RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,734
Posts: 5,215,122
Members: 24,211
Currently online: 945
Newest member: DeimosAnimus


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Lounges & General Chat > Miscellaneous

Miscellaneous Discussion of non-Trek topics.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 19 2013, 02:25 AM   #256
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: What Happens After Death

I've tried to explain my position multiple times, but you keep thinking that I'm saying something completely other than what I'm saying. Unless I get in a different frame of mind, all I can do right now is just repeat what I've already said, which would be totally pointless.

Maybe if you ask specific (and probably in order to productive, better that they be narrow) questions about what I've said, maybe my position would become clearer.

I'll get the ball rolling.

Q: Am I saying that there is more of burden to assert that there is no classical soul, than there is to assert that there is?

A: No.

Q: Am I asserting that the classical notion of soul is in all ways tenable?

A: No.

Q: Am I asserting that certain aspects of the classical notion of soul might be in some ways tenable?

A: Possibly.

Q: Does the classical notion of soul equate to consciousness?

A: Not exactly.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19 2013, 06:46 PM   #257
thestrangequark
Vice Admiral
 
thestrangequark's Avatar
 
Location: thestrangequark
Re: What Happens After Death

^I get all that, what I don't get is why you've tried to shift the burden of proof to me. I don't think the logic behind that shift is sound.
__________________
The Enterprise is my TARDIS.

View my art!
thestrangequark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19 2013, 07:00 PM   #258
Lindley
Moderator with a Soul
 
Location: Fairfax, VA
Re: What Happens After Death

What Happens After Death


...stays after death.
__________________
Lead Organizer for EVN: Firefly.
"So apparently the really smart zombies have automatic weapons!"
-Torg, Sluggy Freelance
Lindley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19 2013, 07:17 PM   #259
Gryffindorian
Vice Admiral
 
Gryffindorian's Avatar
 
Location: Middle-earth
Re: What Happens After Death

Of course, I believe in soul.

__________________
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
--Bilbo Baggins, LOTR: Fellowship of the Ring
Gryffindorian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19 2013, 07:20 PM   #260
Silvercrest
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Lost in Moria (Arlington, WA, USA)
Re: What Happens After Death

137th Gebirg wrote: View Post
Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
137th Gebirg wrote: View Post
I was under the impression that the way it works is that, when we die, our souls remain in the body until the Rapture described in Revelation, when we all rise and are judged at the Second Coming. THEN we depart to our final destinations. ...As I recall the Scripture, anyway...
No, every Protestant denomination I'm aware of (mine included - I'm Lutheran) teaches that the soul goes immediately to its final destination upon death.
Hmmm... Perhaps I'm thinking of the Catholic dogma.
The "soul sleep" 137th Gebirg refers to is taught among some Protestants as well. The church I attend (ECC) has people with that belief who came from various denominations -- but that means I'm not sure which one(s) it's from.
Silvercrest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19 2013, 08:52 PM   #261
bbjeg
Rear Admiral
 
bbjeg's Avatar
 
Location: ˙ɐlnqǝu sıɥʇ uı ʞɔnʇS
Re: What Happens After Death

Gryffindorian wrote: View Post
Of course, I believe in soul.

I don't think that's what everyone else is talking about.
__________________
-Star Trek Rock Opera-
bbjeg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 19 2013, 09:16 PM   #262
Flying Spaghetti Monster
Vice Admiral
 
Flying Spaghetti Monster's Avatar
 
Location: Flying Spaghetti Western
Re: What Happens After Death

bbjeg wrote: View Post
Einstein's theory that "Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another" and the way thought patterns are formed (electrical) has always kept me open minded to an afterlife.
Keep this in mind.

people toss around the word "energy" as if it means something more than it is. It's new age crap.

Sure, there's energy of some type that makes us who we are. Means nothing. Does a battery have any use once it's charge is done? That's energy too.

Even if you're right, it still wouldn't matter. An afterlife is pointless unless it can be demonstrated that it's you that really exists. Since you are used to your body and your consciousness is an emergent property from your brain, whatever energy might exist after your physical body dies wouldn't be you in any real sense that would actually matter.
__________________
97X... BAM! THE FUTURE OF ROCK AND ROLL...
Flying Spaghetti Monster is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 20 2013, 12:59 AM   #263
bbjeg
Rear Admiral
 
bbjeg's Avatar
 
Location: ˙ɐlnqǝu sıɥʇ uı ʞɔnʇS
Re: What Happens After Death

^Yeah, I touched on that subject a bit in a previous post. I don't know how a being like I described would act/react to anything. I guess it would be instinctual.
__________________
-Star Trek Rock Opera-
bbjeg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 20 2013, 10:53 PM   #264
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: What Happens After Death

Gryffindorian wrote: View Post

I would like to add that myths were conceived by ancient civilizations to make sense of the world and phenomena around them - life, death, birth, sunrise, sunset, light and darkness, etc.
Ergotism, tripping on extracts from plants--the list goes on.

