Topic: The case for an afterlife is very simple. (Read 2236 times)

Interesting comments. Is metamorphosis a kind of reincarnation? 
Are sperm and eggs conscious?

Still, I see no evidence of any kind for a continuation of consciousness after life ceases. Even though an overwhelming majority of humanity believes in an "afterlife".

I'd say different. If the process was just a little bit different we might consider the caterpillar to have been eaten.

While we're considering related questions:

Is there any consciousness in a human egg or sperm cell? What about the moment after the sperm penetrates the cell wall of the egg? If so, how does consciousness come into existence at that point? If not, at what point does the new human become conscious?

For sure. But here's a question with a slightly less obvious answer:

After a caterpillar spins its cocoon, all of its body dissolves into what is essentially a soup of organic molecules, which reassemble themselves into a moth or a butterfly. Assuming the caterpillar was conscious, and that the moth or butterfly is conscious, is it the same consciousness or a different one?

That is what my guess is also. There is nothing to indicate otherwise.

i think once your dead thats it.

I wonder if everybody here will remember to mention his BTCs in his testament (and if their survivors will be able to use them).
Otherwise a slow (and then increasingly faster) die-off of BTC may well be in the cards, given the limited production.

I said consciousness is infinite and that this is self-evident.

I'm not debating the thing. Some posters are saying it is self evident, that infinite ---> everything happens over and over. That's not true.

Even in 'random universe' if the space of possibilities has higher cardinality than the amount of time then the chance you'll see the same random thing twice is 0.

Indeed, however, counting is linear while the universe is more likely random. Assuming the universe is indeed infinite and completely random, there ought to be an individual with the exact same configuration of particles (including the brain) which means at some point you would have an individual with the exact same memories, position and thoughts as you at one point in your life.

However, I suppose it depends on your definition of "your consciousness". Does it requires to be continuous to still be yourself (never interrupted) or would you consider the mere replication of a state of your consciousness to be reincarnation?

I would personally say it requires to be continuous consciousness where this consciousness would stay after death and move on to become another "live" being to be called "reincarnation". (Under the more traditional definition of reincarnation where your consciousness returns into a new shell)

Unless there's an unlikely case where, for example:
~~~~~~~~~~~
 The electrons in our brain interfere with something not yet detectable with our technology and it creates interferences into this "fabric like thing" that is vaguely interacting with the known physical universe, interferences which would be what we could call a consciousness (and this "consciousness" would interfere with currents in our brain and could survive the death of a creature and attach to another one being formed.) Effectively emulating surviving consciousness and reincarnation (with loss of memory)[/quote]
then I guess reincarnation is unlikely with the traditional definition.
~~~~~~~~~~~

So instead of debating things that cannot be verified just like this made up scenario, why not write some science-fiction with similar contents where people discover how to interact with it and find ways to literally blast to bits your consciousness opening a new era of weaponry, politics and conflicts, all for our own entertainment of course?

We are only sure of being conscious for as long as our brain does not die out. Why not enjoy that until those questions about the afterlife answers themselves when the time comes?

There are an infinite amount of natural numbers, but if you count properly you'll never pass a number twice.

More like self-evident.

Then there is the pesky problem of no evidence at all.

This is as deep as the Matrix trilogy.

Or maybe Frank Tipler is on to something?

Consciousness is infinite and distributes over reality.  When consciousness applies will (intention) to identify with some stratified condition, you have the cause of mind/body consciousness.

As long as this cause is still there, it will continue to manifest itself.

Removing the cause removes continual manifestation, but it does not remove consciousness.

the poignant question is: what is the "you" that will be reincarnated?

There is no separate self. Separate identity is an illusion; a mental fiction about an abstract entity called "I".

Every incarnation is the one; god experiencing itself.

I don't know what Atlas argued because I have him blocked, but I bet he makes an equivocation fallacy.  That is, he doesn't mean reincarnation to mean what everyone else thinks it means.

The entire problem with reincarnation is what makes a thing "You".  Does the loss of memory make "you" not you anymore?  If I copy my memory into a clone then is that thing me?   Every time I have heard of someone explaining (justifying) reincarnation they either argue that our memories are carried over from past lives (why not future?) or they argue our "energy" forms into a new person or animal (why not a rock?).  

I don't believe it is certain that all possibilities will happen.  (I also don't see how that is relevant.)

How do you know your consciousness is unique?  Are you assuming it is continuous through time but not space (or "realities")?  TO me, it is very odd to say something is unique when it isn't even a thing?  

The effects of time can be changed as you approach the speed of light so time travel is possible forward in time but not back in time before the time of the creation of the first time-machine (time-machine = wormhole or area of warped space-time - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel#Tourism_in_time ) but for my two-satoshi worth I reckon the creation of time-travel will be the creation of the next big-bang.

Isn't the movement of energy and matter time alone?

How can anything change without time?