There is no afterlife!

[InJoy]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

My favorite take on the matter is at the end of Tom Stoppard's Arcadia. "Comparing what we're looking for misses the point. It's wanting to know that makes us matter. Otherwise we're going out the way we came in. That's why you can't believe in the afterlife, Valentine. Believe in the after, by all means, but not the life. Believe in God, the soul, the spirit, the infinite, believe in angels if you like, but not in the great celestial get-together for an exchange of views. If the answers are in the back of the book I can wait, but what a drag. Better to struggle on knowing that failure is final."

Perhaps the question you all ought to ask is, "Who are you?" Forget afterlife. If you have a brain transplant, who are you?

That is just flat-out BEAUTIFUL!

Originally Posted by nosussbeliefs

Ok, so to the ppl that believe in souls do other animals have souls? Do bacteria have souls? Or are humans special exceptions to the soul belief?

I believe that our souls are energy. Since everything is energy, it makes sense to me that everything has a soul. Consciousness may be another matter, because I don't have any idea what makes up consciousness. When I look into my cat's eyes, I feel like she has a consciousness. However, when I look at a rock, I get no similar feeling.

But, honestly, I'm still up on what Michael Chui posted. There's no way for us to know these things right now, so isn't the value in living as though this is the only moment there is?

Originally Posted by mysterygal

I don't mean to offend anyone, so I'm sorry if I have.

JMO, but there's nothing offensive about a person stating their faith. If we all agreed, it wouldn't be a very interesting conversation.

Originally Posted by nosussbeliefs

If you want a philosphy that is on par with science, it's Zen...

That may very well be so, but modern science (i.e. quantum physics) is turning physics as we know it a bit on its ear, wouldn't you agree?

[Lychee]

Originally Posted by nosussbeliefs

Consiousness is physics... you're brain dies, your perception ends. Get hit on the head with a ball, you are knocked unconsious, you perception is temporarily ended.

If you want a philosphy that is on par with science, it's Zen...

If consciousness is physics, and personality is just physics, peoples' behavior would be 100% predictable, but they are not.

[JMan]

Originally Posted by mysterygal

Afterlife is just a fantasy people created to make them feel better about death. Since your brain dies, all form of identify will also die. Since all form of identity, including memories dreams, and everything that makes you "you" dies - that means that technically you don't move on. Inorder to have an afterlife, we'd have to consider ourselves pretty important. But the truth is that we aren't important. The universe is infinite, endless, and we are just tiny little specks. No more than "ants" when you think about it.

Your soul could only survive afterlife IF everything is made up of consciousness, like some philosophers say. In that case, your soul wouldn't be dependent on your brain, infact it would be the other way around.

I don't mean to offend anyone, so I'm sorry if I have.

No offense taken. Questioning the nature and truth of existence is human.

I believe our consciousness is real. We are spiritual beings residing physical constructs. Personality is the physiological response and reaction to your cumulative sensory input, based on action/reaction, emotion, and intuitive thought. Your (re)actions define your personality - what you do/say or don't do/say is the translation of your personality and what others 'read' as defining you. Its the emotional expression of your mental processing.

But your personality is not everything that makes you 'you'. 'You' are spiritual energy. Your brain has the capacity to allow yourself to tap into the spiritual 'you', if you let it. It could be said that we exist as 2 beings at once. One anchored in the physical realm (which is really just varying vibrating manifestations of energy anyway), and one in the spiritual realm (again vibrating energy). Whether your physical self (actually your mental self) chooses to merge with your spiritual self is it's choice.

[ZHereford]

Originally Posted by nosussbeliefs

Consiousness is physics... you're brain dies, your perception ends. Get hit on the head with a ball, you are knocked unconsious, you perception is temporarily ended.

How does that explain the sub-conscious mind which supposedly is always "awake"? It has been said that the sub-conscious mind is the soul. It is the awareness or consciousness that never dies.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Lychee

If consciousness is physics, and personality is just physics, peoples' behavior would be 100% predictable, but they are not.

Physics is not 100% predictable. Never has been.

[AidanMatthews216]

Originally Posted by InJoy

Out of curiosity, what would such evidence look like? Besides actually dying to see first-hand, is there any way to see actual evidence of anything stored outside the body and brain?

