• What happens to consciousness when we die?
    I don't think I have ever did. I am only a philosophy reader. — Corvus

    Then how do you know that the people you saw in youtube were not scientists?
  • What happens to consciousness when we die?
    Then why you call yourself a scientist? — Corvus
  • What happens to consciousness when we die?
    In fact, in the past, I have seen some esoteric and magical secret society people call themselves as scientists — Corvus

    You were probably mixing with the wrong crowd in that case. As for myself, I have seen some scientists calling themselves scientists.
  • What happens to consciousness when we die?
    Regarding figuring out the nature of the world I do think philosophy is all we have to tackle consciousness in a theoretical way. — bert1

    That's how I tend to see it myself. Unfortunately, the materialists like to think that their own theories are the only valid or permissible ones and are trying to make philosophy into some kind of neo-Marxist dogma.
  • Belief in god is necessary for being good.
    I think you either do not know, or are not paying attention, to what "is" means. — tim wood

    That's exactly what I'm trying to explain to you. You either don't know or you're not paying attention to your own statements. Otherwise, why would you ask me what the English word "is" is?

    And if you aren't paying attention to your own statements, how are you going to pay attention to other people's statements and have a discussion with them? It doesn't make sense.

    Besides, since you've already lost the argument, there is no point. However, just out of curiosity, how do you know that God isn't omnibenevolent and that you are more omnibenevolent than him? Why is this so difficult to answer?
  • What happens to consciousness when we die?
    The biggest question which I would have about the idea of CS Lewis, is what would it mean to exist in the mind of God, especially as many challenge the idea of God, or have different ideas of God. — Jack Cummins

    I agree. It would seem pointless to discuss the subject with people who dismiss the idea of God or, for that matter, of afterlife and metaphysical realities in general, when their only "contribution" is to assert that you don't know what you are talking about whilst reserving their own right to make long speeches about a subject that according to them doesn't exist. Immortality in Ancient Philosophy by A. Long makes interesting reading but I think, more generally, once you understand more or less how Platonism and related systems view the human soul and its relation to higher forms of intelligence, things tend to become a bit more clear.
  • Board Game Racism
    Political philosophy is a very different branch of knowledge from high finance. — counterpunch

    I'm sure it is. However, I think it is rather difficult to imagine politics without finance. Indeed, one of political leaders' primary concern is how to finance their political programs and how to persuade the leaders of finance and industry to support their projects. And this is where politics and finance necessarily intersect or converge. But I agree that not everyone finds this a topic of interest.
  • Belief in god is necessary for being good.
    As you can see, I asked you what your understanding was. If you understadn English, why did you not answer my question? — tim wood

    As you can see, I told you what my understanding was. But you professed ignorance and retorted with the rhetorical question as to what the English word "is" was.

    Besides, you have failed to explain how you know that God is not omnibenevolent or why you think you are more omnibenevolent than God. If you don't answer people's questions, then how do you intend to have a discussion?

    This is why I suggested to just let it be seeing that you have lost the argument anyway.
  • What happens to consciousness when we die?
    ↪Jack Cummins


    A technique that I taught myself during preparation for exams was to imagine myself as a small point of light far above my head and looking down on my thoughts, body and other objects around me. I don't know whether this was under the influence of Platonism but it helped me to achieve a remarkable degree of detachment, focus and clarity of mind and I later read similar statements by Augustine and other writers directly or indirectly influenced by Platonism.

    As for life after death being an existence in the mind of God this, again, would be consistent with Platonism. The only question is what would be the exact nature and form of that existence. This is where different traditions tend to diverge which is not surprising considering that there would be a virtually infinite range of intellectual and spiritual development and of conditions and situations different souls may find themselves in at any given moment in time and space.
  • Board Game Racism
    No, because that would imply the operation of an illegitimate cartel! So clearly not! — counterpunch

    I can see your point. However, personally, I would tend to be less sure.

    True, capitalism is about free enterprise and plurality of business interests. But that is only the rule and every rule has exceptions. The great exception in capitalism is monopolism, the tendency to accumulate and concentrate capital and, along with it, financial, economic and political power. This is why Marx believed that capitalism will eventually bring about its own downfall.

