The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight

Emotions in regards to ones death (becoming nothingness)?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 350
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Emotions in regards to ones death (becoming nothingness)?

Post by chewybrian » October 17th, 2018, 4:50 am

Eduk wrote:
October 16th, 2018, 2:41 pm
If I can choose, then determinism is out, right?
No. That's what I was trying to say (poorly). I don't think determinism and choice are necessarily mutually exclusive. For example we really need to delve deep into exactly what choice or freedom are. For example can I choose not to be free?
This I don't get. To have choice, I must have had the ability to have done otherwise in any given situation. By definition, if determinism holds, then I could not have done other than what the past dictated. So, they do seem mutually exclusive.

I can not literally choose to not be free, yet many people effectively do through a false belief that they can not change their poor habit. Every addict, for example, can get clean any time they decide to exert their will. It may be hard, so they convince themselves they can't win and don't try. In a sense, they are choosing not to be free.
Eduk wrote:
October 16th, 2018, 2:41 pm
They had many 'laws' in the past which were proven incorrect,
Not really. There are some nuances to this. Firstly take medicine. Blood letting used to be called medicine. This is before medicine took a science based approach. Modern medicine didn't happen until around 1900. So there is a big big difference between a law which claims to be scientific and a law which is scientific. Regarding laws which are scientific see my comment about Newton for further nuance on that.
It was not irrational to assume that the sun revolved around the earth, for example.
Yes it was. If there is no reason to believe something then it is irrational to believe it.
You need some Rousseau! It is absolutely possible to be rational, yet wrong. You have to avoid the anachronism of picturing yourself as that man of the past, who would lack much of the knowledge and resources that Eduk of the present has at his disposal. Looking up at the sky, unable to perceive the motion of the earth, it would be perfectly rational to note the apparent motion of the sun around the earth and take it at face value. There was every reason to think the sun went around the earth and no reason to think otherwise. Plato and Aristotle were not nuts; they just lacked all the information to come to the correct conclusion. What they did conclude was perfectly logical given what they did know.

There is always a chance that you are falling into a similar trap, because our knowledge is always incomplete. In areas where we have extremely little knowledge, like the nature of consciousness and freedom, agnosticism is a rational approach. It's also fine if you choose to have an opinion of what you think will be the answer when (if) we are able to get the facts. It's the attitude of certainty in areas of great unknowns that seems irrational.
Eduk wrote:
October 16th, 2018, 2:41 pm
...unknown is unknown...
Then why do you want to convince us, or yourself, that you do know?
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."

Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Emotions in regards to ones death (becoming nothingness)?

Post by Eduk » October 17th, 2018, 5:20 am

This I don't get. To have choice, I must have had the ability to have done otherwise in any given situation. By definition, if determinism holds, then I could not have done other than what the past dictated. So, they do seem mutually exclusive.
Dennett has done a number of talks on this subject. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joCOWaaTj4A&t=61s
I think it's interesting stuff, surely you have heard of compatibilism?
Looking up at the sky, unable to perceive the motion of the earth, it would be perfectly rational to note the apparent motion of the sun around the earth and take it at face value
Yes I get your point. It's obviously much much more easy to appear rational today than yesterday. I still don't think they were being rational though. This isn't necessarily a huge insult by the way, rationality exists on a spectrum.
Then why do you want to convince us, or yourself, that you do know?
I was simply saying that I know that inventing mysterious and undefined mechanisms which have no logical plausibility, explain nothing and predict nothing, is extremely unlikely to be correct. I know that 'you' don't know. I'm pretty confident in that knowledge even if I haven't got a clue what consciousness is.
For example. I could write an algorithm now which took in a dictionary of all the English language words. I could then randomly position a random number of words one after the other separated by spaces. What is the chance that this explains what consciousness is? How do you know it doesn't explain consciousness if you don't know what does explain consciousness? Please take this seriously.
Unknown means unknown.

User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 350
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Emotions in regards to ones death (becoming nothingness)?