Well, if we were to document thoroughly the exact structure of the brain, how memory is stored and where, to every detail, and still found that there were experiences we could find no physical place for in the brain, that would be significant evidence.

This is just my (geeky) theory, of course, but I tend to think of it a lot like a computer. I think of our Consciousness (who we are) as part of the Great Hard Drive of the Universe. What we experience on this earth is stored in RAM (our brains) and that's what we mostly use to get around and along on a day to day basis. So, when we have brain damage (for instance) our RAM may get wiped. But all our lives, it's been writing to the GHDU. So while, to our earthly counterparts, that which makes our body "go" (the brain, or RAM) has lost its juice, its all still there on the GHDU. And even while we are in a vegetative state, or dead even, the GHDU exists and loses nothing.

Urk, sorry, geeky as I am computers are not my forte. Could you maybe given a music example?

But I think I see what you mean... sort of.

[AidanMatthews216]

Originally Posted by Lychee

Where was consciousness before life? Why is the improbability of having consciousness survive after death seen as more far fetched when the same question can be applied to why consciousness began in the first place?

Because most people (except Buddhists I suppose) don't believe that we are conscious before we become alive. So why believe we remain conscious after death?

Our brain is not the only thing which makes up our personality. It is a vehicle which the soul uses to interact and function.

That's very hard to support scientifically.

Then what is the Intelligence which is running through the wombs of mothers and causing perfect development of a human being? You cannot see it can you? Does that mean that there is nothing there?

An ant has a brain but it is a person? No, it is not a person because a human being has intelligence. What runs that brain or intelligence? The Life Force which is running through all of us.

Ants do have intelligence and perhaps consciousness (who knows?), but it is seen as less sophisticated or "alive" because the brain of an ant is smaller and simpler.

If your brains stored our personalities, why have the heart? The soul? The heart has as many, if not more, neurons as the brain. Why have neurons in the heart?

Ummm... citation? Neurons in the heart would be part of the PNS (peripheral nervous system) which simply serves to send physical information up to the brain. It's not used for thought.

Just because you cannot see something does not mean that it is not there.

But is there any reason to believe something is there for which there is not at least evidence?

[Lychee]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Physics is not 100% predictable. Never has been.

Not true. Physics itself is predictable but it is not 100% always predictable by humans. Our inability to achieve perfect prediction doesn't negate the fact that it is predictable and constant.

[AidanMatthews216]

Originally Posted by Lychee

Not true. Physics itself is predictable but it is not 100% always predictable by humans. Our inability to achieve perfect prediction doesn't negate the fact that it is predictable and constant.

Then how do you know humans to be unpredictable in that sense?

[Lychee]

Originally Posted by AidanMatthews216

Then how do you know humans to be unpredictable in that sense?

I don't really get what you mean but I can say that I'm basing it on the above poster's assumption that the mind and human behavior is like physics. There are many psychologists have who tried to quantify the human soul by attempting to predict behavior, but you cannot put a value on "hope" or a variable for "learned helplessness." My point is that the human personality is not like physics. Scientists can predict Haley's comet. They can predict using the knowledge which is available and understood by scientists when a population of bacteria will reach a plateau. But these things cannot be compared to the soul.

"I, Robot" was a futuristic movie of robots who were able to quantify such things. If you haven't seen it, Will Smith was drowning in a car along with a girl after the both were involved in a car accident. The robot that was around made a calculation which resulted in a greater probability of Smith's survival versus the little girl's. The robot decided to save Smith only. Humans will never be able to do that. Humans, unlike planets, have emotions. Humans can be irrational, humans have choice. Law has none of these things because it cannot choose.

[AidanMatthews216]

Originally Posted by Lychee

I don't really get what you mean but I can say that I'm basing it on the above poster's assumption that the mind and human behavior is like physics. There are many psychologists have who tried to quantify the human soul by attempting to predict behavior, but you cannot put a value on "hope" or a variable for "learned helplessness." My point is that the human personality is not like physics. Scientists can predict Haley's comet. They can predict using the knowledge which is available and understood by scientists when a population of bacteria will reach a plateau. But these things cannot be compared to the soul.

