Thread: The origins and roots of beliving to immortality(A theory)

Definitly, one of the roots of beliving to immortalities is fearing of the death,
but seemingly there are the other roots also, which makes this problem
more and more complex and mystical.
In following we try to show that why beliving to immortality is a plausible
belief, but in the same time it shows the other root of immortality in human
being psychology.
In brief, we live practically in two models of the world with two different concepts of time,
in them. This leads us to consider immortality as a plausible subject and in the same time
it shows why we belive it and know it somehow natural, although usually somehow doubtful .
Life After Death... What do you think?





November 18th, 2012, 09:19 AM

There iare two views in our life toward this problem and explanation of our life in the world:

1. We are a point in this world, we start a day and we will end in some near future.

Usually when we argue about life we do our arguments in this model.
But there is a second one theory that most the times unconsciously we are in this type of the world.

2. The world starts with me and will end by me.

So I am somehow immortal, since as time exists I will exist.

Seemingly, besides many reasons, immortality that we usually discuss about is a type of reconciliation
between these two models.

In the first model we extend the life such that the immortality in the second one be preserved.(*)

I wish to say that the above approach(*), eventhough we usually do it automatically, is logic also.
Since, seemingly there is no way to decide decesively we are either in the first model or in the second one
so it is rational to have a model that satisfies both of these models.
Hence, to have immortality in the second one we should have a life after death.

Therefore:

"At least, the life after the death is fully plausible theory."

Moreover,

"This theory is more plausible than the theory of mortality of human being."

Even when we have no special belif or religion , it seems the above two statements are true.

Define beliefe, or no response.

kxoo,

Let we consider the definition in wiki:

"Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.<sup>["

Of course discussions around belief are usually paradoxical ones.
I like to know that " is there any paradoxical point about belief that affects our discussion?"
I know that such definitions(like belief) have many complexities, but so many times it is not necessary to go to the well of such difficulties, hence in this case it is better do not go to this well.
But sometimes there is no other way, we should go to this well.(The second situation)
Do you think that here in this subject, we are in the second situation?
In brief,</sup> Do some paradoxes about belief affects our discussion here?

i do not believe in immortality.....if there is life after death,that life is no longer a human life.......it can then not be said that it is the contiunation of the human life....i believe that life of human,and life of a human after death are two separate things.

That wiki 'Belief' reference is too limited - you need to refer to some of the text in that page for a more complete statement/argument. Or you could go to the disambiguation page .....

Belief is a psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.
Belief may also refer to:

• Religious belief, a belief regarding the supernatural, sacred, or divine
• Belief (sociology), an element of performance, in Erving Goffman's dramaturgical sociology

Thank you adelady.

Here we try to show why we belive to immortality, I have a similar proof why people belive god.

The first step is a psychological assertion.

The second step is: To show these belifs are plausible.
The demonstration is in above(If it is true, I accept it!).

The claim in the second phase is:

"Beliving immortality is more plausible than beliving mortality."

The second one is a Philosophical & Logical assertion.

It is possible and likely that some one accepts the first assertion and not the second .
Anyhow, I should defend them independently.

Don't bother trying to convince me. None of these premises are in the least bit plausible to my mind.

I don't believe in any god of any kind nor in any form of immortality.

you are a total non-believer....open your eyes and you will see that there is indeed good and evil.

Adelady,

I do not try to convince you. I do not preach and Thats not my job, since I am not a priest.
I have some presupposes and preassumption means a bi-Model of life and two arguments,
that you could be critical of all, means arguments and my preassumption about Bi-Model.

you are a total non-believer....open your eyes and you will see that there is indeed good and evil.

Oh I have no doubt about good and evil. People are entirely capable of profound good and of sickening evil without the intervention of any supernatural influences.

So let we rephrase the preassumpions(premisses of the argument) and the new proof:

Bimodel:

"There are two views in our life toward this problem and explanation of our life in the world:

1. We are a point in this world, we start a day and we will end in some near future.

Usually when we argue about life we do our arguments in this model.
But there is a second one theory that most the times unconsciously we are in this type of the world.

2. The world starts with me and will end by me.

So I am somehow immortal, since as time exists I will exist.

Seemingly, besides many reasons, immortality that we usually discuss about is a type of reconciliation
between these two models."

