Additional Questions

[spectre]

If the forms of this world die, which is more real: the me that dies or the me that's infinite? Can I trust my habitual mind or do I need to learn to look beneath those things?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Considering there's no reason to beleive any of you is infinite, it's impossible to say.

[spectre]

prove im finite and then well talk business

[Gods_Mercenary]

You will die, medicine proves this. No one will ever talk to you or see you again. Even you do not deny that you will cease to exist in the material world, and there is no proof of another world.

[spectre]

not true, i know people die, but unless my own death can be proven to me, i can't accept it as fact. And neither can you - accept that I'm going to die. (Ok, I am being a dick, but I do raise a particular point here)

[Gods_Mercenary]

No, it is a medical fact that you will die. Unless the science of medicine undergoes a completely unforeseen change, you will die, I guarantee it personally.

[ryanatau]

Quote by: spectre not true, i know people die, but unless my own death can be proven to me, i can't accept it as fact. And neither can you - accept that I'm going to die. (Ok, I am being a dick, but I do raise a particular point here)

Damn that David Hume!

Its hard to answer this only because it has been answered in numerous ways and all of the answers that I am familiar with depend on what the nature of God is. But independent of this I think we would have to define "real" and "more real." Personally, I think if there is a distinction between soul or mind and corporeality neither would be more real. In the sense that they are differing aspects of existence. I think another thing, which is implied in the question, is what type of existence would there be if we survived death, in whatever form? I don't think it is possible to have individuality without perspective and perception. However, in this question it is difficult because after death we would be a being who had perspective though no long has perspective or perception beyond introspection. This could be interpreted two ways. Either only the rational part of us survives which is undistinguished from other beings rational part and thus we become one; or we lose identity because we are no longer connected to anyone else, as it seems that our only connection to other people is through our material environment, and thus we lose identity in that there is nothing to distinguish the "I" if the is not a not "I" or something that is not me.

Back to what it means for a being to lose perspective. It also could be, rather than what I said before, that because we once had a perspective we will continue to remember our perspective even after death and thus keep our individuality and have a personal immortality. I can't at all give a reason as to what I believe, but I can say that if we survive death I would think that we would tend towards a unifying whole. I emphasis tend because I think was we age in this eternity our defining characteristics will diminish as we are disconnected from that which distinguishes us. And as this happens, as we lose ourselves because of the infinite gap between individuals, we would actually tend to unite. Unite as we lose our individuality and our distinguishing characteristics because there is nothing to distinguish us.

I guess I didn't really answer your question but I answered a similar one. As for trust in your habitual mind I don't know what you mean. Do you mean can you trust it to solve this problem? Could you trust it after death? I think you mean the first so thats what I will respond to. No. Which is sort of the problem with answering these question because it is unclear how much we can "know" that is not part of the habitual mind.

[ryanatau]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary No, it is a medical fact that you will die. Unless the science of medicine undergoes a completely unforeseen change, you will die, I guarantee it personally.

What spectre is saying, I think, is that we cannot prove that any one person will die. You can show that everyone who has ever lived died but that does not mean everyone who will ever live will die. Its the Problem of Induction. It is impossible to create a certain Universal principle from Particular facts. In order to say that all people will die from the fact that all people, besides those living, have died you would have to prove that nature is uniform. In order to prove the uniformity of nature we would have to appeal to an inductive argument. Which means in order to prove that induction works we must prove the Uniformity of Nature. And to do this we must use an inductive argument, the very type of argument we are attempting to justify.

[spectre]

Ryanatau hit it on the head what I was saying here:

not true, i know people die, but unless my own death can be proven to me, i can't accept it as fact. And neither can you - accept that I'm going to die. (Ok, I am being a dick, but I do raise a particular point here)

And I want to emphasise that I was REALLY being a dick with this one.

Also, the original question in its entirety was a quote from a movie, and I wanted to see the responses to this quote. (Real question is what movie?)

As for Ryanataus first post. - Pure excellence. After death we are longer living, and no long have individual perspective to define us, all that means is that we are then whole and infinite and because we no longer are, we are free to simply exist as all and nothing. Seeing we are all and nothing, that means we are the span of time too, which relativitely speaking is infinite, so transcending (but including in what we are) time, we are then eternal.

Good work Ryanatau.

[rez]

Quote by: spectre all that means is that we are then whole and infinite and because we no longer are, we are free to simply exist as all and nothing.

"we" are not whole and infinite because "we" don't exist after death.

Sure, the molecules, cells, and atoms that make up our body exist after death, but thats not what our designed intention was.

Our designed intention was to reproduce to combat diseases. Humans didn't evolve to "exist as all and nothing".

Seeing we are all and nothing, that means we are the span of time too, which relativitely speaking is infinite, so transcending (but including in what we are) time, we are then eternal. Good work Ryanatau.

What is the point though? It is a great story, but what does this mean? Why do you think you should give yourself meaning?