"I, Robot" was a futuristic movie of robots who were able to quantify such things. If you haven't seen it, Will Smith was drowning in a car along with a girl after the both were involved in a car accident. The robot that was around made a calculation which resulted in a greater probability of Smith's survival versus the little girl's. The robot decided to save Smith only. Humans will never be able to do that. Humans, unlike planets, have emotions. Humans can be irrational, humans have choice. Law has none of these things because it cannot choose.

What makes you sure that emotions are not composed of quantities just as things in physics are? They may be complex, but if we knew in detail the exact nature of our emotions would we not be able to predict them?

If "hope" cannot be quantified, how is it possible to say that some have more hope than others? Isn't that a quantitative judgment?

[InJoy]

Originally Posted by AidanMatthews216

Urk, sorry, geeky as I am computers are not my forte. Could you maybe given a music example?

But I think I see what you mean... sort of.

Jeesh, whattaya trying to do? Make my brain pop out through my eyes?

Hmm... music...

Well, it's not really quite the same thing. I suspect that the way the universe works actually has some real parallels with computer science, so my explanation was pretty specific.

Sorry. I'm thinking about it, but so far I'm at a loss. Maybe you could tell me where exactly I lost you?

[nosussbeliefs]

Originally Posted by Lychee

Not true. Physics itself is predictable but it is not 100% always predictable by humans. Our inability to achieve perfect prediction doesn't negate the fact that it is predictable and constant.

Was just about to post the same thing... You can't blame the science and call it inconsistencies when the observer(the scientist) makes the error.

[nosussbeliefs]

Originally Posted by Lychee

If consciousness is physics, and personality is just physics, peoples' behavior would be 100% predictable, but they are not.

What if you take into account there are billions of variables? I didnt say they can be predicted by humans. The behaviour is 100% predictable if you have the ability to process that kind of information.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Lychee

"I, Robot" was a futuristic movie of robots who were able to quantify such things. If you haven't seen it, Will Smith was drowning in a car along with a girl after the both were involved in a car accident. The robot that was around made a calculation which resulted in a greater probability of Smith's survival versus the little girl's. The robot decided to save Smith only. Humans will never be able to do that. Humans, unlike planets, have emotions. Humans can be irrational, humans have choice. Law has none of these things because it cannot choose.

First, regarding "I, Robot".

"Quantify such things"? Wasn't the entire point of the movie that they could not quantify such things?

Next, Smith had survivor's guilt. His prejudice against robots, which is transformed into the audience's prejudice against robots, is based on an unthinking dislike of something that had forced him to survive in lieu of others. Smith's preference would have been that they both drown. Thus extrapolating, you are saying that it is better than the entire human race die out than some surviving, because it would be too rational that survivors exist. Thanks, but no thanks.

Second, choice is not analogous to predictability. Simply because I can predict your action does not mean you didn't choose to take it. Similarly, simply because an outcome is unpredictable does not mean you had a choice in the matter.

Illustrating part a, we have a person walking down the street. He comes to an intersection, stops and waits for the traffic signal, then continues. Three blocks later, we predict that he will stop and wait for the traffic signal again. He might, he might not: he has a choice.

Illustrating part b, we have a simple, unweighted dice. Toss it, and it generates an unpredictable result. You had no choice in which number came up.

My personal belief is in what I call determinism, but which seems to be different from others' notion of determinism. I believe that every action a person takes can be predicted, given sufficient knowledge. Thus, it is possible for an observer to predict choice without removing it.

Third, emotions are rational. They are extremely rational. It is blindingly easy to predict and manipulate emotions if you know what you want and how to accomplish it, mostly because people generally aren't aware of the methods or their countermeasures nor do they generally have the discipline to make such choices despite such manipulation. Study art sometime. Especially the design of soap operas and "chick flicks". That's a good starting point. Move on to, say, "I, Robot" when you're more advanced to see what emotions it stirs.

Simply because you cannot predict something does not mean it can't be predicted. Simply because we can't predict something yet does not mean it can never be predicted.

And again, prediction does not negate choice: knowledge enables choice; it does not destroy it.