    However, the leaders of capitalism, the big industrial and financial interests, realized that in order to preserve their power they had to maintain the illusion of a free, capitalist society by allowing some plurality of business interests while dominating finance, economy and politics from behind the scenes. This has been described in detail in The Anglo-American Establishment by C Quigley

    The same capitalist interests have also been behind the environment and other movements used by the left to undermine capitalism in an effort to give the impression that they are in favor of a more democratic society and sustainable economy.
  • What happens to consciousness when we die?
    ↪Jack Cummins


    I'm not sure there is any such thing as a "mind bomb", otherwise you would see exploding heads everywhere.

    The mind may feel like a bomb waiting to explode when you try to force-feed it too much info at the same time.

    However, even then you can try looking at the mind and its contents from above as it were, as in a bird's-eye view sort of detached perspective. Once you get used to it, it's very easy and it gets rid of the pressure, too.
  • What happens to consciousness when we die?
    First thing that must happen is the mind "set" must contain something, anything except itself of course. — TheMadFool

    Well, you can think of the sea as a vast expanse or body of water that (1) contains and is itself as water and (2) contains things other than water itself such as fish.

    Now compare consciousness with the sea. It is a vast expanse or body of self-aware intelligent energy that is (1) aware of itself as itself and (2) aware of objects such as thoughts, emotions, sense perceptions, etc.
  • What happens to consciousness when we die?
    does being "conscious without being conscious of something" ring any bells? — TheMadFool

    It would depend on what you mean by "something". According to Plotinus, the reasoning part of us (to dianoetikon) is conscious of objects perceived by means of the sense faculties. In contrast, the Intellect or spirit proper (Nous) is conscious of itself. In other words, the highest form of consciousness is self-reflective intelligence whose essential activity is reflexive. Therefore, self-consciousness or consciousness of oneself as consciousness, is the knowledge that philosophy ultimately aims to attain.
  • Belief in god is necessary for being good.
    ↪Ciceronianus the White


    It is to be hoped that Banno and the others will be sufficiently impressed to follow your exemplary example. As for myself, I shall endeavor to start at once and without unnecessary delays.
  • Belief in god is necessary for being good.
    I think I still have an old rosary lying around somewhere, and listening to a symphony will have more than enough time to recite all Five Sorrowful Mysteries. — Ciceronianus the White

    Now that's a great idea. Banno will be beyond himself with delight to hear of your solemn resolution.
  • Belief in god is necessary for being good.
    And I cannot know for certain that the Battleship USS New Jersey has not just materialized in my back yard. Isn't ignorance, especially compounded with stupidity, g-r-e-a-t! — tim wood

    That's exactly what I'm saying. If you don't even know basic things like that, then how can you possibly know that God isn't omnibenevolent or that you are more omnibenevolent than God? It seems rather doubtful to me.

    And you know all of this how?
    And of course, what do you suppose "is" means?     — tim wood

    It was a hypothesis that theists could use to rebut the atheists' hypothesis that God isn't omnibenevolent. That's all.

    You're having a "discussion" without a definition of anything and now you're openly declaring that you don't know the meaning of "is". As, I said, there is no point discussing this.
  • Are we “free” in a society?
    Is it that those who wish to be powerful are the wrong type of personality to have power? Or is it that upon attaining it there is somehow a complex of elitism that is developed or that the ego expands out of hand. Or is it simply that one can no longer sympathise with anothers struggle/ desperation once they themselves have been removed from it for long enough? — Benj96

    My guess would be that it's a bit of everything. Obviously, desire for power would suggest a big ego and domineering personality to begin with. Corruption is inherent to some extent in the desire for power and readiness to do anything to attain it. It is later augmented by the fact that you have to accommodate many conflicting interests in order to acquire or hold on to power. The higher up you are, the more enemies you have and your desire for power develops into a struggle for survival or staying in power which becomes your raison d'etre . At that point, the interests of others become increasingly marginal, you become out of touch with the people and with reality and turn into a dictator even without realizing it. This may happen all the more easily in a society where Big Money, Big Tech and the Media hold and exert disproportionate power over society. So, some form or other of dictatorship seems to be the direction society is currently taking.
  • Belief in god is necessary for being good.
    I think at most one can be agnostic - they do not yet know what they wish to pursue, worship or place as the object or goal of their purpose or the means by which they understand the nature of reality. But to say one is atheist? Atheist towards what precisely? — Benj96

    That's exactly my position. We can't know for certain that there is no God/s. An honest and objective person should at least accept the possibility of the existence of God in the same way theists should consider the possibility of God's non-existence.

