Debunking Atheism - Ep. 1; Afterlives

READ THIS!

An easier-to-follow version of my work in progress, "The Death Paradox", which may end up being a part of a series as a rational alternative to atheism.

I have concluded that consciousness behaves differently than particles, so it shouldn't really matter what the brain is doing. It's sort of a paradox in itself really.

There are a few cases in which its most accurate to summarize consciousness as all the instances of the phenomena collectively. IE, so long is there is heat+oxygen+fuel there is fire -- likewise, so long as there is a brain, there is you. This model of representation SOMETIMES works: For example, if one was to be vapourized and then reassembled molecule-by-molecule by a machine perfectly, the only reasonable conclusion would be that the person who was originally vapourized would be brought back to life. It would be the same as modern neurosurgery which involves temporarily stopping all brain activity.

Then there is the rest of the time in which its most accurate to represent consciousness as a single spark, because there are likely trillions of brains in our universe that are capable of consciousness, yet like individual sparks, they are separate from one another and exist independently.
This representation has to be true most of the time or else we'd be conscious in multiple bodies at once and consciousness wouldn't make sense.

However, the flaw in either representation is that both the collective model (represented by all the fire in existance), and the separative model (represented by a single spark) need to be unified into one single theory, and its probable that afterlives would be something to draw into the picture through doing so.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• science
• atheism
• afterlife

[Cyruscosis]

As Eleanor Roosevelt said "I don't think it would be any more unusual for me to show up in another life, than showing up in this one!"

[Protectourbioshpere]

@WhiteDragon103 lol this is the part where I point out the irony of you mentioning our shortsightedness. Humans can both be a wonderful thing to the environment around them, or a completely destructive force. Unfortunately most of us are the latter. If and only if people as a whole would decide that every ecosystem on the planet is worth maintaining (even though it means sacrifice on our part) would I say that human longevity is progress. Meanwhile we are too damn greedy...

[WhiteDragon103]

@Protectourbioshpere Human longevity is not a part of progress? Okay then.

[Protectourbioshpere]

@WhiteDragon103 I have a life outside of youtube man, but I still read the back comments to know what I was talking about....

Anyway, you basically restated my point in a different way. "so long as we stop being short sighted" I agree completely, and if we don't then we will destroy ourselves. In the meantime there are allot of organisms being harmed directly by our recklessness.

As far as progress retardant, I disagree. We just have a different view as to what progress looks like....

[WhiteDragon103]

@Protectourbioshpere Took you long enough. Perhaps if you had answered sooner the discussion would have been fresh in my mind.

As for your comment, it's progress retardant hogwash. It is entirely possible and likely that we will continue to develop without killing ourselves, so long as we stop being short-sighted.

[Protectourbioshpere]

@WhiteDragon103 Read the previous comments... You basically advocated longevity in humans, and stated that "Our planet is here to sustain life, not just float around in space". My point was that with our current set of ideals and values it would not be so great for the rest of the world if there were more of us, or if we were longer lived.

[WhiteDragon103]

@Protectourbioshpere The fuck are you talking about?

[Protectourbioshpere]

@WhiteDragon103 The planet will float here regardless of what we do. The problem is that the resources will not be. Aside from how completely horrible and wrong it to knowing cause extinctions to greedily expand your race, the end result will be our deaths as well. If that is what you mean by quality of life then count me out. If we cannot learn to live in equilibrium like the rest of the world, all of the things we love about it will die....

[WhiteDragon103]

@Protectourbioshpere The answer is really not that simple. We must not stop trying to improve quality of life (and length of life is a factor in this) when we encounter a roadblock. Our planet is here to sustain life, and to maintain a quality of life, not just to float around in space and do nothing.

[Protectourbioshpere]

@WhiteDragon103 The over supply of humans is what is crippling our planet as we speak. Making us live forever with our current set of ideals would be a very bad thing.

[CrazyBluePrime]

@Protectourbioshpere

From what I gather of his theory, if your brain was perfectly created elsewhere by any means, it would be the same as you being alive again. In theory it could be possible to test this if you were able to scan a brain and copy it exactly atom for atom. But I don't think it does anything to change the original brain, it would just be like cloning.

IMO, after you die will be like before you were conceived. No brain = No consciousness.