Afterlife

[Rin Hato]

I wish that I was a full cyborg. Then I wouldn't have to worry about it because machines don't die like we do.

When machines die, there's usually a spark and then all the magic blue smoke escapes.

That's the way to die, right there.

[Aupmanyav]

But there is definitely a part of me that wants to see what's going to end up happening 120 years from now. And 180 years from now and 450 years from now and so on and so on.

Well, I can tell you what would happen 5 billion years from now, if that helps.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

I'm not coming back for afterlife unless I get to be Elvis with a better attitude about my health and without the woo..

[PopeyesPappy]

I wish that I was a full cyborg. Then I wouldn't have to worry about it because machines don't die like we do.

When machines die, there's usually a spark and then all the magic blue smoke escapes.

That's the way to die, right there.

That's the way electronics die. Machines usually die screaming in agony with much tearing of metal and grinding of gears.

[Colanth]

I like Cormac McCarthy's view on death, that he writes about death, because he doesnt like fantasy. Perhaps if we lived in absolute objectivity, we would not complain or fear death at all

"Death" is a broad word.  I don't fear being dead, any more than I feared not having been conceived.

I fear dying.  I've seen too many agonizing deaths to be complacent about it.  If I go to sleep one night and never wake up, I wouldn't (assuming it were possible) have any complaint, as long as my family was okay after my death.  But slowly burning or drowning or dying of a slowly-progressing, very painful, cancer isn't something I'd want to experience.

Dying, being dead - two totally different things, both referred to by the word "death".

[impulse]

How do you cope with the thought of no afterlife?

I treat it as I do with the thought of afterlife. They are thoughts about a matter where truth is nonascertainable, and so it's not much more important than musings of what the numerical value of the variables for x+y=10 could be.

If the question was tinged with a feeling of inevitability of oblivion, you would be getting ahead of yourself by being so convinced. Theoretical physicists acknowledge there are higher spatial dimensions, but have not yet determined how many, much less come to a conclusive model that precludes an idea of material within them interacting and connecting with our readily accessible bodies. Material monism does not come with a ledger that accounts for all material within reality. As a tangential reminder, anthropocentrism is a cult quality.

Would the experiences of an amnesiac prior to the onset of amnesia be 'retconned' to not have occurred due to the subjective loss of memory? If you were to read a 1st person narrative where the character forgets their past, you would not expect previous pages to vanish. If we accept continuity, and perishability of memory then how can one discern whether they have "been" in oblivion for billions of years before their current life, or whether their subjective center has had multiple incarnates throughout time? What could indicate a difference between not existing and a subjective experience devoid of senses, comprehension, thought, memory, awareness of time? Isn't the common way to convey the idea of oblivion to describe such a "nudity" of one's subjectivity? From what can one assert the state is necessarily permanent?
Pondering aside, a claim for either has extraordinary burden of proof. Personally, I would not be so arrogant as to assert a claim I cannot legitimately defend, even if reinforced by popular opinion.

All that can be constructively done from honest meditation on the topic is holding optimism. I can only hope not to be thrown back into a world dominated by greedy and sadistic sociopaths, enabled by easily herded flippant narcissists.

[stromboli]

I'm hoping to wake up on Riverworld
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverworld

[Plu]

I read one of those books that I bought from a library sale, it was awesome. I had no idea it was a series :o

[Colanth]

All that can be constructively done from honest meditation on the topic is holding optimism. I can only hope not to be thrown back into a world dominated by greedy and sadistic sociopaths, enabled by easily herded flippant narcissists.

All that can be logically (and rationally) done is rejection of fantasies like an afterlife.  Anything is possible, but not everything is reasonable.

[impulse]

Excuse me for being so frank, or don't, I'll be excusing myself anyhow as this does not appear to be a place where acknowledging the unknown is considered reasonable ; arbitrary rejection of the state of facts available, and the potential carried within what is not yet known, and what cannot be inducted, is not logical - it's heuristic and much more prone to bias and misfire than reason.