In fact a child unconciousely is in the second model, little by little he learns to go to the first.
We define this status as "Bimodel status" to see the world.


Now, the reconcilation between these models are important.(Psycologically & Logically)
In the second, we are unlimited in time and the space, but in the first we are just a point. So contradictory.
By accepting God, we have something like the "self in the second model", in the first model.
By accepting the connection between self and God we have a reconcilation between the first model and the second one.
It would be one of the explanation of the words like:

"Knowing God starts from knowing "Self" "

If it is so, seemingly we should have something like monotheism in any society that has a minimum culture of thinking about
this subject, even if that society is Atheist, Fetishist,... .

My known examples approve the above assertion, but possibly some knows other examples which refute this.
This opens a way to be critical of all above.

Now, there is an explanation for Falling down.
We were in primitive paradise, in our first ages, or when civilizations were in this stage.
We were in the second explantion of the world.
Falling down happens when we go to the second stage, so we were more conciouse about
death, and our limits. Something similar to what happened to the Budehji when he went out the
castle of his father.

The spiritual sufferings and sorrows starts, but there is no way to back. Human being falls in pain.
He starts to find the peace and love to remind the lovely days that he had, the reputation of when
here were in his own primitive paradise.

So many times he loose the way, but some find the better way by different methods and some of them helps the others also
to find the way. Successfully or not.
The hidden purpose is:

"Having a reconciliation between these two models respect to the situation of the world, in ordert to be in peace."

There are different narations in Abrahamic cultures, but all of them accept finally we will reach to this point.
In their views and narations, we will reach to peace, and some people has reached it.We can consider the above as a motor of progress.
So the development of history is seen in this way.

1. For a person belongs to a Abrahamic culture, seemingly he could continue it in this direction to explain and to narate so many things in this culture.
It is interesting to know the view of the other cultures in this respect.

2. History has the other motors to go forward, for example the progress of Science and Technolog, how these types of progresses
intervene each others?

Originally Posted by farzad didehvar

There iare two views in our life toward this problem and explanation of our life in the world:

1. We are a point in this world, we start a day and we will end in some near future.

Usually when we argue about life we do our arguments in this model.
But there is a second one theory that most the times unconsciously we are in this type of the world.

2. The world starts with me and will end by me.

So I am somehow immortal, since as time exists I will exist.

Seemingly, besides many reasons, immortality that we usually discuss about is a type of reconciliation
between these two models.

In the first model we extend the life such that the immortality in the second one be preserved.(*)

I wish to say that the above approach(*), eventhough we usually do it automatically, is logic also.
Since, seemingly there is no way to decide decesively we are either in the first model or in the second one
so it is rational to have a model that satisfies both of these models.

What makes this more rational than the other two models?

Hence, to have immortality in the second one we should have a life after death.

Therefore:

"At least, the life after the death is fully plausible theory."

Moreover,

"This theory is more plausible than the theory of mortality of human being."

What makes it more plausible?

Even when we have no special belif or religion , it seems the above two statements are true.

They don't seem true to me.

its garbage.....there is no such thing as immortality......people age slow,it does not mean they won't die,,,,,dsame death of human life.....people age slowly in the ages,i doubt the bible recorded men who lived for 300yrs and on.....but why then did the likes of socrates differ? the bible has a different way of numbering i must say.

Here, first we try to show why we ready to accept these concepts.
In answering"What are the psychological roots of that?"
we try to show one of the reasons.
So in the first step we wish to say, "why people think so?"
Irregardless whether it is true.
So, here we simply wish to say, why there is such tendency among people, also
I think it shows why tendency of diferent people to these ideas are different.
People who has a large tendency to one of these models, do not try to think about the mixing.
Forexample, merumerio seems is in the first type of models.(It is better to say so, rather than
to say "he thinks simply about the first model").
So, he has no interest about mixing, in this case he is somehow rigth in his own view.
The argument is true for someone that knows the validity of both types of models approximately
in the same measure, so we try to mix them. This status is something that happened in history.
Nowadays, we stick to the first model types. It is the reason that Harold asks why the steps of proof are plausible.

In the second step, logical step, Let I ask first, the relatively famous question:

Have you any crucial reason that the world will not be ended after your life?


Or, if some one thinks after his life the world will be ended, is there any logical argument to deny his
claim?


In this step, We must try to show that, both models are plausible types, and at least till we have no proof to
prefer one to the other, we dont prefer one to the other.