Post by chewybrian » October 17th, 2018, 9:45 am

Eduk wrote:
October 17th, 2018, 5:20 am
This I don't get. To have choice, I must have had the ability to have done otherwise in any given situation. By definition, if determinism holds, then I could not have done other than what the past dictated. So, they do seem mutually exclusive.
The interviewer failed us horribly by not asking the all-important question. So, we are avoiding being hit by the brick as a biological effect of evolution. We can anticipate problems and change what we thought would be the future, and thus we felt we had the free will to avoid the brick, even as we were determined to do so. That's a fine theory, except for one gaping hole---I can stand fast and take the brick to the face! Everyone knows they have the capacity for idiocy, but only some of us choose to exercise it some of the time (you've seen "Jackass", haven't you?).

His idea of free will in a determined universe is an extremely tortured argument to me. It is very theoretical and can not yet be proved or disproved. It's a convenient way to wedge in determinism while (sort of) acknowledging choice. But, choice on my terms must necessarily involve the ability to have acted otherwise. When I leave the store with my six pack of beer, I know that I could have had some other beer, or cider, or funded my 401k or donated to charity. You know this to be true as well, I feel sure. It simply does not fit with all my actions being caused.
Eduk wrote:
October 17th, 2018, 5:20 am
Looking up at the sky, unable to perceive the motion of the earth, it would be perfectly rational to note the apparent motion of the sun around the earth and take it at face value
Yes I get your point. It's obviously much much more easy to appear rational today than yesterday. I still don't think they were being rational though. This isn't necessarily a huge insult by the way, rationality exists on a spectrum.
Well,we certainly have out share of folks appearing irrational today. I might argue it was easier in the past to appear rational, as there were fewer obvious assertions which needed to be accepted. We should define rationality, though. I think it is the willingness to accept as true what should seem obviously true within the limits of the knowledge and abilities of the person doing the accepting. One could be rational but ignorant, rational but stupid, rational but misinformed, but not rational but foolish, or rational but in denial. I think Aristotle was being rational to say the sun went around the earth, given what he knew and saw, and I assume he would accept our truth of the matter if he somehow magically appeared here today and gained access to the same facts and tools we have.
Eduk wrote:
October 17th, 2018, 5:20 am
I was simply saying that I know that inventing mysterious and undefined mechanisms which have no logical plausibility, explain nothing and predict nothing, is extremely unlikely to be correct. I know that 'you' don't know. I'm pretty confident in that knowledge even if I haven't got a clue what consciousness is.
For example. I could write an algorithm now which took in a dictionary of all the English language words. I could then randomly position a random number of words one after the other separated by spaces. What is the chance that this explains what consciousness is? How do you know it doesn't explain consciousness if you don't know what does explain consciousness? Please take this seriously.
The difference is that we have some evidence to the contrary, if we accept our free will at face value. It appears to violate the laws of physics, and it is not possible to prove to a reasonable level of certainty that this is not what it is doing. Further, there is nothing to show it is something physical. Can't you describe attributes and predict actions of any physical thing, like light rays, or planets or motorcycles? Yet, you can not do this with a free will. You certainly can't predict all the actions of a human, nor can you name a physical attribute of their will.

I don't know what explains consciousness, and neither do you. Agnosticism is a fair response, with an opinion on the side if you wish. We've both chosen our opinion, yet you've also shut the door on being agnostic about the final answer. It's too easy to fold your arms and think you have all the answers because you have some answers that have proven useful. When something different comes along that does not fit the formula, then maybe you should consider the idea that the formula doesn't cover everything, instead of torquing the formula to try to make it fit.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."

Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Emotions in regards to ones death (becoming nothingness)?

Post by Eduk » October 17th, 2018, 1:11 pm

Chewy what I am saying is not that determinism and free will are definitely compatible. What I am saying is that they might be. I am surprised you are not agnostic about this?
I am not sure if Aristotle ever presented the geocentric theory as fact or simply as his best guess. To draw a modern parallel. Cosmologists do not present the big bang as fact, they present it as their best guess.
I don't agree that free will necessarily violates the laws of physics. I'm not sure how you do know this.
You have not answered my theoretical question about the computer algorithm.
Unknown means unknown.

