Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

who519 t1_j37p57u wrote

Reply to comment by kittnnn in The Persistent Problem of Consciousness: an astronaut's epiphany by simsquatched

I think there is a counter argument that many hope there is no meaning at all. The very idea of meaning scares the shit out of them, because if they have wasted their lives, they will not just enter a dreamless sleep when their biological life is over, but instead wake up face to face with the choices they have made.

4

aesu t1_j38opvz wrote

I've yet to meet any of these people. Also, the people who seem most sure the meaning of life is some sort of testing ground to see who gets to hang out with god, are the most arrogant, morally repugnant people I know. I get the strong impression they don't actually believe it, else they'd probably spend more time helping the needy, and less time policing other peoples sex lives.

−1

who519 t1_j38sg7k wrote

They are all over Reddit, many Atheists are horrified by the possibility of an afterlife. As for who is morally repugnant, unfortunately there are some on both sides of the argument. As for your assertion about Earth being a testing ground for those who hang out with God, I suggest you look into some eastern religions, or even better look at the accounts from those who have had near death experiences. What they come back with is very similar to Mitchell's epiphany, a sense of oneness and love and there is judgement, but it is only of the self and does not come from a higher authority.

2

aesu t1_j3903b0 wrote

My point was that it is an admission of insincerity of belief if someone claims to believe they are going to suffer for eternity as a result of transgressions in this life, and then willfully and persistently commits those transgressions.

Taking your point of a more abstract sense of an afterlife, why would there be a judgment mechanism? What would that even mean. In this context of everything being conscious and connected, why would there be a judgment mechanism? Judgment is an evolved trait of some tiny fraction of highly evolved biomass on one of quadrillions of quadrillions of planets. Literally a heuristic procedure for regulating interaction between social group members along lines of reproductive advantage for the group.

What would an amoebas, or a trees essential consciousness be judging itself for in the afterlife, for example? It has no context outside of regulating prosocial behavior among highly intelligent lifeforms.

1

who519 t1_j39gg0x wrote

You missed my point entirely, there is no judgement but your own. You view your life and you see both the good and bad you have done. There is no score, only the realization that you could have done better or worse. The people who experience this, express it more as a learning experience than a judgement. You express disdain for amoebas and trees without knowing a single thing about their experience as beings. It is arrogant to determine because those two examples aren't like us that they could not have a conscious life.

0

aesu t1_j39j9pk wrote

How does this apply to any of our ancestors? Beyond some more intelligent and prosocial birds, and prosocial mammals, what possible context could there be to this for most animals? What does this mean for matter which has not been consumed by self replicating carbon chains?

I have not expressed disdain for anything. I'm trying to understand the context of such a mechanism outside of highly developed pro-social animal behavior. And why does the brain even exist, if it can apparently function without itself?

2

who519 t1_j39myzd wrote

In non-local consciousness theory the brain is a receiver. So without the brain the body would not be able to function any better than a radio with no signal.

Why wouldn't the same consciousness apply to our ancestors, or dogs, or lizards or anything else? Why is the only conscious experience you can conceive that of modern humans? Several different species have shown all kinds of conscious indicators.

1