[Colanth]

Excuse me for being so frank, or don't, I'll be excusing myself anyhow as this does not appear to be a place where acknowledging the unknown is considered reasonable

It's not.  The default position to a fantastic bald assertion is "no".  And the afterlife is just such an assertion.

[Solitary]

I always hear that the fear of death is fear of the unknown, but the fact is we do know what death is and that is why we fear it. It's the fear of dying and the finality of doing it which is permanent, and not coming back like we can in a video game. We go to sleep at night, or go under anesthesia, where we don't exist when we are unconscious only our bodies do. If you are not a materialist then you think you don't die that just your body does. Without a body or brain how could you become conscious again when they are required to do so. If not, explain how that could be so. If our consciousness is separate from our brain and body, how can drugs or a bump on the head effect it? Solitary

[impulse]

Excuse me for being so frank, or don't, I'll be excusing myself anyhow as this does not appear to be a place where acknowledging the unknown is considered reasonable

It's not.  The default position to a fantastic bald assertion is "no".  And the afterlife is just such an assertion.

I have nothing better to do it turns out. One more brick wall to slam my head into doesn't make a difference.

Are you speaking of null hypothesis? Ockham's razor? These would be misapplied here, and if you don't understand why, you should do some actual research on those. While I'm still willing to discuss this, I'm no longer willing to bring the information on a silver platter to those giving off the impression they are unwilling to correct a misconception they hold.

If it's not anything like that, please tell me where you learned this, or how you came to such a conclusion that there should be such a thing as a "default position" that isn't "[blank]."

[impulse]

I always hear that the fear of death is fear of the unknown, but the fact is we do know what death is and that is why we fear it. It's the fear of dying and the finality of doing it which is permanent, and not coming back like we can in a video game. We go to sleep at night, or go under anesthesia, where we don't exist when we are unconscious only our bodies do. If you are not a materialist then you think you don't die that just your body does. Without a body or brain how could you become conscious again when they are required to do so. If not, explain how that could be so. If our consciousness is separate from our brain and body, how can drugs or a bump on the head effect it? Solitary

I attempted to explain this already, I will try to do better.

The extent that we understand death is a loss of body and all that comes with the body; senses, memories, etc.

An understanding of self is not included with the understanding of death. There isn't a way to isolate subjectivity. Merely defining self as the body, and using that definition as an authority is a cop out from the stress of not knowing.

We go to sleep at night, or go under anesthesia, where we don't exist when we are unconscious only our bodies do.

How ever did you come to such a conclusion? Are you telling me you can discern the difference between not existing and the subjective experience of having no available senses?

The materialist view does not exclude an independent subjective self just by regarding that there is no immaterial substance. You would have to determine there is no other physical substance that can possibly be responsible for subjectivity in order to conclude that subjectivity is sourced from the same place as the senses it gathers, the body.

The reason string theory exists is because a physical model requires some amount of higher spatial dimensions beyond 3. The branes of M theory are to be physical, there's no rule of necessary exclusion of physical matter from these higher dimensions. We don't know which model is the right fit, but that doesn't justify an argument from ignorance.

I'm not conflating consciousness with subjectivity. Subjectivity would be the perspective, and consciousness would be an attribute upon that perspective. If a different body took over in catering consciousness, how would the perspective ever know, when memory is part of bodies, not perspective?

As a reminder, my advocacy is for "I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENS TO US AFTER WE DIE" and no matter where I go, it gets treated as UNREASONABLE. IT KIND OF PISSES ME OFF.

[Eric1958]

Are you talking about dying or about being dead - you seem to be going back and forth.

I'm talking about how the thought of no existence after you die affects your life.

Ok that's straightforward enough. I am relieved and comforted by that thought. My feelings are colored by the fact that I've had a long term problem with depression and feel that life is, at best, a mixed blessing.