Inductive Proof of the Afterlife?
- Thread starter n9newunsixx5150
- Start date
Yes. What others will or will not do in absence of your existence is irrelevant to this argument.
Then are you arguing that this argument lacks cogency? Do the premises, if true, not lead to the conclusion? If so, how?
No. If the premises are true and you agree that they warrant the conclusion (cogency) then it proves that not only are people who are born exist, but that they can not cease to exist. Your point about part of your body continuing to exist is not the same as what this argument allegedly proves. If this argument holds up, then it proves mind-body dualism. That is to say, it proves that you continue to exist after the physical body is dead. It doesn't prove what the afterlife is specifically. It doesn't say anything about heaven or hell or anything like that. It simply shows that you - as a conscious being - can not cease to exist and therefore have an "afterlife" of some sort or other.
Then are you arguing that this argument lacks cogency? Do the premises, if true, not lead to the conclusion? If so, how?
No. If the premises are true and you agree that they warrant the conclusion (cogency) then it proves that not only are people who are born exist, but that they can not cease to exist. Your point about part of your body continuing to exist is not the same as what this argument allegedly proves. If this argument holds up, then it proves mind-body dualism. That is to say, it proves that you continue to exist after the physical body is dead. It doesn't prove what the afterlife is specifically. It doesn't say anything about heaven or hell or anything like that. It simply shows that you - as a conscious being - can not cease to exist and therefore have an "afterlife" of some sort or other.
The problem is actually the size of the graphic. When the graphic is so huge that it forces others visiting the thread to scroll sideways, it is a bit of a nuisance.
Anyway, what do you mean to imply by that graphic? If you think this topic assumes something to exist that you reject, then you are mistaken. The argument posed in this thread is an attempt at employing logic. It does not presuppose that God exists or anything like that. If you find one or more discrepancies with any of the premises or with the cogency of this argument, then your contribution to the discussion is much appreciated.
Anyway, what do you mean to imply by that graphic? If you think this topic assumes something to exist that you reject, then you are mistaken. The argument posed in this thread is an attempt at employing logic. It does not presuppose that God exists or anything like that. If you find one or more discrepancies with any of the premises or with the cogency of this argument, then your contribution to the discussion is much appreciated.
but this is supposed to prove that you cannot not exist, right? my examples weren't what other's will or will not do in absence of one's existence, it was more of one person imagining themselves not being alive. and now that I realize that life and death have nothing to do with "existence" you can replace what I said in my first reply with eep op ork ahh ahh
well...yeah.....some tree's afterlife was my dresser holding my drawls. I guess this is only arguing that afterlife is just existence regardless of consciousness after death. The common belief is that afterlife is heaven & hell or some variation or reincarnation which was where I got
well...yeah.....some tree's afterlife was my dresser holding my drawls. I guess this is only arguing that afterlife is just existence regardless of consciousness after death. The common belief is that afterlife is heaven & hell or some variation or reincarnation which was where I got
Yes. It is supposed to prove that you can not cease to exist. Your examples were about one imagining oneself not being alive in the world, which is no different than imagining how the world may or may not be affected by one's absence. Once again, this is not what is meant by premise 2. Premise 2 has to do with imagining your own nonexistence, which is impossible for the reason that your very experience requires your existence. Therefore it is impossible to experience and, furthermore, imagine nonexistence.
Yes. This tree/dresser observation isn't relevant to this argument. And this argument doesn't go against the "common belief" of what, specifically, an afterlife may consist. It simply has nothing to do with that. "Afterlife" in the thread title literally means: existence of the consciousness after death, which is a necessary presumption for the various types of afterlife (e.g. heaven, hell, transmigration, etc.)
well...yeah.....some tree's afterlife was my dresser holding my drawls. I guess this is only arguing that afterlife is just existence regardless of consciousness after death. The common belief is that afterlife is heaven & hell or some variation or reincarnation which was where I got
I don't see why our existence precludes us from 'imagining' our non-existence. Does the act of imagining our existence prove that we do exist, and thus non-existence isn't a conceivable option? If that is the case, what if we put our imaginations on hold and meditated instead, achieving a state whereby the mind is completely clear of any thought or emotion - isn't that akin to 'not existing'?
