Fully determined by its laws, but not described by them.

meowface 8y ago
Consciousness is an abstract, non-physical structure and concept, but everything we know suggests it is inextricably tied to and an emergent phenomenon of the brain. In the distant future there may be a way to extract and transfer consciousness into a new substrate, but with current technology, there's no reason to believe any sort of life, consciousness, sentience, awareness, etc. after death is possible at all. Just because it's possible in theory doesn't mean that applies to any currently living humans.
- erikpukinskis 8y ago
  > everything we know suggests it is inextricably tied to and an emergent phenomenon of the brain I don’t think that’s universally accepted. I think trees are conscious and they have no brain. I think the brain does create an illusion that other things are not conscious. It tricks us into thinking our own consciousnesses are distinct from the rest of consciousness. And that’s been a useful adaptation for us. And it confuses the hell out of consciousness philosophers. But we were conscious before we evolved it. It’s possible we were human before we evolved it. > In the distant future there may be a way to extract and transfer consciousness into a new substrate It’s possible such a thing already exists. We have ancient stories about it. If it were true it would be very difficult to detect. If the universe is a simulation then it seems extremely unlikely that consciousnesses would never be read, just operating until they get eaten by the 2nd law.
  - meowface 8y ago
    >I don’t think that’s universally accepted. I think trees are conscious and they have no brain. I don't think consciousness of trees is accepted by nearly anyone. But even if any trees were conscious, I don't see how it helps your argument at all. >I think the brain does create an illusion that other things are not conscious. It tricks us into thinking our own consciousnesses are distinct from the rest of consciousness. Yes, but consciousness of animals doesn't really mean anything here. If anything, it's a point in favor of the opposite side: that consciousness really isn't very special. >It’s possible such a thing already exists. We have ancient stories about it. If it were true it would be very difficult to detect. Many things are possible. We have ancient stories about many of them. If they were true they would be very difficult to detect. That's why the basic scientific principle is falsifiability. >If the universe is a simulation then it seems extremely unlikely that consciousnesses would never be read, just operating until they get eaten by the 2nd law. I don't agree. If the universe is a simulation then they could be read, but they don't have to be, and I don't think it's extremely unlikely that they wouldn't be. If it's a very "raw" or "real" simulation with no interference, they could very well just dissipate into nothing. Assuming it is a simulation, what happens when you get shot in the head and lose brain function? Where is your consciousness at that moment? Is there a pre-damage backup somewhere? When was the backup taken? If backups are taken every instant or otherwise very infrequently, which one is the "real" state after you die? The one from right before the damage occurred? Something picked at random? If there is no backup needed because there is instead just some outside extra-dimensional consciousness "force" or "energy" existing since long ago, what is that thing doing exactly when you suffer from a brain injury? Does it just "stop working" in or "lose connection" to those parts of the brain? What is it doing when we're children? I think even if we're in a simulation where nearly all living things are conscious, the chances of some kind of post-death experience is still basically zero.

meowface 8y ago

Consciousness is an abstract, non-physical structure and concept, but everything we know suggests it is inextricably tied to and an emergent phenomenon of the brain. In the distant future there may be a way to extract and transfer consciousness into a new substrate, but with current technology, there's no reason to believe any sort of life, consciousness, sentience, awareness, etc. after death is possible at all. Just because it's possible in theory doesn't mean that applies to any currently living humans.

erikpukinskis 8y ago
> everything we know suggests it is inextricably tied to and an emergent phenomenon of the brain I don’t think that’s universally accepted. I think trees are conscious and they have no brain. I think the brain does create an illusion that other things are not conscious. It tricks us into thinking our own consciousnesses are distinct from the rest of consciousness. And that’s been a useful adaptation for us. And it confuses the hell out of consciousness philosophers. But we were conscious before we evolved it. It’s possible we were human before we evolved it. > In the distant future there may be a way to extract and transfer consciousness into a new substrate It’s possible such a thing already exists. We have ancient stories about it. If it were true it would be very difficult to detect. If the universe is a simulation then it seems extremely unlikely that consciousnesses would never be read, just operating until they get eaten by the 2nd law.
- meowface 8y ago
  >I don’t think that’s universally accepted. I think trees are conscious and they have no brain. I don't think consciousness of trees is accepted by nearly anyone. But even if any trees were conscious, I don't see how it helps your argument at all. >I think the brain does create an illusion that other things are not conscious. It tricks us into thinking our own consciousnesses are distinct from the rest of consciousness. Yes, but consciousness of animals doesn't really mean anything here. If anything, it's a point in favor of the opposite side: that consciousness really isn't very special. >It’s possible such a thing already exists. We have ancient stories about it. If it were true it would be very difficult to detect. Many things are possible. We have ancient stories about many of them. If they were true they would be very difficult to detect. That's why the basic scientific principle is falsifiability. >If the universe is a simulation then it seems extremely unlikely that consciousnesses would never be read, just operating until they get eaten by the 2nd law. I don't agree. If the universe is a simulation then they could be read, but they don't have to be, and I don't think it's extremely unlikely that they wouldn't be. If it's a very "raw" or "real" simulation with no interference, they could very well just dissipate into nothing. Assuming it is a simulation, what happens when you get shot in the head and lose brain function? Where is your consciousness at that moment? Is there a pre-damage backup somewhere? When was the backup taken? If backups are taken every instant or otherwise very infrequently, which one is the "real" state after you die? The one from right before the damage occurred? Something picked at random? If there is no backup needed because there is instead just some outside extra-dimensional consciousness "force" or "energy" existing since long ago, what is that thing doing exactly when you suffer from a brain injury? Does it just "stop working" in or "lose connection" to those parts of the brain? What is it doing when we're children? I think even if we're in a simulation where nearly all living things are conscious, the chances of some kind of post-death experience is still basically zero.