User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 350
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Emotions in regards to ones death (becoming nothingness)?

Post by chewybrian » October 17th, 2018, 3:22 pm

OK, Eduk, I see two questions which I will try to answer and I hope you will answer one for me in return.
Eduk wrote:
October 17th, 2018, 1:11 pm
Chewy what I am saying is not that determinism and free will are definitely compatible. What I am saying is that they might be. I am surprised you are not agnostic about this?
I am not agnostic about compatiblism because it seems like a contradiction to me. The 'inevitability' video didn't help me iron it out. Determinism says by definition that my decision is always fully caused by prior events. When I walk up to the vending machine, the answer was going to be "Funions" all along. I am not free in this scenario by my definition, and no other definition makes any sense to me.

My understanding of free will is that for any given choice, I could have done otherwise. Is still believe in blame, accountability, and virtue, contrary to what Dennett says. I can not reconcile these things in my head with the idea of a universe in which all human 'choices' are predetermined, and I don't expect that I ever will. Neither Dennett's argument nor any other I've seen or heard made any sense to me. I still try to listen and try to understand, but it always seems like a contradiction, a logical impossibility, that I can be free, yet forced by events to make only one choice. By contrast, at least full-on determinism makes logical sense, though it is contrary to my sensory experiences, and I gave some other reasons above why it doesn't work for me, either. I must admit that it (full-on determinism) seems like a live possibility, though I am putting my money on free will.
Eduk wrote:
October 17th, 2018, 1:11 pm
You have not answered my theoretical question about the computer algorithm.
If I understand, the question amounts to asking why my wild guess or theory about such things is any more valid than the collected works of a million monkeys on a million keyboards. Well, you and I and Dennett are experts on free will, because whatever it is, we've got it and we are living it. And, we are able to observe and interpret events and postulate theories about what we've seen and experienced. All our theories will tend to be a long way better than random nonsense. They will tend to seem true if the underlying assumptions are taken as true. In most other cases, we can easily test our theories to see if the results are repeatable. In this case, we can not. Yet, we each are able to come up with some reasonable ideas, and then choose our preferences. But, we may have to leave it at that for our lifetimes in terms of reasonable proof.

I'm satisfied with my choice and I gather you are. I also like the implications of my choice, and dislike the implications of his and yours (the idea that people are not accountable for their actions, for example).

Now, the question for which I have never received an answer is the one I hope you will consider: doesn't the idea of determinism necessarily need to be true in reverse? In other words, determinism says that any action I take is always fully caused by prior events. So, if I take an action, then my taking the action then shows that it was determined by prior events. Does this wash with you?

If I do any silly, dangerous, or distasteful thing right now, then my doing it shows through determinism that it was the one and only choice that was available to me. If I purposely choose the least attractive alternative, then my choosing it proves that it was inevitable. Do you accept this outcome as part of the rules of determinism which you want to say rule the universe? If not, how do you escape this outcome?

I'm genuinely not trying to be difficult here. I really see this as the necessary corollary of determinism. It follows by definition and can not be avoided, and strikes me as one of the most nonsensical ideas I've ever seen. I'm hoping you will give a thoughtful reply on this, since everyone has always ducked it in the past.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."

Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Emotions in regards to ones death (becoming nothingness)?