If we accept the above, it is reasonable to have a model that has the features of both(if, thats a conditional statement).
Since there is no reason to prefer one to the other.

Anyhow, one of the assumptions here is:

1. If someone has two models of fact, partial model of a piece of the world or global model of entire world, he wishes to
make one mixed model from the both.

In my oponion This tendency, clearly exists in most people, something that affects Theories in Physics, to make a unique theory.
But anyhow it is so discussable.

The second contraversial principle as we said is:

2. No one could prefer one of these models to the other.

1&2 show why we try to mix these models, and a good mixture is better than one of them.
In this way, the historical explanations arise again.

I guess it is one of the reasons that religions are alive, they have powerful psychological roots, and it is one of that roots.

I know of no principle of logic or science by which mixing two hypotheses, neither of which is supported by evidence, would in any way constitute evidence for a third hypothesis.

I know of no principle of logic or science by which mixing two hypotheses, neither of which is supported by evidence, would in any way constitute evidence for a third hypothesis.

Yes you do. It's called cooking.

Some eggs, some flour, some flavouring - put them through a processor or a mixer and you can't see the things you started with. Bake this for a while. Hey presto! Something completely new, and you can serve it up with cream and and strawberries to finish it off. (Though nothing so enticing seems to be on offer here.)

.

Religons has many roots, and I guess that is one of those roots.
That is based on personal intution, like many things. possibly
you do not agree or possibly it needs a change in presentation.
But most of these ideas are based on personal intuition and later trying
to find more acceptence.The text is not in his own final status.

Any how in direction of your critical points, let I ask this question again:

Have you any reason why world was before you and world remains after you?

Or possibly a little bit better question:

If some one belives that world before him did not exist and all of the other stories around the world is just some ilusions,
Have you any logical way in order to convince him to think in a different way?

Religons has many roots, and I guess that is one of those roots.
That is based on personal intution, like many things. possibly
you do not agree or possibly it needs a change in presentation.
But most of these ideas are based on personal intuition and later trying
to find more acceptence.The text is not in his own final status.

Any how in direction of your critical points, let I ask this question again:

Have you any reason why world was before you and world remains after you?

Or possibly a little bit better question:

If some one belives that world before him did not exist and all of the other stories around the world is just some ilusions,
Have you any logical way in order to convince him to think in a different way?

i do

since you are wholly made up of atoms as the rest of the world that existed before you is,then that world that consist of atoms could not be an illusion if you are real.....if that world must be an illusion then you also is an illusion.......the world was here before you....you only started noticing it when you became a being that consist of the mind which is the sit of wisdom.....as i have once told you,physicality cannot percieve physicality...it can only cause and lead to an effect....but once the mind comes in,then you can percieve the physical with your physical extension,just with the help of the mind.....the world will continue to exist after your death,since you cannot percieve it,you are not oblige to tell if it exist or not.....it is the disccusion of the living.

I came to a conclusion. We are star dust and physics. Physics that's defined by itself and not we, 'the observer'. I have included myself to be very adept in the resources of science. I understand and assume the facts. The world is somewhat scary through my eyes and I don't want to die however I already died according to physics I could only wish to serve as a tool to better life. That's the conclusion that I found, the option to be a tool; alike time. Other options include only 'not' being a tool; nothing. It is like choosing or not choosing. Dare we all choose rather then not choose. I see a lot who don't choose.

merumario,

It seems you didnt get the gist of the issue. You said:

"since you are wholly made up of atoms as the rest of the world that existed before ..."

Thats a plausible Theory and it is true that rigth now it is the prevailing idea, and me also when I think about the world to solve some problem about that, first I go to this picture.
The problem is one level higher:
Is there any other explanation of the world? Something like Barkley idealism.(The second explanation is near to this idealism, eventhough it odesnt say that
any thing is in our mind somehow, it says everywhere we are, and time starts with us and will end with us).

I dnt suppose that...and if so what happend in the big bang? Was it real just because you were'nt alive then.

muremario,

Considering Bigbang or any other thing that has happend before us, we should say
we have no experience about, we accept them since we are trained so.
People learn the chilren that the world is so.In the first step children are surprized but
they will accept it since they parents say that. Also, practically viewing the world in this way
will be more simple to explanation.
Assume that a naughty but inteligent child resists, and do not accept it. He will say:
All what you say are some fables, and I have no experience to accept it, independently.
All are at least under the doubt. I have no experience about something before me, so
I do not accept it, even I pretend so ... .
How do you argue with this naughty child?

