Life after Death? The mechanics of it?
Discussion
You obviously don't know him!Scousefella said:
Troubleatmill said:
"Explain is as you would to a small child."
God is some unknown and unseen all powerful creator.He got a woman pregnant without her permission - we call that rape these days.
She had a little boy called Jesus who, we are told, was able to do magic and talk to people.
The boy became a man and was the ring-leader of some gang of twelve - apparently one of them got the hump with Jesus and grassed him up for being a muppet.
Jesus got nailed to a big stick, had a big sword stuck into his gut and bled to death.
A few days later the world was in need of Milla Jovovich as that fella Jesus had bought shares in The Umbrella Corporation and got his grubby mitts on "The T Virus".
A couple of thousand years later millions of people still think that this sh!t is all above board and tickety-boo.
God commanding you to smash babies and children's head's against rocks.
Jesus being a racist bigot.
God takes the form of a donkey - and does his best Shrek impersonation.
And much much more.
8/10 Though. Good effort.
Terminator X said:
How may people have ever lived? Must be a f
king big place Heaven!
TX.
107 billion, so about 100 billion before the bunch that's here die.king big place Heaven! TX.
I've been on a Terry Pratchett kick, I quite like the idea that when you die you get what you expect. Though that'd have me in store for being fungus food.
Twig, you asked for evidence, suggesting by asking it that my posts display a lack of evidence because they are attempting a deductive argument.
To limit evidence to inductive reasoning, because that's what the scientific method does, is a philosophical move, of course, (because there's nothing about a procedural method that can tell you the method's relation to reality), so such a move would need backing up with arguments to prove itself true.
In which case arguments might be evidence after all?
Edited by Chris GB on Tuesday 19th May 00:54
Kiseca:
All physical processes are underdetermined;
No formal thinking can be underdetermined;
So formal thinking is not a physical process.
(From Wikipedia: "In the philosophy of science, underdetermination refers to situations where the evidence available is insufficient to identify which belief we should hold about that evidence".)
All physical processes are underdetermined;
No formal thinking can be underdetermined;
So formal thinking is not a physical process.
(From Wikipedia: "In the philosophy of science, underdetermination refers to situations where the evidence available is insufficient to identify which belief we should hold about that evidence".)
Edited by Chris GB on Tuesday 19th May 00:55
We may hope and believe that what we're doing is formal thinking, but we have no way of knowing if that is what we are actually doing. Surely we have to treat ourselves as being as underdetermined as any other physical system?
Just because we can have a clear idea of what formal thinking is, it doesn't mean that anything in the universe has to be capable of actually doing it. There's a danger of falling into the "I have an idea of a perfect thing, therefore there must be a perfect thing" line of thinking.
Just because we can have a clear idea of what formal thinking is, it doesn't mean that anything in the universe has to be capable of actually doing it. There's a danger of falling into the "I have an idea of a perfect thing, therefore there must be a perfect thing" line of thinking.
) that your loved ones are going through since you have passed.I haven't read the whole thread so apologies if this has been covered.
How old are you supposed to be in heaven? I'm 52 now and wouldn't really choose to be the age at death of 52+ forever. All these relatives you meet again, how old are they? Would my parents and grandparents be young people? If so, then I'd find it hard to regard them as parents and grandparents as our relationships are built on our roles when alive with the age differences, so they'd just be people and maybe not ones I'd choose to have a friends as we change as we go through life, especially as we take on new roles.
Do you get to do simple pleasures like eating and crapping and sex?
How old are you supposed to be in heaven? I'm 52 now and wouldn't really choose to be the age at death of 52+ forever. All these relatives you meet again, how old are they? Would my parents and grandparents be young people? If so, then I'd find it hard to regard them as parents and grandparents as our relationships are built on our roles when alive with the age differences, so they'd just be people and maybe not ones I'd choose to have a friends as we change as we go through life, especially as we take on new roles.
Do you get to do simple pleasures like eating and crapping and sex?
No Laughing in Heaven by Ian Gillan of Deep Purple and Black Sabbath fame. I love the lyrics.
I used to be a sinner, used to have my cake and eat it
They warned me of my fate, but I was quite prepared to meet it
You'll go to Hell they smiled at me
I used to be a sinner, used to have my cake and eat it
They warned me of my fate, but I was quite prepared to meet it
You'll go to Hell they smiled at me
And told me of the roaring fires
But I was happy living wild
And fueling my own desires
I was a wild man
Drinking, smoking and messing around with women
Lots of women
No, not swimming, women
I wanna go to Heaven
The place to be is right up there
I wanna go to Heaven
It's gonna be good so I won't despair
I decided to reform and pray
Beg mercy for my soul
I prayed in church
Threw away my bad habits
Prayed out of church
Adopted an entirely different role
I gave my money to the poor until I was poor
But at least I ensured that I would go up there
Instead of down below to the Inferno
Where the evil flames of desire
Burned higher and higher and higher
I'm gonna go to Heaven
Paid my dues so I'm getting in
I'm gonna go to Heaven
It's looking good if I abstain from sin
I knocked on the pearly gates
Neatly side-stepping the long queue
Waved hi to St. Peter
Who checked my card and let me through
I smiled, threw my hands in the air
Laughed and got arrested
They said hey man, you're in the wrong place
Your behaviour is a disgrace
Here we pray every hour, on the hour
Read extracts from the Bible and look solemn'
What, says I, no party?