Post by Eduk » October 17th, 2018, 6:18 pm

I never said people aren't accountable? And neither does Dennett.
The video I linked was a short one of many. It's easy to YouTube others if you are interested. I think he makes some good points. They make sense to me but they are slippery concepts. And hard concepts to explain, especially in text form. Could be that others would find better words than me :-)
Let me make some attempt though. Perhaps we are determined to choose. It might be a fully determined choice that could not have been otherwise but is it practical choice? Our choices are hidden, even from ourselves. Others choices are even more hidden. Also we don't have absolute knowledge of reality. We constantly have to judge, guess, estimate, predict. We constantly think in terms of probabilities. So we choose. This could be what a choice is. A choice could not be what you think it is. We have practical free will.
Harris believes free will to be an illusion. But I don't buy that because it raises the question of what is experiencing the illusion. And also what an illusion of free will would be to something without free will. A rock can't have the illusion of free will for example. I also think Harris is making the same mistake as you (but drawing a different conclusion), in that because we don't know what the source of free will is that means there isn't a source and we don't have free will.
Regarding all actions requiring prior events. Yes? Seems obvious? I can't cross a road before I make my way to the road?
Inevitable is a tricky one. For example I could write a computer program which is 100% determined by my code but not know what would happen and have different results each time.
Or you can look at weather and say it is fully determined but still highly unpredictable.
As I understand it even an insect walking across the floor is highly unpredictable.
It might all be inevitable. But still the result might be unknown until it happens.
Unknown means unknown.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7654
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Emotions in regards to ones death (becoming nothingness)?

Post by Greta » October 17th, 2018, 7:37 pm

Eduk wrote:
October 17th, 2018, 3:40 am
6. Sorry this sounds like pure fantasy. What does relativity have to do with NDEs? Also you with 1. You point out how fragile our grip on reality is but with 6 you ignore your neuropsychological humility.
You will surely know about time dilation during dreaming, so now it's a matter of putting the pieces together.

Logically, when you are dying and your senses have shut down then the outside world no longer exists to you, and is at this point it becomes unimportant. You could be stuck with a pin and you wouldn't know at a certain stage of the dying process.

Your reality at that point is entirely subjective. That is the totality of their existence at that time. An NDE is not like usual dreaming where one wakes up and go back to normal. It might be short (3-6 minutes in normal temperatures, reportedly) but the NDE is a truly different and unique mode of existence - a conscious dream with no awakening in the morning.

As with regular dreams, the dying brain compresses thought processes, but more so as brain/body processes shut down (the information compression is akin to compression of sound and image files - discarding the less important information, eg. you don't tend to commute from A to B in dreams but simply appear there). So time appears to run more slowly for the dreamer or dying person, able to cram what seems like days or longer into minutes.

Thus, time is RELATIVELY running at a different tempo to usual (the regular word, not E=MC² :)). The above is just simple logical consideration of the subjective situation (which in context of the thread is paramount) but says nothing about physical things as such and thus does not clash with scientific orthodoxy.
Eduk wrote:7. Granted. Other dimensions make a certain amount of sense. They can be modelled mathmatically. Perhaps one day they will be testable. Obviously they aren't proven but they do seem possible based of off the evidence. I think it's reasonable to be agnostic about other dimensions.

By the way Greta I have no idea what the nature of reality is. And I never claimed to. I do have many ideas about what it isn't though. For example if I made something up right now to explain the nature of reality would you be agnostic?

Regarding death though why do we suppose this might be a special event? Don't you see the bias here? I have never experienced the next moment. Should I be agnostic about what to expect?

I think we are mostly arguing about the appropriate degree of agnosticism.
And what we are agnostic about. I am, I guess, wary of unknown unknowns. Think of all the societies in history that felt that were closing on the truth, yet later generations proved them wrong.

Personally, I find indigenous myths more compelling than the Asian tranches that are now so ubiquitous. As far as I can tell, there is nothing skewiff about thinking of the Earth and the Sun as gods, or venerating the spirits (characteristics, not ghosts) of ancestors - all of which made ours lives possible and continue to sustain us.

Then again, how about Saggitarius A* as a deity? It's huge, powerful and influential beyond human comprehension. It's responsible for our galaxy's creation. It continues to sustain the Milky Way, and thus us, but it is powerful enough to destroy us at any time. Sag A* is ineffable and mysterious, timeless and not made from matter as we know it. One day we most likely all will return to it, our creator. If love is the mammalian and avian interpretation of bonding dynamics, then what bonds more unconditionally than Sag A*? It is the very embodiment of bonding, drawing all into its embrace without discrimination.

Sag A* seems to tick all of the God boxes.

None of this clashes with scientific orthodoxy, it's just the emotional aspects (awe, wonder, gratitude) of our relationship with our containing systems.