It is my opinion, that one chooses to believe things in order to fill in gaps of information they either do not have or do not like. We learn through patterns and prediction based on those patterns and that is how we interpret reality. If the pattern we are observing tells us that a particular outcome is likely and we do not like that outcome because it presents a situation in which our existence is threatened, then we are in a state of discomfort. No ego or id likes to accept the idea of ceasing to exist. And so to comfort itself, it will change variables in the pattern to reach a different conclusion, or fill in gaps with invented favorable data that will support a more favorable final prediction.

To believe in life after death, one must cling to untestable hypothesis as if they are fact and apply them to the pattern. For one that does not want to leave the safety and shelter of a loving protecting parent(the one who up until adulthood always ensured one's continued existence) the invention of or acceptance of someone else's invented concept of a supernatural immortal parent figure ensures that even in the absence of a natural parent, there will still be a benefactor ensuring one's perpetual existence.

For one to be able to let go of these particular beliefs one has to conquer the ego and id and convince it that ceasing to exist is not something to be feared. It is simply a matter of fact that will befall us all. One has to force their ego and id to find a new hobby, to stop obsessing over the quantity of its own existence and start focusing on the quality of its own existence.

In my opinion, fear of death (the cessation of existence) is the sole catalyst for beliefs in life after death and/or gods.

If we look at Greek and Roman gods their purposes were different than the gods of today.

They're idea of life after death transcended even the gods that they invented. For them life after death was more of a continued existence in the memories of those left behind. That if you were great enough the heavens themselves would create a memorial to you in the form of a constellation. And the gods were merely beings that caused chaos and interference with humans. They were not blanketly revered but more blamed for many hardships.

However, their gods did not provide much in the way of protection but the people had structured their beliefs around explaining the unknowns.Perhaps this is why their religions were so easily replaced by Abrahamic faiths. The Greek and Roman myths did not provide all that was needed emotionally by the people. They did not provide an eternal parent.

Still they had a belief to shield them from the reality of death.

This is my opinion based on my understanding of psychology.

If you have not seen it, watch the movie



it is a comedy but there are some deep concepts dealt with through out the movie and it certainly made me think a bit harder about how belief works.

The pattern observed by all people in the movie is that no one ever lies. So there is no pattern of distrust. So any lie that the main character invents is simply accepted, based on the assumption that observed patterns will continue.

Originally Posted by farzad didehvar

muremario,

Considering Bigbang or any other thing that has happend before us, we should say
we have no experience about, we accept them since we are trained so.
People learn the chilren that the world is so.In the first step children are surprized but
they will accept it since they parents say that. Also, practically viewing the world in this way
will be more simple to explanation.
Assume that a naughty but inteligent child resists, and do not accept it. He will say:
All what you say are some fables, and I have no experience to accept it, independently.
All are at least under the doubt. I have no experience about something before me, so
I do not accept it, even I pretend so ... .
How do you argue with this naughty child?

you are sounding as if you holding the philosophical argument that without experience you cannot tell if i drop a ball that it will fall.it is only based on the past experience that you will bear it in mind that the ball will fall.



this is another way of saying what is real is subjective,in the way that if you carry out a measurement without keeping the details,theres no way that you can tell what happens.



if this is your case then as a philosophical and physics student,i can say yeah,just because it does not contradict any law of physics i know of,unless someone will try and say that in science,this cannot be the case........which am afraid,i will defend.

muremorio you said:

"you are sounding as if you holding the philosophical argument that without experience you cannot tell if i drop a ball that it will fall.it is only based on the past experience that you will bear it in mind that the ball will fall.'"

My problem is not passed experience, the problem is "The experience before me". Seemingly, you change the question.

What happens to the event before you? You have no experience of it rather you are learning whatever had happend before you.

Hi!
Farzad presents two pictures of life:

1. We are a point in this world, we start a day and we will end in some near future.

The first picture is not entirely correctly described, since we are rather segments with a beginning point and another (virtual ?) variable point called the "moment", changing with the time, always (so far) becoming an inner point of the segment. It is a model of what I will call the "Reality". It is not Reality itself. Right?