Floating on a trip, seeing perhaps, asteroid falls--all that is probably why we turned form concepts of an Earth Mother to the sky Father--the stature of Zeus by Phidias helping out along the way.

I'm thinking the choke point in Earths population from Toba inspired Genesis. As a hard boiled detective might say..."Whether it was the muck that formed Adams bones, the primodial ooze from four billion years ago--or the other ooze deposited by our fathers, say, in the back seat of a Nash or Cameros, we all descend from slime."

The loss of the fertile crescent from over-farming (Dust Bowl on steroids?) was how we were cast out of Eden, as it were.

Back on Topic.

So what about the future of an afterlife?

As a riverworld fan, I find that it would be really nice to--if possible--travel back in time with nano-whatsits and at least try to infect and download Mozart's personality. It might not even take that much

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole-body_transplant

Now I seem to remember an earlier edition of this article where it said that only part of the brain was needed so as to keep one's personality.

Now if that pattern could be encoded into a space time crystal, you could outlive the universe:
http://www.space.com/17769-eternal-c...e-crystal.html

And there's your soul

Now since you would go mad without company, you would have to have everyone all linked together--and then you get the concept of the Nexus from Generations.
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 21 2013, 12:06 AM   #265
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: What Happens After Death

Go home, you're drunk.
__________________
"But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake."
Chemahkuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 26 2013, 09:59 AM   #266
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: What Happens After Death

thestrangequark, real life intervened, and I was unable to compose a reply of the length and care that seemed to be required, until now.

thestrangequark wrote: View Post
^I get all that, what I don't get is why you've tried to shift the burden of proof to me. I don't think the logic behind that shift is sound.
I imagine that you simply misunderstood exactly which claim it is of yours that I say you have a burden to prove.

I tried to get you to ask narrow questions about what I wrote, but since you didn't, I'm still just shooting in the dark, not knowing exactly where it is that I'm being unclear. I'll try to clarify one more time. However, if this doesn't clear it up, then I really just don't know what else to say.

As I said explicitly several times, your burden is not to prove that souls in the classical sense exist; I have no Earthly clue why you would think I believed that, or what in the world I wrote that would lead you to think that I thought anything like that.

Your burden is, rather, to support your claim that, and I quote:

thestrangequark wrote: View Post
I absolutely contend that what people believed was going on in definition #2 was all along caused by definition #1, and I absolutely contend that people just got it wrong for thousands of years.
Evidently, you don't see your need to prove this claim of yours, so I'll elaborate on why your claim here is not self-evident.

First, let's recap the definitions #1 and #2.

thestrangequark wrote: View Post
1. The soul is an emergent property based in the physical construction of the brain, and it does not persist in any form after death.

2. The soul exists independently of the physical construction of the brain in some way -- either as a product of the brain/body that is capable of moving on upon death after reaching a level of maturity, or it is dualistic in nature, and occupies the body for a period of time, moving on upon death.
The main problem is that psyche and consciousness don't fully capture the essence of what is regarded as the classical soul. The brain may be the seat of consciousness, but it is not the seat of life.

Fused or conflated in the classical concept of the soul, along with psyche and consciousness, are notions of essence and vitality, and the supposed very "breath of life". It was assumed classically that the psyche was what animated matter, so, naturally, when preoccupied with the question of what the essence of life was, consciousness sprang to mind, as something essential. Ergo, when classical philosophers were considering what we call the soul, you have to ask yourself whether their concern was primarily with respect to the mind, or whether it was primarily with respect to the essence of life, or a combination.

To cite an important example contrary to your assumptions, Aristotle was concerned with the essence of life; in his view, even plants, as a form of life, had a kind of soul. His notion of soul, hardly an unimportant one in the history of philosophy, does not really resemble your interpretation of the soul, as something primarily pertaining to what we consider consciousness.

The conflation of consciousness and animation in classical philosophy is what makes your claim, that what people thought was going on according to #2 was really going on according to #1, problematic. In contemporary terms, we might recognize this as a conflation of cognition and metabolism.

My point is that at least some classical philosophers were really thinking about what we call metabolism when they were talking about the soul, while others might have been thinking of what we call either cognition or consciousness. Establishing how many went which way and what the important trends were is precisely the sort of research that would need to be performed, in order to settle the question of exactly how the classical philosophers got off track. Establishing what people were primarily concerned with is not simple, especially when there was this sort of conflation between what we now recognize as quite distinct processes.