Steve3007
Posts: 5716
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Emotions in regards to ones death (becoming nothingness)?

Post by Steve3007 » October 18th, 2018, 4:36 am

Sagittarius A* as a deity? I like that idea.

According to Wikipedia: "As of April 2017, there have been direct radio images taken of Sagittarius A* with the Event Horizon Telescope, but the data is still being processed, and images have yet to be released."

Intriguing.

But I've also read that the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies will collide in about a billion years from now. When that happens presumably a lot of stars will be ejected into intergalactic space. If that happens to our star, maybe we'll never be reunited with our creator and will be condemned to wander alone until someone else eats us up.

Steve3007
Posts: 5716
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Emotions in regards to ones death (becoming nothingness)?

Post by Steve3007 » October 18th, 2018, 4:43 am

There was an eccentric previous poster on here called "Groktruth" (an old Canadian guy) who proposed something quite different. He reckoned that when we die our souls wander through space and eventually fall into a black hole and get torn apart for eternity, and this, he proposed, constitutes hell. I guess Sag A* could well be that black hole.

Although, I suppose, we would only be torn apart for eternity, at the event horizon, from the point of view of an outsider. From our own point of view we would cross the event horizon without incident. And it would be the tidal forces that would tear us apart so if the black hole was big enough the tidal forces wouldn't be as much of a problem. Phew. That's a relief.

Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Emotions in regards to ones death (becoming nothingness)?

Post by Eduk » October 18th, 2018, 5:16 am

Is love in the middle of the black hole Steve? If not I want my money back from Mr Nolan.
Unknown means unknown.

Steve3007
Posts: 5716
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Emotions in regards to ones death (becoming nothingness)?

Post by Steve3007 » October 18th, 2018, 5:34 am

Who's Mr Nolan? The Nolan Sisters' dad?

Maybe love is in the black hole, but I'm told that we can't see it, even when we're inside the event horizon, because you can't see anything deeper inside the black hole than you are. You see both the past and future of things that are further out than you. And as you approach and reach the event horizon, looking out, you see the entire future development of the outside universe. It does kind of sound a lot like some ideas of what an afterlife would be like.

Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Emotions in regards to ones death (becoming nothingness)?

Post by Eduk » October 18th, 2018, 5:37 am

Sorry I was making a bad interstellar (the movie) joke.
Unknown means unknown.

User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 350
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Emotions in regards to ones death (becoming nothingness)?

Post by chewybrian » October 18th, 2018, 7:35 am

Eduk wrote:
October 17th, 2018, 6:18 pm
Regarding all actions requiring prior events. Yes? Seems obvious? I can't cross a road before I make my way to the road?
Inevitable is a tricky one. For example I could write a computer program which is 100% determined by my code but not know what would happen and have different results each time.
Or you can look at weather and say it is fully determined but still highly unpredictable.
As I understand it even an insect walking across the floor is highly unpredictable.
It might all be inevitable. But still the result might be unknown until it happens.
I can agree that the weather and the computer program are fully determined, yet unpredictable because I lack complete information or the capacity to process enough information to predict their actions. If I had the knowledge and intelligence, presumably they would be completely predicable. The insect is perhaps a different matter, as is my free will. I submit that nobody knows what I am about to do with 100% certainty. 100% knowledge of my dna and past experience would give you a very high hit rate in predicting my actions, but I don't think it would rise to perfect knowledge.

------

I want to say that you tried to avoid my question, but I think rather you probably can't see it from my perspective, or I did not explain it well enough. I'll try to expand.

Consider the implication of accepting determinism when you see that the equation must be true in both directions. Prior events cause choices in the present. Therefore, choices in the present imply prior causes. The past events dictate only one possible course of action for me in the present. I can't know what or why until it happens, but presumably someone omniscient would easily be able to predict my every move if I am fully determined. So, when I make my choice, whatever it is, this confirms it as having been the only possible course of action, right?

