Psychology and Sentience

[thebestofenergy]

The afterlife described by the Bible is heaven and hell. And hell is a never-ending suffering.

Not really, the "bible" doesn't exist, it is a mix of books wrote in different epochs with different eschatological views. Most of The Old Testament does't even share the heaven/hell theology (see for example Ecclesiastes 9:5-6: For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten. Their love, their hate and their jealousy have long since vanished; never again will they have a part in anything that happens under the sun.)

If by an everlasting present you mean that you don't have the capability to use your brain and there's no time (and you can't possibly use brain function if time is stopped), then you're as good as dead. There's no difference between existing or not.
If you had the capability to use your brain, then it'd be a torture without the possibility of escaping from it.

1) You'll have no brain in the afterlife
2) If there is no time how can it be stopped?
3) Why would you escape from it? There is no motion (in the Aristotelian-Thomist meaning of this word), just an everlasting present of beatific vision.

It doesn't matter what some philosophers say.

Without at least some philosophical studies you'll never have the conceptual categories necessary to discuss this matter with an academically educated christian, thus you'll be forced to debate with fundamentalist trash who will not change their mind because also of their poor education. In most cases non educated apologists are just wasting their time and it's very sad because they could study instead.

There must be a brain or a neurological function in order for there to be sentience. It's impossible otherwise.
If there's no time, there's no fourth dimension, meaning there's no existence. There must be time in order for neurons to fire. Without time you're as alive as a dead body.
Philophers say many things, they're not scientists. You don't have to take their words for it. There are many philosophies, but those don't prove facts.

[thebestofenergy]

There must be a brain or a neurological function in order for there to be sentience. It's impossible otherwise.If there's no time, there's no fourth dimension, meaning there's no existence.

No physical existence you mean

Philophers say many things, they're not scientists. You don't have to take their words for it.

Scientists' words are authoritative only when related to their field of research, sadly some of them try to do philosphy.

There are many philosophies, but those don't prove facts.

Only logic can prove something, because you cannot prove that our perceptions aren't illusions, you cannot prove for example that your keyboard exist, it is not self evident unlike non-contraddiction principle.


The only thing I can do is to suggest you to study some philosophy...

Best regards.

No, I dont' mean physical, I mean existence in general. You don't have the possibility to formulate a tought, to have emotions and to feel suffering or happiness if times is stopped/doesn't exist.
The field of science doesn't have limits. Science doesn't have an agenda, it's 'a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied.' Science doesn't have a specified field of reaserches.

Only logic can prove something, because you cannot prove that our perceptions aren't illusions, you cannot prove for example that your keyboard exist, it is not self evident unlike non-contraddiction principle.

You can't prove at 100% the positive or negative for this statements. But you must make assumptions in order to use logic/science. And the 3 assumptions are:
1) The universe exists
2) We can gain knowledge about the universe
3) We can test our assertions about the universe
You can't prove that your keyboard exists, but if you use this logic, then you can't prove/disprove anything. That's why the most efficient way to prove/disprove is to follow common logic, probabilities and data.
There's more than enough evidence for me to say that my keyboard exists, there's no evidence for you to say that an afterlife exists. But even if it existed (that's the assumption I made), there's no way you could have toughts and feelings if the time was stopped/didn't exist.

[brimstoneSalad]

Every serious theist/atheist apologist should have a philosophy degree, but most haven't it, that's why I stopped losing my time with these autors.

I'm sure you know that's not necessarily true.

I could say the same thing about substantial formal academic training in the sciences- yes, in regards to competency in philosophy, since science is a branch of philosophy without which a well rounded student nobody could be, and it touches on some facts with profound metaphysical implications if properly understood (and worse, if improperly understood)- but I won't, because there are some well-read novices out there.

It's not too hard to tell by a small sample of writing whether somebody is more likely to be competent or not.

Without at least some philosophical studies you'll never have the conceptual categories necessary to discuss this matter with an academically educated christian, thus you'll be forced to debate with fundamentalist trash who will not change their mind because also of their poor education. In most cases non educated apologists are just wasting their time and it's very sad because they could study instead.

That is very true.

There must be a brain or a neurological function in order for there to be sentience. It's impossible otherwise.

This is the case for standard naturalistic sentience. While the supernatural is impossible by definition, you have to leave room for the preturnatural.

There could be other conceivable mediums in which a will could dwell, of a preturnatural substance- for example, in a different plane of existence.

Stop thinking about metaphysics in terms of Theology that you want to disprove. You need to come at this with a more self-adversarial scientific mindset if you want to make progress.

When we have a theory in science we want to advance, what do we do? We try to disprove it.

In this case, the theory is that Christian apologetics are bunk. So, try to fix it and show that they're not bunk.

If this helps:

Think of it in terms of some science fiction movie that you really want to enjoy, but that has some apparent plot holes in it- so you figure out some way that, in that universe, it could make sense.

That's very much how the vast majority of apologetics works. It attempts to create plausible explanations of how something could possibly be true- not assert in absolute terms that's how it is.