No party?
Let me out
Let me out of Heaven
I got it wrong, no I can't stay here
No laughing in Heaven
Let me out, I just can't stay here
Well I ran around in the state of shock and panic
This wan't what I expected
Here was what looked like a bunch of manic depressives
Can I get a transfer, I screamed
But no, once you're in Heaven, you're here for good
The good of your soul, but that's no good for me
If you want to go to Hell you've really got to be bad
Okay, okay, I'll be bad
Too late
What do you mean too late
Too late
No
In the meantime
Let me out of Heaven
I've got it wrong, no I can't stay here
No laughing in Heaven
Oh God, it's awful here
Going crazy in Heaven
Take me out and let me go to hell
No laughing in Heaven
Don't laugh, this place is Hell
I used to be a sinner, used to have my cake and eat it
They warned me of my fate, but I was quite prepared to meet it
You'll go to Hell they smiled at me
I used to be a sinner, used to have my cake and eat it
They warned me of my fate, but I was quite prepared to meet it
You'll go to Hell they smiled at me
And told me of the roaring fires
But I was happy living wild
And fueling my own desires
I was a wild man
Drinking, smoking and messing around with women
Lots of women
No, not swimming, women
I wanna go to Heaven
The place to be is right up there
I wanna go to Heaven
It's gonna be good so I won't despair
I decided to reform and pray
Beg mercy for my soul
I prayed in church
Threw away my bad habits
Prayed out of church
Adopted an entirely different role
I gave my money to the poor until I was poor
But at least I ensured that I would go up there
Instead of down below to the Inferno
Where the evil flames of desire
Burned higher and higher and higher
I'm gonna go to Heaven
Paid my dues so I'm getting in
I'm gonna go to Heaven
It's looking good if I abstain from sin
I knocked on the pearly gates
Neatly side-stepping the long queue
Waved hi to St. Peter
Who checked my card and let me through
I smiled, threw my hands in the air
Laughed and got arrested
They said hey man, you're in the wrong place
Your behaviour is a disgrace
Here we pray every hour, on the hour
Read extracts from the Bible and look solemn'
What, says I, no party?
No party?
Let me out
Let me out of Heaven
I got it wrong, no I can't stay here
No laughing in Heaven
Let me out, I just can't stay here
Well I ran around in the state of shock and panic
This wan't what I expected
Here was what looked like a bunch of manic depressives
Can I get a transfer, I screamed
But no, once you're in Heaven, you're here for good
The good of your soul, but that's no good for me
If you want to go to Hell you've really got to be bad
Okay, okay, I'll be bad
Too late
What do you mean too late
Too late
No
In the meantime
Let me out of Heaven
I've got it wrong, no I can't stay here
No laughing in Heaven
Oh God, it's awful here
Going crazy in Heaven
Take me out and let me go to hell
No laughing in Heaven
Don't laugh, this place is Hell
Shaolin said:
How old are you supposed to be in heaven? I'm 52 now and wouldn't really choose to be the age at death of 52+ forever. All these relatives you meet again, how old are they? Would my parents and grandparents be young people? If so, then I'd find it hard to regard them as parents and grandparents as our relationships are built on our roles when alive with the age differences, so they'd just be people and maybe not ones I'd choose to have a friends as we change as we go through life, especially as we take on new roles.
What about widows/widowers who remarry?What about that unrequited love for the girl who never loved you in return? your idea of heaven is different to hers.
Do pets go to heaven, I know some people who wouldn't consider it heaven if they were deprived of their pets, but my idea of heaven is somewhere where the neighbors cats don't crap on my lawn
And presumably there's a silicon heaven, otherwise where would all the little calculators go?
ATG - let's say we can't know we are doing formal thinking.
Two objections to this:
1. As Ross puts it, to say we can't know if we are adding when we add is to grant that we might perform the determinate thought function that can't be wholly physical.
2. Underdetermination in physical processes like a calculator simulating addition doesn't mean there is no definite outcome, no fact of the matter, full stop, about what function a system is computing; it just means that the physical properties of a system by themselves don’t suffice to determine what the function is - a programmer and end user are needed.
Let's say we can't actually do any formal thinking at all.