[DoAnyOfYouExist]

Originally Posted by mysterygal

Why do people believe in an afterlife? How could our consciousness survive after death? Our brain is what makes up our personality. For example, if a person suffers brain damage they will become a different person. They may not be able to talk, they may become delayed. So, which version of the person goes to heaven? The person prior to the accident, or the person after? You see we never stay they same person. We are constantly changing. There is NO possible way human beings so called "souls" could move on to the after life. No brain = no person. Once our brain dies, what is their to sustain our personalities? We are the sum of our personality. Once our personalities die, so do we. So, how could you go to the afterlife if you are no long you anymore. Exactly you can't. What makes me "me" is my personality. If you get rid of my personality what is left? Nothing. Can someone explain to me how they can believe they go on to the after life if their brains die.

I have not read through all the responses but I will speak to you now anyhow.

Your personality is not you. Your personality, your likes and dislikes, your patterns, your habits, they are your CONDITIONS, they are your CONDITIONING. They are your training. These are like your clothes, they cover the real you. You are so covered by these clothes that you can no longer even see yourself! When you were born you were pure. Then the parents, the society, the so called "civilized" world trained you how to act, how to think, how to look, how to feel, how to JUDGE, just to drop all of this! You are like a wild horse domesticated, but inside you remember the freedom, and you say "one day, one day I will be wild again, then I will be free." Your true self is immortal, and can never die, and she so desperately wants to shine through, if you could only let her. To sum up, you are NOT your personality, this is but your clothes.

Always changing, YES, so easy to change the clothes... You do not lose your personality. You have one TRUE personality and it never changes. Just to embrace this, and tell me how you feel. When you do this you will not find "nothing" but only everything. You will live on, because you are not this body, you are everything you see. You are the divine. Wether you want to be or not, you are.

Love and peace and blessings to you. I hope you continue to grow and never to feel alone or to feel that you will cease to exist. You cannot. Thank you. Beautiful your questions were, beautiful. I appreciate you. I am blessed to share this space with you. That goes for all of you here and now.

[DoAnyOfYouExist]

Originally Posted by mysterygal

Your soul could only survive afterlife IF everything is made up of consciousness, like some philosophers say. In that case, your soul wouldn't be dependent on your brain, infact it would be the other way around.

I don't mean to offend anyone, so I'm sorry if I have.

Reading through, and yes you are spot on there. Beautifully said.

[absvan]

I beleive we are not this body and we continue to live after our death. I had written a little bit about this on my blog.....hope that helps.

Peaceful Warrior: Who Am I?

[Cantando]

I believe we are in the afterlife right now. We lived before, our bodies died and here we are! Same s**t, different body!

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by InJoy

Jeesh, whattaya trying to do? Make my brain pop out through my eyes?

Hmm... music...

Well, it's not really quite the same thing. I suspect that the way the universe works actually has some real parallels with computer science, so my explanation was pretty specific.

Sorry. I'm thinking about it, but so far I'm at a loss. Maybe you could tell me where exactly I lost you?

I'll take a stab. I could see the ram and hard drive idea is kind of playing music and the score. A hard drive would have the program to run (our souls) and ram runs the program (life) while we are alive. That's similar to a score (souls) being like a program that when played (life) is to be alive. The score (souls) will continue to exist after the music stops (death).

However here's another musical analogy I dreamed up. Souls (or whatever might live on past physical death) are like notes or chords - the vibrational part of the sound. Our bodies are like the instrument, the strings of a piano. But we are not striking the strings too much. Our 3d experience is the piano strings vibrating in resounance.

However this analogy needs something else. The soul is a bunch of vibrations that are ever present - like, let's say a symphony playing on and on. And our bodies are like a piano with the dampers up (strings are open) and the strings resonate to the vibrations. We get to experience these resonate sounds. And we also can strike the strings ourselves while in 3d. When we die it's like the dampers go down on the piano strings but the symphony keeps playing.

But, then why or how would a symphony keep playing?

And this analogy isn't anything like the ram versus hard drive idea.

[ZHereford]

Wolfgang I think you're on to something!

Just some fine tuning needed (a sorry pun, I know).

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by ZHereford

Wolfgang I think you're on to something!

Just some fine tuning needed (a sorry pun, I know).

Crack me up!

The analogy can also extend to say things like, keeping your piano in good shape allows it to resounate better, allows the vibrations to show up on your piano such that you can hear and feel what's going on with the symphony - which is to say the more healthy you are the easier it is to be in aligment with spirit.