If there's no time, there's no fourth dimension, meaning there's no existence. There must be time in order for neurons to fire. Without time you're as alive as a dead body.

Frozen is a state of neither alive nor necessarily dead.
But it's also not alive- and it is without thought or action or sentience (things we value in life).

Putting things outside of time is usually an apologists' last ditch effort to make things seem to make sense- but this involves a false understanding of time on their part, and no shortage of bad logic (e.g. action, causality, and creation occurring outside time).
It's not actually very useful for them to place heaven outside of time.

But at the same time, it's not really useful to say people would go insane in heaven. If you think about it for a bit, there are many ways in which this could be avoided- look to transhumanism for some clues.

Philophers say many things, they're not scientists. You don't have to take their words for it. There are many philosophies, but those don't prove facts.

If they are (or rather seem to be) internally consistent, then they prove at least that they are apparent conceptual possibilities.

An apparent possibility may or may not actually be possible (i.e. true), but neither can we currently show that it is false- so it becomes an option for belief that is not fully irrational (just seen as having some degree of unknown probability/plausibility).

What you will typically find, though, as you work down those apparent possibilities into more realistic options, is that they always end up being something that you might see on Star Trek, and are widely unconventional and even heretical from the perspective a typical theistic interpretation which holds some inherently illogical views.

[thebestofenergy]

There must be a brain or a neurological function in order for there to be sentience. It's impossible otherwise.

This is the case for standard naturalistic sentience. While the supernatural is impossible by definition, you have to leave room for the preturnatural.

There could be other conceivable mediums in which a will could dwell, of a preturnatural substance- for example, in a different plane of existence.

Stop thinking about metaphysics in terms of Theology that you want to disprove. You need to come at this with a more self-adversarial scientific mindset if you want to make progress.

When we have a theory in science we want to advance, what do we do? We try to disprove it.

In this case, the theory is that Christian apologetics are bunk. So, try to fix it and show that they're not bunk.

If this helps:

Think of it in terms of some science fiction movie that you really want to enjoy, but that has some apparent plot holes in it- so you figure out some way that, in that universe, it could make sense.

That's very much how the vast majority of apologetics works. It attempts to create plausible explanations of how something could possibly be true- not assert in absolute terms that's how it is.

If there's no time, there's no fourth dimension, meaning there's no existence. There must be time in order for neurons to fire. Without time you're as alive as a dead body.

Frozen is a state of neither alive nor necessarily dead.
But it's also not alive- and it is without thought or action or sentience (things we value in life).

Putting things outside of time is usually an apologists' last ditch effort to make things seem to make sense- but this involves a false understanding of time on their part, and no shortage of bad logic (e.g. action, causality, and creation occurring outside time).
It's not actually very useful for them to place heaven outside of time.

But at the same time, it's not really useful to say people would go insane in heaven. If you think about it for a bit, there are many ways in which this could be avoided- look to transhumanism for some clues.

Philophers say many things, they're not scientists. You don't have to take their words for it. There are many philosophies, but those don't prove facts.

If they are (or rather seem to be) internally consistent, then they prove apparent conceptual possibilities.

An apparent possibility may or may not actually be possible (i.e. true), but neither can we currently show that it is false- so it becomes an option for belief that is not fully irrational (just seen as having some degree of unknown probability/plausibility).

What you will typically find, though, as you work down those apparent possibilities into more realistic options, is that they always end up being something that you might see on Star Trek, and are widely unconventional and even heretical from the perspective a typical theistic interpretation which holds some inherently illogical views.

The only sentience we know and we're able to prove is the one that only exist in this universe: the one with neurons. If someone claims to know another one, then they should present evidence for it, or atleast explain it.
Someone could easily say that plants are sentient, and therefore say that eating animals is the same as eating plants, that it could be preturnatural.

But at the same time, it's not really useful to say people would go insane in heaven. If you think about it for a bit, there are many ways in which this could be avoided- look to transhumanism for some clues.

To say that we wouldn't go insane after billions of years, you must discard evolution. The rational purpose of life is to grow up, find a partner, reproduce and die, to keep the specie alive (just like every other sentient being on this planet). There'd be a time where you know everything, you've experienced everything and you saw everything you could. And those things would just keep repeating themselves.
I don't use this argument to disprove an afterlife, since something that's bad isn't necessarily untrue, but it would be an horrible experience (atleast for most people/animals, surely for me). An horrible experience that would never end.
And let's not forget about hell..

[brimstoneSalad]

The only sentience we know and we're able to prove is the one that only exist in this universe: the one with neurons. If someone claims to know another one, then they should present evidence for it, or atleast explain it.

Explaining- rather, offering plausible explanations- and not presenting empirical evidence is what most apologetics is about.

Someone could easily say that plants are sentient, and therefore say that eating animals is the same as eating plants, that it could be preturnatural.

It wouldn't be the plant itself, but some kind of soul or ghost-like being residing in the same location as the plant that was sentient. Likewise, this is easy enough to claim about rocks, and everything else down to hydrogen atoms and quarks (that in a parallel plane, there are souls everywhere- whatever).

