What happens to us when we die?

[Sy Borg]

...are we even in a position to say what reality is and is not?

A wise and pertinent question. I trust the answer is a no-brainer.

It's possible that we are completely wrong about everything.

There was a thread here some time ago called "What is an object?" and, at first, the answer seemed obvious to me. A few posts later, my certainty was gone.

[Jklint]

An interesting link you provided too, raising the ultimate question of epistemology - are we even in a position to say what reality is and is not? Might it be that we can only ever perceive practical relativities?

...the sequence of perception as interpreted by the brain which binds the data it receives at different rates each yielding a moment of reality as uniquely perceived by the individual. Reality is that which gets interpreted, customized by the organism who is itself a product of that Reality.

[chewybrian]

A wise and pertinent question. I trust the answer is a no-brainer.

It's possible that we are completely wrong about everything.

There was a thread here some time ago called "What is an object?" and, at first, the answer seemed obvious to me. A few posts later, my certainty was gone.

There was a recent thread where someone implied that philosophy was a tool for winning arguments, which is well off the mark. Descartes gave us the one truth. The rest is subjective, including all his other conclusions and our own. To "do" philosophy is to recognize most facts as assumptions, preconceptions, opinions, prejudices... We must be willing to undo our preconceptions as necessary, all the way back to step one, as often as needed, to really claim to be philosophers. Philosophy seems to be the only fair-minded way to proceed, while it also seems to tell us that progress is sketchy, uncertain, and unsatisfying.

[Pattern-chaser]

Descartes gave us the one truth. The rest is subjective, including all his other conclusions and our own. To "do" philosophy is to recognize most facts as assumptions, preconceptions, opinions, prejudices... We must be willing to undo our preconceptions as necessary, all the way back to step one, as often as needed, to really claim to be philosophers. Philosophy seems to be the only fair-minded way to proceed, while it also seems to tell us that progress is sketchy, uncertain, and unsatisfying.

Is it possible to oppose this? This about sums up what philosophy, and serious thinking, is all about. I wish I'd thought of it, and written it, first.

[Pattern-chaser]

Oh, but what happens to us when we die?

[chewybrian]

Oh, but what happens to us when we die?

I wish I was inclined to believe in a life after death, but I don't see much beyond a wish to support it. When I was put under for surgery, there was a complete blank space while I was out, with no sense of dreaming or anything, and I woke as if no time had passed at all from the second I drifted off. I suddenly popped into consciousness out of nowhere. This is not evidence, but it makes me inclined to think there is nothing there when consciousness goes.

[chewybrian]

Descartes gave us the one truth. The rest is subjective, including all his other conclusions and our own. To "do" philosophy is to recognize most facts as assumptions, preconceptions, opinions, prejudices... We must be willing to undo our preconceptions as necessary, all the way back to step one, as often as needed, to really claim to be philosophers. Philosophy seems to be the only fair-minded way to proceed, while it also seems to tell us that progress is sketchy, uncertain, and unsatisfying.

Is it possible to oppose this? This about sums up what philosophy, and serious thinking, is all about. I wish I'd thought of it, and written it, first.

I know you have expressed a similar mindset many times, whether or not you spelled it out that way. Is it possible to oppose such a mindset? Of course. There is no shortage of people who seem to think they have things figured out, who proceed according to dogma they will not challenge, which they chose themselves or took from some perceived source of moral authority--religion, science, politics... It is a lot easier, initially, to go forward on that path, but it can lead to disaster. If you stack logic on top of such assumptions, it can lead all the way to wars and such.

[Steve3007]

There was a thread here some time ago called "What is an object?" and, at first, the answer seemed obvious to me. A few posts later, my certainty was gone.

Sounds like an interesting thread. If I can find where it's buried I might try to exhume it and re-animate it. We could see if we can finally work out, once and for all, what an object is. It would be nice to be able to tick that off.

[Steve3007]

Since we don't have an ontology section, I guess someone might have put it under "Epistemology and Metaphysics".

[Belindi]

I think it's safe to say an object is defined by its difference from other objects. Change is not limited to change through time but also includes change through attributes. Relativity rules all our normal perceptions.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think it's safe to say an object is defined by its difference from other objects. Change is not limited to change through time but also includes change through attributes. Relativity rules all our normal perceptions.

Yes, it does, but Greta's observation was that certainty is hard to come by, whether we're trying to define an object, or to wonder about what happens when we die.

[Belindi]

I think it's safe to say an object is defined by its difference from other objects. Change is not limited to change through time but also includes change through attributes. Relativity rules all our normal perceptions.

Yes, it does, but @Greta's observation was that certainty is hard to come by, whether we're trying to define an object, or to wonder about what happens when we die.
[/Greta
Sorry Greta and also sorry to Pattern-chaser. Greta, my hobby horse ran away with me. Pattrr-chaser as a mod I think I pressed the wrong button

[Sy Borg]

Belinda, relativeness is a good hobby horse, given that is all we know. Just that, as per Pattern-chaser's point, we don't know if the relations between things we have worked out are most fundamental ontically, or if they just most fundamental to survival? We don't know how the big bang happened, what triggered it, or the prior state of things beforehand. We don't know what energy is. However, by treating these mysteries as givens, researchers have obviously made great progress in learning of the relativities between these "black box" aspects of reality.

There are more mysteries. For all we know, time could be circular, inversely curved, or even multidimensional, rather than linear. Also, as per earlier posts, the quirks of subjective time are key to any experiences we may have on the way out.

[Pattern-chaser]

time could be circular, inversely curved, or even multidimensional, rather than linear.

For many years, I've indulged in speculation about time, and in particular who it might be multi-dimensional. If space has three dimensions, why shouldn't time? It gives a new and refeshed meaning to time travel.... Time And Relative Dimensions In Space, anyone?

[Sy Borg]

time could be circular, inversely curved, or even multidimensional, rather than linear.

For many years, I've indulged in speculation about time, and in particular who it might be multi-dimensional. If space has three dimensions, why shouldn't time? It gives a new and refeshed meaning to time travel.... 🤔 Time And Relative Dimensions In Space, anyone? 😉

There is only one possible answer to that.

Maybe :)