1. Win a $250 shopping spree at Grasscity.com! To enter subscribe to our youtube channel.
    Dismiss Notice

Believe in an Afterlife but not a creator

Discussion in 'Religion, Beliefs and Spirituality' started by MrNewbMcMuffin, Feb 11, 2018.

  1. Whoa whoa, I don't associate with the party, just share libertarian principles lol.

    Okay so you seem to be more of a materialist, a distinction I was trying to bring to the light before. I am surprised we have as much agreement as we do seeing as these foundational beliefs are so different, that is great though.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Missed responding to this piece.

    I'm really not sure what human death is analogous to, it's a very colorful and painted word to me, almost altruistic; the variety of meanings one can associate to death is monumental. When its impossible for the living to know what happens when you die it seems impossible to define "death."

    When the electrons that made up your consciousness at that given time has fired and reached its end of cycle; it's finished and done. The charge expends its energy and returns to baseline. That instants consciousness is depleted never to be again as it was in that exact instant. Just imagine if that tiny fraction of time in between concurrent charges were widened, or the next charge halted all together. This period would be a period of complete system inactivity, or death, right?

    That's what I meant, you can relate to their ideologies. Kinda worded funny but not calling you a libertarian lol. Hell do those even exist anymore? lol

    I try to be a realist while finding a mixture between the material and the conceptual world. I really enjoy the ideas of the metaphysical and extra-dimensional realities. I consider our reality to be an illusion, a projection, an image created by something for something; as to what? Speculation is fun. Its like imagining where a plot leads to in a story, maybe the writer left the plot open so there's room for speculation of anything? Maybe there is no plot, and it's just an entertaining story with no real point lol
    • Like Like x 1
  3. You are not the same collection of material that you were 10 years ago, but you never the less recognize yourself, a continuum of you. It seems like if one were to make a prediction based on your belief, there would be no distinct line between life and death, as you say, but clearly there is. If you were oxygen deprived you would feel your consciousness fading and eventually you would be dead, it wouldn't require any significant rearrangement of your constituant parts.

    Just curious what you think of that.

    Then you go in to say you believe we are an illusion or projection of something, why would it not make sense to call the projector 'consciousness' and admit consciousness precedes the material realm?

    I hope it doesn't feel like I am attacking you, I have my belief and the best way to challenge myself is to challenge people who have a different belief.

    • Like Like x 1
  4. I would say death doesn't exist in a sense, my point is it's sort of a meaningless undefined word. This is just a fun theory so it's nothing I'm just concrete upon, I would liken it to a play on words even. When nothing is truly continuous, how can a consciousness be? That period in between flashes of consciousness is nonexistence, that might be a better word for it, maybe even inaction? When does this inaction/nonexistence become death? I mean the body is still reactive though, it's not in a permanent state. If the matter that makes you up is still active despite it all failing to function together as a human, its more of a fail to function leading to divergence of consciousness than a permanent death. Just kind of poking around with the idea of what death really is.

    Like how we experience a movie, it looks fluid and continuous but really its just 28 frames a second, each pause between the frames is inaction.

    No I like to be challenged on my thoughts so this is great lol. It helps ideas and thoughts become more refined I think.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Great I am glad we are mutually enjoying this, I never thought of desth as a contentious term so it is interesting.

    I wouldn't say death is meaningless, but I could concede that it may not be particularly well defined once we delve into it.

    I think we also have to admit there is a distinction to be made though, clearly there is a difference between a stuffed/mounted animal and your pet, one is alive and the other is not i.e. dead. The stuffed animal exhibits no characteristics of life, like locomotion, feeding, reproduction etc.

    Ultimately a reductionist might say we are just energy/waves and any dinstinction is meaningless, but I think the fact that we can make distinctions is what makes the differences meaningful. At deep levels of analysis definitions almost always break down right? Planet Earth is a sphere of liquid and solid matter, but is the atmosphere not part of it, where can we draw a definitive line? Maybe we can't but I think the distinction is still relevant no?

    • Like Like x 1
  6. Sorry I haven't responded, dealing with some badass tendonitis in my R arm and avoiding keyboards lol.

    It might be a few days more still but I will get back with you.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Ah that sucks man I am sorry to hear that. Hope you can heal up quickly!

  8. Thanks, yeah I tell you it's easy to forget how hard you are on your hands until they start to go south on you and every little movement like a mouse click is taxing. Pulled pretty well every tendon in my right hand/forearm picking someone up out the floor then combine that with some crappy ergonomics at work and home too but after fixing that it's doing so much better. My right arm is covered in bruises from kneading the strained and inflamed tendons.