And then the ultimate is to play along and add to the symphonic sounds - that's to say being moved by spirit by being one with your soul's desires is where fullness of life is.

[mysterygal]

Thanks for your reponses everyone. I hope that one day science will come up with a way to verify these beliefs. It would be a wonderful relief to know that life does infact continue on after death. I guess, until then we can only speculate..and have faith that our beliefs are true.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by mysterygal

Thanks for your reponses everyone. I hope that one day science will come up with a way to verify these beliefs. It would be a wonderful relief to know that life does infact continue on after death. I guess, until then we can only speculate..and have faith that our beliefs are true.

Having faith to believe something is a choice. Some will say they know there's an afterlife because of some experience they've had and don't have to have faith - they just feel they know it is true. I haven't had an experience that makes me think I know after life exists.

Even those that have had experiences of near death or astral stuff or talking to dead people can't know for sure, I'd think, since they never really died. Near death is not death. However, Steve, is one that says he's sure the afterlife is there because of some experieces he's had and there are many like that.

I kind of want to have some experiences like that to know what it will be like after I die. It kind of makes sense to me to investigate and I think the investigation will also make my life fuller now.

[ZHereford]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

And then the ultimate is to play along and add to the symphonic sounds - that's to say being moved by spirit by being one with your soul's desires is where fullness of life is.

Wolfgang, I don't know if you do any writing, but this is a great theme to develop.

Not everything we feel, sense and understand intuitively can be proved so by creating analogies we can at least demonstrate a point and expand concepts.

It might help people be more open-minded to the unknown and unproven.

[InJoy]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Illustrating part a, we have a person walking down the street. He comes to an intersection, stops and waits for the traffic signal, then continues. Three blocks later, we predict that he will stop and wait for the traffic signal again. He might, he might not: he has a choice.

Illustrating part b, we have a simple, unweighted dice. Toss it, and it generates an unpredictable result. You had no choice in which number came up.

My personal belief is in what I call determinism, but which seems to be different from others' notion of determinism. I believe that every action a person takes can be predicted, given sufficient knowledge. Thus, it is possible for an observer to predict choice without removing it.

This was a really interesting post, and it left me with questions and thoughts.

First, when you say that personal actions are ultimately predictable, (with the "given enough info" model) do you mean to say 100% accurately predictable? And, if so, I'm missing the step of logic that leads you to that conclusion. Reading your last (quoted) paragraph, you go from saying that every action can be predicted to saying that those predictions can be made without removing choice. I do not see the connection in logic between those two statements.

Assuming you are talking about accurate predictions here, it seems to me that there is no choice, only the illusion of choice. If you know (due to some algorithm) that I'm going to scratch my nose exactly ten seconds from now, and I do, then that action is predetermined. Therefore, it may seem to me that I am choosing to scratch my nose, but the fact is, it was already destined to be and my choice had nothing to do with it. If I do indeed choose not to scratch my nose (in the face of your knowing), then you did not accurately predict my actions. (All this assuming that you have not mentioned your predictions, for simplicity sake.)

From this, I deduce that 100% accurate predictions (knowing) of a person's actions and that person's ability to choose are mutually exclusive. If you disagree with that, I would be very interested in your reasoning.

[Michael Chui]

Alright, let me see if I can explain better.

Originally Posted by InJoy

Assuming you are talking about accurate predictions here, it seems to me that there is no choice, only the illusion of choice. If you know (due to some algorithm) that I'm going to scratch my nose exactly ten seconds from now, and I do, then that action is predetermined.

Let's begin impersonally.

I'm going to suppose that, in the future, we will be able to predict the weather down to the minute. I can tell you that, at 5:34 PM EST, May 18, 2343 A.D., there will be a minor thunderstorm starting. At 6:32, same day, there will be a lightning strike in the middle of New Haven, CT at X degrees west and Y degrees north.

Did I predetermine the weather? Of course not. I have no control over the weather; I simply understand what led up to it, and so I know what will happen afterwards. The existence of choice is irrelevant. I'll go over what choice actually is in the next section.

Let's move back to people.

I'm going to suppose that, in a thousand years, we'll know everything about people. We probably won't, but that's irrelevant for the hypothetical. Now, knowing everything, we place a person before a maze. This person has been studied and observed for his entire life, by us, so not only do we know everything in general about people, but we know everything in particular about this person.

