|
Post by Cinemachinery on Aug 1, 2017 18:14:49 GMT
If there's nothing, I imagine it would be a lot like the "nothing" you recall from before your birth.
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Aug 1, 2017 22:11:48 GMT
Probably not because the O.P.'s premise (the same premise as many, if not most, religions) is that a human personality and identity is something that exists outside of a perception of the individual's brain. Increasingly, brain research is showing that everything about us - including our perception that there is something like a soul or spirit apart from our life functions - is, indeed, a product of the brain and when the brain dies so will everything else about a person. There will be nothing left to go to blackness or heaven or hell.
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Aug 1, 2017 22:22:54 GMT
Probably not because the O.P.'s premise (the same premise as many, if not most, religions) is that a human personality and identity is something that exists outside of a perception of the individual's brain. Increasingly, brain research is showing that everything about us - including our perception that there is something like a soul or spirit apart from our life functions - is, indeed, a product of the brain and when the brain dies so will everything else about a person. There will be nothing left to go to blackness or heaven or hell. Oh yeah, well then how do you explain this documentary?
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Aug 1, 2017 22:25:27 GMT
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. It's impossible to have darkness and emptiness without light and form. Darkness implies light, as emptiness implies form. Why don't you be a little more polite? I know this poster, Sam. He was solving questions on the old I Need to Know board when you were in short pants. Way back in the before time. Back before cassavetes45 died and ErJen-1 went nutty religious. So, how about a little respect, huh? I'll try harder. To the guy who had to endure my rudeness, I apologize.
|
|
|
Post by RiP, IMDb on Aug 1, 2017 22:26:59 GMT
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. It's impossible to have darkness and emptiness without light and form. Darkness implies light, as emptiness implies form. Why don't you be a little more polite? I know this poster, Sam. He was solving questions on the old I Need to Know board when you were in short pants. Way back in the before time. Back before cassavetes45 died and ErJen-1 went nutty religious. So, how about a little respect, huh? I remember cassavetes45 (very-friendly and sweet). I made an RiP thread for her on the old IMDb.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Aug 1, 2017 22:44:39 GMT
blackness. Not nothing like atheists believe in which you simply no longer exist. But nothing like a blank black emptiness, but you're still conscious and aware of yourself and all you can do is stare straight ahead into the blank black emptiness for ALL ETERNITY! Sorta like Hell minus the fire, pain and physical torture. ONLY mental torture of being alone, unable to move (no longer have a body) and surrounded in blank black emptiness for ALL ETERNITY. That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. It's impossible to have darkness and emptiness without light and form. Darkness implies light, as emptiness implies form. The word darkness implies the concept of light - but you can absolutely have total darkness, which is the total absence of light. For someone who was born blind, the words "light" and "dark" have no meaning. For someone who can see, those words do have meaning - and will continue to have meaning even if they are deprived of one or the other. You can try it for yourself: go into a room without windows, turn off the lights and close the door. With no light sources around, you now find yourself in absolute darkness and you will not be able to see anything. Light still exists elsewhere, but that is irrelevant as it doesn't exist anywhere near you.
|
|
|
Post by RiP, IMDb on Aug 1, 2017 22:46:38 GMT
One thing to make clear is that you no longer have your physical body, you're a disembodied spirit of consciousness that's always awake and self-aware. Floating, but stationary (completely still), not careening (moving around) all over the place. Could also be described like suspended-animation (cryonics) but without the freezing and still having full awareness. Not being unconscious as you would be in SA. Seeing would be with the mind's eye (mental eyes), not the two (or one) physical orb/s you use now. Of course you would and could still see all of the things you've done throughout your life (in your mind's eye). But those are in the past. When you look at the present, "The Now" as your current situation would exist outside of linear-time and IS ONLY known as "The Now". No past (except for your memories of it), no future. ONLY NOW. You can still think of the future. But it would be a future with nothing that will happen. Nothing different from "The Now". Of course all of this would...SUCK...and I hope it ISN'T what it will be like...BUT just IMAGINE IF it WERE...