    Very true about our language, so much is just for the sake of practicality concerning the unexplained. You're definitely right about how one can break everything down to simple waves, energy, two dimensional constructs without meaning.

    That stuffed animal will in time show characteristics of life as its matter is circulated, even now it reacts with its environment just in ways almost invisible to the eye. It's oxidizing, fading, the material becoming less pliable. I've bet there's some oxidized molecules from it have become part of something living already. It's wearing out just as living breathing people do, and on a molecular scale there is movement to it and reaction to its environment. Very little reaction but there is reaction. Not in the practical scientific sense of course, no macro movements/reactions but there is micro movement and minute reactions of the teddy bear particles. Time is all relevant here.

    I was thinking on this sort of thing, basic reactions leading atoms and molecules to become simple organic molecules which become cells which become organs and eventually part of a larger system similar to mitochondria. I think parts of us have their own individuality, you can train your limbs to do amazing things completely individual of your body without requiring any thought or very little. Muscle memory but something more. Like an octopus having 8 different conscious limbs that function more and more individually the more it memorizes. It can't process much information by itself outside of tactile sensation but with a slight bit of input from a processor it can learn and adapt to stimuli from the processor as well as physical stimuli from the world.

    Have you seen the anime parasite? 4 or 5 creatures will comprise a single structure symbiotically. Similar to the man o' war its a bunch of individuals functioning as a whole for increased survival. Not trying to jump topic but I think it's sort of relevant when trying to figure out when exactly you consider basic organic acids/molecules to be "alive"
  9. You seem to hold two different beliefs simultaneously here.

    On one hand you are saying the stuffed animal is in some sense alive, then you say that because the constituent parts of the stuffed animal could break off and become part of something that is already alive.

    Just curious how you would qualify those positions.

    Also I think you may be glossing over the issue of abiogenesis, atoms and molecules have never been observed to self-transform into cells or anything we consider alive, only through the consumption and alchemy of the living creature seem to be able to do this. I am not suggesting it is impossible or doesn't happen, but we don't yet know.

    It is all fascinating though, and I think I would grant that the definitions for life are malliable if not somewhat arbitrary, but at the same time there are distinctions worth noting.

    • Like Like x 1
  10. I'm sort of using time loosely as relevance, sort of substituting the word "reactive" with "alive" while attempting to cut away some difference. The bear is alive in the sense of the atoms that make it up are reactive to the environment, they are changing constantly, albeit micro changes; and in time its likely all parts of the bear will complicate to an organism of higher consciousness with more abilities and it's likely parts of the bear have already been part of something we call "alive." I think potentially everything is alive, but just at levels of incredibly low consciousness, when they complicate and involve other atoms/molecules they become more conscious and more respondent to the environment in macro ways vs before when only tiny parts of it responded in a micro fashion.

    We have noticed amino acids forming under certain conditions from what we call inanimate substances. Miller Ureys experiment definitely produced results, they were able to create simple organic amino acids with conditions to what they thought would be similar to primordial earth. There's a lot of sources but I really like wikipedia on this one, they tie it together well. It's nothing well founded but I think it adds some solid meat to the idea.

    Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia

    Quite right with your last sentence, there is a distinction to give clause to the difference of words, but I think we can delve a little deeper and really flesh it out. This is all just a trivial idea that bounces around in my head on a nice stoned Sunday afternoon but I think it's fun to talk about and consider. Ultimately everything loses distinction and meaning when you dive so far like you said, so we're just playing in a realm with this thought.

    If you don't believe in abiogenesis, then how do you think organic creatures come about? I'm curious, I figured it would be right up your alley.
  11. I’ve read the Bible a few times lots a good stories n it. I’m not sure if I believe in anything but I believe in treating everyone right and do my best everyday.
  12. I have been keeping an eye on what this fellow is doing

    First Support for a Physics Theory of Life | Quanta Magazine

    As I have said before, I think life is the counter-force to entropy, and I think the fact that our universe is so highly ordered suggests that the propensity for the universe to organize and give rise to life is evidence that the universe is intelligently designed. I suspect, as the fellow in the article above has said, life is probably as natural as a rock rolling down hill, just another physical process.

    I think we agree that even the smallest aspects of the universe have some sort of 'life' in them but it also seems what we consider to be life on a more macro scale is greater than the sum of its parts.

Grasscity Deals Near You


Share This Page