First junction, does he turn left or right? Next, same choice. Next, same choice. Does he turn back? How long does it take? We're not intervening in this study: we put him in front of a maze, gave him a reason to get to the end (100 dollars!), and watched. I would say that you could predict his choices accurately, but we're not predetermining it. He makes the choice, at that time, of his own free will.

Originally Posted by InJoy

when you say that personal actions are ultimately predictable, (with the "given enough info" model) do you mean to say 100% accurately predictable? And, if so, I'm missing the step of logic that leads you to that conclusion.

Yes.

Think about what it means to make a choice. It has nothing to do with what will happen. Instead, choice involves an analysis of everything that you think could be, and then your conclusion as to which nets the ultimate gain, or at least the minimal loss. Let's toss out the word "physics", which is really annoying to me, and advance the word "economics". See my signature below for a definition of economics.

Thus, a choice can be predicted based on past knowledge. I can predict that my girlfriend will absolutely love the stuffed animal I give her. I can predict that my parents will be proud of me at my graduation. Do they have a choice in the matter? Furthermore, I can predict that my teacher will give a lecture (well, actually, he likes to make us talk) in a couple hours. Does he have a choice?

Originally Posted by InJoy

Therefore, it may seem to me that I am choosing to scratch my nose, but the fact is, it was already destined to be and my choice had nothing to do with it.

This is well-known as the problem of free will in theology. It's unsolvable in theology because we necessarily posit God as our Creator, and that negates any solution. But removing an intelligent creator as a factor re-enables free will very easily.

Why? Think of us as those mechanical cars that you wind up, set on the ground, and release. Suddenly, we're buzzing off!, racing down the track or down the driveway, or wherever. Now, if God were involved, we'd have to admit that he created the cars, the track, the driveway, the fluctuations of air pressure, the humidity, everything that might have the slightest effect on the path of the cars.

But without God, by simply saying things are, we realize that, if we knew all of these variables, the irregularities in the pavement, the slight wind that pushed the car a bit to the left, the humidity messing with the internals just a bit, then we could trace the exact path that the car would take before it took it. Prediction.

Similarly with humans. If we understand everything that factors into our choices, we can then predict what a choice will be based on our knowledge of all those factors. I can predict that a staunch, stereotypical conservative will pull out his shotgun and demand a pair of gays to get off his lawn.

Now, the ultimate philosophical question of free will stems from a practical question of law. If said person shoots the two gays, is it his fault, or is it "just his nature"? Should he be punished for murder? And without choice, without free will, the common argument is "no", because he had no say. But if we merely predict it, then he does have a say. The only difference is that we anticipated what his decision would be before the fact: and we are given the opportunity to prevent it. (ref: Minority Report)

Originally Posted by InJoy

If I do indeed choose not to scratch my nose (in the face of your knowing), then you did not accurately predict my actions.

And in science, when the data does not support the theory, we say that the theory is wrong or incomplete. In this case, this means that a factor was either not taken into account, or its effect on the result incorrect.

The failure to predict does not mean it is unpredictable: more often, it means that the predictor was simply ignorant. If I'm walking down the street and walk right into someone else, I could have easily predicted that by looking up. But I didn't, and so I didn't have all the information needed to predict that collision. If someone had been tracking the two of us, they would have predicted that with no fancy maths or crazy statistics. They'd probably just start laughing (after leaning forward in anticipation).

I hope that explains it better.

[InJoy]

Michael,

In the case of such things as the weather and the little wind up car, I'm with you all the way. I do think that, were there a device with enough computing power, those things could be accurately predicted as long as there was no human intervention to change things up.

The human factor is where you lose me.

You might be able to guess the guy in the maze's path with a high level of accuracy, but I submit that it would be impossible to do it with 100% accuracy because of free-will. There is no way (and, I believe, could be no way) to predict if and at what point your maze guy gets a wild hair and decides, just for the sake of self-amusement to try the maze walking backwards, or on his hands, or to simply sit his butt down and refuse to try anymore.

In the instance of your homophobic lawn guard, it is impossible for anything or anyone to ever predict with 100% accuracy if and when a life-changing thought will enter his mind that will change his reaction completely. It is further impossible to predict what that change in reaction will be. We can guess. A computer might be able to guess. But nobody could say for certain (i.e. tell the future a la Minority Report).