I'd much rather have the atheists nothing than this nothing (which is still something). In this case nothing with nothing is preferable over nothing with something. Or is it something with nothing?
|
|
|
Post by RiP, IMDb on Aug 1, 2017 23:56:37 GMT
It will also be like your own personal dimension, your own personal universe and your own personal space-time continuum. Or more like your own personal anti-space and anti-time continuum. Completely and utterly ALONE forever for all eternity. With ONLY your thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Aug 2, 2017 0:53:14 GMT
Probably not because the O.P.'s premise (the same premise as many, if not most, religions) is that a human personality and identity is something that exists outside of a perception of the individual's brain. Increasingly, brain research is showing that everything about us - including our perception that there is something like a soul or spirit apart from our life functions - is, indeed, a product of the brain and when the brain dies so will everything else about a person. There will be nothing left to go to blackness or heaven or hell. Oh yeah, well then how do you explain this documentary? I am now a believer in...whatever that was. The caption promised a Silly Song and truly delivered - a song, not a pizza. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Aug 2, 2017 1:48:58 GMT
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. It's impossible to have darkness and emptiness without light and form. Darkness implies light, as emptiness implies form. The word darkness implies the concept of light - but you can absolutely have total darkness, which is the total absence of light. For someone who was born blind, the words "light" and "dark" have no meaning. For someone who can see, those words do have meaning - and will continue to have meaning even if they are deprived of one or the other. You can try it for yourself: go into a room without windows, turn off the lights and close the door. With no light sources around, you now find yourself in absolute darkness and you will not be able to see anything. Light still exists elsewhere, but that is irrelevant as it doesn't exist anywhere near you. But I am irrelevant so it doesn't matter if I can put myself in a dark room. Obviously pure darkness can exist, that's what I get in the sensory deprivation tank.. But the Universe is not the tank. A reality where you're trapped in a dark place for eternity with no light but you're fully conscious.. I guess that's kind of fun to think about. Go watch the Dutch/French movie 'The Vanishing' (not the Hollywood one). IMO it's too silly and nihilistic of a concept to dwell on for too long.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Aug 2, 2017 6:18:03 GMT
But I am irrelevant so it doesn't matter if I can put myself in a dark room. Obviously pure darkness can exist, that's what I get in the sensory deprivation tank.. You're not irrelevant to you. Relevance is relative. The premise of the OP was a what-if scenario wherein YOU were placed in a completely dark void. Not blind, just with no light around, in total darkness. Obviously, YOU are not irrelevant in that scenario but just the opposite. Light is the irrelevant bit, because while it may exist somewhere for all you know (and it does exist in your memory), it might as well not as far as this scenario is concerned. The reason the concept is silly is because consciousness relies on a physical brain, which needs blood supply to feed it oxygen, which means you'd need breathable air, as well as food and water. The scenario doesn't make sense, but not because there is no light.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 2, 2017 8:36:59 GMT
I don't believe it will be like that, but if it is then there is nothing we can do about it. Not being able to do anything doesn't stop some people from trying.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Aug 2, 2017 10:41:44 GMT
But I am irrelevant so it doesn't matter if I can put myself in a dark room. Obviously pure darkness can exist, that's what I get in the sensory deprivation tank.. You're not irrelevant to you. Relevance is relative. The premise of the OP was a what-if scenario wherein YOU were placed in a completely dark void. Not blind, just with no light around, in total darkness. Obviously, YOU are not irrelevant in that scenario but just the opposite. Light is the irrelevant bit, because while it may exist somewhere for all you know (and it does exist in your memory), it might as well not as far as this scenario is concerned. The reason the concept is silly is because consciousness relies on a physical brain, which needs blood supply to feed it oxygen, which means you'd need breathable air, as well as food and water. The scenario doesn't make sense, but not because there is no light. Well, IMO a scenario where you spend eternity in darkness is silly. And actually, I do feel irrelevant. I look at pictures of the stars and I feel irrelevant. I recognize that this body is not me, the name and identity I use for convenience in this world is not me, my string of memories is not important or unique. When I'm gone my kids might be sad for awhile, but in the grand scheme of things I could not be more irrelevant. But maybe you're talking about the part of me that isn't my body or my memories or my name? That part of me is the same as that part of you and I guess that's relevant because that's all there really is.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Aug 2, 2017 12:47:22 GMT