    As I said, the funny thing is we’ve got “pop idols”, “sex goddesses”, “screen or movie goddesses”, we “worship money”, etc., etc. But if you worship God, especially the Christian one, then you are a criminal and outcast or mentally deranged. Even speaking of God as an universal principle of goodness, justice, etc. attracts scorn and hostility which is rather strange. My take is that the reason may be psychological as much as political.
  • What happens to consciousness when we die?
    But scientific knowledge needs concrete evidence and proof on their theories. — Corvus

    If Stevenson and others apply scientific methods in their research then it can't be dismissed as "mysticism". In any case, their findings can't be rejected before even looking at them. To do so would be unscientific.
  • Belief in god is necessary for being good.
    Personally I believe that everyone has a “god/ gods” in a loose sense and everyone “worships”. It is simply those things - the number, quality and dynamic that changes. — Benj96

    Correct. Some people worship pop stars, political leaders or ideologies. Some worship themselves or expect to be worshiped. Yet they get upset when others worship God or gods. We live in a strange world, or what?
  • What happens to consciousness when we die?
    This sounds like some sort of mysticism rather than Philosophical topics? — Corvus

    It may sound like that to you. Stevenson and others like him regard themselves as scientists.
  • Are we “free” in a society?
    However, we are not all equal in a society. Societies by nature are hierarchical. — Benj96

    Well, we are unequal from birth on. Some may be more intelligent, practically dexterous or physically stronger than others, etc. Of course complex societies are hierarchical because they are divided by occupation, etc. and relative importance to society. The problem is that politics is about power and power tends to corrupt as well as seek more power. Without checks and balances, this ultimately leads to a corrupt dictatorship controlled by those who control resources, finance and economy.
  • What happens to consciousness when we die?
    In Greek mythology, Hypnos (sleep) and Thanatos (death) were twin brothers. The Greeks were onto something. — TheMadFool

    Spot on. And the Greeks proved right on many things.
  • Board Game Racism
    BigPantsDropper needs to realise that slavery is what happens in absence of the philosophies, politics and economics of capitalism. — counterpunch

    I think there is little chance of him (or her) realizing that. But I agree that the left have been dominating discussion on climate and ecology and have been feeding anti-capitalist assumptions into the collective consciousness via the green and other agendas.

    In fact, every single issue these days tends to serve as a stick to beat capitalism. Even racial equality movements are now openly campaigning against "capitalism", "patriarchy" and anything they see as representing western, i.e., white culture.

    At the same time, the appalling crimes committed by tyrannical regimes in China or Africa and other places are totally overlooked or covered up and so are cultural elements involving FGM or the suppression of women's rights in non-western societies. They conveniently forget that slavery is still practiced by natives in Africa, Asia and elsewhere.

    So, yes, it looks like the woke are digging their own grave (and everybody else's) like the Russian radicals who supported the revolution only to be liquidated by Lenin and Stalin after the event. I'm not sure if Lenin actually used the phrase but "useful idiots" seems like an apt description.

    The question is whether the anti-capitalist, anti-western and anti-white left acts on its own or with the collaboration and support of rogue elements within the capitalist camp who share the left's agenda to monopolize financial, economic, and political power and abolish democracy.
  • Belief in god is necessary for being good.
    Genocide. Evil or good? — tim wood

    I've already discussed that with Olivier5 (see my quotes from Marx and Engels, etc.) but you must have been on some other planet or state of mind and missed it. Not my fault.

    Anyway, you've lost the argument and are now trying to change the subject. You aren't going to get very far with it.

    God is omnipotent. Omnipotent means having infinite power and freedom of will, knowledge and action.

    God is also omnibenevolent which means having perfect or unlimited benevolence.

    However, God’s omnibenevolence is governed by his omnipotence, i.e., his infinite power and freedom of will.

    Therefore, although God’s omnibenevolence is theoretically “unlimited”, it can be limited in its practical application as and when God sees fit, without this affecting his omnibenevolence in any significant way.

    By analogy, a billionaire who has a billion bucks in his bank account but only uses some of that, does not cease to be a billionaire.

    God’s benevolence manifests itself in his creation of an ordered universe in which human life is possible. Human life in general is good. Suffering is mostly the result of actions performed by humans and other creatures, not by God. There is some suffering, but on the whole, life is a happy experience. Suffering is an exception and its impact too insignificant to affect God’s universal benevolence.