I could stop typing in the middle of a sentence here. Chances are, and it could probably be accurately guessed that I won't. But neither you, nor the most powerful computers of the future could ever foretell with absolute certainty what I'm going to do next because I have free will and I can decide to change my mind in an infinite number of ways.

The wind up car and the weather do not have that power, and can therefore (hypothetically) be predicted with certainty.

Are we saying the same thing here, Michael, or are we disagreeing. I'm not entirely sure.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I'm going to suppose that, in a thousand years, we'll know everything about people. We probably won't, but that's irrelevant for the hypothetical. Now, knowing everything, we place a person before a maze. This person has been studied and observed for his entire life, by us, so not only do we know everything in general about people, but we know everything in particular about this person.

First junction, does he turn left or right? Next, same choice. Next, same choice. Does he turn back? How long does it take? We're not intervening in this study: we put him in front of a maze, gave him a reason to get to the end (100 dollars!), and watched. I would say that you could predict his choices accurately, but we're not predetermining it. He makes the choice, at that time, of his own free will.

So you are saying people's choices could be predicted by shear knowledge of everything that makes them want to choose a certain way.

I'm glad you also say, we probably won't know everything about people. But why is that irrelevent? OK, it's hypothetical, yeah, but then even hypothesies need to consider the assumptions as part of the equations. Or, maybe that's not clear. I'm just saying if we can't ever know all the stuff that effects someone's choice, how can we say we can know what they will decide?

Thus, a choice can be predicted based on past knowledge. I can predict that my girlfriend will absolutely love the stuffed animal I give her. I can predict that my parents will be proud of me at my graduation. Do they have a choice in the matter? Furthermore, I can predict that my teacher will give a lecture (well, actually, he likes to make us talk) in a couple hours. Does he have a choice?

It does seem like you are saying everything is like a bunch of billard balls bouncing off each other and there's some underlaying mechanics that are exact. And if we could know all the positions of all the parts and how they bounce, then everything will have a certain outcome that doesn't happen other than the way that is mechanically going to happen. The only reason your gf will like the gift is because parts of her are ready to bounce off each other in response to getting the gift - her mind and hardware has been programed and the program is going to fire a certain way. Is this close to your take on free will/determinism?

Thinkers, scientists have for a long time been thinking we can just decompose and analise all the parts and eventually an equation will be able to represent the whole universe. That's reductionism. I supppose I'm under that spell somewhat too.

I have been trying to absorb other ideas though. Specifically epigenetics, Bruce Lipton stuff. There are ideas that we aren't just a mechanical device but that our thoughts and perceptions effect our cells and how our genes work. That there is a self conscious mind that is able to exert freewill that is different than all the programmed stuff. And what we do with that freewill part would determine how much we use our already prgrammed parts. We would just let our choices be what they always have been or jump out of that and do something else. Most of the time we don't do something else - we do what we have told our subconscious mind to do for us. All the programmed stuff is there and operating in the now, has no time frame. Only the thinking mind can have thoughts about time.

But, as interesting as this is, maybe it's off topic of if there's a soul that continues. Or maybe having freewill is also to say there's part of us that continues, and that part is the part that is outside of the programmed behaviours and is our spirit/soul.

[Mr.Mustache]

Originally Posted by mysterygal

The general consensus seems to be that our personality does not continue on after death, but our consciousness does. But if we lose all sense of self, personality, identity, then we technically don't continue on, because our earth self is what we have identified with our whole lives.

Actually your personality is an aspect of your conscious and no you don't lose that aspect when you die. Mystergal- You simply cannot prove that consciousness resides in the brain. It doesn't matter if science at large believes this because it is impossible to test. For example if you shut down a certain part of the brain, perhaps memory, then your behavior would change drastically. Such an experiment would however in no way implie that consciousness resides in the brain simply because it is equally possible that your consciousness uses your brain and when the brain is damaged your consciousness can't work within it properly.

So, you jump to a rather (in my opinion) ridiculous assumption that you are your brain. You see you can prove that consciousness is separate from the brain. You can go talk to Erin to find out how. So, let me ask why you don't believe in an afterlife?