Nobody, however, can claim that eating animals is physically or morally the same as eating plants on those grounds- animals are confirmed to be physically sentient in this plane- plants, quite the opposite.

It is empirically true that animals are sentient, and that harming them is immoral. It is only speculation that there might be souls on another plane affected by our actions.
In the domain of moral decision theory, empirical facts trump speculation every time.

While somebody may believe something on the grounds of speculation, that belief remains of low or unknown probability, and acting in its favor over empirical reality is immoral.

Animals, plants, and rocks for that matter may additionally have preturnatural spirits co-existing in the same space on another plane- but that doesn't necessarily have any moral relevance whatsoever to this plane- and even if you thought it did, the precise opposite of whatever moral conclusion you drew could probably just as plausibly be the case.

Pascal dealt with decision theory a little bit, but he did so poorly because he failed to account for the negatives of his religious beliefs, and other equally plausible options.

Anyway, the notion that our actions are harming souls in another plane can also be alleviated pretty easily.

If there's no normal interaction between the planes, then the souls on that plane wouldn't even know what's happening on this plane- much less be individually aware of it and feel it to their detriments.

If there was direct interaction between the planes, then it would be empirically detectable- as interaction is.

If the interaction was incredibly indirect, as by some intelligent agency acting with discretion, then it's not exactly us doing the hurting.


That said, it's still at best morally irrelevant without meaningful evidence, despite being potentially plausible as a source of a world view.

To say that we wouldn't go insane after billions of years, you must discard evolution. The rational purpose of life is to grow up, find a partner, reproduce and die, to keep the specie alive (just like every other sentient being on this planet). There'd be a time where you know everything, you've experienced everything and you saw everything you could. And those things would just keep repeating themselves.

Well, for one, evolution isn't very relevant to an unnatural transcription of the mind.

Whether you're uploaded into a computer, or into some kind of metaphysical heaven, the rules there can be fundamentally different from the common conditions on Earth, and a highly programmed or intelligent agency could tamper with your mind in such a way as to reduce or eliminate those effects. How about being perpetually drunk or stoned (pleasantly so, with no hangover)?

But more importantly: repetition, even in the real world, is not always tedious.
Have you ever watched a movie a second time and enjoyed it? Maybe one from your childhood which you couldn't count the number of times you've seen it?

Because memory is imperfect, and fades with time, repetition (with sufficient variation) isn't inherently bound to yield insanity.

Eventually, you would forget everything entirely, and could experience anew everything you had forgotten.

Incidentally, it's one of the reasons vampire stories these days are so silly (beyond the obvious of them being supernatural). "Really? You remember the second century? No you don't."

Give a human mind, with its limited processing power and capacity, a few hundred years of life, and good luck even remembering your parent's names.

Of course, any deity or sufficiently advanced computer program could provide you with memory backups and cliff notes for anything you really didn't want to forget. But otherwise, you could be wiped and watch a movie a hundred times in a row, or just forget more naturally and watch a million different movies with different plots- or play a million games- before cycling back around.
Any modestly intelligent being wouldn't have that much difficulty keeping the meager minds of humans occupied and entertained for an eternity.

[thebestofenergy]

To say that we wouldn't go insane after billions of years, you must discard evolution. The rational purpose of life is to grow up, find a partner, reproduce and die, to keep the specie alive (just like every other sentient being on this planet). There'd be a time where you know everything, you've experienced everything and you saw everything you could. And those things would just keep repeating themselves.

Well, for one, evolution isn't very relevant to an unnatural transcription of the mind.

Whether you're uploaded into a computer, or into some kind of metaphysical heaven, the rules there can be fundamentally different from the common conditions on Earth, and a highly programmed or intelligent agency could tamper with your mind in such a way as to reduce or eliminate those effects. How about being perpetually drunk or stoned (pleasantly so, with no hangover)?

But more importantly: repetition, even in the real world, is not always tedious.
Have you ever watched a movie a second time and enjoyed it? Maybe one from your childhood which you couldn't count the number of times you've seen it?

Because memory is imperfect, and fades with time, repetition (with sufficient variation) isn't inherently bound to yield insanity.

Eventually, you would forget everything entirely, and could experience anew everything you had forgotten.

Incidentally, it's one of the reasons vampire stories these days are so silly (beyond the obvious of them being supernatural). "Really? You remember the second century? No you don't."

Give a human mind, with its limited processing power and capacity, a few hundred years of life, and good luck even remembering your parent's names.

Of course, any deity or sufficiently advanced computer program could provide you with memory backups and cliff notes for anything you really didn't want to forget. But otherwise, you could be wiped and watch a movie a hundred times in a row, or just forget more naturally and watch a million different movies with different plots- or play a million games- before cycling back around.
Any modestly intelligent being wouldn't have that much difficulty keeping the meager minds of humans occupied and entertained for an eternity.

This is just imagination without any proof. It's the art of inventing theories.
If your intention was to prove to me that people can support any theory by just making things up in a second or two, using their fantasy, you've certainly made your point; but I already knew that.