Do we need to prove that we exist? Do you not already feel that you exist? I suppose you could imagine that you exist, or you could just imagine anything at all and that would suffice.
Anyway, I'm not sure that this sort of meditation would have any bearing on this argument. That is to say, I am not sure that achieving a state where the mind is clear of all thought and emotion is the same as imagining oneself to not exist. I'll definitely suggest this idea to the guy who formed this argument and see what he says. I suspect that his response would entail the fact that imagining, in itself, whatever the subject might be, is always going to be based on our experience of existing. And therefore, this sort of meditation does not count as imagining one's own nonexistence.
Anyway, I'm not sure that this sort of meditation would have any bearing on this argument. That is to say, I am not sure that achieving a state where the mind is clear of all thought and emotion is the same as imagining oneself to not exist. I'll definitely suggest this idea to the guy who formed this argument and see what he says. I suspect that his response would entail the fact that imagining, in itself, whatever the subject might be, is always going to be based on our experience of existing. And therefore, this sort of meditation does not count as imagining one's own nonexistence.
Here is the defense of premise 2 by the originator of the argument:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFVKMywTM1M#t=3m17s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFVKMywTM1M#t=3m17s
Thanks for telling me what it's called. I still don't know what relevance you think it has.
Anyway, I am doubting that this argument is inductive. I titled the thread after what the guy on Youtube called it. But when I think about it, it seems to me that this argument is deductive. That is, if the premises are true, then they gaurantee the conclusion. I'm seeing what he says about this, however.
Anyway, I am doubting that this argument is inductive. I titled the thread after what the guy on Youtube called it. But when I think about it, it seems to me that this argument is deductive. That is, if the premises are true, then they gaurantee the conclusion. I'm seeing what he says about this, however.
The most important thing to remember is that our thoughts are a cumulation of, or an arrangement of what the mind has already perceived through the senses; mainly sight. One can imagine something that does not exist but only by arranging/reshaping objects that have already been set in the mind. In other words, no matter what monster you imagine, every aspect of that monster (down to the tooth) is something you have seen before.
Premise 1: This is where I believe the concept becomes fallacious. It presupposes the future and that we have reached the culmination of human thought.
It is possible for a human to live to a mature age without having seen fire. This person presumably can not imagine fire. It can not be concluded from an external perspective that fire does not exist. Therefore we can not conclude that we have experienced everything and that any one thing (or event) which we can not imagine, does not exist.
The premise seems likely but is not a certainty. Therefore the conclusion is already in jeapordy.
Premise 2: This is certain because the mind has never perceived the state of non-existance; there can be no concious mind without thought, and there can be no thought without concious mind. Therefore the state of non-existance is not conceivable.
Conclusion: Everything we can possibly imagine is a product of existance and it's correlation to the human mind, and therefore we can not imagine anything outside of existance. Once the mind ceases, so does thought, and existance.
Premise 1: This is where I believe the concept becomes fallacious. It presupposes the future and that we have reached the culmination of human thought.
It is possible for a human to live to a mature age without having seen fire. This person presumably can not imagine fire. It can not be concluded from an external perspective that fire does not exist. Therefore we can not conclude that we have experienced everything and that any one thing (or event) which we can not imagine, does not exist.
The premise seems likely but is not a certainty. Therefore the conclusion is already in jeapordy.
Premise 2: This is certain because the mind has never perceived the state of non-existance; there can be no concious mind without thought, and there can be no thought without concious mind. Therefore the state of non-existance is not conceivable.
Conclusion: Everything we can possibly imagine is a product of existance and it's correlation to the human mind, and therefore we can not imagine anything outside of existance. Once the mind ceases, so does thought, and existance.