You're not irrelevant to you. Relevance is relative. The premise of the OP was a what-if scenario wherein YOU were placed in a completely dark void. Not blind, just with no light around, in total darkness. Obviously, YOU are not irrelevant in that scenario but just the opposite. Light is the irrelevant bit, because while it may exist somewhere for all you know (and it does exist in your memory), it might as well not as far as this scenario is concerned. The reason the concept is silly is because consciousness relies on a physical brain, which needs blood supply to feed it oxygen, which means you'd need breathable air, as well as food and water. The scenario doesn't make sense, but not because there is no light. Well, IMO a scenario where you spend eternity in darkness is silly. And actually, I do feel irrelevant. I look at pictures of the stars and I feel irrelevant. I recognize that this body is not me, the name and identity I use for convenience in this world is not me, my string of memories is not important or unique. When I'm gone my kids might be sad for awhile, but in the grand scheme of things I could not be more irrelevant. But maybe you're talking about the part of me that isn't my body or my memories or my name? That part of me is the same as that part of you and I guess that's relevant because that's all there really is. In what way would you like to be relevant? Yes, in the grand scheme of things, you are irrelevant. As am I. And the entire human race, for that matter. Hell, the entire planet is irrelevant. And the solar system, and the stars, and the galaxies, and the whole universe. And if God exists, he's irrelevant, too. The grand scheme of things is, in fact, irrelevant. If everything, existence itself, was to cease tomorrow, it wouldn't matter. Because there wouldn't be anyone around to care one way or the other. In other words, everything is irrelevant until you place them in context. Things are only relevant insofar as they have meaning to someone (or something). So while we are all completely and utterly irrelevant, we are also all extremely important - but we are important in different ways to different people, and also unimportant in different ways to different people. There is no point in us having this exchange at all, in the grand scheme of things, because this conversation is utterly irrelevant. But it remains relevant to you and me, which is why we bother.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Aug 2, 2017 12:53:39 GMT
Well, IMO a scenario where you spend eternity in darkness is silly. And actually, I do feel irrelevant. I look at pictures of the stars and I feel irrelevant. I recognize that this body is not me, the name and identity I use for convenience in this world is not me, my string of memories is not important or unique. When I'm gone my kids might be sad for awhile, but in the grand scheme of things I could not be more irrelevant. But maybe you're talking about the part of me that isn't my body or my memories or my name? That part of me is the same as that part of you and I guess that's relevant because that's all there really is. In what way would you like to be relevant? Yes, in the grand scheme of things, you are irrelevant. As am I. And the entire human race, for that matter. Hell, the entire planet is irrelevant. And the solar system, and the stars, and the galaxies, and the whole universe. And if God exists, he's irrelevant, too. The grand scheme of things is, in fact, irrelevant. If everything, existence itself, was to cease tomorrow, it wouldn't matter. Because there wouldn't be anyone around to care one way or the other. In other words, everything is irrelevant until you place them in context. Things are only relevant insofar as they have meaning to someone (or something). So while we are all completely and utterly irrelevant, we are also all extremely important - but we are important in different ways to different people, and also unimportant in different ways to different people. There is no point in us having this exchange at all, in the grand scheme of things, because this conversation is utterly irrelevant. But it remains relevant to you and me, which is why we bother. You're absolutely correct. Except for the part where you said this conversation is relevant to us both.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Aug 2, 2017 13:06:30 GMT