All this is even beside the fact that more than a few people consider immortality and incorporeality to be essential aspects of what they call souls.

I hope this sheds some light on what I was trying to say.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 26 2013, 12:37 PM   #267
Collingwood Nick
Vice Admiral
 
Collingwood Nick's Avatar
 
Re: What Happens After Death

Wow. Lots of talk here.

We're all going to get an answer to this question in the end. Why not relax and save the discourse for questions that living humans can answer?
__________________
"I will never coach against my boys"
Collingwood Nick
Collingwood Nick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 26 2013, 05:25 PM   #268
thestrangequark
Vice Admiral
 
thestrangequark's Avatar
 
Location: thestrangequark
Re: What Happens After Death

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
The main problem is that psyche and consciousness don't fully capture the essence of what is regarded as the classical soul. The brain may be the seat of consciousness, but it is not the seat of life.

Fused or conflated in the classical concept of the soul, along with psyche and consciousness, are notions of essence and vitality, and the supposed very "breath of life". It was assumed classically that the psyche was what animated matter, so, naturally, when preoccupied with the question of what the essence of life was, consciousness sprang to mind, as something essential. Ergo, when classical philosophers were considering what we call the soul, you have to ask yourself whether their concern was primarily with respect to the mind, or whether it was primarily with respect to the essence of life, or a combination.

To cite an important example contrary to your assumptions, Aristotle was concerned with the essence of life; in his view, even plants, as a form of life, had a kind of soul. His notion of soul, hardly an unimportant one in the history of philosophy, does not really resemble your interpretation of the soul, as something primarily pertaining to what we consider consciousness.

The conflation of consciousness and animation in classical philosophy is what makes your claim, that what people thought was going on according to #2 was really going on according to #1, problematic. In contemporary terms, we might recognize this as a conflation of cognition and metabolism.

My point is that at least some classical philosophers were really thinking about what we call metabolism when they were talking about the soul, while others might have been thinking of what we call either cognition or consciousness. Establishing how many went which way and what the important trends were is precisely the sort of research that would need to be performed, in order to settle the question of exactly how the classical philosophers got off track. Establishing what people were primarily concerned with is not simple, especially when there was this sort of conflation between what we now recognize as quite distinct processes.

All this is even beside the fact that more than a few people consider immortality and incorporeality to be essential aspects of what they call souls.

I hope this sheds some light on what I was trying to say.
I appreciate your thorough response, and I get what you are trying to say, but I think you've misunderstood my position. All I have attempted to argue is that any supernatural phenomena is really people misunderstanding natural phenomena, and so I feel I can stand by my claims.

You said I hijacked the term soul, and while you are correct that I gave it a limited definition, I never attempted to argue against anything other than that definition. I've never attempted to argue what exactly classical philosophers were referring to when they talked about the soul, and I would never presume to, I'm not nearly educated enough in classical philosophy to make that argument. When I said, "I absolutely contend that what people believed was going on in definition #2 was all along caused by definition #1." I was talking about 2 very specific definitions of soul.

So my first questions to you would be, going by those 2 specific definitions of soul, is my statement false? Is the burden of proof upon me to disprove definition 2?

Now, onto where the real confusion sprang up: what do we mean by soul?

I get that there are various meanings, and you've provided two possibilities as far as I can see regarding the classical soul, and I have attempted to incorporate them into my earlier hypotheses to improve those hypotheses and to make my position more clear:

1. What people have called the soul is in reality some natural function of the body, like metabolism or cognition; or some combination of functions, such as metabolism and cognition and breath, etc.; or all bodily functions that result in life, and terminates completely upon death.

2. The soul is some supernatural entity either of the body, or temporarily associated with the body, that may be considered the life force, the self, the spirit, or a combination of these things. It may or may not persist after death.

How do you find these definitions?

And this
All this is even beside the fact that more than a few people consider immortality and incorporeality to be essential aspects of what they call souls.
Definitely falls under definition 2, as supernatural, the burden of proof would be upon the individual making this claim, not on the sceptic doubting it.
__________________
The Enterprise is my TARDIS.

View my art!
thestrangequark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 26 2013, 06:08 PM   #269
Tralfaz
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Location: London, ON, Canada
Re: What Happens After Death

Scares the crap out of me thinking that when we die, that's it, nada, kaput. I do believe there is something else after death, that it isn't the end in the traditional sense, but have no idea what it might be. As someone else said, we'll will eventually know, one way or another.
Tralfaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 26 2013, 10:01 PM   #270
thestrangequark
Vice Admiral
 
thestrangequark's Avatar
 
Location: thestrangequark
Re: What Happens After Death

^Or not.


__________________
The Enterprise is my TARDIS.

View my art!
thestrangequark is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.