    Moreover, suffering may serve a greater good and, therefore, represent a manifestation of benevolence. For example, it may be punishment for previous transgressions and serve to uphold the principle of justice; it may serve to make souls better beings and thus enhance the goodness of the universe, etc., etc.

    Everything is a matter of perspective. If you stubbornly stick to your own perspective and refuse to consider other people's views, then you're not discussing anything, you're just talking to yourself. Which you are free to do on your own.
  • Belief in god is necessary for being good.
    There's no 'necessity' to anything if an omnipotent being exists, for an omnipotent being can do anything. — Bartricks

    Correct. Omnipotence comes first. Everything else flows and follows from that. They can't accept omnipotence and then twist and turn it to suit their own agenda because it is just illogical and a waste of time.
  • Board Game Racism
    So it's not rude to point a giant spotlight at the origins of western civilisation, and criticise particularly and relentlessly in terms of modern day moral values - values that Western civilisation only latterly developed — counterpunch

    I tend to agree that it doesn't make sense to single out Westerners for criticism. Slavery, for example, existed for many centuries in Ancient Egypt, and other parts of Africa, Asia and the Americas before it became widespread in the Roman Empire and its European successors.

    If we condemn something we should condemn all perpetrators not just Europeans. So, it does look like there is a political and potentially racist agenda here.
  • Philosphical Poems
    If it doesn't for you, that's just the way things go. — T Clark

    Or how the cookie crumbles.
  • Belief in god is necessary for being good.
    ↪praxis


    He doesn't need to control us stricto sensu, he only needs to keep us under control (in the same way riot police might control a mob) so we don't disturb too much the order of the world he created. If we do, then we get punished for it. People are beginning to learn the lesson, they are kinder to one another, they care more about animals and the environment, etc. It's a slow process, but we're getting there. So his plan seems to be working.

    Anyway, it is just a logical consideration or explanation from a theistic perspective. Nothing to get upset about.
  • Belief in god is necessary for being good.
    ↪praxis


    As already stated:

    Souls need to have some freedom of choice and assume responsibility for their actions, otherwise there would be no justice and without justice there would be no benevolence. — Apollodorus

    As for genocides, etc., it was humans who did it, not God.

    The world may be "imperfect" in the eyes of some people, but it isn't for them to decide. Plus you can always create your own if you don't like it.
  • Belief in god is necessary for being good.
    First, not my definition.
    Second, "unlimited" means unlimited, not limited.
    Third, omni- means all.     — tim wood

    I know it isn't "your definition” but it was the definition that you yourself decided to choose. Are you retracting it now?

    Edit. You need to start from the fact that God is omnipotent which implies absolute power and freedom of will which means he can do as he pleases irrespective of what humans think of it.

    As for "unlimited", etc., see my previous post.

    From what I see you've already lost the argument, though I'm not surprised that you aren't perspicacious enough to realize it or man enough to admit it.

    Your problem stems from the fact that you choose to ignore the other side's arguments which essentially means that you're talking to yourself. If that’s what you want, fine. End of the story.

    But if you're serious about having a discussion then you need to consider the counter-arguments to your claims. So, it’s your choice.

    Anyway, from a theistic point of view, God isn’t a charity organization. His job is to govern the universe and keep the human race and other creatures under control, not to be nice to people. He manifests his love for humans by creating them, providing for them and rewarding them according to their actions, like a good father. That's why in Christianity and other religions he is called “Father”.

    If suffering is your problem, it is no proof of absence of benevolence. As I said, it may serve a greater good, it may be punishment for previous transgressions, it may serve to make souls better beings, etc., etc. Souls need to have some freedom of choice and assume responsibility for their actions, otherwise there would be no justice and without justice there would be no benevolence.
  • Belief in god is necessary for being good.
    Or will you argue that every thing that has happened is simply evidence of God's manifest unlimited goodness? — tim wood

    Your own definition says "perfect or unlimited goodness"

    noun (with reference to a deity) perfect or unlimited goodness." — tim wood

    Why do you insist on the "unlimited" bit and forget about "perfect"?

    Plus, there is no law that says that "unlimited" must be taken in the absolute sense of the word. If God is in control of his own benevolence then it is for him to decide how to implement it. If it is "perfect" or "unlimited" from his perspective then it doesn't matter how people see it.

    Edit. In other words, "unlimited benevolence" means unlimited by anyone else. God may still limit his own benevolence as he pleases. And even "evil" may count as benevolence if it is in the service of a greater good.