Two objections to this:
1. All our maths is underdetermined, like the calculator that can only simulate addition. But the calculator gives a definite outcome because programmers and users supply what's missing in the physical properties of the calculator. When we do formal thinking in our heads then, we are programmer, calculator and end user all in one - there is nothing missing as there is in the physical system of a calculator. So how is that not capable of being determinate?
2. If our thoughts can only be underdetermined, and there is no programmer or user to supply determinateness, then we would be "worse off" than physical systems whose underdetermination "we" complete - there would be just no fact of the matter, full stop, about what function we are carrying out when we add. No pure maths or logic is valid. As Ross says, who believes this?
Two objections to this:
1. As Ross puts it, to say we can't know if we are adding when we add is to grant that we might perform the determinate thought function that can't be wholly physical.
2. Underdetermination in physical processes like a calculator simulating addition doesn't mean there is no definite outcome, no fact of the matter, full stop, about what function a system is computing; it just means that the physical properties of a system by themselves don’t suffice to determine what the function is - a programmer and end user are needed.
Let's say we can't actually do any formal thinking at all.
Two objections to this:
1. All our maths is underdetermined, like the calculator that can only simulate addition. But the calculator gives a definite outcome because programmers and users supply what's missing in the physical properties of the calculator. When we do formal thinking in our heads then, we are programmer, calculator and end user all in one - there is nothing missing as there is in the physical system of a calculator. So how is that not capable of being determinate?
2. If our thoughts can only be underdetermined, and there is no programmer or user to supply determinateness, then we would be "worse off" than physical systems whose underdetermination "we" complete - there would be just no fact of the matter, full stop, about what function we are carrying out when we add. No pure maths or logic is valid. As Ross says, who believes this?
Edited by Chris GB on Tuesday 19th May 22:53
Chris GB said:
ATG - let's say we can't know we are doing formal thinking.
Two objections to this:
1. As Ross puts it, to say we can't know if we are adding when we add is to grant that we might perform the determinate thought function that can't be wholly physical.
2. Underdetermination in physical processes like a calculator simulating addition doesn't mean there is no definite outcome, no fact of the matter, full stop, about what function a system is computing; it just means that the physical properties of a system by themselves don’t suffice to determine what the function is - a programmer and end user are needed.
Let's say we can't actually do any formal thinking at all.
Two objections to this:
1. All our maths is underdetermined, like the calculator that can only simulate addition. But the calculator gives a definite outcome because programmers and users supply what's missing in the physical properties of the calculator. When we do formal thinking in our heads then, we are programmer, calculator and end user all in one - there is nothing missing as there is in the physical system of a calculator. So how is that not capable of being determinate?
2. If our thoughts can only be underdetermined, and there is no programmer or user to supply determinateness, then we would be "worse off" than physical systems whose underdetermination "we" complete - there would be just no fact of the matter, full stop, about what function we are carrying out when we add. No pure maths or logic is valid. As Ross says, who believes this?
I'm afraid the last sentence is rather telling. Two objections to this:
1. As Ross puts it, to say we can't know if we are adding when we add is to grant that we might perform the determinate thought function that can't be wholly physical.
2. Underdetermination in physical processes like a calculator simulating addition doesn't mean there is no definite outcome, no fact of the matter, full stop, about what function a system is computing; it just means that the physical properties of a system by themselves don’t suffice to determine what the function is - a programmer and end user are needed.
Let's say we can't actually do any formal thinking at all.
Two objections to this:
1. All our maths is underdetermined, like the calculator that can only simulate addition. But the calculator gives a definite outcome because programmers and users supply what's missing in the physical properties of the calculator. When we do formal thinking in our heads then, we are programmer, calculator and end user all in one - there is nothing missing as there is in the physical system of a calculator. So how is that not capable of being determinate?
2. If our thoughts can only be underdetermined, and there is no programmer or user to supply determinateness, then we would be "worse off" than physical systems whose underdetermination "we" complete - there would be just no fact of the matter, full stop, about what function we are carrying out when we add. No pure maths or logic is valid. As Ross says, who believes this?
Edited by Chris GB on Tuesday 19th May 22:53
You choose to believe a priori that there is something non physical and special about human thought. Rather than admit that that is your starting point, you construct an artifical need for the existence of entities that can conduct formal thinking by asserting that the idea that pure maths or logic might be invalid is not credible. One belief to justify another.
If nothing else, that seems to me to be based on a rather naive understanding of maths and logic.
But frankly the approach seems to me to collapse in a heap if you consider a system that is arbitrarily close to reproducing the conclusions of true formal thinking while remaining underdetermined. It would be indistinguishable in a practical sense from true formal thinking. Clearly we can build physical systems that within limited domains can reproduce formal thinking sufficiently reliably as to be indistinguishable from "the real thing". I cannot see how one can exclude the possibility that our thought process is just a rather better type of underdetermined physical thinking system; one that is sufficiently close to reproducing formal thinking reliably that we can't tell the difference between it and the real (or in fact imaginary) thing.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff