External world and projections of idealism

[Phil222]

Does free will with conciousness of the external world make judgment of others perceptions realistic to an idealistic life or create controversy to insight the need for more of anything and religion and metaphysics for need of knowing, being and all knowledge to proclaim oneself as pure integrity to instill commonality of lifes want to live and increase in a factual sense of thought. Hence the idea life wants to live and expand like the universe. Is the universe alive to the extent of pure energy beings its breath unto everything?What do you think gods would say if you proved their existence in reality?

[ernestm]

The idea 'life wants to exist' was first suggested by Aristotle, and these days is an unfashionable position because it assumes 'teleological force,' or 'purpose,' which is not scientifically demonstrable.

That said it does remain an active debate topic in current advanced academia, which now describes the topic as 'neoAristotleianism.' However you will have to contend with alot of naivety on the subject in open-board philosophy forums. There are some good thinkers on the topic in the subreddit on Aristotle,

[heracleitos]

Life tries to avoid its own death because otherwise it would not be alive anymore.

[Phil222]

Does your spirit not live on through other peoples lives you inspired into eternity?

[LuckyR]

Does your spirit not live on through other peoples lives you inspired into eternity?

That a very attractive thought, psychologically.

[Pattern-chaser]

Does your spirit not live on through other peoples lives you inspired into eternity?

That a very attractive thought, psychologically.

Yes, it is. I think it leads to thoughts of a sort of afterlife. Not quite what religious-type aspirations might promise, but real and significant, I feel.

Also, the concept of spacetime leads to similar thoughts, in this case that a life is a 4-D 'event', having physical dimensions, but also duration. Although, at the 'end' of a life, that spacetime 'length' terminates, it remains in existence in the 'place' where it happened, and that existence is eternal, I think. It never goes away, or ceases to exist, or becomes so that it never existed, it only terminates — afterlife.

[ernestm]

Does your spirit not live on through other peoples lives you inspired into eternity?

That a very attractive thought, psychologically.

Yes, it is. I think it leads to thoughts of a sort of afterlife. Not quite what religious-type aspirations might promise, but real and significant, I feel.

Also, the concept of spacetime leads to similar thoughts, in this case that a life is a 4-D 'event', having physical dimensions, but also duration. Although, at the 'end' of a life, that spacetime 'length' terminates, it remains in existence in the 'place' where it happened, and that existence is eternal, I think. It never goes away, or ceases to exist, or becomes so that it never existed, it only terminates — afterlife.

Well personally I agree with pattern chaser's conclusion, but it doesn't have anything to do with debates about the afterlife.

the most common position which most people now occupy on the debate is scientific naturalism as defined by Searle, although few people actually know that's the name of their position, let alone what Searle had to say about it.

Searle's position used to be posed as 'soft dualism' opposing the 'hard dualism' of physicalism, loosely called 'materialism.' After alot of debate on it in the last milennium, academics came to the conclusion that physicalism is naive, so the alternative opposing view is now anomalous monism. Davidson is the most advanced thinker on the topic, although I don't find it necessary to go through the process of examining dualist alternatives in an attempt to find a viable rationality.

For me it is enough to observe that science cannot empirically determine the limit of consciousness, because we can procure no evidence beyond our own experience, which indicates that consciousness could exist independent of sensation and will, but there is no way of knowing what it would be like or whether it actually exists. Because there is no way to procure evidence, it is beyond the doctrine of science to determine an answer. Those unfamiliar with the philosophy of science may believe the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, but that is not a testable hypothesis and therefore a rhetorical position only.