Philosophy
An Interesting Proof for an Afterlife?
First, I would like to thank everyone for the comments and contributions to the discussion so far. I am not trying to win a debate, and I think it is an interesting conversation.
Once again, to be clear, I am not here to fight or disregard anyone’s views. I am open to discussion and believe in freedom of thought, speech and the ability to express one’s views. Even if that means we can never see eye to eye on a topic.
After reading the response of Britni Pepper I have taken time out to learn more about her views and what she believes. Her article is below:
Although her counter-argument was thought-provoking, I could not believe it. There were also great comments made by Edward Robson, PhD, who led me to think about the logical argument. I will respond to you at the end of the article.
Just to mention, this argument is not my own but came from a renowned reformed teacher R. C. Sproul. I enjoy listening to his understanding of the world and his ideas are insightful.
Not to preach or anything, but if you did like my last article, you may like what he has to say on other philosophical matters. Anyway, without further to do, here is my short and simple response to Britni.
My Understanding of Consciousness
To understand the argument I presented, you must know what I think about consciousness.
According to Sigmund Freud, we have three levels of consciousness. The conscious, subconscious/preconscious and unconscious. All of these three things make up a conscious individual, but all play very different roles.
The consciousness includes all the things we are aware of, such as the things we know about ourselves and our surroundings.
The pre-consciousness consists of things we can pay conscious attention to if we are much desired in ourselves, and it is where many memories are stored for easy retrieval when needed.
The unconsciousness includes all the things that are outside of our conscious awareness, including many memories, thoughts, and impulses that we are not aware of. — Longdom.org
For me, it is important to make a clear distinction between the three. Two contain memories that we can access or not, and one does not. Yes, consciousness includes things we know about ourselves. But that knowledge can change if we are in a different environment.
The longer we stay on this Earth, the less we think about our actions and the decisions we make. A study even reveals that much of our decision making is unconscious to ensure our brain is not always overloaded with new information.
So, we spend much of our time in the unconscious and subconscious. And that tells us a lot about who we perceive ourselves to be.
Why I Reject an Infinite Chain of Perfect Conditions
I enjoyed reading your article, but I can not accept a chain of perfect conditions. In the article you write:
“When the conditions are right, consciousness appears. It is the same across the cosmos, because it underlies the matter of creation, just as a star forms when there is enough matter and energy, whether nearby, or at some immense distance.”
You also use the example of a cloud appearing when the conditions are perfect. The problem is, the conditions to make the cloud must also be just right. And all those other things behind those things too.
Down to the atomic structures and things that we can not even observe must be just right for the cloud to appear. I am not sure if you are familiar with Aristotle’s idea of an infinite chain of movers, but he argues that everything in our existence has been moved/forced by something else.
And your argument is consistent with that idea. The cloud and consciousness are moved by something else. But Aristotle rejects the idea of an infinite series of moved movers, and I do too.
For the cloud to appear, an infinite chain of “just right” conditions was moved and appeared just in time for the cloud to form. So then, if everything is a chain of perfect conditions with no deeper meaning, there is no substance in anything at all.
And you agree with that conclusion by stating:
“… not because a cloud has any substance in itself but because it is what we label a region of atmosphere where water vapour is visible.”
However, I think our very search for substance and meaning is a sign of something deeper than that model. Even Friedrich Nietzsche had to result to accepting he was on the search for some meaning:
“To live is to suffer, to survive is to find some meaning in your suffering.”
Aristotle believed that there must be an unmoved mover that started the chain of movers. That includes the clouds, stars, and our consciousness. Whatever you believe that to be, it must be outside of our physical laws or else something would have moved it.
I do not think we can escape the desire to find meaning in all things, including ourselves. And whether biological and chemical processes are responsible for that or an inner soul, there still appears to be a search for substance.
And I believe that search is a result of our consciousness/soul trying to find our true selves outside of the bounded laws of our physical reality.
Why I Think You Do Believe in Substance and Meaning
I read up on Advaita Vedanta, and I like the concept. It paints a view of how we perceive what is real. However, if you hold this belief, you still ultimately believe there is substance in something.
“The term Advaita refers to the idea that Brahman alone is ultimately real. The phenomenal, transient world is an illusory appearance (maya) of Brahman, and the true self, atman, is not different from Brahman.[2][3][4]”
If this is true, then we can still all accept that we are mere reflections. Like a mirror, the reflection is not you, but it appears to be because there is substance elsewhere.
So, why can consciousness not be a reflection of Brahman’s eternal substance? Or, in my terms, why can our consciousness not be a reflection of the eternal state of energy?
Also, just out of curiosity, do you think this view is similar to the simulation view? One could argue that we are not real, and smarter beings are running a simulation. So, they are the real ones, and we are just a result of their substance.
A Short Response to Edward Robson, PhD
You posed some great questions and responses to the argument, and I would like to respond to them here.
But without those attributes — my memories, my sense of being me — how can that remnant be considered “me” at all?
I do not believe our memories or anything that happens to us in time define who we are. As mentioned above, consciousness for me is the knowledge of ourselves and our surroundings. So, it is not rigid to our experiences. It is fluid and can change depending on our environment.
The search for meaning comes from our consciousness trying to know its true self outside the realms of our physical laws. It is to know oneself regardless of the surroundings, experiences you have had or place you are in.
And I believe that knowledge of self is eternal and not bound to time, space or matter. It is that knowledge of self that many call our souls and will inevitably be with us always.
You Have a Reductive Argument
Yes, you are right! It is reductive. Unfortunately, I was not planning to write a book on this topic. My intention was only to encourage thought, not to give rigorous proof.
I am a strong believer in simplifying things as best as possible for people to understand. Even so, I agree with you that the observer effect does prove to us that nothing is 100% accurate or as it seems.
Someone Being Religious Says Nothing about Their Beliefs on the Afterlife
Once again, I agree with you here. I only raised the point to show that many still come from homes that act as though life has a greater meaning. In one way or the other, they have been brought up to believe that their actions could reap future reward or damnation.
And these views are essential for how one lives on Earth today. They also influence people’s beliefs about the afterlife.
Closing Thoughts
I am still on my journey and seek to hear as many views as possible. So, please continue to chip into the conversation with your opinions.
Thanks for all your support so far.