2. The world starts with me and will end by me.

This second picture can be thought of,searched for... From the reality point of view I will call it the "mind".

Its a real problem to verify that minds exists! All we find is bodies:
The mind is connected somehow with the body but we cant observe how.
To be blunt: If we ourselves had no mind of our own, we surely would not believe minds to exist.
We can not prove minds to exist unless we accept the mind of our own as proof of existence of at least one mind!

Actually when we look closer at the situation we are just like prisoners within our own mind.
Or better desribed: We are like a pilot flying an airplane with no windows only relying on the instruments!

When we look at Reality seen from the view from inside the mind a new problem appears:
Not only cant we prove there are other minds...we cant strictly prove there is a Reality containing them all!

All we can observe is the contents of our mind!

This is the Solipsistic question:
How did we escape from the prison of our mind? Its obvious that we all succeed!

NOBODY seriously claims there is no from his mind independent Reality!
But isnt it annoying that we cant describe the details of our escape?

I will give you a hint farzad: It was not through religious conviction

I believe that our minds are trapped in our human form,so that the immaterial things we imagine,hope to do.just can't take place in the material world because the human body that ought to carry it out is govern by the laws of physics and it tends to its limit of ability rather too soon. The mind is free just for 6hours and other addition time. The human dreams 6hours in its life span. Why do we dream? No one knows.IMO,mind takes into its own plane where its not govern by the laws of physics,but it stays connected with the body.

I believe that our minds are trapped in our human form,so that the immaterial things we imagine,hope to do.just can't take place in the material world because the human body that ought to carry it out is govern by the laws of physics and it tends to its limit of ability rather too soon. The mind is free just for 6hours and other addition time. The human dreams 6hours in its life span. Why do we dream? No one knows.IMO,mind takes into its own plane where its not govern by the laws of physics,but it stays connected with the body.

Originally Posted by merumario

Why do we dream? No one knows.

There are attempts of explanations... I think its because our sub-conscious is checking if the conscious works as it should.

Originally Posted by merumario

IMO,mind takes into its own plane where its not govern by the laws of physics,but it stays connected with the body.

Who knows.. but ill bet you that if so then theres spiritual laws waiting to be discovered!

Maybe so.When we sleep the sub-conscious mind takes over.Our dreams can revail to us whats our problem during our waking hours.

Originally Posted by merumario

Maybe so.When we sleep the sub-conscious mind takes over.Our dreams can revail to us whats our problem during our waking hours.

That's a big statement. I'm not sure how much I buy into the idea that our dreams actually mean anything. I mean, if you look into ANYTHING you can interpret it to the point where it has real world bearing.

Originally Posted by farzad didehvar

So let we rephrase the preassumpions(premisses of the argument) and the new proof:

Bimodel:

"There are two views in our life toward this problem and explanation of our life in the world:

1. We are a point in this world, we start a day and we will end in some near future.

Usually when we argue about life we do our arguments in this model.
But there is a second one theory that most the times unconsciously we are in this type of the world.

2. The world starts with me and will end by me.

So I am somehow immortal, since as time exists I will exist.

Seemingly, besides many reasons, immortality that we usually discuss about is a type of reconciliation
between these two models."

In fact a child unconciousely is in the second model, little by little he learns to go to the first.
We define this status as "Bimodel status" to see the world.


Now, the reconcilation between these models are important.(Psycologically & Logically)
In the second, we are unlimited in time and the space, but in the first we are just a point. So contradictory.
By accepting God, we have something like the "self in the second model", in the first model.
By accepting the connection between self and God we have a reconcilation between the first model and the second one.
It would be one of the explanation of the words like:
"Knowing God starts from knowing "Self" ".

Uh, abject fail.
1) You don't seem to know what a "point" is. (Yeah okay, linguistic quibble).
2) How are we "unlimited in space" in the second model? I know my location and it's in one place at a time. Only. How am I "unlimited in time"? (Except by the limited solipsist definition that time ends with me - i.e. my time will end anyway - a pretty damn poor definition of "immortal").
3) Introducing god (an unproven concept) halfway through the "proof" as support for your argument doesn't, in any way help to "prove" your case.
4) Introducing an unsupported "connection between god and the self" is also another step that doesn't help.
5) How can we "know god" since he's not been shown to exist?