Stephen, what about our spiritual selves. Can you imagine they will continue on?
In the effect our lives and works have on others, perhaps. It depresses some to think of it but the vast majority of the human beings who have populated this planet have been forgotten soon after their deaths. But even the stars have lifespans. Why isn’t it enough simply to have lived? Of course we desire consolation for our failings, recompense for our missed opportunities. But this is precisely why our effort should be to ensure that people can make the most out of their lives. Precisely because we know this is all there is.
Judith wrote “Sadder than that to me is not knowing” I totally agree I’d much rather have to upheave my lifestyle in pursuit of the truth than merely staying idly where I am I only wish more Christians felt the same way as me as I’m a searching Christian with lots of questions with the only satisfactory answers I ever seem to be finding are from atheists
With sufficient imagination perhaps we unbelievers may yet wrest the idea of the afterlife out of the hands of the pious. Maybe sentience grows out of the brain the way grass grows out of the dirt. And if it is strong enough it survives the trauma of physical death.
Mathematically at least, physical objects can be said to exist in multiple dimensions of space. Complexification may do what simple moral virtue cannot. Then the question becomes, how does one strengthen ones’ sentience, let us call it the mind, so that one may hope for the afterlife? It would have to be through the activities of the mind, correct?
The comfort here is that all the stupid people will be snuffed out at death. The challenge is, just how smart do you have to be to pass the threshold? And then, what is the nature of this afterlife? Are our solitary minds subsumed into a vast Ocean of Infinite Thought? The Great Mind engenders an Infinite Regress, where the Thinker thinks about thinking about thinking…
I am informed that only about 30% of people carry on an internal mental dialog with themselves. If you don’t know what I’m talking about then enjoy your life while it lasts. Best to do that anyway.
Stephen, how did you get so good at imagining heaven?
Heaven, which exists only in the imagination, is that which we most desire, right? I think if I was up to me no one would get snuffed but would get what they most desire. Unfortunately some people dream of truly horrible things. Hell exists only for those who believe in it, and they’re already there.
Stephen: “I am informed that only about 30% of people carry on an internal mental dialog with themselves.”
Are you referring to our conscience selves? If so, are you saying only 30% pay attention to their conscience? I know you do not
say anything haphazardly so wonder if that is irrefutable.
That conscience self, to me, is my greatest possession. Without it, I could not be me. I would not know how to be me.
Sorry if I’m causing thread drift here but would very much like to know if 30% of people pay no attention to their consciences, if
that is what you meant, Stephen.
I suspect Stephen is referring to research that is discussed in this article: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
There is no indication that it has anything with a conscience, assuming that you mean by that the mechanism by which you determine right and wrong in a moral sense. It has more to do with consciousness.
TTorne56, you are correct, consciousness rather than conscience. I suppose we all make assumptions based on our own experience and I don’t remember a time without my “inner voice”. But over the years I have met folks who seemed to have no inner life. The fact that this describes a majority is somewhat disconcerting. Maybe I’m the weirdo? I wonder if this phenomenon is a function of literacy? Did ancient peoples have an “inner voice”? If they did, and having no concept of psychology, did they imagine they were talking to entities external to themselves, like god?
For an interesting take see ** you do not have permission to see this link **
I’m not sure how seriously Jaynes’ work is taken these days but the idea that human consciousness is a relatively recent historical development is provocative.
I can see I need to clarify my attempt at describing a secular afterlife. It wouldn’t simply be a matter of verbal intellect. Musicians and painters require highly developed mental acuity. So perhaps what I am describing is a paradise of artistic achievement. A paradise which will doubtless include basket weavers and gardeners.
There is some scientific evidence for a bicameral mind, so to speak, in the observation of people who have suffered an injury to their corpus callosum. You seem to get almost two different people in those circumstances.
I would be somewhat hesitant to posit a generic superiority to the people who experience the kind of inner dialogue you mention, although they may be generally better at matters requiring literacy or understanding abstract ideas. Modern IQ tests go to pains to measure visual spatial thinking ability in addition to language skills. The people who score the highest on IQ tests have the ability to view the world in both ways. If you’re trying to develop some kind of secular utopia, you would probably need people from all the different modes of consciousness. You want the thinkers but you also want the creatives and the basket weavers and gardeners. I would also suggest your thinkers and creatives need to spend time basket weaving and gardening. Finally, I suggest that the different modes of experiencing thw world is probably a matter of degrees rather than bright lines. I spend most of my time in inner dialogue mode, but with some tasks I think more visually.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)