    Ergo, no problem.
  • What happens to consciousness when we die?
    But the concept of "consciousness" seems imply inherently, if it exists, then it would make contact, communicate and interact. — Corvus

    You don't know that it doesn't make contact, communicate and interact. For example, inspiration, artistic, scientific, or religious, may partly come from disembodied souls.

    When consciousness is asleep or in dreams without its presiding bodies, would it be meaningful to even call it consciousness? — Corvus

    That question is based on the unproven assumption that consciousness can't exist independently of a physical body. Does a body at rest cease to be a body? Disembodied consciousness may perfectly well experience states of rest or sleep, after which it is reborn into a new body and forgets its previous existence.

    Besides, consciousness after death is said to inhabit a body (called ochema in Platonism) that is similar to the physical one but made of a more subtle form of substance.

    According to Ian Stevenson children sometimes seem to remember aspects of former lives for a few years until memories fade away and the child's consciousness becomes fully integrated with its new existence.
  • What happens to consciousness when we die?
    Ah, that "disembodied consciousness" chimera again. — 180 Proof

    It's only a "chimera" to those who are afraid of the unknown. That's where anti-materialism diverges from materialism. Human knowledge constantly progresses and expands. What may seem a "chimera" today could become established fact tomorrow. We can't stay stuck in the materialist past for ever. Science may even find ways of extending consciousness beyond death. IMO philosophy is about expanding consciousness and knowledge, not restricting it.
  • What happens to consciousness when we die?
    However, "consciousness after the death of consciousness" makes no sense whatsoever except as wishful thinking. — 180 Proof

    However, the issue is not "consciousness after the death of consciousness" but consciousness after the death of the physical body or separation of the former from the latter.
  • What happens to consciousness when we die?
    Surely if their consciousness exist somewhere in some form, they would have (tried to) contacted us? — Corvus

    Not necessarily. Maybe some of them try but fail to establish contact except through dreams and visions, etc. that, unfortunately, can be explained away as imagination.

    Also, they may go into a state of sleep, be reborn or otherwise be engaged in activities or experiences that impede contact with the living.
  • Heraclitus Changes His Mind On Whether Parmenides Can Change His Mind
    Ideas, the mind's stock-in-trade don't move, right? — TheMadFool

    You mean ideas as in Platonic Ideas or Forms or ideas we have in the mind in everyday consciousness?

    If the latter, they probably don't move in the sense of running around or moving house, but they do change which implies some form of movement at least in time if not in space.
  • Belief in god is necessary for being good.
    Not sure any economic theory "holds water" though. — Olivier5

    That's what I'm trying to say, I only gave Marx as an example because he is held by some (including those who never read him) to be some kind of economic genius and a panacea to economic problems when in fact in Capital he tends to describe more than prescribe. And because we had already mentioned him in the discussion. If it isn't Marxism, it's Keynesianism or some other -ism. They're ALL the same, just theory.

    I'm not angry at all. It may sound that way when I'm typing fast while doing other things at the same time. People do have a life outside this forum. So, I wouldn't read too much into it. Anyway, you have a great day.
  • Heraclitus Changes His Mind On Whether Parmenides Can Change His Mind
    Or a very very slow-changing background. — spirit-salamander

    Not necessarily very very slow in all circumstances, but certainly slower than the changes taking place in the changing object. Ultimately, even the very very slow-changing background may necessitate an absolutely non-changing reality as a point of reference. And when you get to that point, then presumably, you go beyond change and beyond time and find yourself somewhere else that at the same time is already here.
  • Heraclitus Changes His Mind On Whether Parmenides Can Change His Mind
    I have a feeling that Zeno's paradoxes eventually lead up to the debate between rationalism and empiricism because motion is impossible if, well, you think about it (mathematically that is) but motion is actual/possible if we observe it. — TheMadFool

    We need to remember that ancient philosophers were not messing about, they took their job of discovering truth seriously even though we may sometimes doubt their suggestions or conclusions when we analyze them from a modern perspective.

    But Zeno's paradoxes and Socrates' questions tend to remind me of the koans of Zen Buddhism which have the same function as Socrates' questions of bringing the mind to a state of perplexity in order to assist it in attaining higher or enhanced levels of consciousness or obtain insights into reality that would otherwise remain out of reach.

    By the way, did you know about anekantavada before or have you just happened to come across it now?
Home » Apollodorus