I pointed out that the continuation of some form of life for the individual after the individual's body has died is not logically contradictory or incoherent, however implausible you might think it is. — Janus
But as for afterlife, you’re otherwise proposing an unknown concept that you just attribute life to. We don’t know how to make sense of a disembodied life because we never observed such a thing, unlike molecular constructions, the problem is not just lack of data. — Saphsin
It's only incoherent if you conceive of life as inseparably linked to the body, to physicality. This does seem a most plausible assumption, but it remains an assumption. — Janus
A believer in afterlife doesn't have to believe in disembodied consciousness, they might conceivably believe that upon death, all your consciousness gets 'uploaded' to the matrix and placed in a new body for you in your 'afterlife'. Of course for your consciousness to be able to do this it needs to be able to be separated from your body, but one can imagine some logically possible system where consciousness needs a body to function, but can still be transferred without a body, in the same way that software needs an operating system to be executable, but the code can still be copied. Is this a completely scientifically illiterate stretch? — coolazice
But what if your body goes somewhere else when you die? Maybe the dead body is not your body in the sense that your new body is. Reincarnation happens when all the cells of your body are new. A resurrected body is the essence of your body as it passes through life and is in a new place. Think of Elijah on a chariot — Gregory
Or are you, like all the pseduo-philosohical charlatans, just playing with words? Just throwing words together because grammar allows you and then 'speculating' about it isn't philosophy. It's infantile. — StreetlightX
And I'm sure plenty of people have thought - through whatever linguistic shuffling - that square circles are possible on the basis of subtle circles and subtle squares or some nonsense. — StreetlightX
LOL, that's arrant nonsense: you're clutching at straws now. — Janus
That's it; when all else fails, resort to insult and mischaracterization of your interlocutor — Janus
Analogy: legless walking. :roll: "Living" predicates "body" (not the other way around), and misuse of a predicate as a noun (i.e. reification fallacy such as platonic forms, essentialism, etc) yields conceptual incoherence such as "disembodied life" and "disembodied mind".I have no[t] seen a single cogent or convincing argument that demonstrates that the idea of disembodied life is incoherent. — Janus
Analogy: legless walking. — 180 Proof
Is consciosuness the kind of thing that can be reified like this? Because as far as we know, consciousness is consciousness-of: it is a product of a process of self-relation that enables situating oneself in an environment so as to act within it. — StreetlightX
The most charitably I can put it is this: the afterlifer is after something so radically different from life that it would simply have nothing to do with what we understand as life. It would be something wholly different that one could not even call it an afterlife. But what, exactly, would that be? Once the afterlife becomes unmoored from anything recognizable as life, then what conceptual bearings do we have to even talk of it? And here, the concept needs to be defined, long, long, long before any search for 'evidence' would even be remotely contemplated. — StreetlightX
It is (again, logically) conceivable that upon death the consciousness continues to float without the body as in a OBE, latches onto some phantom limb, etc... with the original body remaining mute and thus unable to clarify the 'experience' of the consciousness. — coolazice
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.