Now, consider the situation I just described from my perspective, which is the old school thought that *I* am something besides my component parts. I have a 'soul' is possibly the best way I can tag it. (Really, I should think it is equally absurd from other perspectives, yet once again I seem unable to communicate the point, so perhaps that helps).

As I stand over the box of donuts trying to make my choice, determinism expects me to believe that the choice is already made. If I try some type of doughnut I've never tried before, then this was determined and predestined by the universe. If I am allergic to strawberries and take the strawberry doughnut anyway, just to give the subjective middle finger to the universe, then this also was destiny. If I flip a coin, destiny. If I choose with my eyes shut, destiny. If I pick my favorite bear claw and instead of eating it, flush it down the toilet, destiny. Destiny becomes whatever I do after the fact.

How can you wrap your mind around the world I've just described, when you do have the sensation of having choices all the time? If you can not avoid the outcome, then why try at all? Why not take the nearest doughnut for the least effort required, and then once you take it, it will have been predetermined that it was the only option, anyway?

If I purposely avoid using my faculty of reason to make the most logical or 'best' choice, and instead do something heroically foolish, then haven't I interrupted the chain of cause and effect in the process? If I was designed to make choices in a rational way, and always conform to my rationality, then I may well be considered to be determined in my actions and choices. But, I am not constrained to always follow my reason. This is why I think it is a critical point that I can stand fast and take the brick to the face.

So, the question is, are you comfortable with the idea that every choice you are about to make has effectively already been made? Does it make any sense to you that even as you are able to purposely make the 'wrong' choice, this too will then turn out to have been unavoidable? In other words, can you follow determinism in both directions (cause to effect, or effect to cause), and be comfortable with the implications?
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."

Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Emotions in regards to ones death (becoming nothingness)?

Post by Eduk » October 18th, 2018, 8:59 am

So, the question is, are you comfortable with the idea that every choice you are about to make has effectively already been made?
Well cause and effect would point in that direction, I thought I already answered yes to this question by the way?
But there is nuance here.
1. Me being comfortable with an idea has nothing to do with reality. I wouldn't be comfortable to be diagnosed with cancer but I'd much rather be diagnosed correctly than incorrectly.
2. If my choices are determined does that mean they aren't choices? I freely choose to duck the brick and I would have freely chosen to duck the brick every time I was in the exact same position. Give me an example of a free choice. For example a rock is thrown at me and I choose for the rock to turn into a feather and for me to turn into a whale and up to be down and for all my electrons to turn into kittens. Just exactly how free do you want free to be? If there are reasonable constraints then exactly where do these constraints stop and start? What if I choose for you not to be free?
3. Free will is an emergent behaviour (or at least it could be). It is unknown how it emerges. Personally I think it's lovely to make some guesses on the origin of free will and then try to test them. But all the while there is no test with any results I think it's best not to invent things to explain the behaviour of something we don't understand and be sure of them. I also think it's best not to assume there is no such thing as free will as that is the same argument with a different conclusion. I keep saying, unknown means unknown.
Unknown means unknown.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7654
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Emotions in regards to ones death (becoming nothingness)?

Post by Greta » October 18th, 2018, 6:07 pm

Eduk wrote:
October 18th, 2018, 5:16 am
Is love in the middle of the black hole Steve? If not I want my money back from Mr Nolan.
I suggest that you volunteer for a mission to test out the love of the black hole and report back to us about the love you felt, of if you noticed any 5D bookshelves in there.

Based on your responses it appears that retain a strong and unshakeable faith that humanity has mostly cracked reality's code, with only minor details to mop up. I don't share your faith and think there's not only a lot that we don't know, but don't understand. I find atheistic faith just as rigid and narrow-minded as any religion, just that their beliefs tend to be less absurd than religious myths (if taken literally).

You don't need a religion or to be religious to believe in probabilities, but that's what you are doing. You have assessed probabilities based on woefully inadequate data (as per above) and, worse, measured them between either the scientific program or the wild claims of religions taken literally. Given such a choice, one can only rationally choose the former.

Yet where is the consideration that both parties are wrong? That would seem the best probability of all.

Post Reply