In what way would you like to be relevant? Yes, in the grand scheme of things, you are irrelevant. As am I. And the entire human race, for that matter. Hell, the entire planet is irrelevant. And the solar system, and the stars, and the galaxies, and the whole universe. And if God exists, he's irrelevant, too. The grand scheme of things is, in fact, irrelevant. If everything, existence itself, was to cease tomorrow, it wouldn't matter. Because there wouldn't be anyone around to care one way or the other. In other words, everything is irrelevant until you place them in context. Things are only relevant insofar as they have meaning to someone (or something). So while we are all completely and utterly irrelevant, we are also all extremely important - but we are important in different ways to different people, and also unimportant in different ways to different people. There is no point in us having this exchange at all, in the grand scheme of things, because this conversation is utterly irrelevant. But it remains relevant to you and me, which is why we bother. You're absolutely correct. Except for the part where you said this conversation is relevant to us both. It very clearly is, and proof positive is the fact that we have both engaged in it. Which neither of us would even have considered doing, were it not relevant to us somehow.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Aug 2, 2017 13:14:28 GMT
You're absolutely correct. Except for the part where you said this conversation is relevant to us both. It very clearly is, and proof positive is the fact that we have both engaged in it. Which neither of us would even have considered doing, were it not relevant to us somehow. I guess I can't argue with that.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Aug 2, 2017 14:51:22 GMT
In what way would you like to be relevant? Yes, in the grand scheme of things, you are irrelevant. As am I. And the entire human race, for that matter. Hell, the entire planet is irrelevant. And the solar system, and the stars, and the galaxies, and the whole universe. And if God exists, he's irrelevant, too. The grand scheme of things is, in fact, irrelevant. If everything, existence itself, was to cease tomorrow, it wouldn't matter. Because there wouldn't be anyone around to care one way or the other. In other words, everything is irrelevant until you place them in context. Things are only relevant insofar as they have meaning to someone (or something). So while we are all completely and utterly irrelevant, we are also all extremely important - but we are important in different ways to different people, and also unimportant in different ways to different people. There is no point in us having this exchange at all, in the grand scheme of things, because this conversation is utterly irrelevant. But it remains relevant to you and me, which is why we bother. I have been struggling for a long time to articulate just that concept. Thank you for expressing it so clearly!
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Aug 2, 2017 16:14:57 GMT
In what way would you like to be relevant? Yes, in the grand scheme of things, you are irrelevant. As am I. And the entire human race, for that matter. Hell, the entire planet is irrelevant. And the solar system, and the stars, and the galaxies, and the whole universe. And if God exists, he's irrelevant, too. The grand scheme of things is, in fact, irrelevant. If everything, existence itself, was to cease tomorrow, it wouldn't matter. Because there wouldn't be anyone around to care one way or the other. In other words, everything is irrelevant until you place them in context. Things are only relevant insofar as they have meaning to someone (or something). So while we are all completely and utterly irrelevant, we are also all extremely important - but we are important in different ways to different people, and also unimportant in different ways to different people. There is no point in us having this exchange at all, in the grand scheme of things, because this conversation is utterly irrelevant. But it remains relevant to you and me, which is why we bother. I have been struggling for a long time to articulate just that concept. Thank you for expressing it so clearly! De nada
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Aug 2, 2017 19:28:26 GMT
Probably not because the O.P.'s premise (the same premise as many, if not most, religions) is that a human personality and identity is something that exists outside of a perception of the individual's brain. Increasingly, brain research is showing that everything about us - including our perception that there is something like a soul or spirit apart from our life functions - is, indeed, a product of the brain and when the brain dies so will everything else about a person. There will be nothing left to go to blackness or heaven or hell. "Increasingly, brain research is showing that everything about us-including our perception that there is something like a soul or spirit apart from our life functions-is indeed, a product of the brain".
It's one thing to live in a fantasy world and delusion, but your statement is so retarded it defies all possible math and logic.
You can deny reality all you want, and live in a dream world, but you have to admit it is retarded to believe that tests performed on organic life in the material world with the perceptions you mention can possibly demonstrate anything outside that very sphere.
You obviously either failed Geometry and Math, or cheated to pass.
|
|