[spectre]

Because you can, seeing you exist, you get the choice you don't have to have any meaning but if you want your life to mean something thats up to you (the purpose of life is a life of purpose)....(If you realise your life has no meaning that gives you the opportunity to give it one, or you want to reduce that opportunity too?)

Now you're talking about humans...

We are already all and nothing (not just humans) we are part of what is known as - existance.

When you die, your not human are you? The human form dies, and then you are not human, your not even alive. But existance still takes place, and your experience of no-self being, is still a thing, because nothing is still an aspect of existance, so your free to exist as nothing amidst everything else.

[spectre]

Essentially liberated from constrictions of existential limitations.

[Jack]

When you die, your not human are you? The human form dies, and then you are not human, your not even alive. But existance still takes place, and your experience of no-self being, is still a thing, because nothing is still an aspect of existance, so your free to exist as nothing amidst everything else.

These are two different contexts for the concept of self.

The pre-death you is commonly perceived as the corporal body and all the processes that occur within it, including consciousness. This you can perceive itself, it's self-aware.

The post-death you, your constituent parts, the individual atoms and smaller particles that once formed your body, will lack self-awareness, will lack consciousness as we now understand it. They'll go back to being unique living entities of their own, they'll retain nothing of the part they once played in being you. You may be eternal at that level of life, but you won't be enjoying it in the same way you are aware of this level of life.

[spectre]

Who said anyone enjoyed life anyway, or post-life nondual awareness. These are different aspects of self. They are self (ego) Self (nondual), and both are important, one infinite the other finite. There is only one Self, however, and that is the "whole" that ryanathau spoke of. One is the changing face you have now, the other is the original face you had before your parents were born (to steal the koan from zen).

[Jack]

One is the changing face you have now, the other is the original face you had before your parents were born (to steal the koan from zen).

Which I see as a more poetic and elegant way of saying what I did. The face you had before your parents were born is the same face you will have after you die. We are non-existent in this universe for a longer period of time than we are existent, except than in our pre-life and post-life, time as we now perceive it has no meaning.

[spectre]

Exactly, that time of non-being is infinite, which is the infinite Self. At this point you are no longer who you are now, but as existance is infinite (there is always something) and we are not seperate as we work in inter-relation to our environment, then the perceptual boundary of ego-self (current existance) is then removed. Call it poetic - existing does have emotion, so there is no reason not to be poetic about it - especially if it gets the point across. Poetic abstract description is sometimes the best at explaining abstract transrational ideas.

Essentially liberated from constrictions of existential limitations.

[Sweet Katie]

There is much incomplete information in your statements.

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary You will die, medicine proves this. No one will ever talk to you or see you again.

This cannot be proven to be a fact.

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Even you do not deny that you will cease to exist in the material world, and there is no proof of another world.

There is no proof that there is NOT another world either and the lack of proof does not equal your conclusion when the technology to valid assumptions is not available.

[Gods_Mercenary]

You are asserting that medicine as we know it does allow for immortality? Science is an evolving thing, it could change, but Jesus could come down tomorrow and then we'd be wong too.

Lack of proof is no reason to assume something does exist. The proper take would be one of agnosticism , in which case we shouldn't even take a spirit world into discuddion until further evidence can be found.

[Lullaby Chainer]

So basically this can be summed up by..

1. Some people accept the world around them as is.

2. Some people think there are more worlds and find comfort in the fact that their claims can't be tested or disproved.

3. Some people try to get fancy with capitalizing words like "self" in order to make it seem like being dead is another form of existing just because the atoms that once made up your body still reside in the universe.

The first group is just plain honest with no strings attached and no need to make stuff up to feel more comfortable about dying.

The second group has a awkward sense of rationality in that they think just because you can think it and no one can prove you wrong and it gives you a nice feeling, that's good enough reason to believe it.

The last group is basically amounting someone's meaningful life as just a bunch of atoms in order to make a stupid point.

Or is that just me?

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer So basically this can be summed up by.. 1. Some people accept the world around them as is. 2. Some people think there are more worlds and find comfort in the fact that their claims can't be tested or disproved. 3. Some people try to get fancy with capitalizing words like "self" in order to make it seem like being dead is another form of existing just because the atoms that once made up your body still reside in the universe. The first group is just plain honest with no strings attached and no need to make stuff up to feel more comfortable about dying. The second group has a awkward sense of rationality in that they think just because you can think it and no one can prove you wrong and it gives you a nice feeling, that's good enough reason to believe it. The last group is basically amounting someone's meaningful life as just a bunch of atoms in order to make a stupid point. Or is that just me?

Just you.

How can you say your just accepting the world as it is when you have no evidence life after death doesn't exist? Your still confirming your own belief to yourself that there is no afterlife and expecting everyone else to follow suit

I'd call an agnostic approach the better choice in a world with no definite proof. Life after death may exist or not but we don't know so we'll just find out. At least the possibility is considered although it's not dwelt on or rejected in two different extremes.